>team that is chasing a lead attacks more than one that is playing away and just has to defend to win
shocking revelations, xgods I kneel at this insight
lol. Not only that, they use plenty of other expected things. It's not the 60s where they were devising tactics based on hunches coach had
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
use for what?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
are you for real, mate?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
are you?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
you should read up on packing
basically how many players a player between ball and goal a player takes out of the game by passes, dribbles, runs
it's what Leverkusen uses for scouting (invented by one of their former players)
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
i'm familiar with that
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
BRIGHTON BROS
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Interesting
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
i've had too much to drink
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
This sounds more useful than ecksGee but Brighton being rated that high in anything makes me extremely sceptical
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Leverkusen has almost a 100 point lead over the other teams
LeverGODS I kneel
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Pretty sure Dortmund didn't use it
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
omg like literally omg '
frick you little dweeb kek, muh made up stat
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
it's a great metric as long as you understand it doesn't mean that it was incorrect when the team who had smaller xG won
sounds like a useless cope metric, especially in two leg encounters
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
one glance at xG and you know how the game looked like without watching. Psg was good at creating a lot of chances but exremely shitty at converting them
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
not really
PSG did very little until Dortmund went ahead then they threw everythign up front
You know very little about the game
Its a typical moronic social media stat
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>not really
LMAO >You know very little about the game
hilarious projection >Its a typical moronic social media stat
casually mentioned by Luis Enrique - top tier coach from top tier team
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Luis Enrique - top tier coach from top tier team
lol, lmao even
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Pole above knows what he's talking a out. Xg tells you the general story of play and over a greater sample size always evens itself out in results
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
No it doesnt, and I just explained why
Games can be completely different
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>we hit the post 6 times, we had 31 shot on goal...but we didn't score >Psg was good at creating a lot of chances but exremely shitty at converting them
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
PSG was 0:2 down and was throwing everything up front, Dortmund didnt need to do more
PSG wasnt actually the better team, but you dont see that from the stat
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>PSG wasnt actually the better team, but you dont see that from the stat >it's a great metric as long as you understand it doesn't mean that it was incorrect when the team who had smaller xG won
learn how to read. Of course psg wasn't a better team
[...]
mate PSG conceded twice, that's why xG is a massive cope umbrella.
it's like a self fulfilling prophecy: the team pressured into scoring because they lose will get desperate and wasteful.
for example team A scores 3 times in 10 minutes, then team B takes over for 80 minutes and shoots 40 times without converting. final result 3-0.
xG brainlets claims team B is far superior. which is not true. team B conceded 3 goals because their defense is shit, their attack is shit for not converting, entire team is shit.
xG is the "ball possession" or "number of successful passes" of the 2020s: they tell you a piece of the story, but it's like a puzzle, you still need a dozen more pieces. just because some stat is in favor of your team doesnt mean your team should have won, like morono Enrique claims.
>mate PSG conceded twice, that's why xG is a massive cope umbrella.
same kind of moron
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Of course psg wasn't a better team
tell that to PSG manager and to all brainlets claiming "we deserved to win because high xG"
the same brainlets were seething at pic related with the same exact arguments as yours.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>They scored, we didn't >this is football. We accept the verdict
>with the same exact arguments as yours.
i'm only explaining what xG means. Team who won was always better (unless, of course, there were some serious referee mistakes)
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
So Psg put players forward and created a lot of xg. To my eye test they also looked very dangerous and quite unlucky to not score. I don't see what you're arguing about. The xg is inflated because they went gung ho football? Dortmund got away with it last 20.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I have better things to do than then wasting my time on your moronic Black person brain
Have you ever even watched a football game before?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Score penalty minute one. Sit in box for 89 minutes conceding chance after chance. >well actually that xg is inflated because the opposition was forced to attack.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>not really
Yes really, xG isn't for deciding who was the better team but it's to see who had more momentum and who had more chances PSG had like 30 shots and high xG which says that they reached the final third alot but had shit finishing which is what happened in the match, it's useful for when you didn't watch the match but want an idea of what happened
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
another example is you can tell when a match was a slurper when both teams have low xG's
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Pole above knows what he's talking a out. Xg tells you the general story of play and over a greater sample size always evens itself out in results
mate PSG conceded twice, that's why xG is a massive cope umbrella.
