SHA Small Heath Alliance

Does anyone follow @ExpectedBham on X? His data is much more detiled than just xg but critically focuses on Blues. Well worth a follow and read

[xbirmingham.substack.com]

Bagel

Bluesince62 F.E.A.

lowercaser

Just shows what utter b*ll*cks all this xg stuff is!

^^ This - a totally subjective 'stat'. Utterly meaningless.

I do chuckle when you have fans of clubs going "But...but... we were better on xG!". Yeah? So what? Do they give points for being better on xG? Nah, didn't think so.

This basically. As ever, not a bad tool if used in context, but you then get dweebs claiming they were the better side and 'shud of won' because of it.

a. it's about as objective as humanly possible
b. it's basically a quantitative measure of 'we had the better chances/should have scored four today' which is a conversation everyone has with their mates
c. it's kinda useless on a game by game basis but has excellent predictive properties over a long time frame

it's a very useful stat that people wilfully misunderstand in order to call it 'bollocks' 'cause it wasn't around when they were a kid.

Outliers do not prove the stat is nonsense, by the way. Something having a 20% probability and happening doesn't mean that probability is fake

Yeah, whatever, I'll leave you dweebs and statto's to argue the toss 😁

The key thing about XG is that every football club in the country takes it seriously, so I think it should be treated as such rather than listen to a handful of people who still get annoyed that you can’t shoulder barge a keeper into the net with the ball in his arms

Le Mod

No it doesn't and that's one of the flaws. It basically tells you if you are creating quality chances or not, whether you are restricting quality chances against you, and whether your players are scoring the chances at a rate that is 'normal' based on historical data.

I don't think it is strictly a flaw, just a limitation of sorts to be aware of - if you go through a season and a substantial number of your best shooting chances are falling to a CB who keeps skying it over the bar, then clearly you have a tactical issue to fix that xG is showing

B47blues

The key thing about XG is that every football club in the country takes it seriously, so I think it should be treated as such rather than listen to a handful of people who still get annoyed that you can’t shoulder barge a keeper into the net with the ball in his arms

Correct.
Let’s be like Brentford and Brighton. No ignore stats that Brentford and Brighton use

Snoop

Le Mod

No it doesn't and that's one of the flaws. It basically tells you if you are creating quality chances or not, whether you are restricting quality chances against you, and whether your players are scoring the chances at a rate that is 'normal' based on historical data.

I don't think it is strictly a flaw, just a limitation of sorts to be aware of - if you go through a season and a substantial number of your best shooting chances are falling to a CB who keeps skying it over the bar, then clearly you have a tactical issue to fix that xG is showing

Or you’d sign a better finisher to get into the same positions as the centre back did and play similar

The key thing about XG is that every football club in the country takes it seriously,

No they don't ... take Brentford, they looked at XG and found it to be deeply flawed so created a different measurement system which they use throughout all elements of the club.

XG IS shit ..... but only because it is flawed and doesn't dive deep enough.

Running 100m in plimsolls is better than running 100m in clogs ... but plimsolls are shit compared with proper track spikes

Yeah I don't get why people find it complex. It's analysed from thousands and thousands of data sets. If a player takes a shot from a certain spot and a goal would result 30% of the time from there, it would equate to 0.3. If you had 5 shots your xg would be 1.5.

I don't think it's useful on it's own, but it helps paint a picture. Like I said before, context.

"Yeah I don't get why people find it complex"

Seriously ? ... you are dealing with a subset of society who can barely comprehend that things such as racism isn't beneficial to society and that everything Trump claims isn't necessarily true.

You are vastly overestimating how low the bar is these days and how deep the bottom of the barrel has sunk

Rags

The key thing about XG is that every football club in the country takes it seriously,

No they don't ... take Brentford, they looked at XG and found it to be deeply flawed so created a different measurement system which they use throughout all elements of the club.

XG IS shit ..... but only because it is flawed and doesn't dive deep enough.

Running 100m in plimsolls is better than running 100m in clogs ... but plimsolls are shit compared with proper track spikes

I was under the impression that Brentford focused heavily on xG per shot rather than the total xG, so they focus heavily on creating the best chances possible rather than shooting from range or difficult angles.

Rags

The key thing about XG is that every football club in the country takes it seriously,

No they don't ... take Brentford, they looked at XG and found it to be deeply flawed so created a different measurement system which they use throughout all elements of the club.

XG IS shit ..... but only because it is flawed and doesn't dive deep enough.

