[Albion] Quality of our chances v West Ham

[Bozza]

I left the game feeling we'd had quite a few decent chances - particularly in the second half - and, as such, our resultant xG would be quite high, but that really wasn't the case...



... which suggests our chances weren't actually that good over the course of the entire 90 minutes.

Just me?

(I know some people don't like and/or don't get xG. I see it merely as a numeric representation of overall quality of chances created)

 

[Icy Gull]

I was gutted Gilmour didn’t hit that blasted shot a foot to the right. That was our best chance of the first 60 mins or so and would have totally changed the game imo. Their keeper saved the game from becoming very exciting in the last 15.

Credit to West Ham for some last ditch blocks that reminded me of Dunk and Duffy under CH which meant we started taking speculative (and pretty inept) blasts from too far out or from impossible angles.

But no, we didn’t make too many good goalscoring chances until the last 10 mins or so.

 

[portslade seagull]

Just my gut but if Undav had played today with those chances created he would have scored as he is more clinical 8n the penalty box and wouldn't have tried to smash it

 

[nwgull]

Lots of people seem to get unecessarily annoyed by xG for whatever reason, but it's just a stat that you're perfectly at liberty to look at or ignore. I personally think it's an excellent numerical representation of how well your strikers and goalkeeper have done, and it can often tell a different story to the perception you get from watching the game - as seems to be the case in this game - which may make coaches address the shortcomings in a diffferent way.

For those who are dismissive of its value, it's worth noting that our very succesful recruitment is mostly based on such stats that show strengths and weaknesses that may not be immediately obvious to the eye.

 

[El Turi]

We’ve had a lot of XG against us this season which shows how badly we’ve been defending and how much we are missing Caicedo protecting in front of the defence.

 

[macbeth]

saw another stat which said we only created one big chance (chance with an xG of over .35 i believe), so definitely something in that.

that’s the fundamental difference between teams like us and city. they a) aren’t really prone to the mistakes which saw us concede and

b) their delivery is so on point they stand a good chance of scoring each time the ball goes into the area

 

[KZNSeagull]

From memory Areola made 2 excellent saves and another couple of decent ones, so we must have had some good chances. Their Xg would have been boosted by the first goal which must have been an Xg of .99 ie couldn't really miss!

 

[fly high]

saw another stat which said we only created one big chance (chance with an xG of over .35 i believe), so definitely something in that.

that’s the fundamental difference between teams like us and city. they a) aren’t really prone to the mistakes which saw us concede and

b) their delivery is so on point they stand a good chance of scoring each time the ball goes into the area

Plus when teams counter against City they have the fastest RB in the league.

 

[Seagull58]

Ferguson's header was an excellent chance. He also created a fair chance for his shot on the turn with some fancy footwork. Gilmour's shot past the post was also a chance that could/should have been buried or, at least, on target. Veltman's volley was a difficult chance that required a good save. Were there any other good chances? The stats say 10 on target.

 

[Littlemo]

I think this is a negative of looking at XG too closely, it doesn’t take some things into account, like the fact West Ham absolutely packed the box.

I am not sure there were any really great chances that wouldn’t have hit West Ham players. Gilmour is a good example, a foot to the right was on target but I’m sure I remember there being at least one player in the way of that being an option.

 

[nwgull]

Ferguson's header was an excellent chance. He also created a fair chance for his shot on the turn with some fancy footwork. Gilmour's shot past the post was also a chance that could/should have been buried or, at least, on target. Veltman's volley was a difficult chance that required a good save. Were there any other good chances? The stats say 10 on target.

Understat had that header as an xG of 0.31 and the Gilmour chance he missed as 0.03.

 

[Bozza]

Lots of people seem to get unecessarily annoyed by xG for whatever reason, but it's just a stat that you're perfectly at liberty to look at or ignore. I personally think it's an excellent numerical representation of how well your strikers and goalkeeper have done, and it can often tell a different story to the perception you get from watching the game - as seems to be the case in this game - which may make coaches address the shortcomings in a diffferent way.

For those who are dismissive of its value, it's worth noting that our very succesful recruitment is mostly based on such stats that show strengths and weaknesses that may not be immediately obvious to the eye.

That's why I put my last line - I didn't want this to turn into a "xG is rubbish, they scored more goals which is all that matters" debate.

Since the dawn of time, football fans have always said things like "we were the better side", "we created the better chances" and "we should have won that". As you say, xG just provides a numeric assessment of that.

