Michael Carrick

[Tall Paul]

But no professional person at a club anywhere in the world uses xG as a single stat which is what most fans who defend do.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/li ... MatchStats

I wonder if Palace said after the above match ahhh but our xG

No but they might have said "if only we hadn't missed that penalty when it was 1-0", which is pretty much the same thing.

[Tall Paul]

Or they might have said, "we got beat 5-0, but our xG shows that we probably shouldn't expect that kind of result every week" and they'd have been right.

[Jakubs Tash]

I mean, yeah, can’t believe the worlds best performing football clubs use xG in their analytics, how dumb, they should just listen to clueless fans instead who say it’s BS, most of whom can’t even understand what tactics / shape their team plays in.

Oh and it’s not ‘opinion’ at all.

Hell fire, what’s that all about?! Have I hit a raw nerve and you’ve remembered a post you might have disagreed with weeks/months ago. Get a life!

If it’s not opinion, why is the XG for the same team in the same match different figures on different websites?

[CoolClaret]

But no professional person at a club anywhere in the world uses xG as a single stat which is what most fans who defend do.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/li ... MatchStats

I wonder if Palace said after the above match ahhh but our xG

No one on this thread has said that they do.

[aggi]

Said it before but as someone who isn't particularly bothered by xG there is an aggressive and willful misunderstanding of it by almost everyone who argues against it on here.

You could say similar for a large number of those who argue for it as well. It's almost always presented as a stat in isolation to back up their viewpoint.

[Jakubclaret]

Steve cooper seems to be a frontrunner for the Boro job.

[RVclaret]

Hell fire, what’s that all about?! Have I hit a raw nerve and you’ve remembered a post you might have disagreed with weeks/months ago. Get a life!

If it’s not opinion, why is the XG for the same team in the same match different figures on different websites?

You came on feeling all confident that anyone who is a ‘believer’ in what is just a statistic is an idiot. I just find it ironic that elite performing clubs, the brightest minds in the sport, all use it (along with many other metrics), while those ‘on this board’, to use your language, are smarter for not using it, despite a majority not able to even understand team shape.

Different models. Some are more sophisticated than others e.g. collect more granular data such as number of players blocking the goal and height of ball off the surface at the time. And of course it’s still developing.

[fidelcastro]

To paraphrase Jim Royle... "Expected goals, my arse!"

[TheFamilyCat]

Well, going off what I see on here and X from our fans, an example would be most thought we played a ‘number 10’ all season - same happened last season too, and the season before when JBG was apparently a number 10. A fairly basic and clear misunderstanding of the tactics and shape.

I'd say that's probably more a case of not using the in vogue terminology.

[Jakubs Tash]

You came on feeling all confident that anyone who is a ‘believer’ in what is just a statistic is an idiot. I just find it ironic that elite performing clubs, the brightest minds in the sport, all use it (along with many other metrics), while those ‘on this board’, to use your language, are smarter for not using it, despite a majority not able to even understand team shape.

Different models. Some are more sophisticated than others e.g. collect more granular data such as number of players blocking the goal and height of ball off the surface at the time. And of course it’s still developing.

Oh, I see. So why are the XG numbers different on different websites then?

[TheFamilyCat]

I just find it ironic that elite performing clubs, the brightest minds in the sport, all use it

Do they though? Do they really need a number to tell them how many chances they are creating? I'm sure coaches have known this for years and years.

File under modern football pap for pub (and messageboard) bores.

[claretonthecoast1882]

No one on this thread has said that they do.

I didn't say they did. Which is exactly why fans (who have no need to use it) shouldn't do either but still they do.

[daveisaclaret]

You could say similar for a large number of those who argue for it as well. It's almost always presented as a stat in isolation to back up their viewpoint.

I don't see much of this but I would still have a lot more grace for someone who understands a stat and overstates it in context than for the "I don't know what xG is but I know it's bad" point

[boyyanno]

Do they though? Do they really need a number to tell them how many chances they are creating? I'm sure coaches have known this for years and years.

