Creativity & Chance Conversion

[Power n Glory]

Majority of the shots are 0.1 for xG. Those are poor chances with a low probability of scoring. We controlled the game, dominated and had the volume of shots, but only 6 shots on target, a lot of blocked shots and the best chance we missed fell to Pepe. We still have a long way to go when it comes to our creativity.

That is what the data says. yes, except you missed our poor finishing.
Lots of chances created, not enough good ones (we rank 10th in the league for that), and poor finishing meaning we scored 1 instead of the 4-5 expected goals we should have from the chances created so far this season. Even those 0.1 chances are converted at, well, 10% on average and we're not converting any of them. Never mind the fewer better chances we are missing.

I reckon we will rise in team xG over the coming weeks because right now we're 10th best in the league having played Chelsea and Man City .. we'll be up to 6th or so in a few games in my prediction - but we'll see.

https://understat.com/league/EPL

Look through the weekend fixtures and highlight the goals scored from a 0.1 xG score or less? It's rare but look it up. Those are wonder goals of individual brilliance that make the goal. Not the pass.

If such a low xG score is a good chance, that would also mean Norwich had some good chances to win but were let down by poor finishing. That's far from the truth. Every shot isn't a good shot. But again, open to anyone, look up the 0.1 xG chances that were scored, watch Match of the Day, or just go to Arsenal Player and rewatch the game to see the chances we created.

No one said a 0.1. xG was a good chance - it is a chance that has about a 10% chance of being scored.
Stop trying to muddy the waters.

The data is the data - we had 30 shots that should have yielded 2-3 goals against Norwich.

Not trying to muddy the waters, just helping people understand xG. The data is the data I haven't seen where you get this idea that 30 shots should have yielded 2-3 goals. It doesn't work like that if you're creating low xG chances.

The one clear cut chance we should have scored but didn't was the 56 minute one from Pepe. If you watch that back, that was a 0.56 chance and nothing to do with bad finishing, just excellent defending from William to block it.

But again, anyone in fact, look up a 0.1 xG or less goal in match of the day or rewatch our game to get an idea of how xG works. That 3rd Lukaku goal is a 0.1 xG chance. The Fernandes goal for Utd is 0.03. Ronald's goals were a 0. 89 and 0.30. Newcastle's goal was a 0.26. Rewatch the goals for context.

Our team cG for the game was around 2.7.
If you have 10 shots all of 0.1 xG you expect to score 1 goal.. i.e 9 will not go in, but 1 on average willl. That is the whole point of xG rating per attempted shot. The better the chance the more likely it is on average to be scored.


That is the overall cumulative effect of all the percentage chances of scoring from every shot we had in the Norwich game on a running total of xG for the game for the team. We scored 1 , so we were well below expectations based on the chances we had.

To give more, the chance ESR had when he got a shot away from just around the edge of the box was an xG of 0.11.. i.e. an 11% chance of going in based on the norm. It's a chance but more often that not it will be missed but if he had 9 of those chances, 1 would be likely to go in on average.

Again, I challenge you to find a game where 0.1 xG chance has been scored or look again the low 0.1 chances missed and show me where it's an example of bad finishing.

Fella - any long shot from about 25 yards is going to be a goal scored from a shot that had a 0.1xG - or below (expected 10% of those types of shots going in).
Any single shot is not a bad finish, but if you keep on shooting from distance and score NONE after 15, 20,30,40 attempts, then you are a shit finisher compared to your peers.

We , this season have had 59 shots with an expected xG of 4.46 goals.. i.e. our average per shot xG is 0.076 . Instead of scoring 4-5 goals, we've scored 1.. so our shooting is pants. The table at the top of this thread shows every team and their expected goals vs their actual goals. Some are performing better than the expectation, others like us, are not.

Yes, long shots are low probability chances and it's not a wise way to set up if you don't have players with a record of cracking them in from a distance on a regular.

If you're going off simple probability and thinking you should score one from 15 or 20 attempts, then you might as well put me on the pitch to have a go. It's not a wise strategy and we're not always going to have games where we get 30 attempts on goal.

If you think this is the right way to go about things, you'll see where we end up.

[Power n Glory]

Again, find videos for contents, not just spreadsheets and numbers. That's no way to understand football. It's not a science.

Zenith - you're really good at finding at posting videos. Would be great if you could cut some videos in with the xG scores to help some understand how it works.

[jayramfootball]

Majority of the shots are 0.1 for xG. Those are poor chances with a low probability of scoring. We controlled the game, dominated and had the volume of shots, but only 6 shots on target, a lot of blocked shots and the best chance we missed fell to Pepe. We still have a long way to go when it comes to our creativity.

That is what the data says. yes, except you missed our poor finishing.
Lots of chances created, not enough good ones (we rank 10th in the league for that), and poor finishing meaning we scored 1 instead of the 4-5 expected goals we should have from the chances created so far this season. Even those 0.1 chances are converted at, well, 10% on average and we're not converting any of them. Never mind the fewer better chances we are missing.

