Did anyone else notice the expected goals stat on MOTD had us down winning yesterday’s game
by 1.71 goals to 1.49 goals.

To me that highlights Tarky’s miss at the start of the 2nd half and the quality of the goalkeeping.

However badly people think we played,those stats indicate we could and should have win the game.

Expected goals etc., etc. mean absolutely nothing because it is the ones that go in the net that count and those alone.
Yesterday we were playing a team on the back of their big defeat by Spurs and we should have been on the front foot, however, we caused our own problems in the first minute of the game.
Charlie Taylor, under very little challenge, should have put the ball into Row Z of the NL stand for a throw in, instead he tried to turn and inadvertently put the ball out for the corner from which they scored in the second phase. So, in less than two minutes, Everton were right on the front foot because of a lack of basic defending. We were always struggling after that, particularly when Lowton committed a needless foul which led to the second.

Managers can set a team up one way or another, however, when players do not so the basic things correctly from the start you needa lot of luck to turn thigs around and we are strguggling on all fronts.

I noticed that too and thought, there’s proof (if it were needed) that “expected goals” is a load of nonsense.

Don't understand this expected goals stat. How can a team who score five have an expected goal of 1.49?

lovebeingaclaret wrote:Don't understand this expected goals stat. How can a team who score five have an expected goal of 1.49?

Their chances weren't great. We have a terrible goalkeeper.

I haven't a clue how they work it out TBH.

Expected goals is the biggest pile of **** of all the analysis.

Although one thing i will say. When we start with 2 strikers and they start with 0 (ok half a striker in calvert lewin) then we absolutely should score more....

Expected goals is based on analysis of chances created. They didnt get behind us very often so clear chances were limites. They scired 2 from outside the area (low expectation) and a pen from nothing.

We missed the best chance of the game. If Tarks had left it Vokes probably would have scored

It's really not that difficult to understand. How often do either of Digne's goals go in? How often does a player on the stretch like Richarlison make enough contact to score? You can argue the toss about whether it's valuable or not but clubs are using variants of it - over the long term it gives an indication of whats going on - are you conceding too many chances, making enough, not putting them away, not stopping chances. To be honest, it fits with my own view yesterday that Everton scored five but couldn't really have scored many more. The one where Tarkowski recovered from his own cock-up to tackle Bernard. What else did they have? I'm not saying it was close or that we weren't miserable yesterday but five was good going for Everton given the number of chances they made.

Agreed. Bit thats why the loss is so worrying giben the general game stats were quite close overall. Wverton didnt need to break much sweat to put three past us in 20 mins.

We are a soft touch and once we go begind the team look beaten for a while. Its happening every game

The Understat EG figure actually has Everton winning, marginally, but the point is the same. There were just 2 good chances for each side and a host of half chances.

The E.G. stat is useful but our big problem is rank bad defending, the match report on this site sums it up.

Gibson now has to start every game. He is the one defender in the league games to be blameless so far and deserves a run. Heaton too (or Pope).

CrosspoolClarets wrote:The Understat EG figure actually has Everton winning, marginally, but the point is the same.

That'll be because Understat includes penalties (as 0.76 xG), whereas most other models don't.

I'm not surprised by those stats. Whilst we were shambolic yesterday, it wasn't a 5-1 game. Leaving aside the argument about how many of the goals were a result of errors by Hart or others, the truth of the game is that goals apart Hart only had one save to make (and that a block he only had to make because he was slow off his line and allowed Richarlison to get to a ball Hart should have collected with ease); whilst we actually probably had as many good chances as Everton - perhaps even more.

That's the good news of yesterday - the players kept going and generally after the catastrophic first twenty minutes the balance of play was even, albeit partly because Everton knew they could basically declare. The bad news is that we conceded 5 abysmal goals defensively, looked chaotic and unbalanced by the change in personnel defensively and utterly predictable in attack. Once we conceded the first goal there was no earthly way the team selected hasn't been given the tools to get back into the game and the second and third goals were also a direct result of the fact that our attack was so predictable that us having possession offered a better chance of Everton scoring than us. Our players aren't world beaters and too many are playing badly, but the manager has to set the team up to give them a better chance than he did yesterday.