Interesting Norwich XPG stat?

[hogesar 10,762]

Cant confirm its validity but if true its not a bad sign. Not least the fact Man City only had 4 shots on target.

 

 

 

Edited August 24, 2021 by hogesar

[lake district canary 4,830]

I'm not one for stats, but it could be used as a real positive to take from those first two games. One or two of the goals were definitely fortunate too, so I see that as a good thing to build on.

[canarydan23 4,761]

No idea whether it is true either, but it would make sense as Man City's xG against us was only 2.44, suggesting they were fortunate to get 5.

However, if you are going to use it as a valid tool then you can't cherry-pick. Our own xG was 0.03. I have never seen anything close to that low before. If you buy into it, a 0.03 xG means we could have played like that 33 times and scored just 1 goal. 1 goal. In 33 matches.

We were really, really abject.

[Jim Smith 2,610]

1 minute ago, canarydan23 said:

No idea whether it is true either, but it would make sense as Man City's xG against us was only 2.44, suggesting they were fortunate to get 5.

However, if you are going to use it as a valid tool then you can't cherry-pick. Our own xG was 0.03. I have never seen anything close to that low before. If you buy into it, a 0.03 xG means we could have played like that 33 times and scored just 1 goal. 1 goal. In 33 matches.

We were really, really abject.

They only had 4 shots on target snd scored 5 goals, two of which were ricochets so probably something in it. We do seem to have a fair fee spells of “pinball” in our area. Need to put our feet through it!

[Greavsy 2,645]

1 minute ago, canarydan23 said:

No idea whether it is true either, but it would make sense as Man City's xG against us was only 2.44, suggesting they were fortunate to get 5.

However, if you are going to use it as a valid tool then you can't cherry-pick. Our own xG was 0.03. I have never seen anything close to that low before. If you buy into it, a 0.03 xG means we could have played like that 33 times and scored just 1 goal. 1 goal. In 33 matches.

We were really, really abject.

Would those 33 games be against Man City level teams though - in which case its prob not far off the mark. 

[canarydan23 4,761]

Just now, Jim Smith said:

They only had 4 shots on target snd scored 5 goals, two of which were ricochets so probably something in it. We do seem to have a fair fee spells of “pinball” in our area. Need to put our feet through it!

Man City were certainly fortunate to score at least a couple of their goals. But it doesn't matter, as they only needed to score 1 as we were never, ever going to score given how poor we were. If I was to play devil's advocate, you could argue that a Man City that didn't actually play fantastically according to the stats were able to beat us 5-0 and we couldn't lay so much of a finger on them. Didn't touch the ball in their box for 77 minutes, and that touch was our single shot on goal that flew miles over the bar.

1 minute ago, Greavsy said:

Would those 33 games be against Man City level teams though - in which case its prob not far off the mark. 

Yes, that's how the stats work.

[Greavsy 2,645]

1 minute ago, canarydan23 said:

Yes, that's how the stats work.

Thanks Dan (out of likes!)

I'm not one for stats, and this Xg ones flumox me I must say. You dont need to analyse too deeply to think they would score a few past us. I wasn't surprised at the scoreline I must admit.   

But if we played them 33 times being realistic (and after the performance Saturday) I think one goal would be about right. 

[canarydan23 4,761]

18 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Thanks Dan (out of likes!)

I'm not one for stats, and this Xg ones flumox me I must say. You dont need to analyse too deeply to think they would score a few past us. I wasn't surprised at the scoreline I must admit.   

But if we played them 33 times being realistic (and after the performance Saturday) I think one goal would be about right. 

I completely agree, as Mark Twain (or was it Disraeli) said, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics".

I was more curious about hogesar's reaction to a different xG stat; if the xG stat in the OP is "not a bad sign", then sign does the 0.03 one signify?

[TheGunnShow 7,377]

What this means is that defensively we weren't as hapless as some are mooting, despite the fact that Liverpool and Manchester City are two of the top sides in world football right now. We weren't giving away that many clear chances, but even by the standards of Premier League strikers, the conversion of said chances was incredibly clinical so the final scores made things look worse than the performance merited.

Which can also mean "do we really need an out-and-out tackle merchant like Skipp or is the problem somewhere else in the middle of the park?"

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

Using xG in a single game is fairly worthless to be honest - even those who are the biggest proponents of its use say it is something that only holds value over a relatively long period of time - as the variances start to level out.

That being said, the Sterling chance had an xG of about .8 which means it was a better chance to score than a penalty (which are regarded as about .75). Give away chances that big from open play, and you will concede goals.

Man City focus on creating high xG chances, it is something Pep has worked into his style. That is why they often create plays that aim on getting the ball to the byline and pulling back to a player (often Sterling) in the centre, it is one of the easiest ways to produce high value chances. 

 

[HairyTeeth 16]

We are still a couple of weeks behind all the teams in the league due to pre season. I think that has showed in the first 2 games and as we had the best 2 teams in the league it was a good fitness run out.

We will look a lot sharper when we play Leicester and will up the tempo. 

I am not bothered 1 bit we lost to Liverpool and Man City as our season starts on saturday.

