ucandomagic
Well-Known Member
As usual, this is my simple 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 that they are overperforming and likely to slip back – and vice versa. I get the weekend data on Tuesday afternoon and try to post my summary on Tuesday evening.
I get the stats from footballxg.com
On Friday October 18th we lost 2-0 at Elland Road.
The XG data for the Leeds game was Blades 0.2 – Leeds 1.5
0.2 is a very poor XG stat – and far and away our worst of the season.
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 10 games so far. XG says that over those 10 games we should have scored 11.8 and conceded 7.4 and we have actually scored 12 and conceded 5. So, we are performing almost exactly to our XG in scoring but better than average against our XGA in defence for the chances that we are creating and allowing. Although a lot of people criticise our strikers it is actually our creation of good chances, rather than our finishing, that is below par.
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 performance this season is slightly better than their XG performance. However, the XG of 0.2 and the XGA of 1.5 against Leeds were both our worst of the season and were reflected in the actual result.
As I mentioned above, we have scored 12 with an XG of 11.8 and conceded 5 with an XGA of 7.4. Burnley, at the top of Chart 1 however, have scored 16 goals with an XG of only 10.9 and conceded 4 goals with an XGA of 8.5. They continue to outscore their XG with high-tariff goals.
Chart 2 is the XTable - based on team XG's in matches played – alongside the actual League Table. Blades are 3rd in the XTable compared to 4th in the actual League table so, as observed above, our results pretty accurately reflect our XG stats. Oxford are the biggest overperformers here – being 11th in the actual table but 22nd in the XTable. Millwall have far and away the biggest difference in the XTable from the actual League Table, being 4th in the XTable but 20th in the actual table!
Chart 2:
So, overall the stats continue to suggest that our results are a reasonably accurate reflection of our XG performance and represent a probable playoff position. Our poor creation of good chances means that our position is based firmly on a sound defence. The average XGA of 0.74 goals per game is a good figure, but we are outperforming that by delivering an actual average of 0.5 goals against per game.
Teams like Burnley, Blackburn, Oxford and Sunderland continue to overachieve significantly against their performance and might be expected to slip down the table, whereas teams like Middlesbrough, QPR and Cardiff are significantly underachieving against their performance and would be expected to move up the table.
As our next game is at Boro it is worth reflecting that their average home XG is 2.26, but their average home goals scored is just 1.2 – so Boro are the opposite to the Blades. We create few chances, but are average at converting them, Boro create a lot of chances but are significantly below average in converting them. Overall, the stats would suggest a1-1 draw. After the Leeds game I’d certainly take that!
So that’s it for another week.
UTB & Slava Ukraini
I get the stats from footballxg.com
On Friday October 18th we lost 2-0 at Elland Road.
The XG data for the Leeds game was Blades 0.2 – Leeds 1.5
0.2 is a very poor XG stat – and far and away our worst of the season.
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 10 games so far. XG says that over those 10 games we should have scored 11.8 and conceded 7.4 and we have actually scored 12 and conceded 5. So, we are performing almost exactly to our XG in scoring but better than average against our XGA in defence for the chances that we are creating and allowing. Although a lot of people criticise our strikers it is actually our creation of good chances, rather than our finishing, that is below par.
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 performance this season is slightly better than their XG performance. However, the XG of 0.2 and the XGA of 1.5 against Leeds were both our worst of the season and were reflected in the actual result.
As I mentioned above, we have scored 12 with an XG of 11.8 and conceded 5 with an XGA of 7.4. Burnley, at the top of Chart 1 however, have scored 16 goals with an XG of only 10.9 and conceded 4 goals with an XGA of 8.5. They continue to outscore their XG with high-tariff goals.
Chart 2 is the XTable - based on team XG's in matches played – alongside the actual League Table. Blades are 3rd in the XTable compared to 4th in the actual League table so, as observed above, our results pretty accurately reflect our XG stats. Oxford are the biggest overperformers here – being 11th in the actual table but 22nd in the XTable. Millwall have far and away the biggest difference in the XTable from the actual League Table, being 4th in the XTable but 20th in the actual table!
Chart 2:
So, overall the stats continue to suggest that our results are a reasonably accurate reflection of our XG performance and represent a probable playoff position. Our poor creation of good chances means that our position is based firmly on a sound defence. The average XGA of 0.74 goals per game is a good figure, but we are outperforming that by delivering an actual average of 0.5 goals against per game.
Teams like Burnley, Blackburn, Oxford and Sunderland continue to overachieve significantly against their performance and might be expected to slip down the table, whereas teams like Middlesbrough, QPR and Cardiff are significantly underachieving against their performance and would be expected to move up the table.
As our next game is at Boro it is worth reflecting that their average home XG is 2.26, but their average home goals scored is just 1.2 – so Boro are the opposite to the Blades. We create few chances, but are average at converting them, Boro create a lot of chances but are significantly below average in converting them. Overall, the stats would suggest a1-1 draw. After the Leeds game I’d certainly take that!
So that’s it for another week.
UTB & Slava Ukraini
