Some observations 4 games in...

[Stannington Blade]

It should probably be higher than that as Peck's and Moore's efforts won't take in to account the fact that they could have squared it for a tap in to an open net. Or maybe xG will account for that?

No, won't account for that. Also, due to our goal being an OG it goes down as 0.0xg. So 2.2 created PLUS the goal. Burrows flashing it across the 6 yard line also doesn't get any xg but was a great chance of someone gambled.

 

[Sheffsteel]

It should probably be higher than that as Peck's and Moore's efforts won't take in to account the fact that they could have squared it for a tap in to an open net. Or maybe xG will account for that?

It doesn't take that into account, it's simply based on the type of chance and distance from goal.

Also you would expect there to be a 0.9 XG just for being awarded a penalty.
So in open play our XG was 1.4 goals, not bad but not great either.

Maybe it's because we're playing 1 up front instead of 2 but our attack doesn't seem right yet.
Moore is a decent target man with good hold up play but we're reliant on midfielders getting forward up the pitch.
Also Moore lacks pace, so all our attacks need to be balls played directly to feet.
We don't have any quick runners getting behind the defence running on to through balls.

 

[Working Class Hero]

No, won't account for that. Also, due to our goal being an OG it goes down as 0.0xg. So 2.2 created PLUS the goal. Burrows flashing it across the 6 yard line also doesn't get any xg but was a great chance of someone gambled.

Probably a very high xG when taking in to account openings created then, this would also look very similar for the Preston game I imagine.

It's a feature of how we always played under Wilder to be fair, the emphasis was always on creating the openings and not necessarily to shoot on sight. We've seen very few shots from distance for example, and Wilder used to call it out regularly when players shot from range when they're "not set", so it's obviously part of the plan. And for what it's worth, it's a plan I really enjoy watching as it creates more excitement and attacking pressure.

 

[Sheffsteel]

No, won't account for that. Also, due to our goal being an OG it goes down as 0.0xg. So 2.2 created PLUS the goal. Burrows flashing it across the 6 yard line also doesn't get any xg but was a great chance of someone gambled.

Agree.....XG does have flaws and can be a little misleading.
I suppose it's better than nothing and it offers a more accurate reflection of play
compared to the usual "possession, total shots, shot on target" stats.

Also agree.....we are trying more shots from distance compared to previous years.

 

[MobileBlade]

It should probably be higher than that as Peck's and Moore's efforts won't take in to account the fact that they could have squared it for a tap in to an open net. Or maybe xG will account for that?

The missed penalty was 0.78. Peck effort 0.112 and the other Moore effort was 0.107. Our actual biggest xg after the penatly was McCallums shot which was 0.451.

 

[Brian Deane]

Watched the match on my phone with a Fatbird in tow on the East coast. Had some right mardy bastards around me. So when a kingfisher showed up i booted her into the sea.
Been told i can't go back.

Shame on you







































Hope she was worth it

 

[brownblade]

Must have missed how we cleverly brought the penalty and Arblaster acted like he was taken out rather than left his leg to make sure there was contact

I know what you mean, but the replay from the other angle shows he was wiped out.

 

[Badger Blade]

Despite some of the moaning, we can't be too sniffy about an unbeaten start and two clean sheets after the shite we were served up last season. QPR was a disappointment but we've done pretty well besides.

We seem to have signed intelligently and have a better starting 11 now than we started the Premier League season with or had for the majority of it afterwards. Of all the others we signed last season, BBD and maybe Archer when he could be arsed would be the only ones who get in this team as it is now.

Wilder seems to thrive on being able to build his own team in his own image and so far its looking decent, albeit still 3 or 4 bodies short given the injury record over the past few seasons.

We've got some genuinely good youth prospects in Arblaster, Brooks and Peck in particular with the likes of Seriki, Marsh and Hampson likely to be seen a bit more often as we go through the season so depending on how they get on, they could fill those gaps.