ucandomagic
Well-Known Member
As I have mentioned before, as well as my usual graphs I have started 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 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. There wasn’t much reaction to last week’s effort, but I’ll do it for another week or two and then decide whether it’s worth carrying on.
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 7 games so far. XG says over those 7 games we should have scored 8.4 and conceded 5.1 and we have actually scored 9 and conceded 3, so we are performing very slightly 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 slightly less than last week, as against Portsmouth we had an XG of 1.1 and an XGA of 0.6 in a game that was a 0-0 draw. The XGA of 0.6 continues to say a lot about the developing brick wall that is Harry & Anel! I think that 0.6 must nearly all have come from that bullet header. Burnley, however, have scored 13 goals with an XG of 6.4 and conceded 4 goals with an XGA of 6.1. Looking at some of their highlights, they have scored quite a few high-tariff goals from outside the box.
Chart 2 is the XTable - based on team XG's in matches played. Blades are 4th in the XTable (which doesn’t allow for the 2-point deduction) compared to 6th in the actual League table with the 2-point deduction. Without the deduction we would be 4th in the actual table as well so, as observed above, our results pretty accurately reflect our XG stats. Burnley, however, are 12th in the XTable compared to 4th in the actual League Table, emphasising their unusually high-tariff 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 top-half of playoff position. Our position is based firmly on a sound defence. The average XGA of 0.73 goals per game is a good figure, but we are even outperforming that by delivering an actual average of 0.43 goals against per game.
Teams like Burnley, Blackburn and Oxford continue to overachieve significantly 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 still amazing – scored 2 and conceded 17 compared to an XG of 5.6 and an XGA of 10. They are making reasonable chances but obviously not taking them, and so their strikers and Alnwick the keeper must be in need of a white stick! Whoever replaces Bulut can only improve things.
So that’s it for another week.
Two home games this week – Swansea and Luton. Swansea have an average away XG of 0.93 and away XGA of 2.1. Luton have an average away XG of 1.2 and away XGA of 1.4. So a 2-1 win over Swansea and a 1-1 draw with Luton, or maybe a 2-1 win in both! I’m going to both games, but I’m away from home from tomorrow until next Saturday evening, so I’ll have to do my normal graph post for both Matchday 8 and 9 next Saturday evening.
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 7 games so far. XG says over those 7 games we should have scored 8.4 and conceded 5.1 and we have actually scored 9 and conceded 3, so we are performing very slightly 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 slightly less than last week, as against Portsmouth we had an XG of 1.1 and an XGA of 0.6 in a game that was a 0-0 draw. The XGA of 0.6 continues to say a lot about the developing brick wall that is Harry & Anel! I think that 0.6 must nearly all have come from that bullet header. Burnley, however, have scored 13 goals with an XG of 6.4 and conceded 4 goals with an XGA of 6.1. Looking at some of their highlights, they have scored quite a few high-tariff goals from outside the box.
Chart 2 is the XTable - based on team XG's in matches played. Blades are 4th in the XTable (which doesn’t allow for the 2-point deduction) compared to 6th in the actual League table with the 2-point deduction. Without the deduction we would be 4th in the actual table as well so, as observed above, our results pretty accurately reflect our XG stats. Burnley, however, are 12th in the XTable compared to 4th in the actual League Table, emphasising their unusually high-tariff 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 top-half of playoff position. Our position is based firmly on a sound defence. The average XGA of 0.73 goals per game is a good figure, but we are even outperforming that by delivering an actual average of 0.43 goals against per game.
Teams like Burnley, Blackburn and Oxford continue to overachieve significantly 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 still amazing – scored 2 and conceded 17 compared to an XG of 5.6 and an XGA of 10. They are making reasonable chances but obviously not taking them, and so their strikers and Alnwick the keeper must be in need of a white stick! Whoever replaces Bulut can only improve things.
So that’s it for another week.
Two home games this week – Swansea and Luton. Swansea have an average away XG of 0.93 and away XGA of 2.1. Luton have an average away XG of 1.2 and away XGA of 1.4. So a 2-1 win over Swansea and a 1-1 draw with Luton, or maybe a 2-1 win in both! I’m going to both games, but I’m away from home from tomorrow until next Saturday evening, so I’ll have to do my normal graph post for both Matchday 8 and 9 next Saturday evening.
UTB & Slava Ukraini