When we get going a few teams are in for a shock this season. 

 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

4 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

Using xG in a single game is fairly worthless to be honest - even those who are the biggest proponents of its use say it is something that only holds value over a relatively long period of time - as the variances start to level out.

But the variances 'levelling out' is exactly what Hogesar is referencing here. Clearly the xG stats show the goal conversion rate versus Man City was abnormally high.

So why can't you look at that single game and say it was unfortunate? I highly doubt it is going to become a running theme for our season where extremely low xG changes are consistently converted into goals - unless we are going to be freakishly unfortunate...

It's like losing a real bad hand of poker on the river card when the opponent hits a 1 or 2 card chance to win. Anything can happen in that one off instance, but looking at that single hand it is still unlucky and you would still expect it to level out in the long run like you say.

[Canary Wundaboy 1,423]

58 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

They only had 4 shots on target snd scored 5 goals, two of which were ricochets so probably something in it. We do seem to have a fair fee spells of “pinball” in our area. Need to put our feet through it!

Am sick and tired of screaming "GET RID" as the ball pings around in our penalty area....

[canarydan23 4,761]

1 minute ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

Am sick and tired of screaming "GET RID" as the ball pings around in our penalty area....

Then stop?

[WSM 62]

However a low XPG stat (and high conversion from that) does suggest a weak defence/goalkeeper more than anything

But agree that you could wrangle it into a positive - and when facing less clinical teams we will get more of the rub of the green - then its up to our attack to take some of our own chances!

 

[The Great Mass Debater 1,202]

You could also argue that those are goals that shouldnt have been goals, but were.

I admit we've had some unlucky deflections.

 

I always felt we were in the match against Liverpool. We were never in the match against Citeh

[Nuff Said 5,960]

52 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Then stop?

Yeah, perhaps try “hoof it upfront to the big lad” instead.

[Nuff Said 5,960]

20 minutes ago, WSM said:

However a low XPG stat (and high conversion from that) does suggest a weak defence/goalkeeper more than anything

But agree that you could wrangle it into a positive - and when facing less clinical teams we will get more of the rub of the green - then its up to our attack to take some of our own chances!

 

Don’t these sorts of stats take the quality of the players into account?

[canarydan23 4,761]

18 minutes ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

You could also argue that those are goals that shouldnt have been goals, but were.

I admit we've had some unlucky deflections.

 

I always felt we were in the match against Liverpool. We were never in the match against Citeh

Completely agree. Play like we did against Liverpool and we have at least a fighting chance, possibly even comfortably finish safe; play like we did against Citeh and it doesn't matter whether we're playing Watford or Man Utd, Palace or Chelsea, we'll get less points than two years ago.

[Jim Smith 2,610]

1 hour ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

Am sick and tired of screaming "GET RID" as the ball pings around in our penalty area....

Yes or “not there” as someone tries to do a trick 25 yards from their own goal whilst being closed down by four attackers 

[Jim Smith 2,610]

33 minutes ago, WSM said:

However a low XPG stat (and high conversion from that) does suggest a weak defence/goalkeeper more than anything

But agree that you could wrangle it into a positive - and when facing less clinical teams we will get more of the rub of the green - then its up to our attack to take some of our own chances!

 

Whilst it’s too early to say really and he’s been great for the last two years it would be nice if Krul started to make a few saves.

[Petriix 3,219]

I have to say that there is an element of making your own luck which is perhaps being missed. In defence we saw a total failure to clear the ball for each of the first three goals against Man City. In attack players keep failing to release the ball when there's the opportunity to create a decent chance.

Some of this can be attributed to a disjointed pre-season, some to the fact that new players are just learning their roles in our system, some to playing in front of crowds for the first time in 18 months, and some is just down to us playing against the best players in the league.

The Man City keeper cut out several dangerous balls way outside his box where a lesser team would have been facing a 1 vs 1. Cantwell could have been through against less agile defenders. Other teams won't have the same pace and accuracy to cut through us.

I'm sure we'll change our luck once things start to come together. It needs a bit of time.

[NewNestCarrow 290]

1 hour ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

Man City focus on creating high xG chances, it is something Pep has worked into his style. That is why they often create plays that aim on getting the ball to the byline and pulling back to a player (often Sterling) in the centre, it is one of the easiest ways to produce high value chances. 

 

If this method produces high value chances then, by definition, it must be difficult to defend against.

I have seen very little praise for Manchester's exceptionally talented players executing something they have been drilling for three years, but lots of criticism for Norwich's less-talented players defending something they have probably only worked on for a couple of weeks.

 

[Badger 2,745]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

I completely agree, as Mark Twain (or was it Disraeli) said, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics".

 

It is often ascribed to Disraeli, although I'm not sure that it was: it is certainly the sort of thing he would say. One thing he definitely did say, when advising a new Parliamentary candidate on an upcoming debate with an opponent was, 

"If all things fail, deny the facts and abuse your opponent!"

I think that this is useful context to the quote above!

Properly collected statistics do not lie - they are however, often misinterpreted or over-interpreted by those that don't understand them or who wish to mislead. It is frighteningly common in public policy as well.

