(25-11-2020, 05:30 PM)stirred Wrote:

(25-11-2020, 04:49 PM)Plymouth red Wrote:

(25-11-2020, 03:59 PM)Paplane Wrote: So are we now judging success in the game by a metric other than the amount of times the actual ball crosses the actual line?

I must be getting too old.

I'm reading this as clutching at straws. 

Doesn't really matter what our expected goals is when our actual goals is 0. 

No one has won a game based on there expected goals. Would we all be excited if our xg was 7 but we lost 3-0.

It gives a measure of chances created (& conceded). So if you're consistently doing well on xG, you don't need fundamental change. If you were consistently underscoring your xG, high xG but not scoring, it would probably tell you your striker needs replacing or some shooting practice and you'd start winning.

After Thomas Frank took over at Brentford they lost 8 of their first 10 matches, only won 2 out of their first 14. But so the story goes, they could see from their xG that their general play was good, and it would come right.

Similarly Reading were extraordinarily clinical in their start to this season, putting almost every chance they had away. That isn't sustainable. The xG told you that, showing them doing worse in xG than their actual results, suggesting they'd likely drop down the table as they revert to a more average level of chance conversion.