www.90min.com
I can never decide if outperforming xG is a good thing as there are two differing possible takes...
I guess we'll need a bigger sample size to be accurate on this. But Ferguson's hat-trick goal was the only one I can think of with an element of luck involved. The only skanky deflection we've had for ages (and I think we've conceded about 15 like it in the last couple of seasons)
They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and I certainly don't respect them.
Another thing could be that while, yes, you're currently out performing xG you're still creating an inordinate amount of chances. So even if your attackers were to suffer in front of goal, the amount of chances you're making would still mean you'd be sticking plenty in the old onion bag.
Slight amendment :
I'm not going drinking with you. You've just got a round in, with halves for RDZ and Potter, while you got yourself a full pint. I'm not having that, thank you very much.Slight amendment :
Glass half full : RDZ (maybe that should be overflowing!)
Glass half empty : Graham Potter
Me :
It's all very scientific, and it's when the shot is taken. It's not designed to be equitable, it's there as an alternative mode of assessment to a scoreline (others are very much available).The thing with your XG that I'm not entirely down with, is WHEN do they judge / evaluate the 'chance'.
Take for example the moment in the England game last night, when Eze ran on to ball in behind. At the point that pass is played to him, its no more than a half-chance -a 0.1XG perhaps. However, the player takes a ridiculously good first touch, to bring the ball down perfectly in front of him, and gets away a shot which at this point is probably about 0.5XG.
What is the published XG of this opportunity?
It seems rather inequitable, to be accusing Eze of passing up a decent chance (0.5XG) when it only became that from a much more difficult original opportunity, through his own good play.
Southgate told Maguire to do the same last night….
Quite. I recall seeing reports for matches with differing xG totals. So there must be a degree of interpretation in the decision of the xG for each component that makes up the total. In which case, there will also be bias. I'm all for using a wide range of stats to assess broad form, but taking xG in isolation is unlikely to provide definitive answers to any question.The thing with your XG that I'm not entirely down with, is WHEN do they judge / evaluate the 'chance'.
Take for example the moment in the England game last night, when Eze ran on to ball in behind. At the point that pass is played to him, its no more than a half-chance -a 0.1XG perhaps. However, the player takes a ridiculously good first touch, to bring the ball down perfectly in front of him, and gets away a shot which at this point is probably about 0.5XG.
What is the published XG of this opportunity?
It seems rather inequitable, to be accusing Eze of passing up a decent chance (0.5XG) when it only became that from a much more difficult original opportunity, through his own good play.
Agree about Brentford. It's also a little frustrating, I feel we're Brentford's foil at the moment, if it wasn't for us, they would have been picked apart by the vultures instead it was us. Whilst Brentford are doing well, they haven't been tested like we have.
Chelsea have apparently learned a long-lasting lesson from the Potter era, though. Which is nice.
