Jump to content
hogesar

Statistical Domination

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, It's Character Forming said:

I think this sums it up perfectly.  Clearly by the World Cup break, Smith had lost his way with us and as a result that time was wasted, after the team came back they were playing worse, not better.  As many of us said in the run up to the break, that was the time to change the manager/coach, not waiting until afterwards.  As a result, we've now got a new coach and things are looking up, but realistically we can target the playoffs, the auto places are out of reach barring a very surprising **** up by one of the top two.  That's the cost of having delayed the change of coach.

I think the players genuinely believed that we would use the break productively, just like Smith had been promising. When that didn't pan out I thought you could see the body language change amongst the players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously it might be NSFW, but do you have the Burnley xG yet, @hogesar? I'd be interested to see how it compared with the away game, where we only lost 1-0 but which was a very one-sided game...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Obviously it might be NSFW, but do you have the Burnley xG yet, @hogesar? I'd be interested to see how it compared with the away game, where we only lost 1-0 but which was a very one-sided game...

Hey Robert,

Yes, I'd spoken about it elsewhere. I don't have the source with the graphs etc but the away game to Burnley where we lost 1-0 they had an xG of 1.6

On Saturday they had an xG of 1.2 - approx 0.5 of that being the pass from Krul to their player! Everything else was pretty low probability.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Hey Robert,

Yes, I'd spoken about it elsewhere. I don't have the source with the graphs etc but the away game to Burnley where we lost 1-0 they had an xG of 1.6

On Saturday they had an xG of 1.2 - approx 0.5 of that being the pass from Krul to their player! Everything else was pretty low probability.

thanks, that's interesting. I didn't see Saturday's game but was pretty shocked by how outclassed we were in the away game. First time for ages I can remember us looking so off the pace in the Championship. Your figures suggest that, despite the score, we were at least no worse in the home game - perhaps not as disastrous as it seemed. Look forward to seeing the graphs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

thanks, that's interesting. I didn't see Saturday's game but was pretty shocked by how outclassed we were in the away game. First time for ages I can remember us looking so off the pace in the Championship. Your figures suggest that, despite the score, we were at least no worse in the home game - perhaps not as disastrous as it seemed. Look forward to seeing the graphs.

We were battered, spin it however you wish. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/02/2023 at 09:23, hogesar said:

Hey Robert,

Yes, I'd spoken about it elsewhere. I don't have the source with the graphs etc but the away game to Burnley where we lost 1-0 they had an xG of 1.6

On Saturday they had an xG of 1.2 - approx 0.5 of that being the pass from Krul to their player! Everything else was pretty low probability.

That's interesting.  I'm assuming our xG was poor and if xG was basically forecasting a 1-0 loss that's a fair appraisal of the game to me.  I'm sure Wagner won't be in the game of trying to justify it wasn't so bad based on xG, unlike Smith.  But for those of us who are interested in how we really did rather than wanting to vent over losing 3-0, then this is relevant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

That's interesting.  I'm assuming our xG was poor and if xG was basically forecasting a 1-0 loss that's a fair appraisal of the game to me.  I'm sure Wagner won't be in the game of trying to justify it wasn't so bad based on xG, unlike Smith.  But for those of us who are interested in how we really did rather than wanting to vent over losing 3-0, then this is relevant.

Yeah. It's pretty clear we didn't deserve anything from the game but equally, we shouldn't have lost 3-0 based on the chances they created. As you say it's a little irrelevant in the grand scheme because we deserved to lose anyway. We were not 'battered' though, as some who simply watch from miles away may claim 🙂

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/02/2023 at 09:23, hogesar said:

Hey Robert,

Yes, I'd spoken about it elsewhere. I don't have the source with the graphs etc but the away game to Burnley where we lost 1-0 they had an xG of 1.6

On Saturday they had an xG of 1.2 - approx 0.5 of that being the pass from Krul to their player! Everything else was pretty low probability.

