Manchester City 4-0 Newcastle United - 15/02/2025

[madras]

10 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

I’ve come out of a match and said that hundreds of times 

 

I’ve never, ever, ever come out of a match and said “our xG was blah blah blah”

You basically have.

[Lush Vlad]

6 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

For clarity, I understand xG.
 

I just think it’s stat noncery gone daft and there’s no need for Joe Public football fans to be spaffing on about it 

 

 

 

If you say so  

 

Again the fact it offends people so much is weird as fuck. Obviously if it is the only thing people used to analyse a game in isolation. That would be weird as fuck, also. But nobody does that, do they? 
 

You just seem to have an alarm that goes off every time xG is mentioned on here. So you can come storming in to tell everyone it’s a load of nonsense and doesn’t mean anything. Which is equally as weird. 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 12:41 by Lush Vlad

[Coffee_Johnny]

1 minute ago, bobbydazzla said:

I’m going to create a new statistical system that tells me how many people who quote xG have ever been successful in tapping lasses

 

Do you want my percentage hit rate on that? Numerator can be presented in terms of ‘base’ I reached. Denominator number of approaches. It’s a canny large number—you don’t shoot, you don’t score, after all.  
For the large proportion of misses , would you like to see how close I got to scoring (two stats: minutes until told to do one; number of I would if I could but I can’t responses (from the unfortunately unavailable ‘goals’). Or I could just say, talked to lots of women kissed a few. 

[David Edgar]

You can dislike something, express your opinion, and then let others who think it is absolutely fine carry on the discussion. 

 

XG is a really helpful metric though. 

[Andy]

10 minutes ago, Lush Vlad said:

People who don’t understand xG properly. Getting so bent out of shape about it all will never not be funny  Roy Keane and Souness types all over the gaff. 

 

It’s not the be all and end all and I think some context is required. But it is a good metric to use. Especially to try and back up any argument about team’s being lucky or unlucky in a game. Or whether a team is over-achieving and in a false position off a run of form. Things like that. 
 

There’s a reason why pro teams all use stats like this and advanced analytics.
 

Whether it is boring or not is a different argument entirely…….

 

I think my problem with it is that it's often used in the context of "we lost 1-0 but had 3xg to 0.5xg so we should have won, just unlucky", while missing the more relevant context that your 3xg fell to Emmanuel Riviere, while the other team had prime Van Basten up front and prime Buffon in goal. 

 

"Over performing their xG" is often used as a criticism too, but has always just read to me as "they have bought clinical attackers". 

[David Edgar]

It is because XG is a descriptive metric. The explanation requires further analysis. 

 

Man City scoring 4 from 2xg yesterday could be caused by several variables/factors. You need to then consider why and that needs the eye test and other stats.

[bobbydazzla]

8 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

I think we've found the hardest poster on N-O here

 

Actual CCTV footage of me and @El Prontonise versus an xG nonce 
 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 12:45 by bobbydazzla

[Andy]

Just now, David Edgar said:

It is because XG is a descriptive metric. The explanation requires further analysis. 

 

Man City scoring 4 from 2xg yesterday could be caused by several variables/factors. You need to then consider why and that needs the eye test and other stats.

 

The problem is - and this is why I think a lot of people dislike it - it's often presented without context and is frequently used as an argument in counter to the eye test by people who clearly didn't watch the game. 

[bobbydazzla]

10 minutes ago, David Edgar said:

You can dislike something, express your opinion, and then let others who think it is absolutely fine carry on the discussion. 

 

XG is a really helpful metric though. 

Aye, but it’s good crack winding up the stat nonces

 

I have my own metric for number of times I aggressively slag off xG on here compared to the number of people who respond to defend xG like it’s some sacred cow

 

 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 12:52 by bobbydazzla

[Lush Vlad]

5 minutes ago, Andy said:

 

I think my problem with it is that it's often used in the context of "we lost 1-0 but had 3xg to 0.5xg so we should have won, just unlucky", while missing the more relevant context that your 3xg fell to Emmanuel Riviere, while the other team had prime Van Basten up front and prime Buffon in goal. 

