Congratulations. You just earned 1.5 points for this submission. Your new points total is 1.5. To see the leaderboard, as well as what this points thing is, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/footballmanagergames/wiki/leaderboard).
It is useful if you know how to interpret it.
First of all, does having a higher a xG mean that you will automatically win a game? No.
When your team clearly outperforms the opponent but still loses, there are two possible causes: individual mistakes or simply bad luck. If it keeps happening game after game, you can rule out the luck hypothesis. Take a look at the expected table standings to have an overview of your xG across several matches.
Also, this plot helps understanding if you are generating xG through several low-chance shots or a couple of higher quality chances. If you are CONSISTENTLY in the first case, it may indicate problms with your creation (players are taking far away shots instead of finding better opportunities or the AI is parking the bus and you can't find spaces). If it is CONSISTENTLY the second and you can't score, then it may be your strikers to blame (either due to bad morale or because they lack in stats such as composure or decisions). Again, the emphasis on CONSISTENTLY is necessary because in any given match there is always a random chance of getting screwed by bad RNG.
I don't believe it. I just said that the same xG can be achieved both with a lot of bad chances or few good chances, and if you aren't scoring enough the solution is different in each case.
Well it's a snapshot of information, they should of scored more and not conceded. So would need to see the goals and see if it's just a fluke. A team scoring two long range goals can be really lucky or maybe you've just left them lots of space and although low % high quality players will score.
xG just means basically you are creating chances and goal scoring opportunities.
But if you players can’t finish for the love of god, it is worth nothing
Or if you concede while your opponent has low xG, that maybe means that you have bad luck, your opponent can finish quite well, or your defence is doodoo.
Read 'The xG Philosophy' by James Tippett. It's a great way of explaining why xG is great... and why it's also rubbish to use as a single way of gauging football matches. It basically argues it's useful in the context of tonnes of other stats and analytics
Nah, my striker is getting domed in the head by a water bottle after this one. Maybe my gk too, sometimes the other team just turns into prime haaland when it comes to finishing
Letting in two goals from sub .05 xG per shot is definitely on the GK, unless a center back deflected it in by mistake off a corner or some shit.
GK is walking home after this performance ngl
It was likely just two crazy shot of the year top bins from 25 yards. Nobody can really do anything about those. Usually keeper or defender error goals are someone being unmarked near the net which end up being like 0.5xg shots.
0.5 is one thing... Those are acceptable goals IMO. Massive chances that even mid strikers should put away.
My guy has conceded two goals with total of 0.09 xG. That's just... abysmal. I think you're closer to the halfway line than the goal when you take a shot with that low of an XG
Really anything outside the box ends up being less than 0.1, usually less than 0.05. That's what I'm saying, two goals on 0.09xg means they just got lucky on some very low chance shots, and those are spots that the GK and defense are almost helpless against. You give them that shot because they're so unlikely to be a goal, you welcome them shots.
You would need to know the xGoT to know if you can judge the keeper. Maybe those where absolut bangers into the top corner which is unlucky but not the keepers fault.
The majority of the stats in this game are completely useless because they don’t last more than the current season, unless you have atleast 3-5 years of data to go with you have no idea of the player is actually good or just having a lucky season
Yes, it is very useful. Genoa wasted a lot of chances late in the first half, and then their performance dropped significantly. It was probably poor substitutions or they got tired or frustrated, probably a combination of all 3. Alessandria got very lucky twice and won.
If you are playing Genoa, you will benefit from reviewing carefully your tactical changes after half time because that opened the door to losing.
Over the course of a season you should see xG be fairly accurate, and in cases where it’s not there’s generally an explanation other than random chance. So I’d say it is useful but only if you understand and contextualize it.
You can score from an XG of 0.01. My 21yr old center mid put his laces through in what looked like a clearance. Opposition goalkeeper trips over thin air & let the ball limply roll past with barely enough momentum to get past the goal line.
So, from this it's important to understand that XG in isolation means nothing. You can have super high XG & no goals, or barely measurable XG & a goal. Interpreting this stat in combination with other data, is how you can evaluate performance. Lots of XG but few goals mean the issue is with scoring, but you are creating just fine. Minimal XG and lots of goals suggest your forwards are making something out of nothing. Minimal XG and no goals mean both your chance creation and forwards aren't doing their job.
Of course the context of the game is important too. If it's a game you should comfortably win, if you have low XG then that's concerning, even if you are winning regardless.
There's so much more to go into here, but this comment is already getting quite wordy.
In a one-off game anything can happen. If you're top of the xG table or doing very well in it you're probably onto something tactically.
Sure, I've had my teams underperform on the xG table too, but then the next season playing exactly the same way with a few additions to the squad they've gone on to produce good results.
Perhaps my goalie wasn't good enough, my defenders would make stupid mistakes giving up clear cut chances, or my players were not good enough at finishing that season. That could be due to lack of ability and I signed some better players in key positions, or they just had a poor season but played better the next. If I had young players some of them needed time to mature and they just got better with attributes improving.