I reckon we will rise in team xG over the coming weeks because right now we're 10th best in the league having played Chelsea and Man City .. we'll be up to 6th or so in a few games in my prediction - but we'll see.

https://understat.com/league/EPL

Look through the weekend fixtures and highlight the goals scored from a 0.1 xG score or less? It's rare but look it up. Those are wonder goals of individual brilliance that make the goal. Not the pass.

If such a low xG score is a good chance, that would also mean Norwich had some good chances to win but were let down by poor finishing. That's far from the truth. Every shot isn't a good shot. But again, open to anyone, look up the 0.1 xG chances that were scored, watch Match of the Day, or just go to Arsenal Player and rewatch the game to see the chances we created.

No one said a 0.1. xG was a good chance - it is a chance that has about a 10% chance of being scored.
Stop trying to muddy the waters.

The data is the data - we had 30 shots that should have yielded 2-3 goals against Norwich.

Not trying to muddy the waters, just helping people understand xG. The data is the data I haven't seen where you get this idea that 30 shots should have yielded 2-3 goals. It doesn't work like that if you're creating low xG chances.

The one clear cut chance we should have scored but didn't was the 56 minute one from Pepe. If you watch that back, that was a 0.56 chance and nothing to do with bad finishing, just excellent defending from William to block it.

But again, anyone in fact, look up a 0.1 xG or less goal in match of the day or rewatch our game to get an idea of how xG works. That 3rd Lukaku goal is a 0.1 xG chance. The Fernandes goal for Utd is 0.03. Ronald's goals were a 0. 89 and 0.30. Newcastle's goal was a 0.26. Rewatch the goals for context.

Our team cG for the game was around 2.7.
If you have 10 shots all of 0.1 xG you expect to score 1 goal.. i.e 9 will not go in, but 1 on average willl. That is the whole point of xG rating per attempted shot. The better the chance the more likely it is on average to be scored.


That is the overall cumulative effect of all the percentage chances of scoring from every shot we had in the Norwich game on a running total of xG for the game for the team. We scored 1 , so we were well below expectations based on the chances we had.

To give more, the chance ESR had when he got a shot away from just around the edge of the box was an xG of 0.11.. i.e. an 11% chance of going in based on the norm. It's a chance but more often that not it will be missed but if he had 9 of those chances, 1 would be likely to go in on average.

Again, I challenge you to find a game where 0.1 xG chance has been scored or look again the low 0.1 chances missed and show me where it's an example of bad finishing.

Fella - any long shot from about 25 yards is going to be a goal scored from a shot that had a 0.1xG - or below (expected 10% of those types of shots going in).
Any single shot is not a bad finish, but if you keep on shooting from distance and score NONE after 15, 20,30,40 attempts, then you are a shit finisher compared to your peers.

We , this season have had 59 shots with an expected xG of 4.46 goals.. i.e. our average per shot xG is 0.076 . Instead of scoring 4-5 goals, we've scored 1.. so our shooting is pants. The table at the top of this thread shows every team and their expected goals vs their actual goals. Some are performing better than the expectation, others like us, are not.

Yes, long shots are low probability chances and it's not a wise way to set up if you don't have players with a record of cracking them in from a distance on a regular.

If you're going off simple probability and thinking you should score one from 15 or 20 attempts, then you might as well put me on the pitch to have a go. It's not a wise strategy and we're not always going to have games where we get 30 attempts on goal.

If you think this is the right way to go about things, you'll see where we end up.

Erm, that is the point... the players are performing below their peers.
In fact if we HAD of put you on the pitch to take a shot at those chances, we'd be in exactly the same position we are assuming you could have scored Auba's tap in if you were placed in that postion.
This not a thread about anything other than the facts.
Read the top post fully.
I have stated there is some merit in saying that we are not creating quality chances BUT the data also says even with the chances we are creating we are performing the worst in the league at converting those chances. In fact, if we were performing just at the average we'd have scored more goals than Spurs for example, and 9 other teams in the PL.

Based on PL expectations of where our chances have come from and the circumstances of those chances we should have scored 4-5 goals - and 2-3 of those goals against Norwich. We didn't because our players performed below expectation for the chances they were presented with.

[Power n Glory]

Majority of the shots are 0.1 for xG. Those are poor chances with a low probability of scoring. We controlled the game, dominated and had the volume of shots, but only 6 shots on target, a lot of blocked shots and the best chance we missed fell to Pepe. We still have a long way to go when it comes to our creativity.

That is what the data says. yes, except you missed our poor finishing.
Lots of chances created, not enough good ones (we rank 10th in the league for that), and poor finishing meaning we scored 1 instead of the 4-5 expected goals we should have from the chances created so far this season. Even those 0.1 chances are converted at, well, 10% on average and we're not converting any of them. Never mind the fewer better chances we are missing.

I reckon we will rise in team xG over the coming weeks because right now we're 10th best in the league having played Chelsea and Man City .. we'll be up to 6th or so in a few games in my prediction - but we'll see.

https://understat.com/league/EPL

Look through the weekend fixtures and highlight the goals scored from a 0.1 xG score or less? It's rare but look it up. Those are wonder goals of individual brilliance that make the goal. Not the pass.

