Total xG & Big Chances (0.3xG) Conceded

[Maesknoll Red]

Do similar graphs exist for Brentford, just wondering how they look compared to ours - better obviously, but the comparison may be interesting, if not depressing......

[ExiledAjax]

24 minutes ago, 2015 said:

I'm not one to go too much on xG statistics but that pretty much does sum up the general census on how we are performing currently.

I was worried about performances in October, as they were nowhere near good enough but somehow we were getting results. I feel we have enough to survive this season, but I think this is the biggest backwards step the club has taken this season for a long time. I can see us struggling next season unless there is drastic change in Management, because there are actually some good players at this club who are not performing to their abilities.

Worrying.

 

18 minutes ago, Xspence said:

Not a huge fan of xG but it does sum up how it feels to watch. Christ imagine where we would be without Bentley and Kalas this season. 

xG is a much much easier thing to explain when it's matching with form. When it isn't corroborating the form it is much harder to persuade people of its relevance.

6 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

The trouble with these stats is that they don’t tell us why we are over- or underachieving.  For instance, are we underachieving in attack because our strikers are not converting chances, or because we are not creating chances in the first place?  I certainly think that if we’re overachieving in defence it is likely down to Bentley, but would that suggest that the rest of the defence is underachieving?

Presumably a successful side should be overachieving, at least in defence?

So to do that you're right that you can't just look at xG. To do that you have to look at other stats in conjunction. We can do that. For Attack you look a t shots taken - there's been extensive discussion on here recently around our absolute failure to create and take chances. Now that feeds into xG because xG is an aggregation of the percentage chance of scoring the shots you take - if you take fewer shots then obviously you have fewer numbers to aggregate and so get a lower total.

Are our strikers clinical? Again E361 produces graphs on that. Here's ours form before the Cardiff game.

Fam in particular is scoring goals at a much higher rate than you would expect a championship striker to achieve considering the quality of the chances and shots he has taken. It suggests that his scoring rate is unsustainable - and so we should expect his scoring rate to drop, even if we can maintain the quality and quantity of shots he is taking. Pato is in the same category, although not as dramatically. At the same time we can make a reasonable prediction that Semenyo should actually start to score. We've all seen him take many shots, and the data suggests that an average championship striker would have scored more than he has done from those same shots. So is Semenyo just crap at shooting or is he unlucky? We cannot tell - but it does tell us that some individual shooting training might be a serious thing to consider for him.

Defence is probably harder to analyse because, as you allude to, there are more individuals involved. We could look at our block stats and see how we compare, but I don't have those here. Bentley has undoubtedly been in good form. His save % is his highest ever for a Champ season, and he's faced the 3rd highest number of shots on target in the division. Really only Begovic, Dieng and Samba have been better when you factor in how busy Bentley has been in our goal.

[Kid in the Riot]

1 hour ago, Rob k said:

It’s interesting stuff - I don’t suppose you could direct me to a website you use to read up on it a bit more! I have quite a bit of time on my hands!! 

Whole book on it: The Expected Goals Philosophy: A Game-Changing Way of Analysing Football: Amazon.co.uk: Tippett, James: 9781089883180: Books

[sh1t_ref_again]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

A penalty that hits the bar would still get an xG of 0.8 or so - because penalties are scored about 80% of the time. A shot from the halfway line that hits the bar will get xG of 0.01 because they're barely ever scored.

They'll likely be missed chances, but perhaps not surprisingly missed.

xG is not perfect. It cannot tell you everything. But having followed it for years it's not yet failed me. It assured me we wouldn't get relegated under Cotts and LJ, and also showed that we were never seriously in the promotion hunt at any time under LJ. Right now...right now it's bad but I think we've banked enough points not to go down. 18th/19th place isn't out of the question though.

Is this the penalty you are on about?

 

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

It's absolutely atrocious performance and, combined with the fact we create so few chances, is a recipe for disaster going forward. Unless it improves quickly, we will see a rapid decline in league position ultimately culminating in Holden and his coaching staff being fired. 

These statistics highlight a clear failure in tactics/system/coaching. We are where we are purely because we happen to convert a high % of chances we create, good last ditch defending, and good fortune. 

We are tenth in the division in spite of Holden and the coaching team, not because of them.

This is why I worried in LJ’s last 18 months.

The decline was there if not results. XG is just another way of concluding the same thing.

 

[Daniro]

2 hours ago, Rob k said:

I Keep backing us to win!! Will eventually win my money back!! 

I'm too embarrassed to admit how much I put on City to win the Championship during our little winning streak at the start of the season.   In my defence i got 20 - 1.   

[Superjack]

4 hours ago, Tomo said:

Ouch 

Personally speaking, I'm not listening to anyone that spells 'Robins' with two 'b's.

[WolfOfWestStreet]

I love xG because it's almost like it more often or not backs up what you see with your own eyes rather than the result on the pitch.

