Expected Goals

[Wonderwall]

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

[nottsblue]

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]

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.

[Chinners]

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.

Thanks for enlightening me. I thought it was 'At their current rate Manchester City are expected to score about 133 goals this season in the Premiership'

[Wonderwall]

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.

Thanks for this. I have no idea who came up with this and thought it was a good idea? It seems total and utter bollox!!

[Chinners]

hmm I feel a new feature coming on ....

[Saul Goodman]

Today’s xG:

[Dwaring]

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]

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

[Justified logic]

I think it is a matter of how well, or badly, teams take their chances. The xG score rates how easy the chance is, the players can cock up easy chances or score unbelievable goals. That said, it is a useless stat for saying how a game should have gone.

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

What a load of fucking bollox.

[dazby]

i think it's used as a counterbalance for teams that have a lot of possession but do naff all with it. xg shows how penetrating they are with their attacks.

[craigmcfc]

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

Me and you both pal.

[brite blu sky]

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/

[iwasthere2012]

I expected goals tonight.

One will do I suppose.
Thanks Raheem.

[PrezIke]

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/

Almost everything in this article is holding very true thus far.

I think this part does a good job of explaining its value to those who doubt it:

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.

Simply put, I am understanding it as something to help us better judge a team's performance, especially compared to stats more commonly utilised (i.e. goals/shots/possession).

Also, perhaps to show how basic game stats could mislead us about performances.

[Nickyboy]

There was a decent article on BBC about it at the very start of the season as MOTD have started using it.

Suppose it helps show how good a strikers form is. If there actual goals is under the expected goals consistently it means they're always missing sitters.

[LookMumImOnMCF.net]

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.

[Nigels Tackle]

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.

the arsenal game was a classic example of where expected goals falls short
we created 7 or 8 very good chances but only a couple of these led to a shot on goal

[Beefymcfc]

There's only one 'Expected Goals' that I know of and that's when we're playing the Rags!

PS. Scum!!!