Everton Statistics

[Cods]

xG, expected goals

Everton (2.50) 0-3 (2.20) Man Utd

I know it's far from definitive, and the defensive stats are somewhat tautological, but it helps to point out the real area of concern.

Finishing; 7 fewer goals than expected, (32%) fewer so far this season.

Expected goals 20.58
Actuals goals 14.00 *

Expected goals against 20.41
Goals against 21.00

[bigmanbob]

Just shows all this XG bollocks is completely irrelevant

[superpull]

Just shows all this XG bollocks is completely irrelevant

No, it very specifically doesn't show that.

The xG shows that our finishing is shit. Can't believe that's something you'd disagree with?

[Cods]

Whilst it's crazy to put too much emphasis on xG stats, due to their limitations, it's also not sensible for a club to completely disregard it (not sure any do)

[Bluedylan1]

I don't understand why anybody would think anything remotely negative about Xg. It's just a very basic way of measuring the number and quality of chances a team makes in a game, or over a series of games.

It's not positive or negative. It just is.

[Trowel]

https://twitter.com/EFC_Statto/status/1729446986292584624

[Shogun]

Everton that. 5 goals with 14.7 xG in home games as well.

[Kerryblueboy]

If we went back over all those shots the amount that the duke gana and Onana have had would be about half I reckon good that we are creating chances but need much better finishing or getting the better finishers on the end of these chances

[4evablu]

What is the factoring of what is a chance and what is the degree of difficulty of a chance?

[Juanito]

Maupay missed some absolute jaw dropping sitters in the first few home games.

[UnsyisaRhino]

Just shows all this XG bollocks is completely irrelevant

Care to explain how?

[superpull]

What is the factoring of what is a chance and what is the degree of difficulty of a chance?

AFAIA, it's a data and probability generation model.

If, in X amount of attempts, somebody has shot from that position before then an xG of 1 means it has gone in every time and 0 is a statistical and legal impossibility.

So 0.9 is 9 out of 10 people who have had a crack from that position have scored

The "position" takes the below into account:

Distance to the goal
Angle to the goal
Did the player strike it with his feet or was it a header?
In what passage of play did it happen? (e.g. open play, direct free-kick, corner kick, counter-attack)
Has the player just beaten an opponent?

I've heard there's more since I checked. But I think that's around GK data, I don't actually know.

[StirlingBlue]

What is the factoring of what is a chance and what is the degree of difficulty of a chance?

AFAIA, it's a data and probability generation model.

If, in X amount of attempts, somebody has shot from that position before then an xG of 1 means it has gone in every time and 0 is a statistical and legal impossibility.

So 0.9 is 9 out of 10 people who have had a crack from that position have scored

The "position" takes the below into account:

Distance to the goal
Angle to the goal
Did the player strike it with his feet or was it a header?
In what passage of play did it happen? (e.g. open play, direct free-kick, corner kick, counter-attack)
Has the player just beaten an opponent?

I've heard there's more since I checked. But I think that's around GK data, I don't actually know.

One of the things it doesn’t take into account is how well the player is set, so many of our chances seem to be taken digging a shot out from under their feet because of a poor first touches

[brap2]

I think on general... we're not making consistent good chances. It's a scrap in the box following a cross or a set piece. It's rare we are sliding people through or squaring it in the box.

Think our xg is a bit inflated compared to actual chance quality.

Don't know if this will help or simply confuse things.

[Bluedylan1]

I disagree. I do think we're making consistently good chances.

Sure, we don't make them in an attractive way and they are usually the result of a knock down or a bit of ugly play, but that's kinda a different point.