Maybe it's from a different source, but infogol shows 69% chance for the third goal (the tap-in after the corner) and 7% for the other two goals.  But if that means that the Krul mistake had only a 1 in 14 chance of leading to a goal, it's no wonder there are big questions raised about xG.

https://www.infogol.net/en/matches/result/english-football-league-championship/norwich-vs-burnley-2023-02-04/956206

For that matter, 1 in 14 chance for the pretty simple header for the second goal (the first corner) seems light as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 25/01/2023 at 11:36, It's Character Forming said:

I think this sums it up perfectly.  Clearly by the World Cup break, Smith had lost his way with us and as a result that time was wasted, after the team came back they were playing worse, not better.  As many of us said in the run up to the break, that was the time to change the manager/coach, not waiting until afterwards.  As a result, we've now got a new coach and things are looking up, but realistically we can target the playoffs, the auto places are out of reach barring a very surprising **** up by one of the top two.  That's the cost of having delayed the change of coach.

Maybe more people might have taken the predictions more seriously if they hadn't have begun and been persisted with in spite of a continuous rise to the top of the table. As it was, it sounds like the benefit of hindsight aligned with a stopped clock being right twice a day forming a basis of criticism for not acting earlier.

The misuse of the break was a massive disappointment and clearly was the final straw though.

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Maybe more people might have taken the predictions more seriously if they hadn't have begun and been persisted with in spite of a continuous rise to the top of the table. As it was, it sounds like the benefit of hindsight aligned with a stopped clock being right twice a day forming a basis of criticism for not acting earlier.

The misuse of the break was a massive disappointment and clearly was the final straw though.

I did a post 10-12 games in to the season comparing to previous promotion seasons which basically predicted we’d get promoted in the top 2, this was met with mostly support at that time. Obviously some doubters were there too but that’s always true.

I then did another post about 10 games later after we beat Stoke at home wondering if it would’ve been better if we’d lost and Smith had got what was clearly coming now rather than after the World Cup break;

‘I had thought the good run of results would breed more success and improvement in performances but that didn’t worked out - to say the least. So how can one good result suddenly change everything now?

Ultimately I fear that today has just given Smith some free extra rope to use up which he doesn’t particularly deserve, and less time for a new coach to work with some clearly very capable players. Of course I would be genuinely pleased if he could turn it all round from here and prove the fans wrong!’

I think most fans were behind the team while we were top 2, albeit most were also expecting performances to improve as Hayden got up to speed, as Giannoulis / McCallum returned from injuries, as Sara and Nunez settled, and just in general as the team found it’s promotion rhythm and managed to increase the 20 min spells into 50/60/70 minutes. In the end the total opposite happened.

It was clear where things were going for many perfectly sensible posters on here way before the WC break and it’s nothing to do with stopped clocks or remembering things differently in hindsight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Maybe more people might have taken the predictions more seriously if they hadn't have begun and been persisted with in spite of a continuous rise to the top of the table. As it was, it sounds like the benefit of hindsight aligned with a stopped clock being right twice a day forming a basis of criticism for not acting earlier.

The misuse of the break was a massive disappointment and clearly was the final straw though.

The predictions I am talking about were made when we were at/near the top of the table and on our excellent run, results-wise.  The concerns were that the performances were never matching the results over that part of the season.  And were then followed by a down-turn in actual results (as well as performances also getting worse). 

 

So for me it's pretty clear those predictions were not made with the benefit of hindsight, and have been fully borne out by what then transpired under the rest of Smith's time in charge.

 

The contrary view IMO is simply trying to rewrite history to suit a particular agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

The predictions I am talking about were made when we were at/near the top of the table and on our excellent run, results-wise.  The concerns were that the performances were never matching the results over that part of the season.  And were then followed by a down-turn in actual results (as well as performances also getting worse). 

 

So for me it's pretty clear those predictions were not made with the benefit of hindsight, and have been fully borne out by what then transpired under the rest of Smith's time in charge.

 

The contrary view IMO is simply trying to rewrite history to suit a particular agenda.

