[Albion] Quality of our chances v West Ham

[Acker79]

Put me in the sceptical of xG camp. Its very definition makes it not so much about what happened (like 'shots' happen in a came, 'corners' happen in a game, etc), it's about how often something might happen over 100 games. And can be arbitrary and opinion based, and don't factor in a multitude of things (form, confidence, quality of players involved etc). There's no opinion on what is a corner. The foul count isn't about whether it should or shouldn't have been, it's about how many fouls the referee gave.

The OP has 1.68 v 3.42

https://xgscore.io/epl/brighton-west-ham-26-08-23/preview has it 1.93 v 2.60
https://footystats.org/england/west-ham-united-fc-vs-brighton-hove-albion-fc-h2h-stats#6688974 has it 2.83 v 1.53
https://www.fotmob.com/en-GB/match/4193483/matchfacts/brighton-hove-albion-vs-west-ham-united 1.48 v 3.23

There's no standard to it, making the numbers pretty meaningless.


But to the actual point of this thread, how hard did we actually making their keeper work? Most of our chances came late on, but he wasn't exaclty having to throw himself across the goal, having to get across a distance to cover a previously exposed part of the goal. Most of the shots involved staying where he was and sticking an arm out to get to it. Even those that he had to dive for didn't have him at full stretch just getting a fingertip to them, they were standard dives. Gross scored because he hit the ball away from the keeper.

 

[Deadly Danson]

I know all of this is obvious and not original stuff but I'm always fascinated by sliding doors moments. So much of football is down to these moments. Yesterday for example what if Webster just heads the ball out for their first goal, what if the keeper drops the ball over the line rather than grabbing it and what if the ref gives us one of the pens? Completely different game, different moods, suddenly Moyes isn't a tactical genius and we may just win the game at a canter.
Same as last week, what if Wolves take one of their gilt edged chances, what if they take down Mitoma before he can score. Who knows? Going further back what if Barnes doesn't hit the bar v Palace in the play off semi - do we go up that year? What if Stephens isn't sent off and of course what if Smith does score?

Football is chaotic, so much down to luck, the whims of a referee, an individual clanger or a moment of genius. None of this is mind-blowing and this probably isn't the right thread but I just felt like writing it down and I guess my point is the chances are good if they go in (in fact the one we scored yeaterday wasnt really a chance at all), on another day we easily, easily score 4, West Ham then have to change the way they play and we catch them on the break instead.

 

[Berty23]

west ham first goal when billy g blocked shot presenting open goal to JWP must have been 0.95 or something. They also had two very good chances that I assume will be included in the calculation even though flag went up but we had ball so played on.

 

[Bozza]

Put me in the sceptical of xG camp. Its very definition makes it not so much about what happened (like 'shots' happen in a came, 'corners' happen in a game, etc), it's about how often something might happen over 100 games. And can be arbitrary and opinion based, and don't factor in a multitude of things (form, confidence, quality of players involved etc). There's no opinion on what is a corner. The foul count isn't about whether it should or shouldn't have been, it's about how many fouls the referee gave.

The OP has 1.68 v 3.42

https://xgscore.io/epl/brighton-west-ham-26-08-23/preview has it 1.93 v 2.60
https://footystats.org/england/west-ham-united-fc-vs-brighton-hove-albion-fc-h2h-stats#6688974 has it 2.83 v 1.53
https://www.fotmob.com/en-GB/match/4193483/matchfacts/brighton-hove-albion-vs-west-ham-united 1.48 v 3.23

There's no standard to it, making the numbers pretty meaningless.


But to the actual point of this thread, how hard did we actually making their keeper work? Most of our chances came late on, but he wasn't exaclty having to throw himself across the goal, having to get across a distance to cover a previously exposed part of the goal. Most of the shots involved staying where he was and sticking an arm out to get to it. Even those that he had to dive for didn't have him at full stretch just getting a fingertip to them, they were standard dives. Gross scored because he hit the ball away from the keeper.

I'm respectfully ignoring the first part - as I say I see xG as merely a numeric representation of quality of chances over the course of a game, and I know there are different models out there.

But, when you say you address the actual point of the thread, you're still not actually doing that.

A good chance isn't less of a good chance if it's hammered at the goalkeeper. The quality of the chance remains the same, it's the efficiency of the chance conversion that varies. A penalty is a great chance to score, even if it's blazed over.

I broadly agree with your point though - our finishing wasn't clinical enough with the chances we created, but that doesn't mean they weren't good chances.

 

[BN41Albion]

Lots of people seem to get unecessarily annoyed by xG for whatever reason, but it's just a stat that you're perfectly at liberty to look at or ignore. I personally think it's an excellent numerical representation of how well your strikers and goalkeeper have done, and it can often tell a different story to the perception you get from watching the game - as seems to be the case in this game - which may make coaches address the shortcomings in a diffferent way.

For those who are dismissive of its value, it's worth noting that our very succesful recruitment is mostly based on such stats that show strengths and weaknesses that may not be immediately obvious to the eye.