it's like a self fulfilling prophecy: the team pressured into scoring because they lose will get desperate and wasteful.
for example team A scores 3 times in 10 minutes, then team B takes over for 80 minutes and shoots 40 times without converting. final result 3-0.
xG brainlets claims team B is far superior. which is not true. team B conceded 3 goals because their defense is shit, their attack is shit for not converting, entire team is shit.
xG is the "ball possession" or "number of successful passes" of the 2020s: they tell you a piece of the story, but it's like a puzzle, you still need a dozen more pieces. just because some stat is in favor of your team doesnt mean your team should have won, like morono Enrique claims.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I know what you're saying. But I don't agree with your criticism of xgs use.
Possession was literally never as useful as xg is.
Imagine watching Dortmund winning several times in a row and still insisting that it was all luck and fluke because you believe in some made up statistics that perfectly convey the out of touch zeitgeist of modernity to reality
nerdshits should have stayed indoors with their little gadgets
anyone with glasses should be banned from a 5km radius of any sports stadium
pol pot was RIGHT
xG is the "At Least You Tried" award of slurpball. The guy who invented such a meaningless stat should hang from a tree with the rest of the Indians that were gullible enough to think it bears any significance whatsoever.
What a bunch of anti intellectual morons ITT. Anyone can watch that game and see that PSG were unlucky. Comparing xG is the same thing. You just get thrown because it's le scary maths
xG as a stat only works over multiple games (for example, for an entire season). For singular games or for knockout tournaments it isn't a useful stat due to every game being significant. The point of xG is to see if someone is overperforming or underperforming in the league.
It is useful. If you have 5 tapins and your opponent wins 1-0 with a bloooter, you can easily conclude how the frick did we lose. This is normal and all fans have historically reasoned like this. xG is the same
xG is supposed to analyze how the long term playing style of a team leads to chances.
If you have 5 tapin and your opponent wins 1-0 with a blooter, you don't need xG to explain how you lost. It is not useful in this context, as it adds zero information that isn't obvious from the scoresheet alone. xG is useful to compare different teams over a number of matches.
xG can be used however you want it. you don't have a monopoly in determining its use, cope
and xG is the same as colloquially saying how many chances you had, you're just getting thrown by muh stats
Listen, when you have less than 20% accuracy on your shots, I don't fricking care what sort of meme stats you want to use to cover your inpetitude. It means you suck and you deserved to lose. You can always say "we were better on paper" but reality says otherwise. It says your players despite having 70% possession and 31 fricking shots, were only able to shoot on target 5 times. Less than 10 (8) in the span of 2 fricking matches. Ain't no injustice here.
>because hitting the frame is counted as a shot off target
As it should. The goal doesn't move your shot is either in or out. Saying "but we hit the frame" is just a massive cope. That still means your players were too ineffective and inaccurate, it says a lot more about the match and the way your team played than some meme stat like xG.
you can have 5 long range shots on target straight at the goalkeeper versus 5 tapins that go wide. which means better chances created?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Doesn't matter, on target is on target, what matters is how many of those lead to an actual goal. You don't win by having more chances, you win by scoring more. And PSG couldn't score to save their lives because they can barely shot on target.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>You don't win by having more chances, you win by scoring more.
I never said you did, nor did LE. stay mad
>Incel goes to Stacy 10 times and gets rejected every single time >Chad goes to Stacy and gets her in the bed one his first try >"But I tried 10 times!!!!"