 

"Over performing their xG" is often used as a criticism too, but has always just read to me as "they have bought clinical attackers". 

100%. 
 

The Arsenal away game recently is a good example. They supposedly had more than 3 xG. Yet the only ones I remember were the Timber header from a corner. He should score, but you see missed free headers from corners every week where you say the same. 
 

The Martinelli chance is nowhere as easy as everyone made out and yes we got a bit lucky. But he only had that small part of the goal to aim for. 
 

Then the Havertz one was an absolute sitter. But it’s Havertz  nowt new there.  
 

If you presented that game purely with xG and the stats from the match. Then you’d think Arsenal were robbed. Yet we were actually just clinical and defended very well for the most part and they didn’t have many answers. 
 

Game state has to be factored in, as well. We were sitting on a 2 goal lead and also Arsenal were at home and are a superior team. So you’d expect them to have a higher xG than us. 
 

I’d rather just score and win and not worry about winning the xG battle  

[bowlingcrofty]

Nobody is 'worried' about the xG battle though. It's just something that can put a statistical twist on what you saw with your eyes.

Someone can look poorly, you can see they're not very well and feel hot, but if you took them to the doctor and the doctor took their temperature and said 'yep, they're too fucking hot, they have a temperature higher than the norm', you wouldn't call him a stats nonce, or whatever. They're backing up what you can see with the evidence to prove it.

 

xG doesn't change anything or make the game any different. It's just another statistic that can help paint a picture of where a team is succeeding or failing. Score more than your xG? You probably have a striker who is fucking lethal. Score fewer than your xG? Your striker can't hit a barn door.

People have always been able to see this with their eyes, now there's a statistic to show it. What's the issue?

 

 

Edited Sunday at 13:11 by bowlingcrofty

[madras]

18 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

Aye, but it’s good crack winding up the stat nonces

 

I have my own metric for number of times I aggressively slag off xG on here compared to the number of people who respond to defend xG like it’s some sacred cow

 

 

 

 

 

But you are the one treating it as a sacred cow that must be slaughtered but for most others it's just a stat that helps, with others,  give an overview of a match that you haven't seen.

[Lush Vlad]

4 minutes ago, bowlingcrofty said:

Nobody is 'worried' about the xG battle though. It's just something that can put a statistical twist on what you saw with your eyes.

Someone can look poorly, you can see they're not very well and feel hot, but if you took them to the doctor and the doctor took their temperature and said 'yep, they're too fucking hot, they have a temperature higher than the norm', you wouldn't call him a stats nonce, or whatever. They're backing up what you can see with the evidence to prove it.

 

xG doesn't change anything or make the game any different. It's just another statistic that can help paint a picture of where a team is succeeding or failing. Score more than your xG? You probably have a striker who is fucking lethal. Score fewer than your xG? Your striker can't hit a barn door.

People have always been able to see this with their eyes, now there's a statistic to show it. What's the issue?

 

 

 

There isn’t one. I’m more on the side of xG here if you bothered to read other posts replying to bobbydazzla. 
 

I can also see the other side of the argument when people use it in isolation. It can be quite jarring. 

[David Edgar]

Why bother publishing a score when you saw the goals with your own eyes? 

[bobbydazzla]

It’s just a new boring stat and I enjoy pointing out that it’s just a new boring stat because it’s guaranteed to cause ructions and I find that funny 

 

Maybe a striker is lethal, maybe a keeper is shit, maybe all the best chances fell to a centre half rather than a centre forward, the variables that affect chances vs goals can go on and on and on

 

Football’s supposed to be a sport, it’s not supposed to be a maths tournament 

 

Spoiler

In real life I’m actually known for being a data nerd, I really do like stats a lot 

 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 13:25 by bobbydazzla

[bobbydazzla]

9 minutes ago, David Edgar said:

Why bother publishing a score when you saw the goals with your own eyes? 

