Taybha
Whalewhine
Yup
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Have we been lucky? (xG stat geekery)
- Thread starter Bozza
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #43
Were we UNlucky against Liverpool?
"Against Liverpool, Brighton’s total xG was 1.67, while the Reds’ was 1.96. This shows that Klopp’s side were highly efficient in their finishing, while Brighton created – if not scored – enough high-quality chances to roughly keep pace with the Merseysiders."
MORE >>> https://whisp.rs/2BGu6Qw
"Against Liverpool, Brighton’s total xG was 1.67, while the Reds’ was 1.96. This shows that Klopp’s side were highly efficient in their finishing, while Brighton created – if not scored – enough high-quality chances to roughly keep pace with the Merseysiders."
MORE >>> https://whisp.rs/2BGu6Qw
Moshe Gariani
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2005
- 12,191
On the balance of ACTUAL chances created then the score could/should have been roughly level.
This analysis takes no account of Liverpool cruising through periods of the game and leaving potential firepower on the bench.
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Machiavelli
Well-known member
Anyone got the xG stats for the Arsenal-Man Utd game, where the home team had 30+ chances?
Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
No. In fact we have been unlucky.
If you look at each match and assess was the result lucky, luck-neutral or unlucky then you can see it is pretty much even.
Except the loss to Man Utd which falls into the unlucky result pot, tipping the overall luck-o-meter to unlucky.
A lucky result at Huddersfield would set us back to 'neither lucky nor unlucky'.
If you look at each match and assess was the result lucky, luck-neutral or unlucky then you can see it is pretty much even.
Except the loss to Man Utd which falls into the unlucky result pot, tipping the overall luck-o-meter to unlucky.
A lucky result at Huddersfield would set us back to 'neither lucky nor unlucky'.
- Thread starter
- #47
MattBackHome
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 11,865
xG is at the stage now where it's being slowly adopted by the early majority, and therefore is prone to wider misuse (or maybe 'misapplication') than before. That Football Whispers article is a good example of such.
Stat Brother had it right earlier in the thread and anyone interested should check out what Duncan Alexander has to say about it all.
Stat Brother had it right earlier in the thread and anyone interested should check out what Duncan Alexander has to say about it all.
Johnny RoastBeef
These aren't the players you're looking for.
- Jan 11, 2016
- 3,470
Team xG doesn't allow for differences in the quality of those attempting the shots or those in goals, therefore it is only useful when used in tandem with other metrics, like individual player xG and a reliable player rating system.
To assume a team was lucky or unlucky based purely on team xG is wrong.
Peter Grummit
Well-known member
Exactly this. One of the reasons we've been outperforming xG is because Glenn is an efficient finisher (goals per chance). Against Liverpool he had 4 great chances but only converted 1.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Does backup a discussion I had after where I felt we'd created more clear cut chances than other home games, and that to my mind Liverpool basically had 3 clear cut chances that they scored from, a free kick and an OG, but not a whole host of other chances to be honest. I'm not saying they were not deserved winners, but it was a strange old game.
- Thread starter
- #52
Agree massively. As I wrote somewhere else, we’ll create less and win. We probably already have in fact.
sussex_guy2k2
Well-known member
- Jun 6, 2014
- 4,064
Respect for all the info, but it looks like somebody from the Matrix has created it
It's definitely this guy. Only this guy could make up such a load of tosh.
sussex_guy2k2
Well-known member
- Jun 6, 2014
- 4,064
I agree. Anyone that watched that game and seriously thought we were in it at any point probably doesn't know a ton about football and/or is too biased to be able to think rationally.
Liverpool toyed with us for 90 minutes without getting out of 2nd gear.
MattBackHome
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 11,865
I know it's poor form to rip on bloggers trying to make their way but how does he square
"Brighton and Hove Albion’s campaign has been more-or-less the best that could have been reasonably expected"
with (one paragraph later)
"One senses that Brighton could have done more by this point and that Chris Hughton’s famous cautiousness may have cost them more points than it’s won them."
I do like his positional figure though, and appreciate his attempt at using stats.
- Thread starter
- #57
MotD inexplicably had:
Albion: 1.26
Watford 1.47
That just doesn't make sense given the chances had by Goldson, Dunk and Hemed to name three.
I'd have thought even this doesn't reflect our superiority either:
[tweet]944698657290498048[/tweet]
Albion: 1.26
Watford 1.47
That just doesn't make sense given the chances had by Goldson, Dunk and Hemed to name three.
I'd have thought even this doesn't reflect our superiority either:
[tweet]944698657290498048[/tweet]
It is always interpreting statistics. Subjective views can be charmingly inaccurate. I was pleased with our overall display, but I thought we made less mistakes than https://www.whoscored.com/Matches/1190530/Live/England-Premier-League-2017-2018-Brighton-Watford indicated.
Different personalities will interpret the statistics in different ways. And how they deal with the analysis from manager to manager is different as well.
As a chess player I'm very conscious of a subjective feeling of playing well and winning when analysis (done by computer) shows it was actually crappy cause the opposition was playing badly and it happens vice-versa as well (less often). I can get the impression I've played badly when I actually chose the right moves.
TV analysis can very misleading because of the telephoto aspect.
https://www.whoscored.com/Matches/1190235/Live/England-Premier-League-2017-2018-West-Ham-Brighton
Four good chances against West Ham and he scored two. 50% is acceptable but excluding penalties it was 0 from 3 v Liverpool, and 1 from 3 v West Ham. But that excludes the role of Hart who made two great saves from Murray. Got to get in a position to miss them.