FAO xG Nerds

Pogue Mahone said:
Haaland's miss was 0.89 xG
Click to expand...

What the hell? To me that chance looks more like 0.99 xG. As in you expect to score that 99 times out of 100.

Does VAR not take the goalkeeper position into account? Useless stat if not.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Haaland's miss was 0.89 xG (a penalty is 0.7)
Rashford's goal was 0.03 xG

Does anyone know the goal with the lowest official xG and/or miss with the highest official xG?
Click to expand...
Kanu if xG was a thing back then. Closer than Haaland's and not in the air.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Kanu if xG was a thing back then. Closer than Haaland's and not in the air.
Click to expand...

Trying to think of the worst miss I've seen since XG became a thing, and the worst I could think of was Sterling away at. Lyon in the CL Quater Final.

That had an XG of 0.87 as well apparently.
 
I always remember this being “the worst miss I’ve ever seen” for a good 10 years

 
I enjoyed this the other day too:



A game that finished almost exactly as it should have done.
 
Scandi Red said:
What the hell? To me that chance looks more like 0.99 xG. As in you expect to score that 99 times out of 100.

Does VAR not take the goalkeeper position into account? Useless stat if not.
Click to expand...

It had a weird inbetween angle between header and high leg kick, so I get that he opted for foot, but should have gone with head.

Does xG take into account head v foot and distance? Headers have a lesser chance of hitting the net than foot, one would presume.

Obviously its a colossal miss, but Ive seen worse
 
Surely xG from a goal doesn't get much lower than these kind of goalkeeper clearances.



 
Scandi Red said:
What the hell? To me that chance looks more like 0.99 xG. As in you expect to score that 99 times out of 100.

Does VAR not take the goalkeeper position into account? Useless stat if not.
Click to expand...
There's been worse chances missed... It's a volley from a cross, he has to time it, easy enough to miskick it... Still a massive miss mind you, a pen is about 0.78xG for example because they're scored about that percentage of time.

Goalkeeper position and other players is looked at, pressure on the ball, height at which the ball is kicked (a shot from the ground is easier than a volley or header for example). Saying a chance like that is missed 1 in 10 times is probably fair. It always seems crazy when it's missed, but it does get missed.
 
bosnian_red said:
Saying a chance like that is missed 1 in 10 times is probably fair. It always seems crazy when it's missed, but it does get missed.
Click to expand...

2-3 yards from an open goal. Under no pressure. Chest height. More than a full second to react. Sees the ball the entire time.

I have also seen worse misses, but I think a professional footballer should score those more than 9 times out of 10. Him deciding to not use his head did make it unnecessarily hard, but I don't think this should be taken into account. That's Haaland's mistake after all. If I decide to score with my dick in front an open goal with plenty of time to get erect, then the xG shouldn't drop.
 
Scandi Red said:
2-3 yards from an open goal. Under no pressure. Chest height. More than a full second to react. Sees the ball the entire time.

I have also seen worse misses, but I think a professional footballer should score those more than 9 times out of 10. Him deciding to not use his head did make it unnecessarily hard, but I don't think this should be taken into account. That's Haaland's mistake after all. If I decide to score with my dick in front an open goal with plenty of time to get erect, then the xG shouldn't drop.
Click to expand...
They should but also they just don't score them quite that often...

And yeah the xG of the chance is affected by how the player chose to shoot. I don't think a header makes it more likely though, you see players miss simple headers all the time.
 
Scandi Red said:
What the hell? To me that chance looks more like 0.99 xG. As in you expect to score that 99 times out of 100.

Does VAR not take the goalkeeper position into account? Useless stat if not.
Click to expand...

But that's based on your own (armchair) subjectivity.

The numbers say that 87% of shots at that location have been scored.

Some VAR models take goalkeeper position into account, but even if they don't, it's not a useless stat, because the number would represent the average possibility of shots at that point, whether a goalkeeper was there or not.

The value of xG is not in absolute determinations, it's in relative determinations. No one cares about the exact xG of Haaland's chance except xG pedants, but the xG model recognizes that in a specific framework, Haaland was more of a high quality chance than the first Foden goal, and a lot of good insights can be derived in this framework.
 
adexkola said:
But that's based on your own (armchair) subjectivity.

The numbers say that 87% of shots at that location have been scored.

Some VAR models take goalkeeper position into account, but even if they don't, it's not a useless stat, because the number would represent the average possibility of shots at that point, whether a goalkeeper was there or not.
Click to expand...

I really don't think that would be missed once in every 10 though.
 
