I know you did. And it adds to more than 0.8 which is why I thought you’d forgotten.
Why does it add to more than 0.8?
Why would they show our wingers continuously skinning their full back and pulling the ball back or firing it across the face with no shots?
Either these moments you describe were goal scoring opportunities for Walsall or they weren’t
If they were I’d expect to see them on the highlights, but they weren’t, which was my point.
If they weren’t goal scoring opportunities then it makes sense that Wasall have low XG because they wouldn’t contribute to XG
It’s not a lack of understanding it’s common sense. If I watch a game and I think I expect one team to score and the other to not, and a stat tells me the opposite that’s nonsense. It happens regularly with that “stat”. And I mean if you think that isn’t a fair assessment find me a report that says we were lucky to win or indeed “expected” them to score more than us
But that’s just subjective. I can’t debate with your view of which team you expect to score next, you’re not giving me any information why you are thinking that.
The xG stat just looks on the chances that actually happened for both sides and comes up with an overall value for both sides.
It could be that you have a different view of the chance of a certain player scoring a goal.
For example if Messi had a shot from 30 yards and Ian Roper had a shot from 30 yards, XG would give the same value (say) 0.1 of a goal.
You and I both know that’s nonsense, of course Messi would be more likely to score and so should have a higher XG. but XG isn’t sophisticated enough to know that.
That’s why I’m saying XG isn’t perfect, but if you understand what it is measuring then it’s reasonably useful.