Press-ing on triumphantly still

[dave.woodhall]

Yup.

https://thebirminghampress.com/2023/04/aston-villa-and-another-step-on-the-journey/

[LeeB]

Yep.

[AndyB6]

I love the last sentence. Sums us up very accurately 🤞🤞🤞!

[Baldy]

Love it, just love it.

[Archbishop Herbert Cockthrottle]

Great stuff. I love listening to the post match analysis of our games and the surprise in the voices almost as though we're the plucky minnows up against the big fish. Villa are back.

[Legion]

Done.

[darren woolley]

Great read Dave.

[Pat Mustard]

I’m another one who doesn’t get this xG business - I know others understand how it’s calculated better, but yesterday’s game exposes how a lot of it is BS for me. Apparently our xG was 1.87, in a match where we dominated from start to finish, scored 3 goals that all came from shots no more than 10 yards from goal, as well as hitting post, bar and their keeper making a number of tough saves. How does that equal us ‘deserving’ to score less than 2 goals?

[algy]

Great read.

I’m another one who doesn’t get this xG business - I know others understand how it’s calculated better, but yesterday’s game exposes how a lot of it is BS for me. Apparently our xG was 1.87, in a match where we dominated from start to finish, scored 3 goals that all came from shots no more than 10 yards from goal, as well as hitting post, bar and their keeper making a number of tough saves. How does that equal us ‘deserving’ to score less than 2 goals?

I take it that your average PL striker would have scored 1.87 goals.

Ollie Watkins isn't playing like your average Premier League striker.

[FatSam]

Very well expressed.

[Pat Mustard]

No, 1.87 was the xG for our whole performance - that just sounds like bullshit to me considering how the goals were scored. It’s not like any of our goals came as a result of a speculative shot from 30 yards that go in 1 time in a 100.

Thinking more about it, the other misleading bit about xG for me is does it take into account the game situation? If you are 2-0 up and coasting to an easy victory off the back of a couple of early goals I could easily see a situation where your xG would be lower than for a team chasing a game or desperately seeking a late winner. XG stats would indicate the latter were a more deserving winner, even though it’s clearly not the case and would explain why our xG was lower than expected recently - in pretty much all of our recent run (Leicester aside) we have been under little pressure to go chasing more goals and controlled the games.

[Simon Page]

I worked out early on that I had zero need to know what xG means. I've been much happier ever since.

[Bad English]

I worked out early on that I had zero need to know what xG means. I've been much happier ever since.

I quite agree. I have filed xG along with Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and CSS3.

[Hookeysmith]

Excellent

[Brend'Watkins]

No, 1.87 was the xG for our whole performance - that just sounds like bullshit to me considering how the goals were scored. It’s not like any of our goals came as a result of a speculative shot from 30 yards that go in 1 time in a 100.

Thinking more about it, the other misleading bit about xG for me is does it take into account the game situation? If you are 2-0 up and coasting to an easy victory off the back of a couple of early goals I could easily see a situation where your xG would be lower than for a team chasing a game or desperately seeking a late winner. XG stats would indicate the latter were a more deserving winner, even though it’s clearly not the case and would explain why our xG was lower than expected recently - in pretty much all of our recent run (Leicester aside) we have been under little pressure to go chasing more goals and controlled the games.

It’s laughable really, we don’t need any xG stat to know that a 6-0 win wouldn’t have flattered us. To see we had an xG of 1.87 goals???(what is .87 of a goal anyway?) xG is BS.