 

[Bozza]

Understat had that header as an xG of 0.31 and the Gilmour chance he missed as 0.03.

I was just about to post the Understat assessment of the game, here for those interested:

Brighton 1 - 3 West Ham (August 26 2023) | EPL | 2023/2024 | xG | Understat.com

Brighton 1 - 3 West Ham. Check out detailed player statistic, goals, assists, key passes, xG, shot map, xGplot.

understat.com

My gut feel is Ferguson's header was better than a 1-in-3 chance of scoring. I would guess Ferguson would expect to do better than that.

The other one that felt like a good chance for him was the one he lashed in late on, which Areola saved. Understat rate that at 0.06, ie a 1-in-16 chance. Again, I'd have rated that a far better chance than that.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

I saw a couple of reports describing West Ham as "clincal"
Xg shows that really wasn't the case.
They scored from high xg chances and presented us with low xg chances.

Typical De zerbi ball vs low block.
If we fail to score first, it's going to be that way.

Happy to take the rough with the smooth,

 

[Dorset Seagull]

Counter attacking teams will invariably have decent xG as their chances come against under staffed back tracking defences. Our xG is against packed defences so will normally be lower quality chances

 

[LamieRobertson]

I was gutted Gilmour didn’t hit that blasted shot a foot to the right. That was our best chance of the first 60 mins or so and would have totally changed the game imo. Their keeper saved the game from becoming very exciting in the last 15.

Credit to West Ham for some last ditch blocks that reminded me of Dunk and Duffy under CH which meant we started taking speculative (and pretty inept) blasts from too far out or from impossible angles.

But no, we didn’t make too many good goalscoring chances until the last 10 mins or so.

I thought Ferguson should have done better with his header before Gilmours strike which would have brought us level …..but then we’ve scored 8 in the previous two matches …and possibly created less

 

[LamieRobertson]

I was just about to post the Understat assessment of the game, here for those interested:

Brighton 1 - 3 West Ham (August 26 2023) | EPL | 2023/2024 | xG | Understat.com

Brighton 1 - 3 West Ham. Check out detailed player statistic, goals, assists, key passes, xG, shot map, xGplot.

understat.com

My gut feel is Ferguson's header was better than a 1-in-3 chance of scoring. I would guess Ferguson would expect to do better than that.

The other one that felt like a good chance for him was the one he lashed in late on, which Areola saved. Understat rate that at 0.06, ie a 1-in-16 chance. Again, I'd have rated that a far better chance than that.

Just posted about the Ferguson header …he’ll be disappointed not to have done better (lacked any power..centre of goal) ..pivotal moment?

 

[LamieRobertson]

Ferguson's header was an excellent chance. He also created a fair chance for his shot on the turn with some fancy footwork. Gilmour's shot past the post was also a chance that could/should have been buried or, at least, on target. Veltman's volley was a difficult chance that required a good save. Were there any other good chances? The stats say 10 on target.

Dunks header …..another effort off the line

 

[Weststander]

I left the game feeling we'd had quite a few decent chances - particularly in the second half - and, as such, our resultant xG would be quite high, but that really wasn't the case...



... which suggests our chances weren't actually that good over the course of the entire 90 minutes.

Just me?

(I know some people don't like and/or don't get xG. I see it merely as a numeric representation of overall quality of chances created)

Loads of shots from 20 yards hit a mass wall of defenders.

 

[nwgull]

I was just about to post the Understat assessment of the game, here for those interested:

Brighton 1 - 3 West Ham (August 26 2023) | EPL | 2023/2024 | xG | Understat.com

Brighton 1 - 3 West Ham. Check out detailed player statistic, goals, assists, key passes, xG, shot map, xGplot.

understat.com

My gut feel is Ferguson's header was better than a 1-in-3 chance of scoring. I would guess Ferguson would expect to do better than that.

The other one that felt like a good chance for him was the one he lashed in late on, which Areola saved. Understat rate that at 0.06, ie a 1-in-16 chance. Again, I'd have rated that a far better chance than that.

This is the area where, depending on your faith in the data,, you have to decide whether or not your trust the numbers. The probabilities of each chance are derived from historic real-world data of similar chances; it’s not something that someone has made a subjective decision on.

To us it may look better than 1 in 3 but the numbers say different. TB has spent his betting career trusting the numbers - although not necessarily the same mathematical model - and has successfully transferred that into our and USG’s recruitment, so it’s hard to argue against them.