How else will people know if their acca will pay out ? 

[David Edgar]

Just now, bobbydazzla said:

How else will people know if their acca will pay out ? 

 

WITH THEIR EYES

[pubteam]

Every time I watch the goals, the defending looks worse. Media raving about Man City and I don’t even think they played well, we just sat off them. We had three or four players at time covering the same blade of grass. The corner goal sums up  lack of organisation, allowing a player to stand unmarked. Eddie needs to take responsibility for the poor team selection and if they weren’t his tactics we had on show yesterday he needs to bash some heads together. 

[kingxlnc]

18 hours ago, Turnbull2000 said:

Hopefully next season we can blow £200m in the winter transfer window if we're struggling a bit...

 

I was away much of the match and hadn't realised it was a new signing that destroyed us.

 

 

 

It wasn’t just one new signing

the reason they’ve struggled all season is because Rodri was out, well their replacement Nico was probably MOTM after Marmoush. And then the CB they stole off us Khusanov also played well especially given much of their defence was  injured or struggling this season. 
 

so they’ve plugged all their gaps and are back to full strength.

 

meanwhile we have to sell a summer signing because we need the cash

[Cf]

People don't have a problem with the "Shots" and "Shots on Target" stat and have long quoted them in discussions. 

 

xG is just an attempt to be a more detailed and accurate measure than them. 

 

High xG = "you created lots of/good quality chances" - something we can all agree is a Good Thing. 

[bobbydazzla]

1 hour ago, Cf said:

People don't have a problem with the "Shots" and "Shots on Target" stat and have long quoted them in discussions. 

 

xG is just an attempt to be a more detailed and accurate measure than them. 

 

High xG = "you created lots of/good quality chances" - something we can all agree is a Good Thing. 

Do people actually talk about xG outside of the internet ?

 

If I was was having some football chit chat over a foaming pint of Hobgoblins Knob Rot hazy nut brown ale and the person I was chatting with raised xG as an area for discussion I’d drain my beer, pop on my coat, leave the establishment, delete that persons number from my phone and never ever speak to them ever again 

[Kid Icarus]

2 hours ago, bobbydazzla said:

Aye, but it’s good crack winding up the stat nonces

 

I have my own metric for number of times I aggressively slag off xG on here compared to the number of people who respond to defend xG like it’s some sacred cow

 

 

 

 

 

You started a conversation about something you supposedly hate...again. Seems more like you just like ranting about it tbh.

[bobbydazzla]

15 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

You started a conversation about something you supposedly hate...again. Seems more like you just like ranting about it tbh.

I like poking fun at xG by going on massively over the top rants about it and I like to see how people respond to me poking fun at xG 

I also like to be an irritating twat if I know a subject gets people riled easily. It’s one of my many faults 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 15:32 by bobbydazzla

[Mikky]

2 hours ago, pubteam said:

Every time I watch the goals, the defending looks worse. Media raving about Man City and I don’t even think they played well, we just sat off them. We had three or four players at time covering the same blade of grass. The corner goal sums up  lack of organisation, allowing a player to stand unmarked. Eddie needs to take responsibility for the poor team selection and if they weren’t his tactics we had on show yesterday he needs to bash some heads together. 

What really gets to me is that there was ZERO effort and application from the players - can’t recall an occasion I have said this under Howe - if it’s a bad day at the office, fine, it happens - but yesterday they didn’t even try - all XI - that’s what hurts me the most 

[David Edgar]

38 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

I like poking fun at xG by going on massively over the top rants about it and I like to see how people respond to me poking fun at xG 

I also like to be an irritating twat if I know a subject gets people riled easily. It’s one of my many faults 

 

 

 

 

Honestly think you just look silly and ignorant.