| Apparently, we have low xG 09:37 - Sep 3 with 7986 views | dmm |
I'm a bit ambivalent about xG but this is actually quite an interesting data analysis of our season so far: https://eflanalysis.com/analysis/efl-championship-stats-qpr-goals
It seems to conclude that we're pretty efficient outfit so far, but I must say I did chuckle at this statement: "One of the main reasons for their success is the number of goals scored by the team." Yeah, that's how football kind of works! |  | | |  |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 12:47 - Sep 3 with 1297 views | JPC |
The way I've always read it is that xG is a good measure of chances created, and outperforming it a measure of how clinical we are. In fairness, I think this isn't a bad reflection of games such as Millwall, Barnsley and Coventry where to some extent we haven't dominated or created as much as we expected, but have taken our chances. So positive hat would say if we can improve our creativity, given our conversion stats, we should do really well. Negative says that if our conversion drops off to usual levels, we may struggle. The downside as others have pointed out is that you need a longer time period to measure this for it to really make sense
One of the things they covered when I did my coaching badges was the likelihood of scoring from different parts of the pitch, and why some teams focused on getting the ball in certain areas. All a bit Charles Hughes for my liking, but it's really just an extension of the sort of analytics that Brentford have been doing |  | | |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 12:52 - Sep 3 with 1285 views | westberksr |
having a low xG is very much like making love to a beautiful woman - Swiss Tony |  | | |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 13:04 - Sep 3 with 1269 views | denhamhoop2 |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 10:24 - Sep 3 by Northernr |
Repeating a question I asked on another thread, does it assign the same value to a 25 yard shot whether it's Rob Dickie or Jordy De Wijs taking it? One's good from 25 yards, one isn't, so one should have a greater value no? Does a 12 yard shot from John Spencer carry the same weighting as a 12 yard shot from Brett Angell? |
Nope the ability of the player taking the shot is not taken into account so a free kick on the edge of the box taken by Barbet will have the same G value as one taken by Messi(It's one of the reasons it's mainly bollox). For myself I have always counted shots on target and chances created by both sides as a great reflector of how a game went. | | | |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 13:33 - Sep 3 with 1233 views | dmm |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 12:25 - Sep 3 by eastside_r |
I look forward to xTC - really enjoy his posts. |
Well he is very good at counting up to 5 | | | |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 14:00 - Sep 3 with 1208 views | PinnerPaul |
Can, sort of, see the point , but nothing alters the fact that it is only your ACTUAL goals scored and conceded that count.
To me this just gives anyone yet another chance to trot out that old line "We didn't get what we deserved" - guess what, yep that's correct - it happens , in football and life! | | | |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 14:16 - Sep 3 with 1188 views | HAYESBOY |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 10:24 - Sep 3 by Northernr |
Repeating a question I asked on another thread, does it assign the same value to a 25 yard shot whether it's Rob Dickie or Jordy De Wijs taking it? One's good from 25 yards, one isn't, so one should have a greater value no? Does a 12 yard shot from John Spencer carry the same weighting as a 12 yard shot from Brett Angell? |
12 yard shot from Brett Angell?.
That's funny. |  |
| Smells like a trout farm in here |
| |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 14:28 - Sep 3 with 1177 views | LazyFan |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 11:50 - Sep 3 by Northernr |
Rub it in there 
John Spencer's probably the sharpest finisher I've seen at QPR, and Brett Angell probably the worst. If I've got it right, xG places all its value in where abouts the shot is taken from and what sort of a shot it is, and pays absolutely no attention to who's taking it. So a shot from 15 yards by Charlie Austin carries the same xG rating as a shot from 15 yards by Seny Dieng.
If that's true, that's a megaflaw. Am I being stupid here? |
To diverge and go off on a totally mad one ...
You're saying you never saw Clive Allen as the best sole finisher we ever had?
I mean that's all he did, but it's the key crucial part of the game and he did it the best.
Well apart from one amazing drag back he did and then of course he still scored. |  |
| |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 14:34 - Sep 3 with 1168 views | WestonsuperR |
I’ve got no problem with XG the theory makes sense and is interesting (to a degree) but wouldn’t be too concerned due yo comments already made on this thread. There is a danger though we are getting a little carried away with our start, could make a case to suggest we could have drawn all matches other than Hull and were quite fortunate to get a draw vs Barnsley, if we had been a unlucky could easily have seen our start as W1 D3 L1 for 6pts rather than the 11 we have. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Apparently, we have low xG on 14:45 - Sep 3 with 1155 views | DavieQPR |
So losing a game 5-3 gives you more XG than winning 2-0? |  | | |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 14:46 - Sep 3 with 1155 views | denhamhoop2 |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 14:28 - Sep 3 by LazyFan |
To diverge and go off on a totally mad one ...