If such a low xG score is a good chance, that would also mean Norwich had some good chances to win but were let down by poor finishing. That's far from the truth. Every shot isn't a good shot. But again, open to anyone, look up the 0.1 xG chances that were scored, watch Match of the Day, or just go to Arsenal Player and rewatch the game to see the chances we created.

No one said a 0.1. xG was a good chance - it is a chance that has about a 10% chance of being scored.
Stop trying to muddy the waters.

The data is the data - we had 30 shots that should have yielded 2-3 goals against Norwich.

Not trying to muddy the waters, just helping people understand xG. The data is the data I haven't seen where you get this idea that 30 shots should have yielded 2-3 goals. It doesn't work like that if you're creating low xG chances.

The one clear cut chance we should have scored but didn't was the 56 minute one from Pepe. If you watch that back, that was a 0.56 chance and nothing to do with bad finishing, just excellent defending from William to block it.

But again, anyone in fact, look up a 0.1 xG or less goal in match of the day or rewatch our game to get an idea of how xG works. That 3rd Lukaku goal is a 0.1 xG chance. The Fernandes goal for Utd is 0.03. Ronald's goals were a 0. 89 and 0.30. Newcastle's goal was a 0.26. Rewatch the goals for context.

Our team cG for the game was around 2.7.
If you have 10 shots all of 0.1 xG you expect to score 1 goal.. i.e 9 will not go in, but 1 on average willl. That is the whole point of xG rating per attempted shot. The better the chance the more likely it is on average to be scored.


That is the overall cumulative effect of all the percentage chances of scoring from every shot we had in the Norwich game on a running total of xG for the game for the team. We scored 1 , so we were well below expectations based on the chances we had.

To give more, the chance ESR had when he got a shot away from just around the edge of the box was an xG of 0.11.. i.e. an 11% chance of going in based on the norm. It's a chance but more often that not it will be missed but if he had 9 of those chances, 1 would be likely to go in on average.

Again, I challenge you to find a game where 0.1 xG chance has been scored or look again the low 0.1 chances missed and show me where it's an example of bad finishing.

Fella - any long shot from about 25 yards is going to be a goal scored from a shot that had a 0.1xG - or below (expected 10% of those types of shots going in).
Any single shot is not a bad finish, but if you keep on shooting from distance and score NONE after 15, 20,30,40 attempts, then you are a shit finisher compared to your peers.

We , this season have had 59 shots with an expected xG of 4.46 goals.. i.e. our average per shot xG is 0.076 . Instead of scoring 4-5 goals, we've scored 1.. so our shooting is pants. The table at the top of this thread shows every team and their expected goals vs their actual goals. Some are performing better than the expectation, others like us, are not.

Yes, long shots are low probability chances and it's not a wise way to set up if you don't have players with a record of cracking them in from a distance on a regular.

If you're going off simple probability and thinking you should score one from 15 or 20 attempts, then you might as well put me on the pitch to have a go. It's not a wise strategy and we're not always going to have games where we get 30 attempts on goal.

If you think this is the right way to go about things, you'll see where we end up.

Erm, that is the point... the players are performing below their peers.
In fact if we HAD of put you on the pitch to take a shot at those chances, we'd be in exactly the same position we are assuming you could have scored Auba's tap in if you were placed in that postion.
This not a thread about anything other than the facts.
Read the top post fully.
I have stated there is some merit in saying that we are not creating quality chances BUT the data also says even with the chances we are creating we are performing the worst in the league at converting those chances. In fact, if we were performing just at the average we'd have scored more goals than Spurs for example, and 9 other teams in the PL.

Based on PL expectations of where our chances have come from and the circumstances of those chances we should have scored 4-5 goals - and 2-3 of those goals against Norwich. We didn't because our players performed below expectation for the chances they were presented with.

I disagree. Again, look at how many goals were scored from low xG chances this weekend. If you can't look at that, there isn't much point else in discussing xG because there will always bee a misunderstanding.

Also, that's your conclusion and it's the players underperfoming compared to their peers, add that thought to the criticism of our transfer window and why everyone was saying we needed attackers. It all adds up.

[jayramfootball]

Majority of the shots are 0.1 for xG. Those are poor chances with a low probability of scoring. We controlled the game, dominated and had the volume of shots, but only 6 shots on target, a lot of blocked shots and the best chance we missed fell to Pepe. We still have a long way to go when it comes to our creativity.

That is what the data says. yes, except you missed our poor finishing.
Lots of chances created, not enough good ones (we rank 10th in the league for that), and poor finishing meaning we scored 1 instead of the 4-5 expected goals we should have from the chances created so far this season. Even those 0.1 chances are converted at, well, 10% on average and we're not converting any of them. Never mind the fewer better chances we are missing.

I reckon we will rise in team xG over the coming weeks because right now we're 10th best in the league having played Chelsea and Man City .. we'll be up to 6th or so in a few games in my prediction - but we'll see.

https://understat.com/league/EPL

Look through the weekend fixtures and highlight the goals scored from a 0.1 xG score or less? It's rare but look it up. Those are wonder goals of individual brilliance that make the goal. Not the pass.

