CiderJar Posted September 21, 2022 Report Share Posted September 21, 2022 The consensus seems to be that we were very much second best in this game, but xG says different (I'm not a fan of xG unless it works in our favour like this) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted September 21, 2022 Report Share Posted September 21, 2022 8 minutes ago, CiderJar said: The consensus seems to be that we were very much second best in this game, but xG says different (I'm not a fan of xG unless it works in our favour like this) Experimental 361 has us winning 1.40 to 1.20. Basically if you follow the xG model with Experimental 3-6-1 we're only a point or 2 worse off on there than the actual table so it clearly has some merit over time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted September 21, 2022 Report Share Posted September 21, 2022 2 hours ago, CiderJar said: The consensus seems to be that we were very much second best in this game, but xG says different (I'm not a fan of xG unless it works in our favour like this) What needs to be factored in is that XG relates to “shots” only. Burnley didn’t actually create that many “chances” that ended in shots. They flashed balls across our box but you get 0 XG for that! They had lots of possession, but they also spent a lot of the recycling the ball across the pitch, probing for openings, which we generally defended very well. Had their defender not got a touch on Weimann’s late cross, Semenyo is in a great position to volley home…0 XG for that too! If we go back to “big chances” (XG of 0.3 or more), we had 2 (Wells goal, Semenyo shot over), they had 1 (Tella’s weak effort first half that went wide). Hence why I don’t use XG to decide a moral result, although you can use the timeline above to see the flow of “shots”. Just like I don’t use possession stats either. I don’t use any in isolation, you can sometimes read into a game by combining them though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiderJar Posted September 21, 2022 Report Share Posted September 21, 2022 30 minutes ago, Davefevs said: What needs to be factored in is that XG relates to “shots” only. Burnley didn’t actually create that many “chances” that ended in shots. They flashed balls across our box but you get 0 XG for that! They had lots of possession, but they also spent a lot of the recycling the ball across the pitch, probing for openings, which we generally defended very well. Had their defender not got a touch on Weimann’s late cross, Semenyo is in a great position to volley home…0 XG for that too! If we go back to “big chances” (XG of 0.3 or more), we had 2 (Wells goal, Semenyo shot over), they had 1 (Tella’s weak effort first half that went wide). Hence why I don’t use XG to decide a moral result, although you can use the timeline above to see the flow of “shots”. Just like I don’t use possession stats either. I don’t use any in isolation, you can sometimes read into a game by combining them though. 100% with you on this Fevs. I work with data and can use it to prove anything I want by selectively ignoring certain variables. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOTBLUE Posted September 21, 2022 Report Share Posted September 21, 2022 2 hours ago, CiderJar said: 100% with you on this Fevs. I work with data and can use it to prove anything I want by selectively ignoring certain variables. In that case,can you produce some data that proves what we all know,that we are in fact, the greatest team the world has ever seen. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.