>team that is chasing a lead attacks more than one that is playing away and just has to defend to win
shocking revelations, xgods I kneel at this insight
>muh expected goals, a metric some shizo made up
I hate modern football
it's a great metric as long as you understand it doesn't mean that it was incorrect when the team who had smaller xG won
noone needs it
its typical social media shit that gets hyped up so braindead morons can post about it
>noone needs it
literally every team uses it
doubt
lol. Not only that, they use plenty of other expected things. It's not the 60s where they were devising tactics based on hunches coach had
use for what?
are you for real, mate?
are you?
you should read up on packing
basically how many players a player between ball and goal a player takes out of the game by passes, dribbles, runs
it's what Leverkusen uses for scouting (invented by one of their former players)
i'm familiar with that
BRIGHTON BROS
Interesting
i've had too much to drink
This sounds more useful than ecksGee but Brighton being rated that high in anything makes me extremely sceptical
>Leverkusen has almost a 100 point lead over the other teams
LeverGODS I kneel
Pretty sure Dortmund didn't use it
omg like literally omg '
frick you little dweeb kek, muh made up stat
sounds like a useless cope metric, especially in two leg encounters
one glance at xG and you know how the game looked like without watching. Psg was good at creating a lot of chances but exremely shitty at converting them
not really
PSG did very little until Dortmund went ahead then they threw everythign up front
You know very little about the game
Its a typical moronic social media stat
>not really
LMAO
>You know very little about the game
hilarious projection
>Its a typical moronic social media stat
casually mentioned by Luis Enrique - top tier coach from top tier team
>Luis Enrique - top tier coach from top tier team
lol, lmao even
Pole above knows what he's talking a out. Xg tells you the general story of play and over a greater sample size always evens itself out in results
No it doesnt, and I just explained why
Games can be completely different
>we hit the post 6 times, we had 31 shot on goal...but we didn't score
>Psg was good at creating a lot of chances but exremely shitty at converting them
PSG was 0:2 down and was throwing everything up front, Dortmund didnt need to do more
PSG wasnt actually the better team, but you dont see that from the stat
>PSG wasnt actually the better team, but you dont see that from the stat
>it's a great metric as long as you understand it doesn't mean that it was incorrect when the team who had smaller xG won
learn how to read. Of course psg wasn't a better team
>mate PSG conceded twice, that's why xG is a massive cope umbrella.
same kind of moron
>Of course psg wasn't a better team
tell that to PSG manager and to all brainlets claiming "we deserved to win because high xG"
the same brainlets were seething at pic related with the same exact arguments as yours.
>They scored, we didn't
>this is football. We accept the verdict
>with the same exact arguments as yours.
i'm only explaining what xG means. Team who won was always better (unless, of course, there were some serious referee mistakes)
So Psg put players forward and created a lot of xg. To my eye test they also looked very dangerous and quite unlucky to not score. I don't see what you're arguing about. The xg is inflated because they went gung ho football? Dortmund got away with it last 20.
I have better things to do than then wasting my time on your moronic Black person brain
Have you ever even watched a football game before?
Score penalty minute one. Sit in box for 89 minutes conceding chance after chance.
>well actually that xg is inflated because the opposition was forced to attack.
>not really
Yes really, xG isn't for deciding who was the better team but it's to see who had more momentum and who had more chances PSG had like 30 shots and high xG which says that they reached the final third alot but had shit finishing which is what happened in the match, it's useful for when you didn't watch the match but want an idea of what happened
another example is you can tell when a match was a slurper when both teams have low xG's
mate PSG conceded twice, that's why xG is a massive cope umbrella.
it's like a self fulfilling prophecy: the team pressured into scoring because they lose will get desperate and wasteful.
for example team A scores 3 times in 10 minutes, then team B takes over for 80 minutes and shoots 40 times without converting. final result 3-0.
xG brainlets claims team B is far superior. which is not true. team B conceded 3 goals because their defense is shit, their attack is shit for not converting, entire team is shit.
xG is the "ball possession" or "number of successful passes" of the 2020s: they tell you a piece of the story, but it's like a puzzle, you still need a dozen more pieces. just because some stat is in favor of your team doesnt mean your team should have won, like morono Enrique claims.
I know what you're saying. But I don't agree with your criticism of xgs use.
Possession was literally never as useful as xg is.