Looking at that graph I’d say you did get unlucky, but not unreasonably so. You had lots of bad shots with low XG, so basically you’re players are just shooting at random. You maybe had 3 or 4 decent opportunities and scored once so that’s about right. The opponent got lucky and should definitely not have scored any, but I don’t think it was insane luck. I don’t know if xg is direct with probability, but with 0.09 xg they’d score 2 goals every 2k shots or so. So they had a 1 in 2000 chance of this happening.
So basically defensively conceding was an anomaly that I would t worry about going forward, but attacking, you should try and get your players to look for better shooting opportunities.
I think xG is a highly misleading stat that has become the clutch stat people fall to when deciding if a team was FM'd in game and real life.
xG is only registered obviously if a shot is taken but that doesn't tell the story of so much more of an attacking opportunity. If you play the ball and get into an amazing shooting position that should probably be a goal but the striker never shoots because he hesitates or a slightly heavy touch, that is no less of a goal scoring opportunity.
It's had all of the rest of the build up play to create the chance but it was simply one other factor that denied the goal.
I'm sure we have all watched games where we have seen a particular team play by far the better but by the end the xG ends up similar
xG doesn’t aim to evaluate a team chance creation ability. It just aims to calculate how likely x shot is to be a goal.
People that only point to xG to make a point on ‘who played better’ don’t understand what xG is.
I wouldn't take too much attention on xG.
It is a analysis tool for you get a concept of how quality the shots are, but you got to watch the game tho.
Sometime a open shot on the flank will have a low xG, but you would probably let it slide when you see it in action. Also, the high xG might indicate that your tactic dominated the possession but couldn't crack down a low block team, that's not players fault.
So, it is misleading in a way, but good tool if you use it correctly.
Well, from this alone I can see that your team is not attacking efficiently at all, whereas the other team are.
You might use this data as a pointer to decide to practice shooting, for example.
It's obviously not there to say: well done, you won the game. That's what the scoreline is for.
Congratulations. You just earned 1.5 points for this submission. Your new points total is 1.5. To see the leaderboard, as well as what this points thing is, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/footballmanagergames/wiki/leaderboard).
It is useful if you know how to interpret it. First of all, does having a higher a xG mean that you will automatically win a game? No. When your team clearly outperforms the opponent but still loses, there are two possible causes: individual mistakes or simply bad luck. If it keeps happening game after game, you can rule out the luck hypothesis. Take a look at the expected table standings to have an overview of your xG across several matches. Also, this plot helps understanding if you are generating xG through several low-chance shots or a couple of higher quality chances. If you are CONSISTENTLY in the first case, it may indicate problms with your creation (players are taking far away shots instead of finding better opportunities or the AI is parking the bus and you can't find spaces). If it is CONSISTENTLY the second and you can't score, then it may be your strikers to blame (either due to bad morale or because they lack in stats such as composure or decisions). Again, the emphasis on CONSISTENTLY is necessary because in any given match there is always a random chance of getting screwed by bad RNG.
[удалено]
I don't believe it. I just said that the same xG can be achieved both with a lot of bad chances or few good chances, and if you aren't scoring enough the solution is different in each case.
xG is the easiest way to measure your team's performance.
Yes, from this chart looks like you made about 3/4 good scoring chances.
And the opponent 0 so that doesn't really matter
Well it's a snapshot of information, they should of scored more and not conceded. So would need to see the goals and see if it's just a fluke. A team scoring two long range goals can be really lucky or maybe you've just left them lots of space and although low % high quality players will score.
xG just means basically you are creating chances and goal scoring opportunities. But if you players can’t finish for the love of god, it is worth nothing Or if you concede while your opponent has low xG, that maybe means that you have bad luck, your opponent can finish quite well, or your defence is doodoo.
>or your defence is doodoo. Low xG conceded would suggest your defence isn't doodoo, but you're keeper might be
It’s useful in telling me whether I should be annoyed or not 👀
I’m always annoyed at my team. x/g just gives me a scale to work with.
Read 'The xG Philosophy' by James Tippett. It's a great way of explaining why xG is great... and why it's also rubbish to use as a single way of gauging football matches. It basically argues it's useful in the context of tonnes of other stats and analytics
All statistics can and will be useful if you interpret them right
Depends on the circumstance, in this one, I'd sack my GK and my CBs
The CBs conceded only unlikely opportunities to get scored on, they would be innocent in this scenario
Nah, my striker is getting domed in the head by a water bottle after this one. Maybe my gk too, sometimes the other team just turns into prime haaland when it comes to finishing
Letting in two goals from sub .05 xG per shot is definitely on the GK, unless a center back deflected it in by mistake off a corner or some shit. GK is walking home after this performance ngl
It was likely just two crazy shot of the year top bins from 25 yards. Nobody can really do anything about those. Usually keeper or defender error goals are someone being unmarked near the net which end up being like 0.5xg shots.