You're saying you never saw Clive Allen as the best sole finisher we ever had?
I mean that's all he did, but it's the key crucial part of the game and he did it the best.
Well apart from one amazing drag back he did and then of course he still scored. |
Hmm Interesting post think Andy Thomson and Gary Bannister might have a chance of giving Clive Allen a run for his money oh and pre knee injury Gallen would be worth a shout but yep for me just Northern's namesake | | | |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 14:47 - Sep 3 with 1155 views | Northernr |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 14:28 - Sep 3 by LazyFan |
To diverge and go off on a totally mad one ...
You're saying you never saw Clive Allen as the best sole finisher we ever had?
I mean that's all he did, but it's the key crucial part of the game and he did it the best.
Well apart from one amazing drag back he did and then of course he still scored. |
I am not old enough to have seen Clive Allen play for us sadly. It is how I ended up with this name though.
Best finisher you've seen live for us is probably another thread. Spencer is definitely up there for me. So, so sharp. |  | | |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 14:52 - Sep 3 with 1141 views | Northernr |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 14:34 - Sep 3 by WestonsuperR |
I’ve got no problem with XG the theory makes sense and is interesting (to a degree) but wouldn’t be too concerned due yo comments already made on this thread. There is a danger though we are getting a little carried away with our start, could make a case to suggest we could have drawn all matches other than Hull and were quite fortunate to get a draw vs Barnsley, if we had been a unlucky could easily have seen our start as W1 D3 L1 for 6pts rather than the 11 we have. |
What niggles me very slightly though, and this comes back to Rsonist's point on another thread about the rather arrogant delivery of a lot of the xG content on social media, is that assumption by some that we will inevitably fall back in line with the xG, which I think currently has us 17th in the table. That QPR cannot be a top six side at the end because of their xG in August. As I understand it, Brighton have been out of whack with their xG for the thick end of two years.
As you say, a lot of our games could go either way. Maybe we are in a false position. Maybe we do slip back. Maybe it's right. We'll find out over time. But, equally, maybe we start giving a few teams a good hiding. We've come through some difficult games unscathed, what's to say we won't now have a few easier games that we win very comfortably?
It's that attitude that the xG is never wrong, and if you question it you don't understand it, that winds me up slightly.
This post has been edited by an administrator | | | |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 15:02 - Sep 3 with 1120 views | ericgen34 |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 14:52 - Sep 3 by Northernr |
What niggles me very slightly though, and this comes back to Rsonist's point on another thread about the rather arrogant delivery of a lot of the xG content on social media, is that assumption by some that we will inevitably fall back in line with the xG, which I think currently has us 17th in the table. That QPR cannot be a top six side at the end because of their xG in August. As I understand it, Brighton have been out of whack with their xG for the thick end of two years.
As you say, a lot of our games could go either way. Maybe we are in a false position. Maybe we do slip back. Maybe it's right. We'll find out over time. But, equally, maybe we start giving a few teams a good hiding. We've come through some difficult games unscathed, what's to say we won't now have a few easier games that we win very comfortably?
It's that attitude that the xG is never wrong, and if you question it you don't understand it, that winds me up slightly.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
That tweet is funny!
'they can"t keep playing like this and be top 6'
Obviously the bloke has never seen us play this season :) |  | | |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 15:04 - Sep 3 with 1117 views | mobileDeWijs |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 14:52 - Sep 3 by Northernr |
What niggles me very slightly though, and this comes back to Rsonist's point on another thread about the rather arrogant delivery of a lot of the xG content on social media, is that assumption by some that we will inevitably fall back in line with the xG, which I think currently has us 17th in the table. That QPR cannot be a top six side at the end because of their xG in August. As I understand it, Brighton have been out of whack with their xG for the thick end of two years.
As you say, a lot of our games could go either way. Maybe we are in a false position. Maybe we do slip back. Maybe it's right. We'll find out over time. But, equally, maybe we start giving a few teams a good hiding. We've come through some difficult games unscathed, what's to say we won't now have a few easier games that we win very comfortably?
It's that attitude that the xG is never wrong, and if you question it you don't understand it, that winds me up slightly.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
At this stage, xG should be taken with a pinch of salt. I think around game 17 is when there is a big enough sample size to judge, and even then, it cant account for everything. But against Coventry, for example, were are goals clear cut chances? Arguably the xG marries with the eye test. Dykes' was a great finish (which xG doesnt account for, rightly, as otherwise it wouldnt measure the quality of the finish vs the norm), and there was more than an element of luck involved with our second goal. But to say we cant be top 6 due to a tiny sample size (this season's xG) would go against logic - the second half of last season, we regularly won matches it didnt feel like we dominated, bournemouth comes to mind. Football certainly isn't played on spreadsheets, but they have their uses. | | | |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 15:10 - Sep 3 with 1095 views | joe90 |
xG and xT is nothing more than the stats behind the obvious. |  | | |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 15:54 - Sep 3 with 1047 views | PinnerPaul |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 14:34 - Sep 3 by WestonsuperR |
I’ve got no problem with XG the theory makes sense and is interesting (to a degree) but wouldn’t be too concerned due yo comments already made on this thread. There is a danger though we are getting a little carried away with our start, could make a case to suggest we could have drawn all matches other than Hull and were quite fortunate to get a draw vs Barnsley, if we had been a unlucky could easily have seen our start as W1 D3 L1 for 6pts rather than the 11 we have. |
Yes but, I bet our XG was relatively good the first half of 20/21.
