Does it take into account the player in that position. A top notch striker or a crap defender.
I don’t believe so. And this is its biggest failing I would say, even when analysed over multiple games, which has others have said is when it paints a more accurate picture, because you could have an excellent side creating loads or chances and therefore having a very favourable XG but that might not turn ouT to be that worthwhile if you CF is Pawel Abbott not Alfie may.
In one Gameit can mislead like probably any stat as a team could have an open goal with an extremely high XG but not get near the goal thw rest of it. However, overall and over a number of games I think it gives a pretty useful insight into how well you are playing and how good your team is “overall”, you might be scoring goals and getting wins but it you XG is low I think chances are your like might run out, and similarly if you have a high XG against but are keeping clean sheets with a worldie goal probably you can't sustain that long term.
Looking at it in more detail. The highest Wigan chance was the Stones header near the end 0.31. The biggest Charlton xg was the opportunity for Docherty 0.28. Our goal through Lloyd Jones was only 0.1 xg. The vast majority of Wigan's 'chances' were 0.1 or under. The Aasgaard chance for example only added 0.03 xg.
I saw the same numbers in the FotMob app (which uses Opta data) earlier today but I’ve just gone back into the app and it appears that the xG has been recalculated… 0.78 for Wigan, 0.46 for Charlton.
So the forecasting tool for future performance has just killed my first game win optimism.
It's only one game so not massively indicative of anything, yet. If we're behind on xG week after week it might point towards a trend.
As it happens, there's another way to look at it which is that Wigan were restricted by our defending to 0.06 xG per shot on average whereas Charlton created fewer but better quality chances at 0.115 xG per shot, almost double the likelihood on a per shot basis.
Looking at it in more detail. The highest Wigan chance was the Stones header near the end 0.31. The biggest Charlton xg was the opportunity for Docherty 0.28. Our goal through Lloyd Jones was only 0.1 xg. The vast majority of Wigan's 'chances' were 0.1 or under. The Aasgaard chance for example only added 0.03 xg.
I saw the same numbers in the FotMob app (which uses Opta data) earlier today but I’ve just gone back into the app and it appears that the xG has been recalculated… 0.78 for Wigan, 0.46 for Charlton.
So the forecasting tool for future performance has just killed my first game win optimism.
Always worth considering game state. With the Jones goal we were actually marginally ahead on xG at that point (thanks mainly to Docherty having had the only decent chance at either end). If a team is leading then naturally they are then going to concede a lot more chances as the other team pushes for an equaliser. We only had one shot after we scored and it was Chuks from about 40 yards, Wigan had 5 or 6 efforts after our goal so come out looking like they were on top when it was a fairly even game
But as others have said it isn’t really a measure for one off games or one off chances
Comments
thw rest of it. However, overall and over a number of games I think it gives a pretty useful insight into how well you are playing and how good your team is “overall”, you might be scoring goals and getting wins but it you XG is low I think chances are your like might run out, and similarly if you have a high XG against but are keeping
clean sheets with a worldie goal probably you can't sustain that long term.
As it happens, there's another way to look at it which is that Wigan were restricted by our defending to 0.06 xG per shot on average whereas Charlton created fewer but better quality chances at 0.115 xG per shot, almost double the likelihood on a per shot basis.
But as others have said it isn’t really a measure for one off games or one off chances