Jump to content

VillaGoMarching

Recommended Posts

Don't be fooled by them, they're massively outdone their xG so far. They shouldn't have veaten United and they scored 5 from 2.4xG against Burnley. So basically they beat Bournemouth and Burnley an avg if 1 xG only. Let's see how they go when people work them out and their overperformance on xG stops

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Don't be fooled by them, they're massively outdone their xG so far. They shouldn't have veaten United and they scored 5 from 2.4xG against Burnley. So basically they beat Bournemouth and Burnley an avg if 1 xG only. Let's see how they go when people work them out and their overperformance on xG stops

Dear God, you sound like Newcastle fans discussing us last season :D 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

They beat two relegation teams and got lucky against United. Lots of real tests to come for them

They weren't lucky against Man Utd at all - very much a deserved victory.  They look good with lots of goals in their side.

Using xG to determine how a team should perform is utterly bizarre.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bobzy said:

They weren't lucky against Man Utd at all - very much a deserved victory.  They look good with lots of goals in their side.

Using xG to determine how a team should perform is utterly bizarre.

To you it seems bizarre. To people who use data analyse to understand teams performances better it's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CVByrne said:

To you it seems bizarre. To people who use data analyse to understand teams performances better it's not.

People who use data analysis to understand teams performances won't be going "well they're outperforming xG so should drop off soon" because xG is simply one of a great number of stats which indicate a certain thing.  Same way that teams with more possession may be more likely to win games, because they have the ball more, but it would be nonsense to say "well they're seeing under 50% of the ball so they should drop off soon".

I also imagine that better teams with better players would outperform xG more regularly because they are better teams with better players so tougher chances would be converted more readily.  You'll probably also see that teams at the top of the league "outperform" xG whereas teams at the bottom "underperform" versus xG, but you'd have a pretty hard time convincing me that, say, Everton should be ahead of Aston Villa in the league - because they're quite obviously a worse team, despite having better xG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bobzy said:

They weren't lucky against Man Utd at all - very much a deserved victory.  They look good with lots of goals in their side.

Using xG to determine how a team should perform is utterly bizarre.

Man united were **** terrible. I think even luton would have goven them a game on that performance. 

They played them at right time just like newcastle did with us. The next 3 give us a better idea how they do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CVByrne said:

To you it seems bizarre. To people who use data analyse to understand teams performances better it's not.

The data is inherently flawed though. If Kane has a one-on-one with the keeper it has the same xG as if Danny Graham had the same chance. Players aren't drones with the same finishing capability and xG doesn't take that into account. Someone like Kane would be way higher chance of scoring it than Grant Holt. Same as long shots Gerrard would be higher chance than Richard Dunne. But xG doesn't account for that at all 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, VillaJ100 said:

The data is inherently flawed though. If Kane has a one-on-one with the keeper it has the same xG as if Danny Graham had the same chance. Players aren't drones with the same finishing capability and xG doesn't take that into account. Someone like Kane would be way higher chance of scoring it than Grant Holt. Same as long shots Gerrard would be higher chance than Richard Dunne. But xG doesn't account for that at all 

Some players are better finisher's than others. But you can tell how even a game was by looking at the xG timeline on games. It gives all the chances and the xG and the post shot xG of each. With an inability to watch every game the data tells a lot about a game. 

It told a lot about our game against Newcastle. People see a scoreline and assume one teams dominance over the other from it. If both xG and scoreline show big margin for one team then it shows a totally one sided game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Some players are better finisher's than others. But you can tell how even a game was by looking at the xG timeline on games. It gives all the chances and the xG and the post shot xG of each. With an inability to watch every game the data tells a lot about a game. 

It told a lot about our game against Newcastle. People see a scoreline and assume one teams dominance over the other from it. If both xG and scoreline show big margin for one team then it shows a totally one sided game. 

What are you implying r.e: our game against Newcastle here? 😐 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â