Jump to content
talkfootball365
  • Welcome to talkfootball365!

    The better place to talk football.

xG (Expected Goals)


football forum

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Danny said:

I meant attempt rather than how the ball is hit. Out of interest, are offside goals taken into account? Feel like Mane's second shouldn't have gained much.

They're always classed as if the officials' decisions were correct. So Mane's would've counted, although it probably wasn't worth much given where it was, etc., and Kane's one-on-one vs Croatia wasn't worth anything because it was flagged offside afterwards (even though it would've stood thanks to VAR had he scored).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, Harry said:

 wait so a goal counts for less than 1 xg? how are we less than 4...? They discounted the Mane goal for off side? How many xg did TAA's free kick count for? 

Yeah of course, if a goal was worth 1 xG or whatever then it would be kinda pointless. xG is a measure of how likely a shot is to be a goal. 

A miracle long shot from 40 yards is obviously in real life as good a goal as any other but its xG would be like 0.01 or whatever to reflect how unlikely it was that a shot from that far out is to go in. 

If a team has good finishers then it can easily score more goals than it has xG. If you take every team in a league then the total xG-actual goals match up extremely accurately over a season, but some teams will overperform their xG and some will underperform it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Danny said:

It's not the goal that's counted but the shot, whether it goes in or not. The quality of the shot will be given a rating and over the course of a match or season those ratings will add up which will give an indication as to how well you're doing in front of goal, the stats will give you an indication as to whether or not you should expect a drop in goals if you've been lucky, need to buy another striker even if at face value it doesn't look like you need to. They may show a that one formation or set of forwards are scoring goals but the goals aren't matching the quality of chances had, however in another formation with one or two changes the team maybe creating better quality chances that just haven't been converted.

It's just a way to analyse the quality of the chances you're creating and how often they're created vs the amount of goals you're scoring.

 that's not how i expected it to work.  thought an actual goal would count for 1 point. I thought it would just tell the story of a team that dominated but lost 1-0... i.e 10 shots on target to 1 but losing 1-0 might habe been a 1-5 result on expected goals...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Burning Gold said:

Each shot is worth an amount of xG based on the probability of it being scored based on the context (position of ball, defenders, etc.). Whether it was actually scored is irrelevant to xG as it's meant to give an indication of the quality of chances created. Trent's free-kick was worth 0.05 because, although it was a good effort, a free kick from that position is a low percentage chance.

That's total crap. I'd give it an xG of 0.8 because for me a shot of that quantity will go in the net 80% of the time... it should count as close to 1.0 because it was about as close as you could get to scoring without it going in....

On average a shitty free kick that missed by a mile should count 0.05. A good one saved by the keeper should count more...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
30 minutes ago, Harry said:

That's total crap. I'd give it an xG of 0.8 because for me a shot of that quantity will go in the net 80% of the time... it should count as close to 1.0 because it was about as close as you could get to scoring without it going in....

On average a shitty free kick that missed by a mile should count 0.05. A good one saved by the keeper should count more...

Thats not how it works though. The further out the shot, the less likely its going to go in cos its a more difficult chance to get right. As opposed to a tap in from close range which is gonna have a higher xG. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Stan said:

Thats not how it works though. The further out the shot, the less likely its going to go in cos its a more difficult chance to get right. As opposed to a tap in from close range which is gonna have a higher xG. 

A shitty shot from outside the box sprayed into the upper levels of the stands counts the same as a perfect curled shot that takes an exceptional keeper save...Mind blown. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/08/2018 at 10:45, Harry said:

A shitty shot from outside the box sprayed into the upper levels of the stands counts the same as a perfect curled shot that takes an exceptional keeper save...Mind blown. 

Yeah but the point is that odds of a shot from that distance being good are very low. If it's a very hard finish to pull off, then it's worth a low xG because it's unlikely to be an amazing effort and thus to be a goal. 

If someone is extremely good at long shots then ofc they're going to perform better than the average conversion rate from 30 yards, but xG isn't about how good a single shot is or how good a certain player is, it's about the stastical likelihood of the average shot from that distance going in. In fact, the point of it is to show which teams are good at overpeforming compared to the overall quality of their play.

If you're a very composed finisher then you'll over perform xG for close-range shots, if you're a brilliant long shot merchant then you'll over-perform xG for highly unlikely shots, if you're a very good goalkeeper then you'll make the opposition underperform their xG. 

The point of the stat is to illustrate all of these kinds of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


Sign up or subscribe to remove this ad.


×
×
  • Create New...