This simply isn't true; a lot of the results at that time agreed with the XGs discussed on this thread, which was probably why there was such a sneering attitude to XG at that time in favour of the 'eye test' and the 'false position' argument. XG only seemed to start finding much favour on here once results took a turn for the worse and XG was backing it up.

You literally only have to look back on this thread for my point to be backed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/10/2022 at 13:44, hogesar said:

 

 

So, it is still early doors but these posts from when I first started talking about xG are good examples of why clubs pay attention to this data, and why fans naturally react emotionally first without real substance.

For some fans, we were awful, Smith was awful and I was a happy clapper for daring to suggest we weren't getting the results our performances merited. I said if we kept up our general xG trend the results would change and we'd see that reflected as the season continued.

So far, that has been the case. Our xG for has generally been around the same (yesterdays was our highest, but only by 0.02). 

Sorry to cite you Hoggy, but just wanted to highlight the revisionism on the part of @It's Character Forming here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Sorry to cite you Hoggy, but just wanted to highlight the revisionism on the part of @It's Character Forming here.

Nope, you've got it the wrong way round.  Smith would point to xG as a distraction when things were not looking good in terms of results or performances.  The fans' concern was never about xG (except to be disdainful of the way Smith was using it to defend himself) it was simply that the performances on the pitch were not convincing even when we were winning - we'd get a 20 minute spell when we looked decent and that was as good as it ever got.  And we as fans were able to see this on the pitch, which is why we were worried even when the results were good !  I hate it when people try to pretend it's hindsight or a broken clock, when we were saying this at the time and it was then proved right ! 

 

The Smith apologists would then try to cherry pick points to defend him, e.g. when we unconvincingly beat Rotherham and I flagged that as a concern, the response was to say that under Farke, we also had unconvincing wins against Rotherham.  But the problem was that we only had unconvincing wins under Smith, whereas under Farke we did sometimes "blow teams away" - that never ever happened in Smith's tenure.  That's why we were worried that unconvincing performances would in time lead to poor results, which is exactly what happened.  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

Nope, you've got it the wrong way round.  Smith would point to xG as a distraction when things were not looking good in terms of results or performances.  The fans' concern was never about xG (except to be disdainful of the way Smith was using it to defend himself) it was simply that the performances on the pitch were not convincing even when we were winning - we'd get a 20 minute spell when we looked decent and that was as good as it ever got.  And we as fans were able to see this on the pitch, which is why we were worried even when the results were good !  I hate it when people try to pretend it's hindsight or a broken clock, when we were saying this at the time and it was then proved right ! 

 

The Smith apologists would then try to cherry pick points to defend him, e.g. when we unconvincingly beat Rotherham and I flagged that as a concern, the response was to say that under Farke, we also had unconvincing wins against Rotherham.  But the problem was that we only had unconvincing wins under Smith, whereas under Farke we did sometimes "blow teams away" - that never ever happened in Smith's tenure.  That's why we were worried that unconvincing performances would in time lead to poor results, which is exactly what happened.  

 

 

You've just completely ignored the point Hogesar was making in favour of continuing to make your own stuff up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/08/2022 at 12:15, hogesar said:

 

2023-01-14-preston-norwich.jpg.9c8ac06256d08174cb1ea67ba212c35f.jpg

***COMPLETE TRANSFORMATION IN ONE TRAINING WEEK ABOVE KLAXON***

2023-01-21-coventry-norwich.jpg.c383b0e908627863624e5f8e8c9f4351.jpg

2023-02-04-norwich-burnley.png

2023-02-11-bristol-city-norwich.png

2023-02-14-norwich-hull.png

2023-02-18-wigan-norwich.png

2023-02-21-norwich-birmingham.png

2023-02-25-norwich-cardiff.png

2023-03-04-millwall-norwich.png

2023-03-12-norwich-sunderland.png

2023-03-15-huddersfield-norwich.png

2023-03-18-stoke-norwich.png

2023-04-01-norwich-sheff-utd.png

2023-04-07-blackburn-norwich.png

2023-04-10-norwich-rotherham.png

 

 

Think I've got all of Wagners Championship Games above.