But we WERE 18th and people DID want Warburton sacked.
Imagine the reaction on here, if someone had piped up, " But according to our XG we should be 11th" or 14th or whatever it was! | | | |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 15:56 - Sep 3 with 1039 views | PinnerPaul |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 15:02 - Sep 3 by ericgen34 |
That tweet is funny!
'they can"t keep playing like this and be top 6'
Obviously the bloke has never seen us play this season :) |
Also "quoted" Barnsley, where the XG and ACTUAL goals ARE identical!  | | | |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 15:59 - Sep 3 with 1032 views | PinnerPaul |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 15:04 - Sep 3 by mobileDeWijs |
At this stage, xG should be taken with a pinch of salt. I think around game 17 is when there is a big enough sample size to judge, and even then, it cant account for everything. But against Coventry, for example, were are goals clear cut chances? Arguably the xG marries with the eye test. Dykes' was a great finish (which xG doesnt account for, rightly, as otherwise it wouldnt measure the quality of the finish vs the norm), and there was more than an element of luck involved with our second goal. But to say we cant be top 6 due to a tiny sample size (this season's xG) would go against logic - the second half of last season, we regularly won matches it didnt feel like we dominated, bournemouth comes to mind. Football certainly isn't played on spreadsheets, but they have their uses. |
You need to watch our 2nd goal again - luck?!
Amazing 30 yard strike form Barbet, great reaction and positioning from Charlie to get to follow up first, great 1st touch and better finish from Barbet to score.
It all came from a foul given away by Cov when our man got past theirs.
Where's the luck in all that?!!!!!!!!!! | | | |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 16:28 - Sep 3 with 1004 views | joe90 |
I think we just need to see xG/xT for what it is. It provides some interesting numbers and tells what is likely to happen not what should have happened in a game. For example, ahead of the Coventry game the xG/xT stats would suggest that Coventry are 'likely' to score, you can't retrospectively look at the stats for the game and say Coventry 'should' have scored. Which is what this guy has done:
He clearly wasn't at the game or if he was, wasn't paying attention. If there was chance that was cleared off the line by a blatant hand ball the ref missed, then you could say that should have been a goal, but there was no such incident in the game. | | | |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 16:32 - Sep 3 with 999 views | Northernr |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 15:59 - Sep 3 by PinnerPaul |
You need to watch our 2nd goal again - luck?!
Amazing 30 yard strike form Barbet, great reaction and positioning from Charlie to get to follow up first, great 1st touch and better finish from Barbet to score.
It all came from a foul given away by Cov when our man got past theirs.
Where's the luck in all that?!!!!!!!!!! |
Again, as far as I understand it, xG basically counts shots like Barbet's from 40 yards as like 0.1 chance of a goal, so it would go down as luck in that theory that we got a goal off it. Barbet's follow up shot, again as I understand it, scored quite highly. Where this falls down is if you have somebody like Dickie, or Adam Reach, who is very good from that range, and it's not luck at all it's a skill like any other, but xG doesn't care if it's Reach, Messi, Barbet or Dominic Iorfa shooting from 30 yards, they all count the same. Which is a flaw. IMO. | | | |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 16:32 - Sep 3 with 998 views | mobileDeWijs |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 15:59 - Sep 3 by PinnerPaul |
You need to watch our 2nd goal again - luck?!
Amazing 30 yard strike form Barbet, great reaction and positioning from Charlie to get to follow up first, great 1st touch and better finish from Barbet to score.
It all came from a foul given away by Cov when our man got past theirs.
Where's the luck in all that?!!!!!!!!!! |
With all due respect Paul, there's quite a lot of luck in the sequence you described. The CB Barbet being in a shooting position, under no pressure, the failure by the 2 cov defenders to first win the parry and then block austin, and crucially, the '[even] better finish' from Barbet. Whilst all these parts individually could happen (great low, hard shot from Barbet, Austin's positioning, Barbet continuing his run into the box, and, most glaringly, the repeated failure by coventry to win a second ball, including from the header away from Johanse's inital cross, plus the failure by the keeper to hold onto the ball, admittedly difficult though), it would be harsh to say there wasnt some fortune in the sequence which led to the goal. Unless we practiced that one on the training ground, defensive errors and all! Im not complaing though, great moment and they all count. | | | |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 16:41 - Sep 3 with 975 views | Northernr |
Trying to explain my problem, other than as Rsonist says the sanctimonious delivery of it by people who believe in it...
