This isn't quite expected goals but this feels like a good thread for it...
A big change i've noticed this season is where we're playing. On whoscored that have an 'action zones' which splits the pitch into 3rds and then breaks down the teams possession in each zone. This season we're level at the top with Liverpool and Man City as spend 1/3rd of our possession in the opposition third. I suspect that and the fact that we have more shots at goal than any other team in the league are the key stats to why we're doing so well, we're playing in the right areas and forcing the opposition to work hard in defence.
Can someone please explain wtf is expected goals
For someone who has played and watched football for over 50 years who does not have any idea why we need so many statistics or analysis of the game
Can someone please explain wtf is expected goals
For someone who has played and watched football for over 50 years who does not have any idea why we need so many statistics or analysis of the game
Other than aG (actual Goals, just made that up), it's the only one that matters. Everything else is bollocks. It crunches years upon years of every aspect of goalscoring data to prove that we're battering the shit out of everyone that dares to step onto the same pitch as us.
Seriously though, it uses the aforementioned years of data that account for multiple factors such as which foot, head, angle, distance, who's shot, quality of opponent, even importance of game, to calculate the historical likelihood of an effort on goal actually hitting the back of the net.
The most glaring demonstration of how it can highlight a freak result compared to actual performance is our loss to Southampton. All things considered, were it an average game played in years past by similar teams, less than one of their four goalscoring efforts would have gone in. We scored our 'expected' three.
Err thanks - i think
Can now someone explain what he just said as well
Err thanks - i think
Can now someone explain what he just said as well
It rates your chances. You can say "We had 20 shots" but if they're all by Ashley Westwood from 25 yards it counts for shit, whereas if you'd Ronnie Rosentahl-ed 20, you've had the better of the game but just shit the bed in front of goal.
yep, xG is a measure of the quality of chances you've had rather than just a count of them. The judgement of the quality is based on analysis of a LOT of data from all over the world. It takes loads of things in to account so, for example, Traore unmarked 15 yards out with the keeper on his line would get a high score on his left foot but a low score on his right (all scores are between 0 and 1). The overall xG for a team is all of those individual scores added together.
If you don't care about stats it will mean nothing to you but for people who like them it's a very good way to measure performance and can be used to highlight training needs, etc.
Expected goals is what I expect Villa to score every game, that number being 7.
Apart from that it doesn't mean anything to me.
Err thanks - i think
Can now someone explain what he just said as well
It rates your chances. You can say "We had 20 shots" but if they're all by Ashley Westwood from 25 yards it counts for shit, whereas if you'd Ronnie Rosentahl-ed 20, you've had the better of the game but just shit the bed in front of goal.
This is the best description.
I’ve heard expected goals or even worse ‘XG’ tried to be explained before. It’s laughable. Another ‘new football’ term. Surely there’s goals or no goals. There I’ve sorted it.
We’re fifth in the league on the 1st January 2021. Surely that’s worth more time talking about than this bunk?
It's certainly not an exact science as some of the percentages given to certain chances on some models is way off imo. I do however think it can be a good indicator for possible future performance and highlight teams that are maybe stronger/weaker than a lot of people think.
For anyone that doesn't know much about it I think the article below regarding Reading a few seasons back is a good one, it highlights how their fall from 3rd in 16/17 to 20th the following season wasn't that much of a surprise when you looked at the underlying numbers.
https://www.infogol.net/en/blog/analysis/ups-and-downs-of-reading-fc
It's certainly not an exact science as some of the percentages given to certain chances on some models is way off imo. I do however think it can be a good indicator for possible future performance and highlight teams that are maybe stronger/weaker than a lot of people think.
For anyone that doesn't know much about it I think the article below regarding Reading a few seasons back is a good one, it highlights how their fall from 3rd in 16/17 to 20th the following season wasn't that much of a surprise when you looked at the underlying numbers.
https://www.infogol.net/en/blog/analysis/ups-and-downs-of-reading-fc
Yeah, I think it's probably a useful measure of how effective training/coaching is, and where to focus efforts. Is a lack of goals down to the midfield not creating enough (good) chances, or the strikers not putting them away?
The performance on the pitch, on the day can only really be measured by actual goals scored / conceded, but it doesn't make goals scored the only useful measure of how we the coaching team's doing.
XG in 3-2 Burnley v Villa
Burnley 0.77 Aston Villa 2.94
How are we doing in the xG table? Better than Lawro's Predictions I hope.
How are we doing in the xG table? Better than Lawro's Predictions I hope.
Progressed the ball in dangerous way but attack has been short on effectiveness to XG as 2 less
Under stat XG
1.Man City 38
2.Liverpool 36
3.Villa 35 (actual 33)