Some thoughts:

1) We really should have beaten Rotherham, even if we didn't create absolute clear-cut chances (although some of that was down to poor touches / control from the likes of Pukki & Sargent, making a great chance only a good one).

2) We were fortunate against Blackburn with 2 fantastic finishes that are pretty low-probability goals. Conversely Blackburn created one *really* good chance they should have scored.

3) Not a huge amount in the Sheffield United game, they just created one very good chance and that was enough. Defensively we were pretty sound against a top 2 side.

4) You can understand Alex Neil's frustration at not beating us.

5) We done enough to beat Huddersfield but didn't get the points.

6) We were unfortunate to lose at home to Sunderland.

7) We were fortunate to beat Millwall away, although note how nearly all the goals were scored from *relatively* low probability chances. A game of clinical finishing.

Finally, our xG has taken a bit of a hit with Dowell out of the side in a Wagner team. It deteriorated further with the loss of Nunez. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over those 15 games, we accumulated 20.8 xG for, and 15.4 xG against.

Smith's last 15 games, we accumulated  21.05 xG for, and 17.9 xG against.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers, @hogesar, much appreciated. I know what you mean, but I'm not sure '(un)fortunate' is the right word when talking about xG. We didn't deserve to win yesterday because we didn't take our chances. Conversely, Sara's brilliant goal against Millwall wasn't fortunate, it was a brilliant piece of skill. While the game itself was very even, our greater quality told that day. Similarly, our ruthlessness against Blackburn was the most impressive part of that victory.

But these charts are very useful to counter some of the scoreboard punditry that we often see on here. Our overall performance yesterday was ok, dreadful finishing aside. I'll say it again, eight or nine times out of ten we would have won yesterday.

Edited by Robert N. LiM
tagged hoggy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Over those 15 games, we accumulated 20.8 xG for, and 15.4 xG against.

Smith's last 15 games, we accumulated  21.05 xG for, and 17.9 xG against.

 

 

Ha, I was just about to say that it looks like Wagner has tightened us up at the back but not done so well going forward (as a few posters think is typical of him as a coach). But, as you say, the absence of a few creative sparks has definitely hurt us in that regard. (And some people wouldn't give Dowell a new contract!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Cheers, Hoggy, much appreciated. I know what you mean, but I'm not sure '(un)fortunate' is the right word when talking about xG. We didn't deserve to win yesterday because we didn't take our chances. Conversely, Sara's brilliant goal against Millwall wasn't fortunate, it was a brilliant piece of skill. While the game itself was very even, our greater quality told that day. Similarly, our ruthlessness against Blackburn was the most impressive part of that victory.

But these charts are very useful to counter some of the scoreboard punditry that we often see on here. Our overall performance yesterday was ok, dreadful finishing aside. I'll say it again, eight or nine times out of ten we would have won yesterday.

Yes, you're right. My points are very much based on the charts only, taking away game context. If you score a 30 yard screamer away from home, and sit back and keep a clean sheet - most fans are happy with that and the performance is praised.

It's great that individual quality gives us the opportunity to do such things but coaches won't want to be reliant on that and will want to create enough, and not concede too many, quality chances that the 'average' player could score. 

I think if we're all completely honest the reality is this team isn't significantly better than it was under Smith but of course, the context of the season means there's so many mitigating factors either side.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Yes, you're right. My points are very much based on the charts only, taking away game context. If you score a 30 yard screamer away from home, and sit back and keep a clean sheet - most fans are happy with that and the performance is praised.

It's great that individual quality gives us the opportunity to do such things but coaches won't want to be reliant on that and will want to create enough, and not concede too many, quality chances that the 'average' player could score. 

I think if we're all completely honest the reality is this team isn't significantly better than it was under Smith but of course, the context of the season means there's so many mitigating factors either side.