Running 100m in plimsolls is better than running 100m in clogs ... but plimsolls are shit compared with proper track spikes

For a club that finds it deeply flawed they sure love talking about it

[www.brentfordfc.com]

[www.brentfordfc.com]

[www.brentfordfc.com]

[www.brentfordfc.com]

B47blues

The key thing about XG is that every football club in the country takes it seriously, so I think it should be treated as such rather than listen to a handful of people who still get annoyed that you can’t shoulder barge a keeper into the net with the ball in his arms

You do like your hyperbole, don't you? So point me to anyone on this thread that has expressed that opinion? All I've seen is a few (me) saying it's fine to use but with context - like any stat, tbh.

Rab C Nesbitt

Snoop

Le Mod

No it doesn't and that's one of the flaws. It basically tells you if you are creating quality chances or not, whether you are restricting quality chances against you, and whether your players are scoring the chances at a rate that is 'normal' based on historical data.

I don't think it is strictly a flaw, just a limitation of sorts to be aware of - if you go through a season and a substantial number of your best shooting chances are falling to a CB who keeps skying it over the bar, then clearly you have a tactical issue to fix that xG is showing

Or you’d sign a better finisher to get into the same positions as the centre back did and play similar

Most players finish at or around xG, even defenders. It is not primarily a test of how good someone is at finishing.

Rags

The key thing about XG is that every football club in the country takes it seriously,

No they don't ... take Brentford, they looked at XG and found it to be deeply flawed so created a different measurement system which they use throughout all elements of the club.

XG IS shit ..... but only because it is flawed and doesn't dive deep enough.

Running 100m in plimsolls is better than running 100m in clogs ... but plimsolls are shit compared with proper track spikes

For a club that finds it deeply flawed they sure love talking about it

[www.brentfordfc.com]

[www.brentfordfc.com]

[www.brentfordfc.com]

[www.brentfordfc.com]

What Brentford actually do

On a recent episode of the Training Ground Guru podcast, Ben Ryan, Performance Director at Brentford, briefly touched on the club’s “Supremacy” rating. Ryan is not the data person at Brentford. His background is performance, culture and human development. He coached Fiji’s rugby sevens team to Olympic gold in 2016. His framing of the supremacy rating was not technical. It was about philosophy.

The Supremacy rating is similar to the xB Index, but way more more comprehensive and evidence based. Essentially, a single number (rating) that calculates a variety of metrics that Brentford believe are most important to win football matches. Deliver those consistently, and wins follow. It’s a closely guarded secret and Ryan obviously didn’t give it away on the podcast, so I’m speculating here, but I suspect Brentford use their “Supremacy” rating and associated metrics to determine everything downstream: tactics, coaching, recruitment, the academy, medical, sports science. Everything is optimised to increase those numbers.

I’m almost certain xG per shot is one of those metrics. Higher = better. I described it in this article: Brentford rank first for open play xG per shot across the five major European leagues and the Championship combined. Not first in the Premier League. First across 120 teams. Top 10 for fast break xG per shot. Top 10 for set piece xG per shot. There is no category where Brentford produce low-quality attempts. With the second-lowest wage bill in the top flight. This doesn't happen by accident. The club recruits, trains and sets up tactically to ensure that when Brentford shoot, it is from a high-quality position They do not speculate, they know exactly what they want to do when they attack.

The rating then becomes the anchor. Good results and the metrics look strong? Everything is working. Bad results but the metrics still look strong? Nobody panics, because the club trusts the process over the noise. Thomas Frank lost eight of his first ten matches at Brentford. Most clubs sack that manager. Brentford did not, because the underlying numbers said the performances were good. The points came.

It is not a generic data feed. It is a specific set of questions built on specific assumptions, interpreted consistently across the whole organisation. Data sits alongside human judgement. It does not replace it.

That is the thing the phrase “data-led” almost never captures.


As mentioned by [xbirmingham.substack.com] who uses XB rather than XG because of the limitations of XG

Bagel

Rab C Nesbitt

Snoop

Le Mod

No it doesn't and that's one of the flaws. It basically tells you if you are creating quality chances or not, whether you are restricting quality chances against you, and whether your players are scoring the chances at a rate that is 'normal' based on historical data.

I don't think it is strictly a flaw, just a limitation of sorts to be aware of - if you go through a season and a substantial number of your best shooting chances are falling to a CB who keeps skying it over the bar, then clearly you have a tactical issue to fix that xG is showing

Or you’d sign a better finisher to get into the same positions as the centre back did and play similar

Most players finish at or around xG, even defenders. It is not primarily a test of how good someone is at finishing.

Most players finish over or below XG actually. Shots from outside the box and headers always have lower xg. Players with a tendency to shoot from outside the box and players decent in the air are likely to vastly out perform xg.

Players who take penalties, have most chances within the box with their feet are likely to underperform xg unless they are clinical.

[www.fotmob.com]

Rasputin

Just shows what utter b*ll*cks all this xg stuff is!

This 👍