Example.

Give the same quality of chance to a great striker and a bad striker.

Let's say the chance is xG 0.80 from the exact same spot.

Neither is correct as the great striker will score nearly all the time and the bad striker maybe less than 50%

So what did the xG tell us.....nothing...without the context of the ability of players/team and opposition of the chance it's almost always incorrect. (It's based on a mythical average team and opposition)

When people talk about the xG of one game it's absolute bollocks....do you not see that.....
Maybe over a season it's slightly more meaningful but less than the actual League position.

Your claim it's numbers except we get variations of the numbers, people can't agree on the quality of chance. That subjectivity is a huge weakness.

Posted By: usacanary, Nov 4, 13:23:43