When it's bad, it's no better than Smith. But when it's good, it's a lot better. Let's hope we find some consistency soon in the former direction.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Ha, I was just about to say that it looks like Wagner has tightened us up at the back but not done so well going forward (as a few posters think is typical of him as a coach). But, as you say, the absence of a few creative sparks has definitely hurt us in that regard. (And some people wouldn't give Dowell a new contract!)

 

16 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I think if we're all completely honest the reality is this team isn't significantly better than it was under Smith but of course, the context of the season means there's so many mitigating factors either side.

I for one cannot see any reason to give Dowell a new contract, he hasn't offered enough over his time here and certainly doesn't have enough for a step up. I suspect any creative player would statistically do as well or better in there. Perhaps Tzolis or a new signing. FWIW I would use the same rationale on Hernandez.

But when looking at this it would be foolish to expect the team to be better when it is the same players (or less considering the injury situation). That said the team is now significantly better coached now than it was under Smith, it starts to look like a team that knows what it is doing.

Edited by BigFish
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigFish said:

I for one cannot see any reason to give Dowell a new contract, he hasn't offered enough over his time here and certainly doesn't have enough for a step up. I suspect any creative player would statistically do as well or better in there. Perhaps Tzolis or a new signing. FWIW I would use the same rationale on Hernandez.

 

Dowell does pretty well out of this list of our top scorers, assist-makers and chance creators.

Certainly agree that he doesn't have enough for a step up, and I would certainly be concerned about his injury record. But I think he's one of our most creative players, and certainly looked so under Wagner, who looked like he was really getting the best out of him (and improving him beyond all recognition defensively). I think we're going to have to replace quite a few this summer, and I wouldn't be starting with KD, who's a long way down our list of problems in my view. Appreciate it's all a matter of opinion, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hogesar said:

Think I've got all of Wagners Championship Games above.

Some thoughts:

1) We really should have beaten Rotherham, even if we didn't create absolute clear-cut chances (although some of that was down to poor touches / control from the likes of Pukki & Sargent, making a great chance only a good one).

2) We were fortunate against Blackburn with 2 fantastic finishes that are pretty low-probability goals. Conversely Blackburn created one *really* good chance they should have scored.

3) Not a huge amount in the Sheffield United game, they just created one very good chance and that was enough. Defensively we were pretty sound against a top 2 side.

4) You can understand Alex Neil's frustration at not beating us.

5) We done enough to beat Huddersfield but didn't get the points.

6) We were unfortunate to lose at home to Sunderland.

7) We were fortunate to beat Millwall away, although note how nearly all the goals were scored from *relatively* low probability chances. A game of clinical finishing.

Finally, our xG has taken a bit of a hit with Dowell out of the side in a Wagner team. It deteriorated further with the loss of Nunez. 

 

My take on the last few games (having been at the Stoke, Sheff U and Blackburn games and watched Rotherham on the red button), yes we certainly should have beaten Rotherham based on the chances we created, none of our strikers are in form at the moment and it shows.

Vs Blackburn their xG increased a lot towards the end because we sat back on a 2 goal lead.  They had one of those "could have played another 90 minutes without scoring" days, Gunn was just picking up everything.  Having taken those two excellent finishes, we didn't need to push for more that much, although on another day we could have got a 3rd.  It's a bit bizarre that they are in the playoff positions, they looked pretty indifferent.

 

Vs Sheff Utd it was a poor game and very little between the sides, they had one good chance and took it.

 

Vs Stoke yes they had better chances, but a draw was not really an unfair result IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigFish said:

 

I for one cannot see any reason to give Dowell a new contract, he hasn't offered enough over his time here and certainly doesn't have enough for a step up. I suspect any creative player would statistically do as well or better in there. Perhaps Tzolis or a new signing. FWIW I would use the same rationale on Hernandez.

But when looking at this it would be foolish to expect the team to be better when it is the same players (or less considering the injury situation). That said the team is now significantly better coached now than it was under Smith, it starts to look like a team that knows what it is doing.

Whilst I agree that Dowell has sometimes underperformed, he has had issues with injuries and never had a settled run in the team.