As I understand it (please correct this if it's wrong) xG takes all the efforts on goal across the division and uses them to calculate the percentage number of headers from 8 yards that go in, or shots from 15 yards, or volleys from 30 yards, and then gives every action a score between 0 and 1 of it's likelihood of a goal. So a right footed shot from six yards out centre of goal goes in 80% of the time, 0.8, and a 30 yarder goes in 1% of the time, so 0.01. QPR could win 3-0 with three shots on target from 30 yards and have an xG of 0.03, or lose 2-0 having missed an absolute sitter from six yards and have an xG of 0.8.
What it doesn't take any account of, again as I understand it, is who's taking the shot. QPR's xG at Reading next Saturday will be the same with Austin, Dykes and Gray up front as it would have been if we were still picking Washington, Sylla and Polter. This is the flaw in it for me, you can't just point and say "QPR will definitely fall back, they can't possibly keep this up" because maybe we've just got good finishers, and unless they get injured we will keep this up.
If you could give me a stat that took the first paragraph and corrected the second. Combining the divisional average of shots that go in from 15 yards, with the average number of Charlie Austin shots that go in from 15 yards, and marry those two together, then I think you get a much better number that I'd be right on board with. For me you can't say "well it's a header from ten yards so it's only 0.2 chance of a goal" if the guy taking the header is Les fcking Ferdinand.
Enjoying the thread though.
This post has been edited by an administrator | | | |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 16:52 - Sep 3 with 947 views | QPR_Jim |
Worst case scenario, the stats are right and in the games so far we haven't created as many clear cut chances as we'd like. Chance creation in one set of games won't dictate the future, Warbs can work with them over the international break to increase the number of chances we create with our attacking play. Something he won't have had a lot of time to do so far as the fixtures have been thick and fast.
The main take away at this stage should be that we've been resilient at the back and been able to make our way through a busy schedule well as a team. So maybe our xG will increase to align with our results rather than vice versa. |  | | |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 16:55 - Sep 3 with 941 views | Northernr |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 16:52 - Sep 3 by QPR_Jim |
Worst case scenario, the stats are right and in the games so far we haven't created as many clear cut chances as we'd like. Chance creation in one set of games won't dictate the future, Warbs can work with them over the international break to increase the number of chances we create with our attacking play. Something he won't have had a lot of time to do so far as the fixtures have been thick and fast.
The main take away at this stage should be that we've been resilient at the back and been able to make our way through a busy schedule well as a team. So maybe our xG will increase to align with our results rather than vice versa. |
Yeh. Maybe that will happen. It's every bit as likely as us falling back inline with the xG.
As you can tell, it's this high and mighty "oh QPR can't possibly keep this up" that's irked me. | | | |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 16:59 - Sep 3 with 919 views | Antti_Heinola |
| Apparently, we have low xG on 16:32 - Sep 3 by mobileDeWijs |
With all due respect Paul, there's quite a lot of luck in the sequence you described. The CB Barbet being in a shooting position, under no pressure, the failure by the 2 cov defenders to first win the parry and then block austin, and crucially, the '[even] better finish' from Barbet. Whilst all these parts individually could happen (great low, hard shot from Barbet, Austin's positioning, Barbet continuing his run into the box, and, most glaringly, the repeated failure by coventry to win a second ball, including from the header away from Johanse's inital cross, plus the failure by the keeper to hold onto the ball, admittedly difficult though), it would be harsh to say there wasnt some fortune in the sequence which led to the goal. Unless we practiced that one on the training ground, defensive errors and all! Im not complaing though, great moment and they all count. |
hmmm... other than the factual inaccuracies here (Barbet was under pressure, no keeper on earth would've held that shot, Austin got there first not by 'luck' but because of great reactions and instinct etc etc) what you are describing is how a team ball game tends to work - split second decisions, bounces of the ball, all the many, many marginal gains that happen every second. To that degree everything that happens in a match is 'luck'.
I'm similar to norf here in that I don't see the harm in the stats, as with everything, they are a useful tool in a much larger toolbox. To some degree, the stat with us is correct. We're unbeaten, but actually several games *could* have gone the other way, although you didn't necessarily need XG to tell you that. Even Warbs said we should have lost to Orient, and should've been losing at HT to Cov.
The clickbaity tweet is also definitely right. We won't keep this up - ie, we will not go the season unbeaten. We are going to lose games. But our form since Jan is a much better guide than a very small sample size of matches. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
