In that thread he reckons Adam Jackson averages 6.9 big chances per 90 mins. I assume that’s because he had that header from the corner at Portsmouth? Either way, it just shows how these sort of stats can be skewed early in the season.
I hate to sound like a Philistine but xG is a load of old bollocks isn’t it?
To be fair to him, he does preface that stat with a caveat that it's "just for fun" or something similar.In that thread he reckons Adam Jackson averages 6.9 big chances per 90 mins. I assume that’s because he had that header from the corner at Portsmouth? Either way, it just shows how these sort of stats can be skewed early in the season.
I hate to sound like a Philistine but xG is a load of old bollocks isn’t it?
Absolutely. Let's stick with trying to score more than the other side, more often than not!In that thread he reckons Adam Jackson averages 6.9 big chances per 90 mins. I assume that’s because he had that header from the corner at Portsmouth? Either way, it just shows how these sort of stats can be skewed early in the season.
I hate to sound like a Philistine but xG is a load of old bollocks isn’t it?
We seem to create more in cup matches so maybe we can fool the players somehow.
Like was said I can imagine Peterborough XG would be about 7-0
Correct.In that thread he reckons Adam Jackson averages 6.9 big chances per 90 mins. I assume that’s because he had that header from the corner at Portsmouth? Either way, it just shows how these sort of stats can be skewed early in the season.
I hate to sound like a Philistine but xG is a load of old bollocks isn’t it?
To be fair to him, he does preface that stat with a caveat that it's "just for fun" or something similar.
I do think it can be useful in showing a team's strengths and weaknesses. In our case, we aren't very threatening and we are conceding lots of chances. Nothing we didn't really know but the fact we are bottom for both metrics might be indicative of our general direction of travel unless we buck our ideas up.
That shows what a load of bollocks it is then !I’ve read Posh’s xG was 1.93 so they aren’t the mega impact into it.
Penalties like Oxford add 0.85.
It's based on the shot/chance.I'll start by admitting I'm an xg cynic.
Genuine question, where do they judge the xg? I watched match of the day and in the Bournemouth v Forest game, for Bournemouth's 3rd goal they're 2 on 1 with the keeper, the man with the ball makes the correct decision to square the ball to the man in the middle and he scores.
For the purpose of xg, if he doesn't square it and shoots from a tight angle with the odds in the keepers favour do they judge the xg on the chances of him scoring that shot or the xg when he had the choice to make as to whether to shoot or pass to the man with the open goal. If it's the latter the xg is surely higher.
To try and simplify what I'm saying. If he takes the shot do you judge the xg on what ultimately happened or do go back a second to the point he should've passed and award the higher xg?
Xg is surely subjective depending on when the person calculating it decides the shot or goal was most likely.
It's based on the shot/chance.