Imagine being this copedegenerated that you're blathering on about some made up meme stats
>as long as you understand it doesn't mean that it was incorrect when the team who had smaller xG won
>tfw being too good to win
IT HAPPENED AGAIN
xG can't win against SOVL and the power of teamwork and discipline
High Xg and low goals means either the oponent keeper GOATed it up or you are a bunch of pecho frios.
Defense difference
Unironically defensive and counterattacking masterclass by Dortmund
maybe managers should focus less on xG and more on G
>offense is all that matters
Brainlet shit like "b-but they had 75% of possession they should've won" as a casual would say
NOOOOOOOOO!!! WE DESERVED TO WIN!!!!
Why do people act like hitting the post means anything? I see that all the time in hockey. You didn't even hit the net, you deserve literally nothing.
Imagine watching Dortmund winning several times in a row and still insisting that it was all luck and fluke because you believe in some made up statistics that perfectly convey the out of touch zeitgeist of modernity to reality
nerdshits should have stayed indoors with their little gadgets
anyone with glasses should be banned from a 5km radius of any sports stadium
pol pot was RIGHT
>XG
This is what happens when every white male goes to computer programming or finance
Sup low IQ
xG is the "At Least You Tried" award of slurpball. The guy who invented such a meaningless stat should hang from a tree with the rest of the Indians that were gullible enough to think it bears any significance whatsoever.
bros we MUST make defending illegal
What a bunch of anti intellectual morons ITT. Anyone can watch that game and see that PSG were unlucky. Comparing xG is the same thing. You just get thrown because it's le scary maths
xG as a stat only works over multiple games (for example, for an entire season). For singular games or for knockout tournaments it isn't a useful stat due to every game being significant. The point of xG is to see if someone is overperforming or underperforming in the league.
It is useful. If you have 5 tapins and your opponent wins 1-0 with a bloooter, you can easily conclude how the frick did we lose. This is normal and all fans have historically reasoned like this. xG is the same
xG is supposed to analyze how the long term playing style of a team leads to chances.
If you have 5 tapin and your opponent wins 1-0 with a blooter, you don't need xG to explain how you lost. It is not useful in this context, as it adds zero information that isn't obvious from the scoresheet alone. xG is useful to compare different teams over a number of matches.
xG can be used however you want it. you don't have a monopoly in determining its use, cope
and xG is the same as colloquially saying how many chances you had, you're just getting thrown by muh stats
>xG(ODS)
You deserve to be hanging from a lamppost.
>Ramos
>Barcola
>Zaire-Emery
>Some other nigshit
Honestly mbappe was decent enough, it's the other morons missing point blank shots.
Listen, when you have less than 20% accuracy on your shots, I don't fricking care what sort of meme stats you want to use to cover your inpetitude. It means you suck and you deserved to lose. You can always say "we were better on paper" but reality says otherwise. It says your players despite having 70% possession and 31 fricking shots, were only able to shoot on target 5 times. Less than 10 (8) in the span of 2 fricking matches. Ain't no injustice here.
xG is better than shots on target because hitting the frame is counted as a shot off target
>Ain't no injustice here
who said there was? you're just getting mad like a chud b***h
>because hitting the frame is counted as a shot off target
As it should. The goal doesn't move your shot is either in or out. Saying "but we hit the frame" is just a massive cope. That still means your players were too ineffective and inaccurate, it says a lot more about the match and the way your team played than some meme stat like xG.
but xg talks about how good chances are
you can have 5 long range shots on target straight at the goalkeeper versus 5 tapins that go wide. which means better chances created?
Doesn't matter, on target is on target, what matters is how many of those lead to an actual goal. You don't win by having more chances, you win by scoring more. And PSG couldn't score to save their lives because they can barely shot on target.
>You don't win by having more chances, you win by scoring more.
I never said you did, nor did LE. stay mad
>Honestly mbappe was decent enough
0 goal in 2 games
>Incel goes to Stacy 10 times and gets rejected every single time
>Chad goes to Stacy and gets her in the bed one his first try
>"But I tried 10 times!!!!"
Luis is an Incel
>there are xG gays on MY Fhite
I shouldn't be surprised, I know some of you homosexuals don't even like watching sports but really
did he really call them BVB?