Yeah, because one thing it shows is if your strikers are good or not

Ok, you may not need stats to prove what you can see, but it also shows if they're getting in good positions etc.

Use with nuance, not like with USAC's blunt instrument argument.

Posted By: jamesward on September 7th 2026 at 14:03:12

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.