Everyone knows when you watch a game if you genuinely deserved all three points (Stoke Away), whether you got a bit of luck and nicked one (Cardiff Away). Or you played absolute shite and robbed your opponent (Huddersfield Home).

All our stats whether you believe in them or not are some of the worst in the division. This has to be cause for concern.

But then again I don't need a graph to to tell me Famara is the best attacker at the club and COD is the worst even if it is there in balck and white. 

[Rob k]

3 hours ago, Daniro said:

I'm too embarrassed to admit how much I put on City to win the Championship during our little winning streak at the start of the season.   In my defence i got 20 - 1.   

Hahha how much?

[Galway Red]

4 hours ago, Daniro said:

I'm too embarrassed to admit how much I put on City to win the Championship during our little winning streak at the start of the season.   In my defence i got 20 - 1.   

But surely you could of seen how poorly we were playing and in a false position, the bookie had you over and they missed a zero on the end of 20

[YGBjammy]

Wow lowest xG and by the looks of it in the worst 3 for big chances conceded.

That's shocking. It's a minor miracle we're still in the top half. Thing about stats/probabilities is the larger the sample the more likely we are to "regress to the mean" i.e. we will drop like a stone soon if this keeps up. We are over achieving hugely in terms of points relative to our performance.

Unfortunately I think Holden will still be here after 46 games played. Really hope we change in the summer though (or preferably before). Lowest xG in the division is not just "because of injuries".

[Lew-T]

6 hours ago, Xspence said:

Not a huge fan of xG but it does sum up how it feels to watch. Christ imagine where we would be without Bentley and Kalas this season. 

Bentley yes, but Kalas has been below par imo.

[spudski]

5 hours ago, Davefevs said:

This is why I worried in LJ’s last 18 months.

The decline was there if not results. XG is just another way of concluding the same thing.

 

Ive followed our stats with Ex361 for a few years now.

And you are right...our stats under LJ in the last season, were a reflection of what we see now.

XG isn't perfect...but it does generally give a perspective to how a team is progressing.

We have been on a spiral for a couple seasons now...and it's getting worse. 

We see it with our eyes...but the stats back it up.

Unless things drastically change then we'll be relegation candidates. 

We've had numerous players in this time...and two coaches in LJ and DH who have lost their way imo.

Tbh...imo, we are worse under DH and his staff.

I really do think we will be just outside relegation by the end of the season under this current set up.

 

[ExiledAjax]

5 hours ago, Maesknoll Red said:

Do similar graphs exist for Brentford, just wondering how they look compared to ours - better obviously, but the comparison may be interesting, if not depressing......

See below. Perhaps overachieving a little bit in attack - but scoring 7 or 4 goals in a game will always skew stats that way. You very rarely see a team get an xG rating of more than 4, and even in that 7-2 win they rated "only" a 4.34. Overall they are consistently putting out an average net xG of +0.5. That is you can reasonably expect them to score half a goal more than the opposition in their "average" game. Also, again, the red and blue lines being close(ish) means that this is unlikely to be a fluke or an unexpectedly good run of results. They are good to watch, have good underlying stats, and are a properly good team.

[Davefevs]

Just now, spudski said:

Ive followed our stats with Ex361 for a few years now.

And you are right...our stats under LJ in the last season, were a reflection of what we see now.

XG isn't perfect...but it does generally give a perspective to how a team is progressing.

We have been on a spiral for a couple seasons now...and it's getting worse. 

We see it with our eyes...but the stats back it up.

Unless things drastically change then we'll be relegation candidates. 

We've had numerous players in this time...and two coaches in LJ and DH who have lost their way imo.

Tbh...imo, we are worse under DH and his staff.

I really do think we will be just outside relegation by the end of the season under this current set up.

 

As much as I really liked his caretaker and early season 352....I’ve seen more crap performances under Dean than Lee in a comparable period of games.  @Olé’s post about crap performances was spot on.

Dean needs to go back to basics, he has sufficient quality back now, albeit one or two need match sharpness.  It’s been very disappointing.

[spudski]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

As much as I really liked his caretaker and early season 352....I’ve seen more crap performances under Dean than Lee in a comparable period of games.  @Olé’s post about crap performances was spot on.

Dean needs to go back to basics, he has sufficient quality back now, albeit one or two need match sharpness.  It’s been very disappointing.

What troubles me Dave, is it's not like we are trying to play complicated football.

We just aren't doing basics well.

How many seasons are we going to allow crosses being pinged into our box? Attempts to stop them are half hearted at most.

The players are disjointed...very rarely play as a team, and often look like they've never met.

As well as playing players out of their best positions.

We are all over the shop.

To create so few chances, and allow so many against us is ridiculous with the personnel we have, regardless of injuries.

We look clueless...and some of the decisions being made prior to games and during games makes me think we are.

I get the impression, our coaches judge too much on what they see in training, rather than on match day, and make poor decisions from that judgement.

Judge players from match days...not training. 

