Of course it is a "quality use of stats".

If a team has 80% possession but loses, their possession of the ball is shown to be totally ineffective - eg any Russell Martin team. That's the precise point of this statistic.

Posted By: norwaay on September 7th 2026 at 13:54:11

Message Thread

This xg nonsense sticks in my craw (NCFC) - MonkeyPuzzle, Sep 7, 12:44:27
- While on the subject, I have a question or two (NCFC) - APB, Sep 7, 13:46:16
  - It's all determined by some speccy twat sitting back of stand with an ipad... so about as (NCFC) - Pixelman, Sep 7, 16:07:50
    - Isn't it fed into a computer based on position of shot? (n/m) (NCFC) - jamesward, Sep 7, 16:11:00
  - Yeah brooks was 0.25 (NCFC) - SCC 28, Sep 7, 13:58:10
    - That was my thinking (n/m) (NCFC) - APB, Sep 7, 14:00:14
- Numbers prove everything (n/m) (NCFC) - Lentil Weaver, Sep 7, 13:43:09
  - Only if it's a quality use of stats. (NCFC) - usacanary, Sep 7, 13:50:34
    - Of course it is a "quality use of stats". (NCFC) - norwaay, Sep 7, 13:54:11
      - So if we get use xG as a stat... (NCFC) - usacanary, Sep 7, 14:28:17
        
        So we'll just brush over your weird possession comment then. (n/m) (NCFC) - norwaay, Sep 7, 15:05:12
        
        You really are this thick. (NCFC) - usacanary, Sep 7, 15:11:22
        
        You just can't read properly (NCFC) - norwaay, Sep 7, 15:13:17
        
        They both lack quality correlation.... (NCFC) - usacanary, Sep 7, 15:14:55
        
        Utterly pointless engaging with you isn't it? (NCFC) - norwaay, Sep 7, 15:17:30
        
        I would stop. You are over matched (NCFC) - usacanary, Sep 7, 15:20:19
        
        This is pure gold (n/m) (NCFC) - jamesward, Sep 7, 15:22:20
      - RM will have genuinely celebrated dominating possession at the weekend (n/m) (NCFC) - Lentil Weaver, Sep 7, 14:05:04
        
        The media touted pure possession stats forever. (NCFC) - usacanary, Sep 7, 14:56:43
  - They don't even prove that proposition, let alone everything (n/m) (NCFC) - paulg, Sep 7, 13:47:36
- Live Score had us at 2.39 on Saturday (re: below) (NCFC) - APB, Sep 7, 13:40:34
- XG is a complex concept, not everyone finds it easy to grasp (n/m) (NCFC) - Knitted Jesus, Sep 7, 13:16:29
  - Religious theologians say exactly the same thing.... (n/m) (NCFC) - usacanary, Sep 7, 15:01:29
  - Perhaps more complex (NCFC) - SCC 28, Sep 7, 13:27:14
- Xg is a pretty reliable indicator long term. (NCFC) - MORDENCANARY, Sep 7, 13:06:21
  - Just absolute nonsense, even Mikey doesn't believe this. (NCFC) - usacanary, Sep 7, 13:40:28
    - Yes and surely that’s exactly the point? (NCFC) - APB, Sep 7, 14:02:12
      - One of my problems is it's used as an excuse (NCFC) - usacanary, Sep 7, 14:07:02
        
        It will also tell them that they need better strikers and keepers (NCFC) - SCC 28, Sep 7, 14:17:25
        
        That's actually fair but... (NCFC) - usacanary, Sep 7, 15:27:21
    - for it to be accurate it would need to include an index of all players (NCFC) - Tony Martin, Sep 7, 13:47:35
      - That would be stupid for what xG is for (n/m) (NCFC) - SCC 28, Sep 7, 14:01:09
        
        yes just read an AI explanation. It's more about chance creation (NCFC) - Tony Martin, Sep 7, 14:13:14
        
        Yeah, because one thing it shows is if your strikers are good or not (NCFC) - jamesward, Sep 7, 14:03:12
        
        I don't disagree with this. (NCFC) - usacanary, Sep 7, 15:47:27
        
        It's just one of dozens of tools at the disposal of analysts etc (n/m) (NCFC) - jamesward, Sep 7, 15:59:04
        
        And that's why superior analysts are worth their weight in gold... (NCFC) - usacanary, Sep 7, 16:54:41
      - No it doesn't. (NCFC) - usacanary, Sep 7, 13:56:56
    - In 2013/14 he slightly underperformed his xG (n/m) (NCFC) - SCC 28, Sep 7, 13:44:51
      - Well that proves your point then... (n/m) (NCFC) - usacanary, Sep 7, 13:53:09
- Good (NCFC) - SCC 28, Sep 7, 12:48:37
  - I'm usually pro SCC (NCFC) - CauldRon, Sep 7, 13:34:21
    - If they all had responsible owners they’d be fine (NCFC) - SCC 28, Sep 7, 13:41:35
      - They’re weapons (NCFC) - APB, Sep 7, 13:46:56
  - What about cyclists on footpaths? (n/m) (NCFC) - Snakepit Divorceee, Sep 7, 13:01:03
    - Prisons would be choc full of toddlers (n/m) (NCFC) - Lentil Weaver, Sep 7, 13:45:33
      - Given SCCs favourite form of punishment, that's not necessarily true (n/m) (NCFC) - paulg, Sep 7, 14:07:05
        
        Never even mentioned cyclists (NCFC) - SCC 28, Sep 7, 14:13:58
        
        Unless they cause annoyance in pubs (n/m) (NCFC) - paulg, Sep 7, 14:16:34
        
        Screaming toddlers in shops should be banned (n/m) (NCFC) - SCC 28, Sep 7, 14:18:59
    - Never seem to be an issue round here (n/m) (NCFC) - SCC 28, Sep 7, 13:11:51

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.