Will we qualify for the CL?

[Brazilian Villain]

Feels a lot stronger, even with the midfield issue.

Plus we only had a 3 point cushion to 5th (Spurs) and an 8 point cushion to 6th (West Ham, when they were "sh*t" under Moyes)

[cdbearsfan]

Yeah, you definitly could.

Duran's probably more conducive to pinging in a thunderbastard from 30 yards though.

The whole squad does that now

Not all of them. Martínez and Bizot need to up their game.

[SaddVillan]

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/video/nxwGDhFWwOtVnYB?source=athletic_user_shared_video

Bugger xG

[Mellin]

xG is underscored for shots outside the box. Convinced of it. I think it was Rogers at West Ham which came in at 0.02. No one blocking, loads of ability, not actually that far out. It's going in more often than 1 in 50. What Villa are basically doing is exploiting that error/bullshit.

Defenders defend inside the box now, as well as midfielders as that's where the highest xG is. A long shot is usually a last resort as nothing is on. What we do is INTENTIONALLY work the best shooting opportunity from outside the box, ergo increasing the xG, but it stays at 0.02, so fuck them and their shit data.

[Smithy]

xG is underscored for shots outside the box. Convinced of it. I think it was Rogers at West Ham which came in at 0.02. No one blocking, loads of ability, not actually that far out. It's going in more often than 1 in 50. What Villa are basically doing is exploiting that error/bullshit.

Defenders defend inside the box now, as well as midfielders as that's where the highest xG is. A long shot is usually a last resort as nothing is on. What we do is INTENTIONALLY work the best shooting opportunity from outside the box, ergo increasing the xG, but it stays at 0.02, so fuck them and their shit data.

I think this is precisely it.  xG is based on real-world data, which means they've looked at shots from outside the box historically, and realise x% of them go in under certain circumstances - but long shots historically would be under much more pressure, and with more obstacles directly in front of them.  I'm also convinced it hasn't been tweaked to adjust for the "Pep-ification" of football in recent years, where teams will try to almost walk it in, rather than waste possession on a low-probability shot.  The fact that xG had the Newcastle cross that Barnes got a touch on as TWENTY times more likely to result in a goal than Rogers shot shows how out of whack it is.

All that said, I STILL think it's a good measure, generally speaking, of the quality of chances you're creating on aggregate (over a run of games, rather than an individual game).  A low xG doesn't mean you won't score goals like we do, but a higher xG can mean you're missing good chances.  If your defence is giving away high xG numbers each game, you've probably got a problem.