[hogesar 10,762]

2 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

I completely agree, as Mark Twain (or was it Disraeli) said, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics".

I was more curious about hogesar's reaction to a different xG stat; if the xG stat in the OP is "not a bad sign", then sign does the 0.03 one signify?

Signifies that we created naff all against Man City and deservedly lost, which isn't really relevant to my more general point which is that we conceded more than we 'should' have done in both games this season. 

Had we lost 1-0 to Liverpool and perhaps 2 or 3 to City, as xPG suggests is more realistic, I dont think there would be half the amount of concern.

Of course, top teams with top finishers can out perform their xPG. But youd like to think we would be able to lower the xPG of weaker opposition and raise our own. 

As Bethnal says, its too early to read much into it just as its far too early to read into two results that defy the xPG stat which is probably the best stat for seeing where a teams at and closest resembling the final table. Its nothing more than a bit of optimism as we play weaker teams.

[canarydan23 4,761]

6 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Signifies that we created naff all against Man City and deservedly lost, which isn't really relevant to my more general point which is that we conceded more than we 'should' have done in both games this season. 

Had we lost 1-0 to Liverpool and perhaps 2 or 3 to City, as xPG suggests is more realistic, I dont think there would be half the amount of concern.

Of course, top teams with top finishers can out perform their xPG. But youd like to think we would be able to lower the xPG of weaker opposition and raise our own. 

As Bethnal says, its too early to read much into it just as its far too early to read into two results that defy the xPG stat which is probably the best stat for seeing where a teams at and closest resembling the final table. Its nothing more than a bit of optimism as we play weaker teams.

Was anyone too concerned after Liverpool, beyond the perennially pessimistic?

It was the abjectness of the Man City game that was most concerning. Not that we lost. Not even that it was 5-0. I honestly believe that it was the worst we've played under Farke. Yes, the strength of the opposition has to be considered. As a comparison, we lost by 5 goals to Man City during Lambert's Premier League campaign, and that was at home against a team that would go on to win the league, but we were in the game and just beaten by a fantastic team full of talent. We were woeful on Saturday and I actually think Man City's relatively low xG compared to the scoreline is a result of them never actually having  to reach anything close to top gear. Had they have done, we might have joined Ipswich and Southampton in the 9-0 club. Or maybe even have formed our own, exclusive double-figures club.

Whether we should be worried about how abysmal we were we'll find out over the next few weeks. I hope it was just the baddest of bad days at the office and come Saturday evening we'll be toasting three points and consigning the truly dreadful showing on Saturday to history.

[wcorkcanary 4,784]

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

Whilst it’s too early to say really and he’s been great for the last two years it would be nice if Krul started to make a few saves.

If its too early Jimbo, why say it? Or is it a case of getting the jitters because you havent posted anything negative for a couple of hours? Either way, its a bit sad.

 

[AJ 1,358]

3 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

No idea whether it is true either, but it would make sense as Man City's xG against us was only 2.44, suggesting they were fortunate to get 5.

However, if you are going to use it as a valid tool then you can't cherry-pick. Our own xG was 0.03. I have never seen anything close to that low before. If you buy into it, a 0.03 xG means we could have played like that 33 times and scored just 1 goal. 1 goal. In 33 matches.

We were really, really abject.

Sounds about right to me, we had one shot on goal in the entire game. So in theory if Rashica had that same chance 33 times he would score it once and it would have been an absolute belter. So, somewhere in one of those 32 alternate universes where luck was on our side...

[It's Character Forming 1,204]

1 hour ago, AJ said:

Sounds about right to me, we had one shot on goal in the entire game. So in theory if Rashica had that same chance 33 times he would score it once and it would have been an absolute belter. So, somewhere in one of those 32 alternate universes where luck was on our side...

I'm just loving the idea of us coming away from that game with a 1-0 win.  But then, that's exactly how football works.

 

I'd say a "fair" scoreline would have been 2-0 or 3-0.

[The Great Mass Debater 1,202]

3 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

Was anyone too concerned after Liverpool, beyond the perennially pessimistic?

It was the abjectness of the Man City game that was most concerning. Not that we lost. Not even that it was 5-0. I honestly believe that it was the worst we've played under Farke. Yes, the strength of the opposition has to be considered. As a comparison, we lost by 5 goals to Man City during Lambert's Premier League campaign, and that was at home against a team that would go on to win the league, but we were in the game and just beaten by a fantastic team full of talent. We were woeful on Saturday and I actually think Man City's relatively low xG compared to the scoreline is a result of them never actually having  to reach anything close to top gear. Had they have done, we might have joined Ipswich and Southampton in the 9-0 club. Or maybe even have formed our own, exclusive double-figures club.

Whether we should be worried about how abysmal we were we'll find out over the next few weeks. I hope it was just the baddest of bad days at the office and come Saturday evening we'll be toasting three points and consigning the truly dreadful showing on Saturday to history.

City thrashed us without even having to break a sweat. Without even having to get out of first gear. I cant remember their goalkeeper having to make a save