If such a low xG score is a good chance, that would also mean Norwich had some good chances to win but were let down by poor finishing. That's far from the truth. Every shot isn't a good shot. But again, open to anyone, look up the 0.1 xG chances that were scored, watch Match of the Day, or just go to Arsenal Player and rewatch the game to see the chances we created.

No one said a 0.1. xG was a good chance - it is a chance that has about a 10% chance of being scored.
Stop trying to muddy the waters.

The data is the data - we had 30 shots that should have yielded 2-3 goals against Norwich.

Not trying to muddy the waters, just helping people understand xG. The data is the data I haven't seen where you get this idea that 30 shots should have yielded 2-3 goals. It doesn't work like that if you're creating low xG chances.

The one clear cut chance we should have scored but didn't was the 56 minute one from Pepe. If you watch that back, that was a 0.56 chance and nothing to do with bad finishing, just excellent defending from William to block it.

But again, anyone in fact, look up a 0.1 xG or less goal in match of the day or rewatch our game to get an idea of how xG works. That 3rd Lukaku goal is a 0.1 xG chance. The Fernandes goal for Utd is 0.03. Ronald's goals were a 0. 89 and 0.30. Newcastle's goal was a 0.26. Rewatch the goals for context.

Our team cG for the game was around 2.7.
If you have 10 shots all of 0.1 xG you expect to score 1 goal.. i.e 9 will not go in, but 1 on average willl. That is the whole point of xG rating per attempted shot. The better the chance the more likely it is on average to be scored.


That is the overall cumulative effect of all the percentage chances of scoring from every shot we had in the Norwich game on a running total of xG for the game for the team. We scored 1 , so we were well below expectations based on the chances we had.

To give more, the chance ESR had when he got a shot away from just around the edge of the box was an xG of 0.11.. i.e. an 11% chance of going in based on the norm. It's a chance but more often that not it will be missed but if he had 9 of those chances, 1 would be likely to go in on average.

Again, I challenge you to find a game where 0.1 xG chance has been scored or look again the low 0.1 chances missed and show me where it's an example of bad finishing.

Fella - any long shot from about 25 yards is going to be a goal scored from a shot that had a 0.1xG - or below (expected 10% of those types of shots going in).
Any single shot is not a bad finish, but if you keep on shooting from distance and score NONE after 15, 20,30,40 attempts, then you are a shit finisher compared to your peers.

We , this season have had 59 shots with an expected xG of 4.46 goals.. i.e. our average per shot xG is 0.076 . Instead of scoring 4-5 goals, we've scored 1.. so our shooting is pants. The table at the top of this thread shows every team and their expected goals vs their actual goals. Some are performing better than the expectation, others like us, are not.

Yes, long shots are low probability chances and it's not a wise way to set up if you don't have players with a record of cracking them in from a distance on a regular.

If you're going off simple probability and thinking you should score one from 15 or 20 attempts, then you might as well put me on the pitch to have a go. It's not a wise strategy and we're not always going to have games where we get 30 attempts on goal.

If you think this is the right way to go about things, you'll see where we end up.

Erm, that is the point... the players are performing below their peers.
In fact if we HAD of put you on the pitch to take a shot at those chances, we'd be in exactly the same position we are assuming you could have scored Auba's tap in if you were placed in that postion.
This not a thread about anything other than the facts.
Read the top post fully.
I have stated there is some merit in saying that we are not creating quality chances BUT the data also says even with the chances we are creating we are performing the worst in the league at converting those chances. In fact, if we were performing just at the average we'd have scored more goals than Spurs for example, and 9 other teams in the PL.

Based on PL expectations of where our chances have come from and the circumstances of those chances we should have scored 4-5 goals - and 2-3 of those goals against Norwich. We didn't because our players performed below expectation for the chances they were presented with.

I disagree. Again, look at how many goals were scored from low xG chances this weekend. If you can't look at that, there isn't much point else in discussing xG because there will always bee a misunderstanding.

Also, that's your conclusion and it's the players underperfoming compared to their peers, add that thought to the criticism of our transfer window and why everyone was saying we needed attackers. It all adds up.

There is nothing to disagree with.
A chance with an xG of 0.1 means that there is a 10% chance on average of it going in.
If you have 100 of those chances and score none, the finishing is poor.

Here is an example at 5mins 02 seconds. It's ESR's chance in the 86th minute. It has an xG of 0.11. You can see such an xG would be seen as a decent chance that would hit the back of the net about 11% of the time. If you fail to score 1 in 9 chances like this then your finishing is below average.

it also highlights the folly of people trying to say we didn't create against Norwich. This was not the best chance we missed.

[Power n Glory]

Jay, who gets 100 chances in a game? Lol. A 10% chance is low and when spread across a variety of players and add in the fact that these chances aren't falling to our best players, what do you expect?