Yep - I like xg. Tells the story of how good a team's chances were rather than just looking at the amount of shots on goal at face value. Yesterday our xg versus possession tells you all yo need to know about how well WH did their job as a defensive unit

 

[Bozza]

I know all of this is obvious and not original stuff but I'm always fascinated by sliding doors moments. So much of football is down to these moments. Yesterday for example what if Webster just heads the ball out for their first goal,

Only a few minutes before Webster's mea culpa, a West Ham defender in a very similar position took the safety first approach, and blasted the ball into row Z.

 

[Farehamseagull]

I thought Ferguson should have done better with his header before Gilmours strike which would have brought us level …..but then we’ve scored 8 in the previous two matches …and possibly created less

Yeah Ferguson should definitely have put that away, it was a sitter. He was completely free and it was a simple header, lovely cross by Mitoma.

They may not have added much xg wise but Veltman and Ferguson’s powerful shot’s produced world class saves from Areola. They were stunning.

If Gilmour had more confidence, our xg would have been higher. He had so many opportunities to pull the trigger and didn’t, a shame. He also should have done better with his two first half shots. I really like Gilmour and thought he was one of our better players yesterday but he really needs to work on his shooting - with the way we play, he will get chances.

 

[Deadly Danson]

Only a few minutes before Webster's mea culpa, a West Ham defender in a very similar position took the safety first approach, and blasted the ball into row Z.

Yep, exactly. Of course on another day West Ham score from the resulting throw in (and we all moan that he wasn't playing 'our' way) or Webster plays the perfect touch, takes out Antonio and sets up our first goal. As I said, chaos!!

 

[macbeth]

on the topic of xG…

 

[Icy Gull]

Yeah Ferguson should definitely have put that away, it was a sitter. He was completely free and it was a simple header, lovely cross by Mitoma.

They may not have added much xg wise but Veltman and Ferguson’s powerful shot’s produced world class saves from Areola. They were stunning.

If Gilmour had more confidence, our xg would have been higher. He had so many opportunities to pull the trigger and didn’t, a shame. He also should have done better with his two first half shots. I really like Gilmour and thought he was one of our better players yesterday but he really needs to work on his shooting - with the way we play, he will get chances.

Never scored in 70 odd games at the top level apparently (PL, Championship, Scotland) He has at under 21 level and below.

I hope RDZ sticks with him, I really like his quick feet and passing ability. He does need an enforcer around him though.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Just posted about the Ferguson header …he’ll be disappointed not to have done better (lacked any power..centre of goal) ..pivotal moment?

I thought he showed tremendous technique: downward header just inside the post. Ruddy keeper was up to it though, just like he was on half a dozen other occasions

 

[Seagull58]

I'm respectfully ignoring the first part - as I say I see xG as merely a numeric representation of quality of chances over the course of a game, and I know there are different models out there.

But, when you say you address the actual point of the thread, you're still not actually doing that.

A good chance isn't less of a good chance if it's hammered at the goalkeeper. The quality of the chance remains the same, it's the efficiency of the chance conversion that varies. A penalty is a great chance to score, even if it's blazed over.

I broadly agree with your point though - our finishing wasn't clinical enough with the chances we created, but that doesn't mean they weren't good chances.

One reason it seems we had better chances than suggested by xG is the Ferguson shot on the turn where he wrong-footed the defender to make the space to swivel and hit the shot but hit it straight at the keeper. That effort had a very low xG but was a really good chance ONCE HE HAD FOOLED THE DEFENDER AND MADE THE SPACE FOR THE SHOT. Presumably xG is based on the likelihood of scoring when he first receives the ball but, once he has made the space to shoot, he scores if he hits it 2 yards either side of the keeper instead of straight at him.

 

[LamieRobertson]

I thought he showed tremendous technique: downward header just inside the post. Ruddy keeper was up to it though, just like he was on half a dozen other occasions

I agree with technique but surely not much power….positioned well

 

[amexer]

No wonder XG higher for WH. When we attacked we did so against 9 defenders and when they did it was often against 3

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

I thought Ferguson should have done better with his header before Gilmours strike which would have brought us level

Yeah Ferguson should definitely have put that away, it was a sitter. He was completely free and it was a simple header, lovely cross by Mitoma.

In xG terms, I'd guess about 1 in 10 of similar headers are actually scored.
9 in 9 of the remainder are followed by people saying "he should have buried that".

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Only a few minutes before Webster's mea culpa, a West Ham defender in a very similar position took the safety first approach, and blasted the ball into row Z.

Boring alert:
A mea culpa is an admission of fault, not a mistake.

 

[Farehamseagull]

In xG terms, I'd guess about 1 in 10 of similar headers are actually scored.
9 in 9 of the remainder are followed by people saying "he should have buried that".

Disagree. That genuinely was a really simple header, he should have scored.

 

[Algernon]

As above examples show, xG is subjective and can be from different sources.
Some use different criteria to others and take less or more factors into account.
It's just someone's opinion so unless everyone is using the exact same xG origin it's pointless using it.

 

[Mancgull]

Two shots on target from Ferguson and the header early in the second half which the goalkeeper saved well. Could have had a hat trick.
These type of games need patience and a tight defence to ensure we don’t concede on the break. We didn’t achieve the latter.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Disagree. That genuinely was a really simple header, he should have scored.

They're never simple. If he puts it any further from the goalkeeper there's a decent chance he misses the goal altogether.