• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Son Heung-Min

Kompakted said:
I don't know why anyone even bothers looking at XG. It's become a crux for certain situations....

"F**k we got hammered 4-0 today"
"But we won the XG"
Click to expand...
Some people misinterpreting a stat or using stats to draw conclusions that aren't supported by those stats doesn't make the star useless.

Looking at xG over a single game is not particularly useful. It's a glorified shot statistic, but it is slightly more useful than a shot statistic imo.
 
So according to the stats Harland and Werner get the same stat in similar situations, like most stats they are there to be interpreted in any way you want without context.
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
So according to the stats Harland and Werner get the same stat in similar situations, like most stats they are there to be interpreted in any way you want without context.
Click to expand...
Yes, xG essentially just tells you how often players score from attempts from that same position. It doesn't take into account the player at all, everyone is treated the same as a baseline stat.

Hence you then have some players over performing their xG (Son) indicating he is a great finisher while others underperform theirs statistically backing up the idea they are a poor finisher (Werner).

If Werner and Haaland both finish identical chances their xG will be the same, but we know Haaland is a better finisher that Werner and his xG stats will show that.

glasgowspur said:
But he had time and place to place it.
Amad was basically a deflection.
I know if I was a better person and you froze those videos which one my money is going on.
Click to expand...
You're misunderstanding the model. It's not really looking at the type of shot beyond it being a header or a kick. It's primarily looking at the position the chance came from. Amad's was much closer to goal and had no defenders in front. It was statistically a better chance once the ball left his foot and that's the bit they analyse, not how he got to have the chance or how unlikely that kind of chance will occur, just the position.

It's why Son's goal has such low xG, it's incredibly rare to score from a corner but an unhindered (at the point the ball hit Amad's foot) shot from 7 yards out...well they do usually go in.
Looking at xG you can see whether a player is someone who gets a lot of chances and scores at an expected rate (Haaland), or maybe is someone who gets very few chances but finishes well (Hojlund) and then you have the outliers like Son who consistently finish at a significantly better clip than the number of chances they get (even this season). xG isn't a tell all, it just a tool that gives some greater statistical information that you can use in addition to watching a player with your own eyes.
 
harr1984 said:
Considering we have not lost by more than a single goal all season when exactly was this situation?:D

All people say is yeah we might have drawn/lost game but xG shows we created better chances than opposition and on an average day we would have got more etc Nothing deeper than that....
Click to expand...
No. because xG does not take into account the quality of the player, just the average times a goal is scored from a specific situation. So a team with naff strikers will continue to perform below xG and an excellent one continue to exceed it. In other words xG is complete and utter crap, tells you noting you don't know already. :cool:
 
Spur of the moment said:
No. because xG does not take into account the quality of the player, just the average times a goal is scored from a specific situation. So a team with naff strikers will continue to perform below xG and an excellent one continue to exceed it. In other words xG is complete and utter crap, tells you noting you don't know already. :cool:
Click to expand...
I think you're missing the point. xG doesn't take into account the player, but it does reveal the players with better or worse finishing. It's really a quality of finishing stat, better finisher will take more of their chances and poor ones will miss more of theirs.
 
Spur of the moment said:
No. because xG does not take into account the quality of the player, just the average times a goal is scored from a specific situation. So a team with naff strikers will continue to perform below xG and an excellent one continue to exceed it. In other words xG is complete and utter crap, tells you noting you don't know already. :cool:
Click to expand...

But how do you know it already?

You are making judgement on players based on whether you would expect a goal from that chance or not, which is…
 
Bishop said:
I think you're missing the point. xG doesn't take into account the player, but it does reveal the players with better or worse finishing. It's really a quality of finishing stat, better finisher will take more of their chances and poor ones will miss more of theirs. if xG doesn't take into account
Click to expand...
Why do we need xG to tell us that? It's blindingly obvious.
 
Spur of the moment said:
Why do we need xG to tell us that? It's blindingly obvious.
Click to expand...
We don't need it, it's just in addition to using your eyes like you say. It can be useful to determine a player's finishing quality when it might not be super clear. Hojlund is a good example, many call him a crap finisher but he's actually an on point finisher, he just doesn't get many chances as an example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back