Nigels Tackle wrote: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.
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
It does what it does though, you can only really argue against the methodology. The xG for that game was 2.2? Dunno what your argument is against it here.
As I say it's not perfect but it's an interesting debate to have. Stelling & co's dismissal of it earlier in the week is symptomatic of the dinosaur analysis we've put up with for too long