ESR could have finished that chance but it's a low xG chance because there aren't many players that would dink past the player to create a shot on goal. Roll that pass to player of lesser quality and he's getting tackled.

Also, ESR is a player we all rank highly but he's not the finished product and far from world class, hence why he missed. It comes back to transfer strategy and who we're trusting. So you're entitled to hold your belief on the xG, but then come back and think again about the manager, club transfer policy and tactics. Many have said we don't have the players for this style of football and we need rethink how we approach games. This was just Norwich. We have tougher opponents coming so hopefully we improve quickly otherwise we're back waiting for the transfer window, which darws back to this idea of Arteta being a chequebook manager if he can't get more from what he already has.

[jayramfootball]

Jay, who gets 100 chances in a game? Lol. A 10% chance is low and when spread across a variety of players and add in the fact that these chances aren't falling to our best players, what do you expect?

ESR could have finished that chance but it's a low xG chance because there aren't many players that would dink past the player to create a shot on goal. Roll that pass to player of lesser quality and he's getting tackled.

Also, ESR is a player we all rank highly but he's not the finished product and far from world class, hence why he missed. It comes back to transfer strategy and who we're trusting. So you're entitled to hold your belief on the xG, but then come back and think again about the manager, club transfer policy and tactics. Many have said we don't have the players for this style of football and we need rethink how we approach games. This was just Norwich. We have tougher opponents coming so hopefully we improve quickly otherwise we're back waiting for the transfer window, which darws back to this idea of Arteta being a chequebook manager if he can't get more from what he already has.

Our poor finishing is not a reflection on any single player - it's collective.

Across the team our shooting is not good enough and I think it is equally important (or more actually) an area that we have to address than the other issue we have which is the quality of the chances created.

No one gets 100 chances in a game but over a season we'll have 100s. If we kept getting those types of chances game after game and scored none of them then clearly we'd have a problem with finishing. As it stands we have had 59 chances this season and cumulatively we should have scored 4-5 goals but have scored 1. (this is why I said earlier that after 4 games the numbers will not be as reliable as after say 10-15, which is why I'll update the numbers game by game)

You are right about that ESR chance - it is at 0.11 xG because of ALL the circumstances of the chance (or at least many of them), from where he picked it up, what he had to do and then the position of the shot he got away, are taken into account.

[Power n Glory]

Jay, who gets 100 chances in a game? Lol. A 10% chance is low and when spread across a variety of players and add in the fact that these chances aren't falling to our best players, what do you expect?

ESR could have finished that chance but it's a low xG chance because there aren't many players that would dink past the player to create a shot on goal. Roll that pass to player of lesser quality and he's getting tackled.

Also, ESR is a player we all rank highly but he's not the finished product and far from world class, hence why he missed. It comes back to transfer strategy and who we're trusting. So you're entitled to hold your belief on the xG, but then come back and think again about the manager, club transfer policy and tactics. Many have said we don't have the players for this style of football and we need rethink how we approach games. This was just Norwich. We have tougher opponents coming so hopefully we improve quickly otherwise we're back waiting for the transfer window, which darws back to this idea of Arteta being a chequebook manager if he can't get more from what he already has.

Our poor finishing is not a reflection on any single player - it's collective.

Across the team our shooting is not good enough and I think it is equally important (or more actually) an area that we have to address than the other issue we have which is the quality of the chances created.

No one gets 100 chances in a game but over a season we'll have 100s. If we kept getting those types of chances game after game and scored none of them then clearly we'd have a problem with finishing. As it stands we have had 59 chances this season and cumulatively we should have scored 4-5 goals but have scored 1. (this is why I said earlier that after 4 games the numbers will not be as reliable as after say 10-15, which is why I'll update the numbers game by game)

You are right about that ESR chance - it is at 0.11 xG because of ALL the circumstances of the chance (or at least many of them), from where he picked it up, what he had to do and then the position of the shot he got away, are taken into account.

I don't watch football that way. You have a data analyst approach which can be helpful but it lacks context. If you don't start looking at individual players, how do you see or solve the problem? Or your simply looking at the collective, then whose job is it to improve the shooting overall?

[jayramfootball]

Jay, who gets 100 chances in a game? Lol. A 10% chance is low and when spread across a variety of players and add in the fact that these chances aren't falling to our best players, what do you expect?

ESR could have finished that chance but it's a low xG chance because there aren't many players that would dink past the player to create a shot on goal. Roll that pass to player of lesser quality and he's getting tackled.

Also, ESR is a player we all rank highly but he's not the finished product and far from world class, hence why he missed. It comes back to transfer strategy and who we're trusting. So you're entitled to hold your belief on the xG, but then come back and think again about the manager, club transfer policy and tactics. Many have said we don't have the players for this style of football and we need rethink how we approach games. This was just Norwich. We have tougher opponents coming so hopefully we improve quickly otherwise we're back waiting for the transfer window, which darws back to this idea of Arteta being a chequebook manager if he can't get more from what he already has.

Our poor finishing is not a reflection on any single player - it's collective.

