Some interesting points about xG concerning Norwich and Reading
There's been a lot of debate over xG, regarding whether the stat is useful or not. While it does have its faults, I think it has some use.
Football stats experts claimed Reading were in a false position last season, because their attacking xG score was very low and they were lucky to not concede a lot more goals, to the point that it wasn't sustainable over the long term. That's why they've declined so much this season.
The same was said about Norwich's flying start to last season in terms of attacking xG, that Norwich were just very clinical with a lot of unexceptional chances, which partly explains the fall off later on in the season. I have also read that Norwich have created more chances and have a higher xG this season, despite being one of the highest scorers last season and being one of the lowest this season. That's the difference between good and bad finishing for you.
Posted By: Common Sense Police on March 17th 2018 at 17:49:32
Message Thread
- Some interesting points about xG concerning Norwich and Reading (NCFC) - Common Sense Police, Mar 17, 17:49:32
- WORD UP G! (n/m) (NCFC) - Graham Nine, Mar 17, 22:41:41
- 1.5 xg last season vs 1.2 this (NCFC) - wolfio, Mar 17, 18:33:38
- Not what I read two weeks ago, but fair enough if true (NCFC) - Common Sense Police, Mar 17, 18:35:53
- In English please (n/m) (NCFC) - Worthing Yellow, Mar 17, 18:24:10
- Expected goals, aka the quality of chances created (NCFC) - Common Sense Police, Mar 17, 18:29:03
- xG? (n/m) (NCFC) - Dandy Highburyman, Mar 17, 18:13:27
- for men its in the anal passage.... (n/m) (NCFC) - usacanary, Mar 17, 18:51:44
- Expected goals (n/m) (NCFC) - Common Sense Police, Mar 17, 18:26:52
Reply to Message
In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.
If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.