[Football] Expected goals table ....

[rogersix]

There's not a chance was that deliberate on his weaker foot.

or any of his other feet for that matter

 

[Weststander]

Interesting.

Just picking out one team (Everton) - whenever I've seen them (except against us) they have been fairly shit. Not surprised their xG position is so low.

Now falling. The goals bouncing off of Calvert’s backside have dried up, Leeds outplayed them both halves.

 

[Weststander]

Sorry for your struggle to cope with change, it must be quite exhausting. Maybe one day the "fad" of playing out from the back is over, maybe one day Hughton returns and the alleged superdefense with Ryan, Dunk and Duffy is reestablished. But I wouldnt hold my breath.

Don’t you think that GP has actually adapted lately? Instead of ALWAYS playing it out from the back, no matter the dangers when boxed in, I think we now also play it long and earlier too.

 

[rogersix]

Ryan-Dunk-Duffy worked magnificently as a unit. Three bodies thrown on the line, time after time after time. Kept us up for at least one season. Contributed a fair old number of crucial goals also. That unit was binned for no real reason at all. Been weaker at the back ever since. Oh well

a quantum leap forward going forward tho'

 

[Swansman]

Don’t you think that GP has actually adapted lately? Instead of ALWAYS playing it out from the back, no matter the dangers when boxed in, I think we now also play it long and earlier too.

Statistically no, about the same number of longer passes from the back as last season, but the players on the pitch now are more comfortable (and used to it) playing that way. Its more fluid and less noticeable. Every time Pröpper or Stephens got pass from the back or Montoya was trying to find a way out of a tight situation it was very difficult not to start praying "please, please dont **** everything up". With Lallana & co its just fluid, the buildup isnt even noticable.

Also, no teams this season got the energy to put down the same amount of pressure on the defenders as last year. Gegenpress is taking a nap.

 

[vagabond]

Statistically no, about the same number of longer passes from the back as last season, but the players on the pitch now are more comfortable (and used to it) playing that way. Its more fluid and less noticeable. Every time Pröpper or Stephens got pass from the back or Montoya was trying to find a way out of a tight situation it was very difficult not to start praying "please, please dont **** everything up". With Lallana & co its just fluid, the buildup isnt even noticable.

Also, no teams this season got the energy to put down the same amount of pressure on the defenders as last year. Gegenpress is taking a nap.

Funny now to think there were people insistent last season we couldn’t survive without Dale and Davy in CM.

 

[Baldseagull]

Also the last game that Alzate started, I think. I'm a pretty big fan of Alzate, especially what he brings to the team on the ball but in the first part of the season we were often wide open for counter attacks.

Our defensive record is contingent on the whole team in the same way that playing out from the back is designed to help build and create more attacking opportunities.

The reason we don't give up many chances is because we have the ball more often than the opposition. It's not necessarily down to brilliant defending form the back 3 or 4 it's the combination of keeping the ball, having a solid midfield presence in front of the defence and then good defending.

The reason,IMO, we have conceded quite a lot compared to chances given up is not necessarily down to poor goalkeeping but down to the kind of chances given up. Namely giving the ball away in front of our penalty box, defenders being out of position(whether because they were pulled out of position by the midfield being awol or just individual poor positioning) and a mildly concerning inability to deal with set plays/crosses into the box.

All of which is to say that in light of this, Alzate's last start being Everton and our improved defensive performances since then, then maybe the reason Alzate is no longer in the team is because despite his many quality contributions on the ball he wasn't offering us enough defensively.

Or I've added 2 +2 and got 5.

Not sure if this is the relevant post or thread for my post but it's been something buzzing round my head for a while now and as someone once said: better out than in.

xg supposedly takes account of the quality of the opportunity. Different systems have different reckoning, some just take the position of the player when they shoot and divide that by how often a goal is scored from that position, others will take account of the positions of all players.

 

[Baldseagull]

Wouldn't having a higher actual/real goals against compared to an xG against only indicate that the GK is at 'fault' rather than the defence as a whole?

