Expected League Position Based On XG

[wassy04]

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.

Yes this exactly, Forest and Bristol City last season were similar examples of where the league position was way overperforming this stat.

The point is not to say these stats are to be used as an excuse or anything like that, its just another way of analysing the team. Hopefully providing balanced evidence to remove exagerrated opinions.

Obviously if it showed xG of 7 would suggest we played well and created loads of chances and we'd all be cursing the strikers for the ridiculous amount of misses.

Purely to add balance and is better used over a longer period than one game. Obviously teams can be successful without having good xG, just lowers the odds.