• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

*******Spurs v PSG*******Official OMT*******

billyiddo said:
If a shot taken has a high xg then surely by definition it is a good chance that has been created? Whether or not the person on the end of the shot has good finishing ability doesn't change that. Agree on the cumulative figures.
Click to expand...
Yes but you find that most people don't talk about the individual shot in terms of xG, they tend to talk about team xG. But I'll admit in the example you gave it's a reasonable description of how often someone would finish a chance taken from that spot.
 
Muttley said:
Here's a question for all you xPerts.

When Spence got to the by-line last night, refused to use his left foot and then got his right foot cross blocked at source what does that do for xG. He could clearly slide it into the 18 yard box with his left if he wasn't being such a numpty. There should have been a chance created.
Click to expand...
The answer is Jane, and she 1.6m from the nearest fire extinguisher.
 
Bishop said:
Yes but you find that most people don't talk about the individual shot in terms of xG, they tend to talk about team xG. But I'll admit in the example you gave it's a reasonable description of how often someone would finish a chance taken from that spot.
Click to expand...

As you mentioned earlier it needs to be viewed alongside no. of shots to have any meaning in that regard
 
Bishop said:
You're mis understanding a pretty important distinction. Every shot is its own event with its own probability:

  • A 0.15 xG chance means:
  • A 0.03 xG shot from 25 yards might look nice in the highlights, but:

This is the problem with looking at xG as a cumulative stat.

But those probabilities aren’t additive events in the real, lived match. They don’t reinforce each other. Each shot is an independent low-probability moment.

If you take 20 shots at 0.10 xG each, you reach something like 2.0 xG.

But what does that really mean?

  • Each of those shots is 90% likely not to be a goal.
  • The match can easily end with 0 or 1 goals, and that’s not surprising.


xG is a per-event probability; total xG is just the sum of many small independent events, not a prediction of the final score.

The way you're thinking of xG you would think a higher number would better when in reality
it just means more summed probability. A team with 1.0 xG from a few big chances can be far more dangerous than a team with 2.0 xG from 25 weak ones. Cumulative xG doesn't tell you anything about the quality of the individual chances.
Click to expand...
xG does make sense cumulatively. If you have 2 shots each with xG 0.5 you may expect 1 goal but of course you could have 0, 1, 2 or even 3 goals if someone wants to score an own goal for you, there is a lot of variation when looking at just 1 game.
Whereas if you have 20 shots each with xG 0.05 you may expect 1 goal but of course you could have 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or whatever, as sometimes your luck is in and loads of shots go flying in from half way, when looking at just 1 game.



But more importantly, it gains accuracy over longer time periods e.g. 10 games or 40 games or 100 games.
Because one individual match can have massively different outcomes based on the smallest deflection or piece of luck.

For instance look at last year's table and look at the xG and the xGA and the xPts
There is a massive correlation between the actual finishing standings and the xPts
Yes of course there are outliers and variation, but there is a massive correlation

Likewise the year before https://www.xgstat.com/competitions/premier-league/2023-2024/standings

If you did this over 10 years the correlation would get stronger and stronger, so it is not bunkum.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Well
It’s experts rather than old men
But still using technology
Click to expand...
Not sure, I've seen loads of lads who haven't played in one year i was with the PL making a name for themselves to the detriment to the game on the pitch.

Someone said earlier and there is alot to be said about it.....its an entertainment sport and the eye test is as crucial as anything

Give me someone thay scores and assists as a metric over miles run or any other metric like that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back