Jump to content

Other other games (2023/24)


simonsays

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:


I had an xG of 0.87 on a night out last night, chatted up loads of lasses but they all fobbed me off cos I’m a nerd and I went home alone for a Pot Noodle and a wank 

 

My pal had an xG of 0.04 but was balls deep all night in a Raleigh Burner, she was a proppa glamma thing 

 

So I win yeah ? 

way mark GIF

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:


I had an xG of 0.87 on a night out last night, chatted up loads of lasses but they all fobbed me off cos I’m a nerd and I went home alone for a Pot Noodle and a wank 

 

My pal had an xG of 0.04 but was balls deep all night in a Raleigh Burner, she was a proppa glamma thing 

 

So I win yeah ? 

Great Jeremy Kyle reference. Ya look like a raccoon!

Link to post
Share on other sites

XG isjust another stat to add context, like every other stat :lol: Maybe people hate it because it's talked about way more than other advanced metrics, but that doesn't mean it can't be valuable to understand a match by stats

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s no wonder Man City get away with those fouls high up the pitch because if you beat their press you’re through on the halfway line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ameritoon said:

XG isjust another stat to add context, like every other stat :lol: Maybe people hate it because it's talked about way more than other advanced metrics, but that doesn't mean it can't be valuable to understand a match by stats

Its of a piece with all the other bollocks like double pivot and false number 9

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Ameritoon said:

XG isjust another stat to add context, like every other stat :lol: Maybe people hate it because it's talked about way more than other advanced metrics, but that doesn't mean it can't be valuable to understand a match by stats

 

It's clearly entirely valid. Moreso for looking at trends than an individual match, though imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ameritoon said:

XG isjust another stat to add context, like every other stat :lol: Maybe people hate it because it's talked about way more than other advanced metrics, but that doesn't mean it can't be valuable to understand a match by stats

 

I like it because I don't watch many matches now so I can get some figure on the quality of chances a team created as shots on target / goal is so flawed.

 

 

Edited by El Prontonise

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Andy said:

Particularly hate the phrase "they're over-performing their xG" as if it's a negative trait, when an alternative way of phrasing that would be "they have signed players that are clinical in front of goal" (and the opposite for "underperforming xG").

 

It usually is a negative trait though. If you keep winning games with wonder goals and by your opponent missing sitters, it usually means you are not going to win those games for long, like that Pardew season.

 

Like the first half in this match, someone says what is Pep doing, Man City are losing to Man United at home. Or praising Ten Hag for getting it right. I'm more than happy to say that xG was 2.70 vs 0.19 and Pep more than likely got it right but was on the wrong side of variance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ameritoon said:

XG isjust another stat to add context, like every other stat :lol: Maybe people hate it because it's talked about way more than other advanced metrics, but that doesn't mean it can't be valuable to understand a match by stats

 

I think people hate it because it's contrary to what a lot of people love about football - like Andy says, the wonder strike, the Gerrard slip, the unbelievable save.  To try and reduce football to 'they should statistically have scored this many goals' is anathema to a lot of fans.  There aren't that many metrics presented to fans during a game which are actually of any real value imo - you can count corners all you like but if they're all being floated to Mike Williamson you'd be better not having them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...