Aston Villa 0 Watford 1 Post Match Thread

[john e]

Expected Goals is just a load of bollocks.

It is watching Villa at the moment

[Pat McMahon]

Expected Goals is just a load of bollocks.

It certainly is for us. It should be 0 at the moment.

[LeonW]

My question is, has anyone worked out a statistic for expected VAR decisions in a sides favour? Ours would be non existent.

[LeeB]

Expected Goals is just a load of bollocks.

I'd not taken much notice of it, but I'd say Saturday was a clear example of why it's effective. We may have had 20 shots, but they were in the "Diana Ross at the 94 World Cup" bracket.

[nigel]

If it wasn't a penalty then why was it a corner seeing as their guy didn't touch the ball?

I think the claim was that their bloke played the ball first before fouling Ings. Which still makes it a penalty.

I said at the time that the defender got a touch on the ball, which he clearly did, so wasn’t sure on a penalty.
Until just now I hadn’t seen tv footage, that was a nailed on penalty. Anywhere else on the pitch and a foul would have been given.

[LeonW]

Expected Goals is just a load of bollocks.

I'd not taken much notice of it, but I'd say Saturday was a clear example of why it's effective. We may have had 20 shots, but they were in the "Diana Ross at the 94 World Cup" bracket.

If only; i’d have loved to seen Danny Ings or Watkins do a freedom run through the middle of the goal as it collapsed on either side post shot.

[Sexual Ealing]

Expected Goals is just a load of bollocks.

I doubt clubs and coaches would invest so much time and money into it if it was. Just because you don't understand it (and nor do I), that doesn't automatically make it bollocks.

[ROBBO]

We are no threat from corners, we could get fifty a game and never score, our only player capable has sat out the last two games.

[john e]

Expected Goals is just a load of bollocks.

I doubt clubs and coaches would invest so much time and money into it if it was. Just because you don't understand it (and nor do I), that doesn't automatically make it bollocks.

I also think it’s a load of big bollocks

[LeeB]

Expected Goals is just a load of bollocks.

I doubt clubs and coaches would invest so much time and money into it if it was. Just because you don't understand it (and nor do I), that doesn't automatically make it bollocks.

I also think it’s a load of big bollocks

It is, kind of, but if looked at the basic stats of Saturday not having watched the game, you might think we were unlucky. But their fewer attempts were much more dangerous than ours.

[Clampy]

Expected Goals is just a load of bollocks.

I doubt clubs and coaches would invest so much time and money into it if it was. Just because you don't understand it (and nor do I), that doesn't automatically make it bollocks.

Thats interesting. In what way and for what purpose do clubs and coaches invest in such bollocks? I didn't know that.

[eamonn]

xG does get distorted by how a game changes after a team takes the lead though i.e Watford were set-up to play on the counter-attack all day. Two of their best chances came after they scored as we left more gaps at the back in an attempt to rescue the game. They should have made it 2-0 a couple of times but for Martinez saves but their xG at 0-0 would have probably been as bad as ours.

Also, Southampton were clearly the better team at Old Trafford recently in a 1-1 (as were Brighton midweek before a jammy red-card), yet their xG was less than Yaniteds; so while useful, I don't think it tells the full story in who "deserved" to win a game.

[Drummond]

Expected Goals is just a load of bollocks.

I doubt clubs and coaches would invest so much time and money into it if it was. Just because you don't understand it (and nor do I), that doesn't automatically make it bollocks.

Thats interesting. In what way and for what purpose do clubs and coaches invest in such bollocks? I didn't know that.

Because its a good indicator of the real chances created. Checking whether or not the bollocks are firing blanks as it were.

[dave.woodhall]

Expected Goals is just a load of bollocks.

I doubt clubs and coaches would invest so much time and money into it if it was. Just because you don't understand it (and nor do I), that doesn't automatically make it bollocks.

We invested time and money in Ross McCormack.

[Smithy]

Expected Goals is just a load of bollocks.

I doubt clubs and coaches would invest so much time and money into it if it was. Just because you don't understand it (and nor do I), that doesn't automatically make it bollocks.

Thats interesting. In what way and for what purpose do clubs and coaches invest in such bollocks? I didn't know that.

Because its a good indicator of the real chances created. Checking whether or not the bollocks are firing blanks as it were.

xG is a statistic. And like all good statistics, they work better the larger the sample size.  In an individual match they can tell a story, but they're not particularly useful for analysis.  Over the course of weeks, months, or a season, they can teach you a lot about how you play and the quality of chances you create and concede. 

In one game, some excellent finishing and/or poor finishing at the other end can lead to xG being VERY different to the actual match result - but over a season it's pretty accurate for most clubs.

I like to look at xG for individual strikers over the course of a season, as I always think it's a good indicator of their finishing ability.  Have they got more or less goals than they should, given the quality of the chances they've had.  Sometimes the players with the most goals should actually have more given the quality of the chances created for them, and those players around 10 goals for the season are outperforming the chances they've actually had.

It's just another tool for teams looking to get any possible incremenetal advantage over the opposition.