The top strikers tend to have a better than xg return, and we have faced more teams with those players that generally exceed their xg with actual goals, is another possibility.

 

[Machiavelli]

Also the last game that Alzate started, I think. I'm a pretty big fan of Alzate, especially what he brings to the team on the ball but in the first part of the season we were often wide open for counter attacks.

Our defensive record is contingent on the whole team in the same way that playing out from the back is designed to help build and create more attacking opportunities.

The reason we don't give up many chances is because we have the ball more often than the opposition. It's not necessarily down to brilliant defending form the back 3 or 4 it's the combination of keeping the ball, having a solid midfield presence in front of the defence and then good defending.

The reason,IMO, we have conceded quite a lot compared to chances given up is not necessarily down to poor goalkeeping but down to the kind of chances given up. Namely giving the ball away in front of our penalty box, defenders being out of position(whether because they were pulled out of position by the midfield being awol or just individual poor positioning) and a mildly concerning inability to deal with set plays/crosses into the box.

All of which is to say that in light of this, Alzate's last start being Everton and our improved defensive performances since then, then maybe the reason Alzate is no longer in the team is because despite his many quality contributions on the ball he wasn't offering us enough defensively.

Or I've added 2 +2 and got 5.

Not sure if this is the relevant post or thread for my post but it's been something buzzing round my head for a while now and as someone once said: better out than in.

This is something that has been buzzing around others heads too. I think I agree with every word of this.

 

[Machiavelli]

Isn't xG only a measure of how likely a given attempt at goal is of being scored? Once there is an attempt it is either scored or not, and that's only down to the GK?

If so, having a higher actual/real goals against compared to an xG against isn't a reflection of the defence as a whole but only the GK?

Obviously having a high actual/real goals against or an xG against is a reflection of the defence as a whole, but not the difference. I could well have this wrong though!

I think it's a combination of the quality of the finisher/finish, and the goalkeeper. Maupay didn't produce a quality finish from the penalty spot, whereas Gross did. Alisson -- perhaps inspired by Ryan -- contrived to go the wrong way on both occasions.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Total XG for a game is pointless because it doesn't take into account the context of a match. Team that takes an early 1-0 lead and defends it well will have a low xG but win the match, but their opponents constantly on the attack will tot up lots of xG moments into a high xG for the game despite losing. But a goal at any point will change that dynamic.

Basically my hypothesis is that the more goals you score the lower your xG will be relative to actual goals, and vice versa.

XG can you tell you things about individual moments and players in a game, but total xG for a match is largely useless in my opinion.

 

[pb21]

I think it's a combination of the quality of the finisher/finish, and the goalkeeper. Maupay didn't produce a quality finish from the penalty spot, whereas Gross did. Alisson -- perhaps inspired by Ryan -- contrived to go the wrong way on both occasions.

Yes think you (and [MENTION=23343]Baldseagull[/MENTION] and [MENTION=22711]RyFish[/MENTION]) are correct. The difference is a function of the person taking the shot and the person attempting to save it.

 

[Machiavelli]

Total XG for a game is pointless because it doesn't take into account the context of a match. Team that takes an early 1-0 lead and defends it well will have a low xG but win the match, but their opponents constantly on the attack will tot up lots of xG moments into a high xG for the game despite losing. But a goal at any point will change that dynamic.

Basically my hypothesis is that the more goals you score the lower your xG will be relative to actual goals, and vice versa.

XG can you tell you things about individual moments and players in a game, but total xG for a match is largely useless in my opinion.

Interesting hypothesis, but I think it's probably wrong. There's a difference between a Pulis/Hughton team and a Klopp/Pep team, and I think that will disprove your hypothesis (but am willing to be proved otherwise).
And, unlike you, I think it's quite an interesting metric. Even more so for us at present, because it can point to the expected direction of travel of teams at this stage of the season in comparison with their final finishing position. It's pointing to us getting a higher comparative points total and/or a higher league position than our current 16th. I suspect that City's current XG also points to a better final position than their current one in the table.