Expected goals?

[steve1264b]

Hi. Could someone explain what all this means?

[Claretforever]

I’m sure someone will explain it better, but it’s based upon quality of chances. Eg, clean through and a shot from the middle of the box might miss, but most strikers will score, so the expected goal figure will be high. It might get a figure of 0.3, but a shot from a bad angle with players in front might only get 0.1. They add them all up and that gives you the figures you see.

[Claretforever]

This was the expected goals figure against Wolves. They gained a lot with the penalty as the chance from the spot was worth 0.76, as 3 out of every 4 penalties are usually scored.

The image shows the expected goal from the situation where Westwood had played that great ball to Wood, but he couldn’t put it in with his left foot.

[Funkydrummer]

I'm all for analysis and see the benefits of it, but surely this is a step too far ?

Surely there's a limit, but goodness knows where that is.

[Claretmisterg]

I expect we will have scored 2 goals against Wolves and I further expect they will have scored 1 in reply.

[Bosscat]

Not a bloody clue

They try and explain it here
https://www.fantasyfootballfix.com/blog ... -goals-xg/

[steve1264b]

I am an older fan.

So i understand each chance is given a score, but to my old fashioned view Wood for example has missed a couple of sitters (I am not having a pop he will get plenty, all strikers miss) do these stats say we are missing more than we should, or are we where we should be?

Also is -8 above or below the expected norm?

[huw.Y.WattfromWare]

Total, unnecessary ********. Goals win football matches.

[Hibsclaret]

The -8 is, I think, the difference between our chances created xg and the teams we played’s xg in the games against us. Therefore, probably as expected on this season’s overall numbers and some of the teams we have faced we are creating 8 expected goals less than we are conceding (xga is expected goals against). Given we have scored 8 goals and conceded 19 the actual difference is 11.

The conclusion from this is that we are conceding nearer to the expected amount of goals than we are scoring to the expected amount. In short, our attackers have not been as sharp this season in comparison to the teams that have played us. Not sure what the figures were for the Villa game but that would have evened it up a bit, I think.

[claretandy]

Our expected goals were pretty positive at the start of the season, but we are usually an anomaly, win a lot of games 1-0 when we are under the cosh.

[NottsClaret]

One for the geeks all this but it plays into the idea that somehow having crap strikers is unlucky or having a good keeper is lucky.

[Hibsclaret]

I’m sure Dyche and his team will use the xg stuff these days. I think this season it will highlight the difference when we have Tarks and Mee in the team and how much the xga reduces. As for the xg there looks to be only WBA behind us on this which means the strikers and midfield need to improve on this....as they have started to against Wolves.

[Pstotto]

You've hooked me again. The only answer is for not to look at the site at all.

Expected goals and expected goal assists.

So they are -8 down between expected goal assists and expected goals

Example.

Against Wolves, Barnes got an expected goal assist but he looks at the keeper instead of not looking at the keeper and shooting in bottom right corner and then he shoots rhetorically (having done the spade work) at the keeper as if it's him versus the keeper instead of him and the goal and then he just shoots rhetorically instead of concentrating and thinking only of finishing the move.

So that's one of the -8.

With a good striker, there is no keeper.

There is no relationship between a striker and a keeper.

[Pstotto]

On the other hand it could be expected goals for and expected goals against.

If that is the case then I couldn't have had a go at Ashley Barnes.

Anyway, the choice is yours, readers.

[Steve1956]

On the other hand it could be expected goals for and expected goals against.

If that is the case then I couldn't have had a go at Ashley Barnes.

Anyway, the choice is yours, readers.

Are you a new Pstotto or the old one that said he was finished with this site,welcome whoever you are

[Pstotto]

Old Pstotto...

[Bin Ont Turf]

Aston Villa expected 50 goals against us but they got 0.

[dougcollins]

I should imagine we'll never beat anyone on 'expected goals'.

Good job the game is actually played on the pitch then.

[Devils_Advocate]

Past seasons we've tended to look better quite a lot of the time on the Expected Goals stats compared to the result of the game and a lot of the other match stats.

I think it was Tall Paul who used to often pull these stats out when other posters were moaning about performances as a sort of defense for Burnley not getting outplayed as much as some people claimed

Like most stats it has its uses but never really tells the full story and can be heavily influenced by the differing contexts it exists in