If you think Tzolis might do better then watch the part Dowell played in our goal at Watford.  Sorry but there is no comparison. Dowell is miles better.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Cheers, @hogesar, much appreciated. I know what you mean, but I'm not sure '(un)fortunate' is the right word when talking about xG. We didn't deserve to win yesterday because we didn't take our chances. Conversely, Sara's brilliant goal against Millwall wasn't fortunate, it was a brilliant piece of skill. While the game itself was very even, our greater quality told that day. Similarly, our ruthlessness against Blackburn was the most impressive part of that victory.

But these charts are very useful to counter some of the scoreboard punditry that we often see on here. Our overall performance yesterday was ok, dreadful finishing aside. I'll say it again, eight or nine times out of ten we would have won yesterday.

Chance is what XG is about: The chance of scoring from any given position. XG is literally an assessment of what you'd expect to happen based on what shots were made and where according to the probabilities of scoring from those positions as collected statistically over thousands of shots.

If your XG is higher than what you actually scored, it's pretty much unfortunate by definition. By the same token, if your XG is lower than what you actually scored, then you were lucky.

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Chance is what XG is about: The chance of scoring from any given position. XG is literally an assessment of what you'd expect to happen based on what shots were made and where according to the probabilities of scoring from those positions as collected statistically over thousands of shots.

If your XG is higher than what you actually scored, it's pretty much unfortunate by definition. By the same token, if your XG is lower than what you actually scored, then you were lucky.

This is true but I do think with xG it's important to consider other factors, especially when looking at it to analyse a single game. The value of a goal, 1, is always going to be higher than the xG value of the shot that led to the goal. More often than not I'd bet that its at least half of its goal value. That's why you should always take into account game state when looking at a single match. I think the Blackburn home game was perhaps the best example of this, they scored early from what was an own goal if I remember right, they'd have had an xG of 0 at the time but crucially the scoreline was now 0-1. That has a huge impact on the intent of the side which is winning, especially in tight games.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

If your XG is higher than what you actually scored, it's pretty much unfortunate by definition. By the same token, if your XG is lower than what you actually scored, then you were lucky.

 As I said to Hoggy:

5 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

I know what you mean, but I'm not sure '(un)fortunate' is the right word when talking about xG. We didn't deserve to win yesterday because we didn't take our chances. Conversely, Sara's brilliant goal against Millwall wasn't fortunate, it was a brilliant piece of skill. While the game itself was very even, our greater quality told that day. Similarly, our ruthlessness against Blackburn was the most impressive part of that victory.

I think sometimes the difference between xG and the actual goals scored can denote luck (most obviously, as @repman says, with own goals) but also if, say, you come up against an opposition goalkeeper having an unusual stormer or an opposition player who scores a Nunez-type worldie that's a once-a-season at best moment. But even that is to do with skill - and most of the time, a team underperforming its xG in a given game means that its strikers didn't take their chances, while a team who's overperformed its xG has its goalscorers to thank for a moment or two of excellence. I think that's mostly a question of skill, or composure, rather than luck.

I think xG is at its most useful in trying to analyse an overall box-to-box performance, rather than basing everything on the score. But I don't think 'luck' is a helpful concept when talking about it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

 As I said to Hoggy:

I think sometimes the difference between xG and the actual goals scored can denote luck (most obviously, as @repman says, with own goals) but also if, say, you come up against an opposition goalkeeper having an unusual stormer or an opposition player who scores a Nunez-type worldie that's a once-a-season at best moment. But even that is to do with skill - and most of the time, a team underperforming its xG in a given game means that its strikers didn't take their chances, while a team who's overperformed its xG has its goalscorers to thank for a moment or two of excellence. I think that's mostly a question of skill, or composure, rather than luck.

I think xG is at its most useful in trying to analyse an overall box-to-box performance, rather than basing everything on the score. But I don't think 'luck' is a helpful concept when talking about it.

Why not? Football fans talk about things being 'lucky' or 'unlucky' all of the time with little in the way of rebuttal. In the sense that it adds a quantitative dimension to that sort of argument, I think it's very helpful.

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


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...