[Davefevs]

Ah, the old, “he’s been great in training”.  I’m so with you....judge them where it matters.  Bloody frustrating admittedly, but sometimes as a manager you need to realise the good trainers aren’t always the ones that bale you out on a Saturday.

[spudski]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Ah, the old, “he’s been great in training”.  I’m so with you....judge them where it matters.  Bloody frustrating admittedly, but sometimes as a manager you need to realise the good trainers aren’t always the ones that bale you out on a Saturday.

Exactly that Dave.

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, spudski said:

Exactly that Dave.

Used to play cricket with a chap who was technically excellent in the nets, had all the shots, always nicely executed.  But put him in the middle with real fielders and bowlers bowling to plans and he was so disappointing.

[ExiledAjax]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Used to play cricket with a chap who was technically excellent in the nets, had all the shots, always nicely executed.  But put him in the middle with real fielders and bowlers bowling to plans and he was so disappointing.

Same as how you can be a great coach...but a bad manager. Someone can be brilliant on the practice pitches, working well to develop players. But put them under the pressure of the dug-out and make them make quick decisions to affect a game...and they can fold.

[Tonks55]

What puzzles me is that Lansdown made millions out of paying attention to similar graphs from the financial world yet he cannot see it when it comes to 'his club'., even though the writing has been on the wall over the last few years. Would he have bought shares in a company with a poor 'Profit to Earnings ratio'! 

[Daniro]

3 hours ago, Galway Red said:

But surely you could of seen how poorly we were playing and in a false position, the bookie had you over and they missed a zero on the end of 20

i thought we played quite well in this early games, I'd suffered so much under LJ,  we'd been in lockdown for months, I was desperate for some hope,   arrrggghhhh

[Tomo]

5 hours ago, Superjack said:

Personally speaking, I'm not listening to anyone that spells 'Robins' with two 'b's.

I noticed that SJ, but unfortunately, they are talking about us!

Like many, I am not that hung up on all the available statistics (even though I actually report live stats as a Football Data Analyst). However, a friend of mine is really hot on this topic and regularly sends me articles like the one I posted. He is right, you can ignore the stats but they don't lie. 

We are playing terrible, we are not scoring goals, we are boring to watch and we have no creativity in the side, 

Those stats mean more and point towards us finishing between 13th and 18th this season. 

Tomo

[Superjack]

6 minutes ago, Tomo said:

I noticed that SJ, but unfortunately, they are talking about us!

Like many, I am not that hung up on all the available statistics (even though I actually report live stats as a Football Data Analyst). However, a friend of mine is really hot on this topic and regularly sends me articles like the one I posted. He is right, you can ignore the stats but they don't lie. 

We are playing terrible, we are not scoring goals, we are boring to watch and we have no creativity in the side, 

Those stats mean more and point towards us finishing between 13th and 18th this season. 

Tomo

I'd take that right now, Tomo.

[Galway Red]

12 hours ago, Daniro said:

i thought we played quite well in this early games, I'd suffered so much under LJ,  we'd been in lockdown for months, I was desperate for some hope,   arrrggghhhh

You were lulled into a false dawn due to a decent 30 minutes at Stoke

[Olé]

I guess a lot of the money on the exchanges is from people who study the xG as I honestly can't remember the last time on Betfair that we actually started a match as favourite. Even at home to Portsmouth in the club they were favourites. 

[Davefevs]

[ExiledAjax]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Again, another way to corroborate the manner of our attacks over the past couple of years - very few shots, but of decent quality and so high conversion rate and a good goals per shot figure. But this also starkly shows that you can do all that, but if you're taking nearly 80 shots fewer than the average team in the division (and more than 100 fewer than promotion contenders) you aren't going to get anywhere at all.

There's a general theme on show here as well. Whatever the conversion rate is, successful teams are characterised by a high number of shots per game. I said (actually directly to you Dave) at the start of the season that I hoped/wanted us to be getting towards 15 shots per game. We are so far from that, and have been all season. Even early on we were averaging only 11 or 12 per game. Far better than the 8.6 (6.6 over the past 10 matches) that we are on now, but still not really top 6 material.

Until we find a way to consistently create shooting opportunities we are going nowhere.  

[Sturny]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Proves our strikers are competent with the scraps they receive! 

[sh1t_ref_again]

I did a breakdown the other day, when I think it was Ole that put up an excel spreadsheet with shots on target per game

For last season 153 shots over 39 games = 3.3 per game

This season so far we had 89 over 28 games = 3.17 p/g, so not much difference to last year

but when you take 33 of these were in the 1st 7 games at a rate of 4.7 p/g

after this we have had 56 from 21 games at a rate of 2.6 p/g

and worse the last 5 have netted 9 shots, or 1.8 per game

As we all know it a very worrying trend and direction we are going in, particularly with our best defenders Kalas / Mawson making poor mistakes so not getting away with previously to scrape a result.

Need to have a good look at what changed after the first 7 games, is it down to a couple of injuries then change of shape or confidence of the early games starting to go or teams just worked us out?