ucandomagic
Well-Known Member
As mentioned in my usual Matchday post I am also posting a simple weekly review of Blades XG performance and general Championship XG stats. The purpose of this is simply to assess how teams are performing relative to their XG data – ie if a team’s results are better than their XG data it would suggest then they are overperforming and likely to slip back – and vice versa. I get the weekly data on Tuesday afternoon and will try to post my summary early on Tuesday evening. I have had several requests to dig deeper into XG data, but I think this is far enough down the rabbit-hole for me!
I get the stats from footballxg.com.
Graph 1 shows a comparison of the progress of our actual goals for and against with our XG expected goals for and against over our 6 games so far. XG says over those 6 games we should have scored 7.3 and conceded 4.5 and we have actually scored 9 and conceded 3, so we are performing better than average at both ends for the chances that we are creating and allowing.
Graph 1:
Chart 1 is a measure of over/under Championship performance based on general chances created/allowed. The numbers in Chart 1 are a measure of a team’s expected goal difference against their actual goal difference, ie (XG-XGA) minus actual goal difference. The detail of this doesn't matter, but in my mind the top third of this chart are overperforming and could be expected to slip down in league position, unless they have an exceptionally clinical strikeforce and/or an exceptional goalkeeper. The middle third are probably matching the chances they create and allow, and the bottom third are underperforming and could be expected to move up the league unless they have a particularly poor strikeforce and/or a particularly weak goalkeeper.
Chart 1:
So, performance-wise, the Blades actual results are doing slightly better than their XG performance. The difference is almost the same this week as last week, as against Derby we had an XG of 1.2 and an XGA of 0.1 in a game that we won 1-0. The XGA of 0.1 says a lot about the developing brick wall that is Harry & Anel! Burnley on the other hand have now scored 13 goals with an XG of 5.5 and conceded 4 goals with an XGA of 6. They must be scoring some incredibly high-tariff goals, which is generally unsustainable, unless you have a modern-day Le Tisier!
Chart 2 is the XTable - based on team XG's in matches played. Blades are 6th in the XTable compared to 5th in the actual League table with a 2-point deduction. So, as observed above, we are slightly outperforming our XG stats. Burnley, however, are 17th in the XTable compared to 3rd in the actual League Table, emphasising their apparently unsustainable goal-scoring record..
Chart 2:
So, overall the stats would suggest that our results are a reasonably accurate reflection of our XG performance and represent a solid playoff position. Our position is based firmly on a sound defence. The average XGA of 0.75 goals per game is a good figure, but we are even outperforming that by delivering an actual average of 0.5 goals against per game.
Teams like Burnley, Blackburn and Oxford are probably significantly overchieving against their performance and might be expected to slip back a bit, whereas teams like Cardiff, Luton and Coventry are significantly underachieving against their performance and would be expected to move up the table. Cardiff’s stats are amazing – scored 1 and conceded 13 compared to an XG of 4.1 and an XGA of 8.3 -suggesting that their midfield is performing OK but their strikers and keeper are performing really badly. That failure at both ends of the pitch has now cost Erol Bulut his job.
So that’s it for another week.
Away at Pompey next for us. At home they have an average XG of 0.8 and XGA of 1.7 – we have an average away XG of 1.1and away XGA of 0.9, so I’m going 2-1 Blades and move on!
UTB & Slava Ukraini
I get the stats from footballxg.com.
Graph 1 shows a comparison of the progress of our actual goals for and against with our XG expected goals for and against over our 6 games so far. XG says over those 6 games we should have scored 7.3 and conceded 4.5 and we have actually scored 9 and conceded 3, so we are performing better than average at both ends for the chances that we are creating and allowing.
Graph 1:
Chart 1 is a measure of over/under Championship performance based on general chances created/allowed. The numbers in Chart 1 are a measure of a team’s expected goal difference against their actual goal difference, ie (XG-XGA) minus actual goal difference. The detail of this doesn't matter, but in my mind the top third of this chart are overperforming and could be expected to slip down in league position, unless they have an exceptionally clinical strikeforce and/or an exceptional goalkeeper. The middle third are probably matching the chances they create and allow, and the bottom third are underperforming and could be expected to move up the league unless they have a particularly poor strikeforce and/or a particularly weak goalkeeper.
Chart 1:
So, performance-wise, the Blades actual results are doing slightly better than their XG performance. The difference is almost the same this week as last week, as against Derby we had an XG of 1.2 and an XGA of 0.1 in a game that we won 1-0. The XGA of 0.1 says a lot about the developing brick wall that is Harry & Anel! Burnley on the other hand have now scored 13 goals with an XG of 5.5 and conceded 4 goals with an XGA of 6. They must be scoring some incredibly high-tariff goals, which is generally unsustainable, unless you have a modern-day Le Tisier!
Chart 2 is the XTable - based on team XG's in matches played. Blades are 6th in the XTable compared to 5th in the actual League table with a 2-point deduction. So, as observed above, we are slightly outperforming our XG stats. Burnley, however, are 17th in the XTable compared to 3rd in the actual League Table, emphasising their apparently unsustainable goal-scoring record..
Chart 2:
So, overall the stats would suggest that our results are a reasonably accurate reflection of our XG performance and represent a solid playoff position. Our position is based firmly on a sound defence. The average XGA of 0.75 goals per game is a good figure, but we are even outperforming that by delivering an actual average of 0.5 goals against per game.
Teams like Burnley, Blackburn and Oxford are probably significantly overchieving against their performance and might be expected to slip back a bit, whereas teams like Cardiff, Luton and Coventry are significantly underachieving against their performance and would be expected to move up the table. Cardiff’s stats are amazing – scored 1 and conceded 13 compared to an XG of 4.1 and an XGA of 8.3 -suggesting that their midfield is performing OK but their strikers and keeper are performing really badly. That failure at both ends of the pitch has now cost Erol Bulut his job.
So that’s it for another week.
Away at Pompey next for us. At home they have an average XG of 0.8 and XGA of 1.7 – we have an average away XG of 1.1and away XGA of 0.9, so I’m going 2-1 Blades and move on!
UTB & Slava Ukraini
Last edited:
