The mancityfans.net football forum

Wonderwall wrote:Wtf is that stat all about? Don't understand it? Can anyone enlighten me?

nottsblue wrote:

Wonderwall wrote:Wtf is that stat all about? Don't understand it? Can anyone enlighten me?

We have loads of them.

Other teams not so much.

But seriously, I think it's what's deemed a really good chance. For example KDBs goal today was probably a .25 expected goal. Jesus' goal was probably a 1.0. A bit of a silly statistic IMO.

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:I saw a discussion on this after the Arsenal game in which it was stated that the chance we had when we broke 2 on 1 with Sterling and Sane wasn't covered by this expected goal stat because no shot had been taken. I certainly expected a goal in that instance.

If that is correct then it would also suggest an air kick in front of an open goal wouldn't fall in to 'expected goals'.

To conclude, I call bollox on it m'lud.

Dwaring wrote:They have been using xG in the states for a couple years. It’s just another stat to quantify a match similar to looking at possession and shots after a match. I don’t care too much for the total numbers but the graphics like Saul showed above give a good representation of how the match went. The one omission is opportunities that didn’t result in a shot.

Wonderwall wrote:

Dwaring wrote:They have been using xG in the states for a couple years. It’s just another stat to quantify a match similar to looking at possession and shots after a match. I don’t care too much for the total numbers but the graphics like Saul showed above give a good representation of how the match went. The one omission is opportunities that didn’t result in a shot.

I still.dont get it. I saw Everton and palace both had less than 2 xg but the game ended 2-2? I must be getting old as this is just nonsense in my head

brite blu sky wrote:Dazby is about right. Someone came up with it as a way of assessing how many chances end up as goals.
I rekon it is just a fad and will sink to the background noise after a while.
Probs one of the betting comps came up with it or someone then selling the data to the clubs.

It can be used at micro - player/game level and macro - team/season level

like City get av. 12 chances / game and as the xG is good cos we are clinical then we are likely to win a game or the league.
Can be used to show how clinical each player is also obviously.


this is a decent enough read... as it is about us basically
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/201 ... er-league/

Why is xG useful?

xG's value is that it gives an indication of whether a team's results are based on sustainable factors like the consistent creation or denial of chances, or whether it is down to less sustainable factors like freakishly high chance conversion or sensational goalkeeping.

It also gives a far more reliable picture as to us the results of individual matches reflected the pattern of play. Take Germany's 7-1 win against Brazil in the 2014 World Cup for instance, in which Brazil actually had more shots and possession, but were way down on xG compared to their opponents.

xG can be thought of as effectively evaluating "chances", whereas "shots on goal" does not discriminate between a 35-yard sighter and a missed open goal from close range.

By analysing every shot from last season and the season before, the STATS team have been able to identify a number of patterns, which we can use to inform how this season might pan out.

LookMumImOnMCF.net wrote:Think this might be the article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40699431

I quite like that it tries to add a qualitative element , its not perfect, but then all stats can be rendered useless. Shots off target for example - were they decent shots or all from 35 yards?

I don't think the name "Expected Goals" is great, should be Chance Creation, or something better than that.