0.5 is one thing... Those are acceptable goals IMO. Massive chances that even mid strikers should put away. My guy has conceded two goals with total of 0.09 xG. That's just... abysmal. I think you're closer to the halfway line than the goal when you take a shot with that low of an XG
Really anything outside the box ends up being less than 0.1, usually less than 0.05. That's what I'm saying, two goals on 0.09xg means they just got lucky on some very low chance shots, and those are spots that the GK and defense are almost helpless against. You give them that shot because they're so unlikely to be a goal, you welcome them shots.
You would need to know the xGoT to know if you can judge the keeper. Maybe those where absolut bangers into the top corner which is unlucky but not the keepers fault.
It's more useful when used as a tool over a stretch of games as opposed to one individual match.
Only when it’s not the only stat you take into account
As with any stat, it can be useful if properly interpreted.
The majority of the stats in this game are completely useless because they don’t last more than the current season, unless you have atleast 3-5 years of data to go with you have no idea of the player is actually good or just having a lucky season
Yes but not to be relied upon
I mostly do look at my forwards' individual xG numbers. If they are bad I just give them training for shooting
You should have scored more than 1 goal Either your strikers cannot finish their chances or their keeper had an amazing game
Yes, if you need a reason to get angry. My life wouldn't be the same without it, now.
Yes, it is very useful. Genoa wasted a lot of chances late in the first half, and then their performance dropped significantly. It was probably poor substitutions or they got tired or frustrated, probably a combination of all 3. Alessandria got very lucky twice and won. If you are playing Genoa, you will benefit from reviewing carefully your tactical changes after half time because that opened the door to losing.
xG is statistics. If you don't understand how statistics works (what is math expectation etc) it is going to be useless for you.
Over the course of a season you should see xG be fairly accurate, and in cases where it’s not there’s generally an explanation other than random chance. So I’d say it is useful but only if you understand and contextualize it.
I'd sum it up to this: xG is very useful but should not be used to analyze one single game, but rather a team's or player's performance over a season
You can score from an XG of 0.01. My 21yr old center mid put his laces through in what looked like a clearance. Opposition goalkeeper trips over thin air & let the ball limply roll past with barely enough momentum to get past the goal line. So, from this it's important to understand that XG in isolation means nothing. You can have super high XG & no goals, or barely measurable XG & a goal. Interpreting this stat in combination with other data, is how you can evaluate performance. Lots of XG but few goals mean the issue is with scoring, but you are creating just fine. Minimal XG and lots of goals suggest your forwards are making something out of nothing. Minimal XG and no goals mean both your chance creation and forwards aren't doing their job. Of course the context of the game is important too. If it's a game you should comfortably win, if you have low XG then that's concerning, even if you are winning regardless. There's so much more to go into here, but this comment is already getting quite wordy.
In a one-off game anything can happen. If you're top of the xG table or doing very well in it you're probably onto something tactically. Sure, I've had my teams underperform on the xG table too, but then the next season playing exactly the same way with a few additions to the squad they've gone on to produce good results. Perhaps my goalie wasn't good enough, my defenders would make stupid mistakes giving up clear cut chances, or my players were not good enough at finishing that season. That could be due to lack of ability and I signed some better players in key positions, or they just had a poor season but played better the next. If I had young players some of them needed time to mature and they just got better with attributes improving.
Looking at that graph I’d say you did get unlucky, but not unreasonably so. You had lots of bad shots with low XG, so basically you’re players are just shooting at random. You maybe had 3 or 4 decent opportunities and scored once so that’s about right. The opponent got lucky and should definitely not have scored any, but I don’t think it was insane luck. I don’t know if xg is direct with probability, but with 0.09 xg they’d score 2 goals every 2k shots or so. So they had a 1 in 2000 chance of this happening. So basically defensively conceding was an anomaly that I would t worry about going forward, but attacking, you should try and get your players to look for better shooting opportunities.
Nah, I don't think I've ever used xG as a metric when influencing anything I do
I think xG is a highly misleading stat that has become the clutch stat people fall to when deciding if a team was FM'd in game and real life. xG is only registered obviously if a shot is taken but that doesn't tell the story of so much more of an attacking opportunity. If you play the ball and get into an amazing shooting position that should probably be a goal but the striker never shoots because he hesitates or a slightly heavy touch, that is no less of a goal scoring opportunity. It's had all of the rest of the build up play to create the chance but it was simply one other factor that denied the goal. I'm sure we have all watched games where we have seen a particular team play by far the better but by the end the xG ends up similar
xG doesn’t aim to evaluate a team chance creation ability. It just aims to calculate how likely x shot is to be a goal. People that only point to xG to make a point on ‘who played better’ don’t understand what xG is.
not at all
I wouldn't take too much attention on xG. It is a analysis tool for you get a concept of how quality the shots are, but you got to watch the game tho. Sometime a open shot on the flank will have a low xG, but you would probably let it slide when you see it in action. Also, the high xG might indicate that your tactic dominated the possession but couldn't crack down a low block team, that's not players fault. So, it is misleading in a way, but good tool if you use it correctly.
Well, from this alone I can see that your team is not attacking efficiently at all, whereas the other team are. You might use this data as a pointer to decide to practice shooting, for example. It's obviously not there to say: well done, you won the game. That's what the scoreline is for.
It's the biggest bullshit in football today.