Across the team our shooting is not good enough and I think it is equally important (or more actually) an area that we have to address than the other issue we have which is the quality of the chances created.

No one gets 100 chances in a game but over a season we'll have 100s. If we kept getting those types of chances game after game and scored none of them then clearly we'd have a problem with finishing. As it stands we have had 59 chances this season and cumulatively we should have scored 4-5 goals but have scored 1. (this is why I said earlier that after 4 games the numbers will not be as reliable as after say 10-15, which is why I'll update the numbers game by game)

You are right about that ESR chance - it is at 0.11 xG because of ALL the circumstances of the chance (or at least many of them), from where he picked it up, what he had to do and then the position of the shot he got away, are taken into account.

I don't watch football that way. You have a data analyst approach which can be helpful but it lacks context. If you don't start looking at individual players, how do you see or solve the problem? Or your simply looking at the collective, then whose job is it to improve the shooting overall?

It's not my job to improve the performance - that is Arteta's and the players' job.
This is just about what the performance level actually is - right now not good enough at putting the ball in the net based on the chances we are creating AND the average quality of the chances we are creating.
We are however creating quite a lot of chances, more than most teams.

As for individual players , the biggest culprits right now after 4 games are Pepe, Saka, Holding and ESR.
That said, it is early days (especially when viewed at the player level) and we need to have more games so the number of chances each gets is enough to make their average performance more stable. Holding, for example, has had 1 very good chance against Chelsea and screwed it up. He might take the next one.

[Power n Glory]

Jay, who gets 100 chances in a game? Lol. A 10% chance is low and when spread across a variety of players and add in the fact that these chances aren't falling to our best players, what do you expect?

ESR could have finished that chance but it's a low xG chance because there aren't many players that would dink past the player to create a shot on goal. Roll that pass to player of lesser quality and he's getting tackled.

Also, ESR is a player we all rank highly but he's not the finished product and far from world class, hence why he missed. It comes back to transfer strategy and who we're trusting. So you're entitled to hold your belief on the xG, but then come back and think again about the manager, club transfer policy and tactics. Many have said we don't have the players for this style of football and we need rethink how we approach games. This was just Norwich. We have tougher opponents coming so hopefully we improve quickly otherwise we're back waiting for the transfer window, which darws back to this idea of Arteta being a chequebook manager if he can't get more from what he already has.

Our poor finishing is not a reflection on any single player - it's collective.

Across the team our shooting is not good enough and I think it is equally important (or more actually) an area that we have to address than the other issue we have which is the quality of the chances created.

No one gets 100 chances in a game but over a season we'll have 100s. If we kept getting those types of chances game after game and scored none of them then clearly we'd have a problem with finishing. As it stands we have had 59 chances this season and cumulatively we should have scored 4-5 goals but have scored 1. (this is why I said earlier that after 4 games the numbers will not be as reliable as after say 10-15, which is why I'll update the numbers game by game)

You are right about that ESR chance - it is at 0.11 xG because of ALL the circumstances of the chance (or at least many of them), from where he picked it up, what he had to do and then the position of the shot he got away, are taken into account.

I don't watch football that way. You have a data analyst approach which can be helpful but it lacks context. If you don't start looking at individual players, how do you see or solve the problem? Or your simply looking at the collective, then whose job is it to improve the shooting overall?

It's not my job to improve the performance - that is Arteta's and the players' job.
This is just about what the performance level actually is - right now not good enough at putting the ball in the net based on the chances we are creating AND the average quality of the chances we are creating.
We are however creating quite a lot of chances, more than most teams.

As for individual players , the biggest culprits right now after 4 games are Pepe, Saka, Holding and ESR.
That said, it is early days (especially when viewed at the player level) and we need to have more games so the number of chances each gets is enough to make their average performance more stable. Holding, for example, has had 1 very good chance against Chelsea and screwed it up. He might take the next one.

If course it's on the manager to solve that. Either improve individual performances or buy better players.

Also, you're over exaggerating the chances. This and the Brentford game are the only two games with a high volume of shots.

Man City - 0.12 xG with one shot.
Chelsea - 0.63
Brentford - 1.02

These are two newly promoted teams we're struggling to create quality chances against.

[jayramfootball]

Jay, who gets 100 chances in a game? Lol. A 10% chance is low and when spread across a variety of players and add in the fact that these chances aren't falling to our best players, what do you expect?

ESR could have finished that chance but it's a low xG chance because there aren't many players that would dink past the player to create a shot on goal. Roll that pass to player of lesser quality and he's getting tackled.

Also, ESR is a player we all rank highly but he's not the finished product and far from world class, hence why he missed. It comes back to transfer strategy and who we're trusting. So you're entitled to hold your belief on the xG, but then come back and think again about the manager, club transfer policy and tactics. Many have said we don't have the players for this style of football and we need rethink how we approach games. This was just Norwich. We have tougher opponents coming so hopefully we improve quickly otherwise we're back waiting for the transfer window, which darws back to this idea of Arteta being a chequebook manager if he can't get more from what he already has.

Our poor finishing is not a reflection on any single player - it's collective.