Problem nowadays is that there is no accepted xG value - different models give different numbers

already 2 different numbers given for the Haaland miss for example (0.89 v 0.93), yes it's a small difference but the totals over a whole match can often be quite different
 
Pretty sure there's an xG of 0 when Timo Werner is put through one on one with a goalkeeper.
 
Scandi Red said:
What the hell? To me that chance looks more like 0.99 xG. As in you expect to score that 99 times out of 100.

Does VAR not take the goalkeeper position into account? Useless stat if not.
Click to expand...

as I understand xG stats come from the average scoring rate from that the exact same position on the field

so you could have a chance there in that spot right in front of the keeper or a defender and it's blocked, or a corner whipped in that's a bit too high to keep down
 
Tarrou said:
as I understand xG stats come from the average scoring rate from that the exact same position on the field

so you could have a chance there in that spot right in front of the keeper or a defender and it's blocked, or a corner whipped in that's a bit too high to keep down
Click to expand...

No, xG also takes into account the position of the opposing players, the type of pass that leads to the chance, which body part it is attempted with, and so on. It is much more detailed than simply the position of the shot.
 
P-Ro said:
Pretty sure there's an xG of 0 when Timo Werner is put through one on one with a goalkeeper.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is zero even if the goal is empty
 
This season, as per Understat:

a) Goals valued at 0.01 xG (sorry, but i can't put timestamps in the videos)

1. Jared Bowen's deflected shot in WHU's defeat at Villa Park.
2. Simon Andigra's effort following a comedy of errors in Liverpool's build-up.
3. Andreas Pereira doing the same thing at the Emirates.
4. Philip Billing's lob that won the game for Bournemouth against Burnley.
5. Jefferson Lerma's wonder shot against Chelsea.
6. Danilo's volley in the Brentford-Forest game.
7. Jacob Bruun Larsen's winner for Burnley vs Luton.
8. Charlie Taylor's goal in Bournemouth vs Burnley.
9. Declan Rice gets Arsenal back in the game l in the London derby.

The chance with the highest xG that wasn't converted occurred in the Spurs-Villa game when, in the 81st minute, Ollie Watkins' header (valued at 0.94xG) failed to find its target.
 
TheRedDevil'sAdvocate said:
The chance with the highest xG that wasn't converted occurred in the Spurs-Villa game when, in the 81st minute, Ollie Watkins' header (valued at 0.94xG) failed to find its target.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see a video of that. It should be worse than Haaland's miss based on that.
 
Am I the only one who doesn’t think that Haaland miss is as bad as everyone is making out? It comes to him at a very awkward height. I could see a lot of players similarly struggling to figure out how to go about finishing that one.
 
Scandi Red said:
I'd love to see a video of that. It should be worse than Haaland's miss based on that.
Click to expand...
Given there's nowt about it online I'm tempted to believe it's one of those headers from 2 yards out where the ball is too high or behind him so it's just not possible to head it on target. It probably appears to be a huge miss for xG purposes but in reality it was a hard one to score.
 
Scandi Red said:
I'd love to see a video of that. It should be worse than Haaland's miss based on that.
Click to expand...

Sadly, couldn't find it on YT.


Jev said:
Am I the only one who doesn’t think that Haaland miss is as bad as everyone is making out? It comes to him at a very awkward height. I could see a lot of players similarly struggling to figure out how to go about finishing that one.
Click to expand...

Understat, who values it (only) at 0.66xG, kind of agrees with you. I think that if he uses his head or just throws his body at the ball to keep it down and take the pace off it, it's the easiest goal you'll score. He basically made it more difficult for himself.
 
Jev said:
Am I the only one who doesn’t think that Haaland miss is as bad as everyone is making out? It comes to him at a very awkward height. I could see a lot of players similarly struggling to figure out how to go about finishing that one.
Click to expand...
Yeah it wasn't a perfect tap in but he needs to literally just touch it and he had enough time to adjust, it was a terrible miss in the end.
 
Moby said:
Yeah it wasn't a perfect tap in but he needs to literally just touch it and he had enough time to adjust, it was a terrible miss in the end.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, I’m not saying it wasn’t a bad miss, just from the talk after the game you’d think it was the miss of the century, which I think is going a little overboard.
 
Scandi Red said:
I'd love to see a video of that. It should be worse than Haaland's miss based on that.
Click to expand...



Bad miss - but Haaland's is way worse

TheRedDevil'sAdvocate said:
Sadly, couldn't find it on YT.




Understat, who values it (only) at 0.66xG, kind of agrees with you. I think that if he uses his head or just throws his body at the ball to keep it down and take the pace off it, it's the easiest goal you'll score. He basically made it more difficult for himself.
Click to expand...

Again, no chance that players miss a chance like that every 3.5 out of 10 times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.