Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Albion] Welcome back



Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,209
Surrey
Just taken from another thread:

Last season Maupay’s effort would probably have been straight at the keeper and Mac’s shot would have been inadvertently blocked by one of our own players.

Out of interest anyone know what our XG was On Saturday? Makes a refreshing change to win a game on real goals and not expected ones?
xGs were 1.79 Burnley and 1.60 Albion

Anyway, I think we all know why these things didn't happen don't we:

OIP.lrfww3aRj4Fy_9_2YJPtTwHaHa



Welcome back proper stripes. Please can we never EVER go back to that all-blue (well, crappy pin-stripes) shit again? They are shit shit shit :shit: :shit: SHIT.
 






Nobby Cybergoat

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2021
6,991
Not that it matters much but where are you getting your xg stats from?

I checked 3 sites:

- Fotmob app: Burnley 1.40 - Brighton 1.73
- understat.com: Burnley 1.80 - Brighton 1.69
- footystats.org: Burnley 1.36 - Brighton 1.68

So basically everyone can have their own xg methodology? ???

It's almost as if the quality of the goal scoring chance is subjective or something?
 


Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,209
Surrey
Not that it matters much but where are you getting your xg stats from?

I checked 3 sites:

- Fotmob app: Burnley 1.40 - Brighton 1.73
- understat.com: Burnley 1.80 - Brighton 1.69
- footystats.org: Burnley 1.36 - Brighton 1.68

So basically everyone can have their own xg methodology? ???

I just read it somewhere, can't remember the source. Not that it matters. The only thing that matters is that we are playing in stripes again.
 


A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
17,833
Deepest, darkest Sussex
I actually liked last season’s shirt TBH
 






Arthur

Well-known member
Jul 8, 2003
8,576
Buxted Harbour
Not that it matters much but where are you getting your xg stats from?

I checked 3 sites:

- Fotmob app: Burnley 1.40 - Brighton 1.73
- understat.com: Burnley 1.80 - Brighton 1.69
- footystats.org: Burnley 1.36 - Brighton 1.68

So basically everyone can have their own xg methodology? ???

Which shows it is all a load of bollocks.

We scored twice both were pretty straightforward chances why is expected goals less than actual goals?
 


Couldn't Be Hyypia

We've come a long long way together
NSC Patron
Nov 12, 2006
15,918
Near Dorchester, Dorset
Not that it matters much but where are you getting your xg stats from?

I checked 3 sites:

- Fotmob app: Burnley 1.40 - Brighton 1.73
- understat.com: Burnley 1.80 - Brighton 1.69
- footystats.org: Burnley 1.36 - Brighton 1.68

So basically everyone can have their own xg methodology? ???

They all have us at about 1.7 and we scored 2. Maybe, whisper it, we are going to start scoring the goals our play actually deserves.
 














hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
61,345
Chandlers Ford
Which shows it is all a load of bollocks.

We scored twice both were pretty straightforward chances why is expected goals less than actual goals?

Because they were both presentable chances that you'd expect to score (roughly) 60% of the time for Maupay's one (so 0.6xG) and perhaps 50% of the time for MacA's (so 0.5xG). Add a few more little chances and get to the total around 1.7. No chance is a whole xG. Even a penalty is only given as 0.75 or something.
 


B-right-on

Living the dream
Apr 23, 2015
6,178
Shoreham Beaaaach
I thought Burnley were doing an 'us' by hitting the post, crossbar and cleared off the line.
 




Billy the Fish

Technocrat
Oct 18, 2005
17,500
Haywards Heath
Not that it matters much but where are you getting your xg stats from?

I checked 3 sites:

- Fotmob app: Burnley 1.40 - Brighton 1.73
- understat.com: Burnley 1.80 - Brighton 1.69
- footystats.org: Burnley 1.36 - Brighton 1.68

So basically everyone can have their own xg methodology? ???

I've got my own algorithm. It's purely from watching MOTD

Burney 2.63999999
Brighton4.19427965446896543214674993900779954321246666666677899999
 


Perfidious Albion

Well-known member
Oct 25, 2011
6,039
At the end of my tether
I have lauded the return of the stripes... it is just “right” to see The Albion in blue and white stripes.
I have seen a home strip that was
Blue body white sleeves, an all white strip , all blue .. perhaps others . But we what we are . Long may we keep them
 


Nobby Cybergoat

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2021
6,991
Because they were both presentable chances that you'd expect to score (roughly) 60% of the time for Maupay's one (so 0.6xG) and perhaps 50% of the time for MacA's (so 0.5xG). Add a few more little chances and get to the total around 1.7. No chance is a whole xG. Even a penalty is only given as 0.75 or something.

This is why I don't really believe striker should be judged on whether they have beaten their XG.

Neal and Alexis got their goals because of impeccably timed movement in the box. Had they not made the runs they did, there would have been an XG of zero because there was no chance.

Cumuluative XG would actually be a better indicator of a strikers worth than xg v actual goals
 






Guinness Boy

Tofu eating wokerati
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patron
Jul 23, 2003
34,202
Up and Coming Sunny Portslade
Not that it matters much but where are you getting your xg stats from?

I checked 3 sites:

- Fotmob app: Burnley 1.40 - Brighton 1.73
- understat.com: Burnley 1.80 - Brighton 1.69
- footystats.org: Burnley 1.36 - Brighton 1.68

So basically everyone can have their own xg methodology? ???

Which shows it is all a load of bollocks.

We scored twice both were pretty straightforward chances why is expected goals less than actual goals?

While HKFC's explanation makes sense, the fact that every site has its own way of doing it does, indeed, show it is bollocks. A goal is a goal. It's the only attacking stat that really counts.

However, back to SHIRTS. I really liked last season's yellow away kit. Definite memories of being on away terraces back in the day singing "Yellows, Yellows". But at home it simply has to be PROPER stripes from now on. There should be some kind of law about it.
 


1066familyman

Radio User
Jan 15, 2008
15,185
Is xg meant to stand for expected goals? If so, what's wrong with eg?

Has a team ever scored 1.something goals in a game? Maybe one goal and one that nearly, but not quite, went in perhaps?

What a load of complete and utter bollox modern football analysis is :nono:
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here