Across the team our shooting is not good enough and I think it is equally important (or more actually) an area that we have to address than the other issue we have which is the quality of the chances created.

No one gets 100 chances in a game but over a season we'll have 100s. If we kept getting those types of chances game after game and scored none of them then clearly we'd have a problem with finishing. As it stands we have had 59 chances this season and cumulatively we should have scored 4-5 goals but have scored 1. (this is why I said earlier that after 4 games the numbers will not be as reliable as after say 10-15, which is why I'll update the numbers game by game)

You are right about that ESR chance - it is at 0.11 xG because of ALL the circumstances of the chance (or at least many of them), from where he picked it up, what he had to do and then the position of the shot he got away, are taken into account.

I don't watch football that way. You have a data analyst approach which can be helpful but it lacks context. If you don't start looking at individual players, how do you see or solve the problem? Or your simply looking at the collective, then whose job is it to improve the shooting overall?

It's not my job to improve the performance - that is Arteta's and the players' job.
This is just about what the performance level actually is - right now not good enough at putting the ball in the net based on the chances we are creating AND the average quality of the chances we are creating.
We are however creating quite a lot of chances, more than most teams.

As for individual players , the biggest culprits right now after 4 games are Pepe, Saka, Holding and ESR.
That said, it is early days (especially when viewed at the player level) and we need to have more games so the number of chances each gets is enough to make their average performance more stable. Holding, for example, has had 1 very good chance against Chelsea and screwed it up. He might take the next one.

If course it's on the manager to solve that. Either improve individual performances or buy better players.

Also, you're over exaggerating the chances. This and the Brentford game are the only two games with a high volume of shots.

Man City - 0.12 xG with one shot.
Chelsea - 0.63
Brentford - 1.02

These are two newly promoted teams we're struggling to create quality chances against.

No, I am not exaggerating anything.
The numbers are the numbers. Not increased, not decreased. Just the numbers.

I have already made reference to the fact we played City and Chelsea - if anything that means we'll do BETTER going forward rather than worse because 2 of our 4 games have been against the two best teams in the league and in one of them we were down to 10 men and ended up with something ridiculous like 12% possession.

[Power n Glory]

Jay, who gets 100 chances in a game? Lol. A 10% chance is low and when spread across a variety of players and add in the fact that these chances aren't falling to our best players, what do you expect?

ESR could have finished that chance but it's a low xG chance because there aren't many players that would dink past the player to create a shot on goal. Roll that pass to player of lesser quality and he's getting tackled.

Also, ESR is a player we all rank highly but he's not the finished product and far from world class, hence why he missed. It comes back to transfer strategy and who we're trusting. So you're entitled to hold your belief on the xG, but then come back and think again about the manager, club transfer policy and tactics. Many have said we don't have the players for this style of football and we need rethink how we approach games. This was just Norwich. We have tougher opponents coming so hopefully we improve quickly otherwise we're back waiting for the transfer window, which darws back to this idea of Arteta being a chequebook manager if he can't get more from what he already has.

Our poor finishing is not a reflection on any single player - it's collective.

Across the team our shooting is not good enough and I think it is equally important (or more actually) an area that we have to address than the other issue we have which is the quality of the chances created.

No one gets 100 chances in a game but over a season we'll have 100s. If we kept getting those types of chances game after game and scored none of them then clearly we'd have a problem with finishing. As it stands we have had 59 chances this season and cumulatively we should have scored 4-5 goals but have scored 1. (this is why I said earlier that after 4 games the numbers will not be as reliable as after say 10-15, which is why I'll update the numbers game by game)

You are right about that ESR chance - it is at 0.11 xG because of ALL the circumstances of the chance (or at least many of them), from where he picked it up, what he had to do and then the position of the shot he got away, are taken into account.

I don't watch football that way. You have a data analyst approach which can be helpful but it lacks context. If you don't start looking at individual players, how do you see or solve the problem? Or your simply looking at the collective, then whose job is it to improve the shooting overall?

It's not my job to improve the performance - that is Arteta's and the players' job.
This is just about what the performance level actually is - right now not good enough at putting the ball in the net based on the chances we are creating AND the average quality of the chances we are creating.
We are however creating quite a lot of chances, more than most teams.

As for individual players , the biggest culprits right now after 4 games are Pepe, Saka, Holding and ESR.
That said, it is early days (especially when viewed at the player level) and we need to have more games so the number of chances each gets is enough to make their average performance more stable. Holding, for example, has had 1 very good chance against Chelsea and screwed it up. He might take the next one.

If course it's on the manager to solve that. Either improve individual performances or buy better players.

Also, you're over exaggerating the chances. This and the Brentford game are the only two games with a high volume of shots.

Man City - 0.12 xG with one shot.
Chelsea - 0.63
Brentford - 1.02

These are two newly promoted teams we're struggling to create quality chances against.

No, I am not exaggerating anything.
The numbers are the numbers. Not increased, not decreased. Just the numbers.

