League Two - xG Data

Quoted from LN8Mariner

Charles Hughes

Nope, Wing Commander Reep:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Reep

As for xG, it's so arbitrary in many regards, that I don't think it really provides much useful information, however much the sports scientists like it. If I understand it correctly, it doesn't take into consideration anything to do with the actual abilities of the players, just an analysis of factors which somehow decide how 'good' a chance is. However, you can't ignore the individual aspect because, fundamentally, some players are good finishers and others are not. A chance from 1 yard might be expected to be converted 9 times out of 10 but for some players, you're talking perhaps 3 or 4 of those being scored!

I also wouldn't necessarily agree that all we're lacking is a goalscorer to turn our 'xG' into real goals. We do manage some pretty good approach play on occasion but a lot of the reason for a lack of goals is as much inaccurate crossing as poor finishing. If the final cross is just behind the player or just a little too high, it's not a great chance whatever the angle or distance from goal. No doubt a better striker would still manage to convert more of these difficult chances, but I don't think anybody can seriously say that we've played well enough to be in the play-off spots for most of the season.

Quoted from Maringer

Nope, Wing Commander Reep:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Reep

As for xG, it's so arbitrary in many regards, that I don't think it really provides much useful information, however much the sports scientists like it. If I understand it correctly, it doesn't take into consideration anything to do with the actual abilities of the players, just an analysis of factors which somehow decide how 'good' a chance is. However, you can't ignore the individual aspect because, fundamentally, some players are good finishers and others are not. A chance from 1 yard might be expected to be converted 9 times out of 10 but for some players, you're talking perhaps 3 or 4 of those being scored!

I also wouldn't necessarily agree that all we're lacking is a goalscorer to turn our 'xG' into real goals. We do manage some pretty good approach play on occasion but a lot of the reason for a lack of goals is as much inaccurate crossing as poor finishing. If the final cross is just behind the player or just a little too high, it's not a great chance whatever the angle or distance from goal. No doubt a better striker would still manage to convert more of these difficult chances, but I don't think anybody can seriously say that we've played well enough to be in the play-off spots for most of the season.

That's the chap!  I remember him doing an interview years ago where he said he preferred passing, attacking football but his name had become synonymous with 'long ball'.

What I would like to see from the League is a stat pack like this one that the Union has, very interesting reading to kill a few minutes:  https://www.unitedrugby.com/statistics

My other team being the Scarlets it's something I like to look at occasionally but again shows how stats alone don't tell the full story.  For example we have the 4th best attack out of 16 teams and the 7th best defence according to the measures used....but are 15th out of 16 teams in the league with only 2 wins all season.  

Quoted from jamesgtfc

It's very complex, Smiths header for Salford may be lower because you would also expect a defender or the keeper to collect the ball.

Playing devils advocate here as I've seen people saying our xG highlights our need for a striker to convert them. What if our xG is actually coming from midfielders and defenders at set pieces?

I didn't think it has anything to do with a defender would normally get it, it's to do with once the 'shot' has been struck, how likely that is to result in a goal.

I don't think the statistics are as good at this level as in the premier league, there's not as much money for the people to do the analysis and the quality of player is different.

It's also complicated, because it only says that we should have scored more goals than we have, which suggests having a fox in the box type would bring us more goals. But it's not so simple because if we had say an Amond that scored these chances, we'd be losing the build up part that Taylor contributes and likely have fewer chances.

Has anyone told Johnny Mc that 79% of penalties end in goals??
Charles Hughes was the guy that influenced Graham Taylor when he took Watford from division four to one. Not pretty but very effective

I'm all for statistics and analysis but this Xg thingy is one statistic too far.
Put simply, it's a load of sh1te.

Quoted from pen penfras

I didn't think it has anything to do with a defender would normally get it, it's to do with once the 'shot' has been struck, how likely that is to result in a goal.

I don't think the statistics are as good at this level as in the premier league, there's not as much money for the people to do the analysis and the quality of player is different.

It's also complicated, because it only says that we should have scored more goals than we have, which suggests having a fox in the box type would bring us more goals. But it's not so simple because if we had say an Amond that scored these chances, we'd be losing the build up part that Taylor contributes and likely have fewer chances.

I made the point in your last paragraph earlier - it would be OK if you can add a striker to the existing team to covert the chances but you are not allowed 12 players! The whole dynamic changes making the previous set of statistics worthless.

Hurst strikes me as the sort of fella who would be level headed about the use of data and take the more pertinent aspects of it and take this fantasy xg with a pinch of salt.

Having said that I suppose statistics play a part in who we let go in terms of how much running they do, say somebody like Maguire Drew. You could make an argument against that saying the only stats that really matter is how many chances and goals he makes and scores.

It's all too subjective for my liking, as highlighted by many posts here. I also say that as someone who spends a lot of time analysing and interpreting data.

For all the xG data around Town, I'm not convinced we're creating that many chances we should be burying, I think the issue is further back in the team that we're not creating enough chances to start with, be that through a creative midfielder or someone to lead the line in the first place.   Which massively brings into question further the subjective nature of what is a 'good chance'.  Far, far too many variables at play to say Shot X has this chance of being a goal and Header Y this.  I think that's the beauty of football too, it's not just played on a spreadsheet.

Data is huge in football these days.  Also pleasing to see Town are using it far more than we ever have done before.  But I don't think using metrics like xG alone is enough.

As a sidenote, data in football has largely emerged through the gambling industry.  A lot of the firms who provide that data are happy to share to a wider audience.   You have to question why they would want that to be out in the open if it's almost like a cheat code...

Ultimately the only stats that count are goals scored, goals conceded and points gained.  Whatever you can do to improve them is of course important, but sometimes you can't explain football with statistics.  

Quoted from Poojah

[img]https://experimental361.files.wordpress.com/2023/01/2022-12-29-grimsby-salford.png[/img]

These pictures didn't show up for me before. That is so flawed, it's ridiculous. The 2nd and 3rd are deemed as similar chances because they're the same distance out, but the 2nd had a player driving through into space with loads of time to pick his spot and hit it true. The 3rd had 2 defenders on the turn and fluked it in. I'd back the 2nd chance to be a goal 1/3 of the time and the 3rd I doubt 1/20.

And to think that we deserved to win that game because we missed some decent chances when the game was out of sight is stupid. If they weren't 3 goals in front, they wouldn't have sat back like that.

Quoted from pen penfras

These pictures didn't show up for me before. That is so flawed, it's ridiculous. The 2nd and 3rd are deemed as similar chances because they're the same distance out, but the 2nd had a player driving through into space with loads of time to pick his spot and hit it true. The 3rd had 2 defenders on the turn and fluked it in. I'd back the 2nd chance to be a goal 1/3 of the time and the 3rd I doubt 1/20.

And to think that we deserved to win that game because we missed some decent chances when the game was out of sight is stupid. If they weren't 3 goals in front, they wouldn't have sat back like that.

Never mind all that..answer the questions on the thread about office staff taking club to account for them leaving which you’ve avoided for over a week..you were the one who brought it up..