File under modern football pap for pub (and messageboard) bores.

I find that a strange and conflicting view.

If coaches have already known for years what their chance creation was then that suggests that they gathered data to form that opinion- the exact thing you are saying is modern football pap.

[AfloatinClaret]

... So why are the XG numbers different on different websites then?

Because 83.72% of all statistics on the internet are plucked out of thin air.
It's also helpful to have a range/variety of statistics available on the internet to ensure that everyone can find a statistic somewhere which will support their argument. On the rare occasion that a supporting statistic can't be found anywhere; then that's when you're obliged to fall back on the 'internet statistics are inaccurate/irrelevant' arguement and nobody likes having to do that too often.

[RVclaret]

Oh, I see. So why are the XG numbers different on different websites then?

I replied to that bit already. The model outputs a slightly different value based on probability provided from the inputs. It’s not someone’s ‘opinion’ such as ‘oh that shot looks like it should have gone it, I reckon 1 in 4 would go in’, instead, it’s using 10s of thousands of historic examples of close to identical shots, and how many resulted in a goal. The inconsistency from models isn’t usually ‘that’ crazy anyway, over a season they’d still be fairly close.

[TheFamilyCat]

I find that a strange and conflicting view.

If coaches have already known for years what their chance creation was then that suggests that they gathered data to form that opinion- the exact thing you are saying is modern football pap.

It doesn't need data. Anyone watching a game can easily see when a team creates and misses a load of good chances. No need to quantify it more than that.

[Tall Paul]

It doesn't need data. Anyone watching a game can easily see when a team creates and misses a load of good chances. No need to quantify it more than that.

What if they haven't watched the game?

[aggi]

I don't see much of this but I would still have a lot more grace for someone who understands a stat and overstates it in context than for the "I don't know what xG is but I know it's bad" point

It's pretty much how the topic started, backing up that Carrick will be a successful manager with xG differential (xG for - xG against) has always been positive throughout his tenure ranking third best this season, after Leeds (1st) and the mighty clarets (2nd).

[daveisaclaret]

It's pretty much how the topic started, backing up that Carrick will be a successful manager with xG differential (xG for - xG against) has always been positive throughout his tenure ranking third best this season, after Leeds (1st) and the mighty clarets (2nd).

Omitting the second sentence of that post from the quote is just silly and unserious

[boyyanno]

It doesn't need data. Anyone watching a game can easily see when a team creates and misses a load of good chances. No need to quantify it more than that.

Sorry but that's an incredibly stupid reply.

If you watch a game and say you remember X chances that you've missed then you've collected and quantified your data.

It's exactly the same thing that you're whinging about it's just it doesn't have a fancy name.

[TheFamilyCat]

Sorry but that's an incredibly stupid reply.

If you watch a game and say you remember X chances that you've missed then you've collected and quantified your data.

It's exactly the same thing that you're whinging about it's just it doesn't have a fancy name.

Not really, I said "load", no need to count them. Any manager and coaching staff will know whether chance creation is good enough or not by simply watching the game.

[boyyanno]

Not really, I said "load", no need to count them. Any manager and coaching staff will know whether chance creation is good enough or not by simply watching the game.

But if a coach only has the ability to say we made a "load" of chances because he doesn't have the data to back it up then that would advocate for better data surely.

You can't say on one hand he knows and on the other hand say he's guessing.

[TheFamilyCat]

But if a coach only has the ability to say we made a "load" of chances because he doesn't have the data to back it up then that would advocate for better data surely.

You can't say on one hand he knows and on the other hand say he's guessing.

I reckon they managed for long enough before some nerd invented xg.

[boyyanno]

I reckon they managed for long enough before some nerd invented xg.

They managed with an abacus before some nerd invented a calculator. I'm not sure what your point is?