I have already made reference to the fact we played City and Chelsea - if anything that means we'll do BETTER going forward rather than worse because 2 of our 4 games have been against the two best teams in the league and in one of them we were down to 10 men and ended up with something ridiculous like 12% possession.

Does football work like that? Go take a look at the games Wolves. They are just above us in that league table you posted. You'll see what wasteful looks like in comparison.

[jayramfootball]

Jay, who gets 100 chances in a game? Lol. A 10% chance is low and when spread across a variety of players and add in the fact that these chances aren't falling to our best players, what do you expect?

ESR could have finished that chance but it's a low xG chance because there aren't many players that would dink past the player to create a shot on goal. Roll that pass to player of lesser quality and he's getting tackled.

Also, ESR is a player we all rank highly but he's not the finished product and far from world class, hence why he missed. It comes back to transfer strategy and who we're trusting. So you're entitled to hold your belief on the xG, but then come back and think again about the manager, club transfer policy and tactics. Many have said we don't have the players for this style of football and we need rethink how we approach games. This was just Norwich. We have tougher opponents coming so hopefully we improve quickly otherwise we're back waiting for the transfer window, which darws back to this idea of Arteta being a chequebook manager if he can't get more from what he already has.

Our poor finishing is not a reflection on any single player - it's collective.

Across the team our shooting is not good enough and I think it is equally important (or more actually) an area that we have to address than the other issue we have which is the quality of the chances created.

No one gets 100 chances in a game but over a season we'll have 100s. If we kept getting those types of chances game after game and scored none of them then clearly we'd have a problem with finishing. As it stands we have had 59 chances this season and cumulatively we should have scored 4-5 goals but have scored 1. (this is why I said earlier that after 4 games the numbers will not be as reliable as after say 10-15, which is why I'll update the numbers game by game)

You are right about that ESR chance - it is at 0.11 xG because of ALL the circumstances of the chance (or at least many of them), from where he picked it up, what he had to do and then the position of the shot he got away, are taken into account.

I don't watch football that way. You have a data analyst approach which can be helpful but it lacks context. If you don't start looking at individual players, how do you see or solve the problem? Or your simply looking at the collective, then whose job is it to improve the shooting overall?

It's not my job to improve the performance - that is Arteta's and the players' job.
This is just about what the performance level actually is - right now not good enough at putting the ball in the net based on the chances we are creating AND the average quality of the chances we are creating.
We are however creating quite a lot of chances, more than most teams.

As for individual players , the biggest culprits right now after 4 games are Pepe, Saka, Holding and ESR.
That said, it is early days (especially when viewed at the player level) and we need to have more games so the number of chances each gets is enough to make their average performance more stable. Holding, for example, has had 1 very good chance against Chelsea and screwed it up. He might take the next one.

If course it's on the manager to solve that. Either improve individual performances or buy better players.

Also, you're over exaggerating the chances. This and the Brentford game are the only two games with a high volume of shots.

Man City - 0.12 xG with one shot.
Chelsea - 0.63
Brentford - 1.02

These are two newly promoted teams we're struggling to create quality chances against.

No, I am not exaggerating anything.
The numbers are the numbers. Not increased, not decreased. Just the numbers.

I have already made reference to the fact we played City and Chelsea - if anything that means we'll do BETTER going forward rather than worse because 2 of our 4 games have been against the two best teams in the league and in one of them we were down to 10 men and ended up with something ridiculous like 12% possession.

Does football work like that? Go take a look at the games Wolves. They are just above us in that league table you posted. You'll see what wasteful looks like in comparison.

Maybe, maybe not.
We'll see whether or not we can move our way up in terms of expected goals and finishing - I personally think we will do better on average over the next 6 games or so because we were so short against City and Chelsea and it's brought our numbers down - but I don't disagree that there is no way of knowing until it happens. You may be right, our numbers may be better because we played Norwich and Brentford.

[theHotHead]

Problem is not every chance is the same, it’s doesn’t consider who else is around the player, what position they’re in, whether they hinder they’re ability to shoot, the quality of the ball etc.

A good chance is one that is relatively unhindered, none of these matrices can consider that, no two chances are the same either.

Those things are included in the xG assigned to a chance.

How is Expected Goals calculated?
It is calculated by comparing it to thousands of shots recorded earlier based on factors such as distance, position of defenders, type and speed of pass, type of shot, shot angles and various other aspects.

Putting it simply, each shot is assigned a particular value between 0 and 1, with 1 being the highest chance of scoring and 0 the lowest.

Say, if a player decides to take a long shot from outside the box, then its probability of finding a way past the keeper would definitely be less than 1, maybe even less than 0.1 based on past data for similar situations.


Similarly, if a player is provided with a chance to simply tuck in the ball, then the probability of scoring would be somewhere towards the upper limit, say 0.8 or 0.9.

However, even if a player is too close to the goal, the chance of scoring depends on various other factors such as the defenders’ reach, the pass the player receives and the power of the shot, thus lowering the value of xG considerably.

No science will ever be perfect, however, the data is objective and is more reliable than opinionated preconceived and subjective views driven by confirmation bias or agendas.

Sounds like political talk

Then just raise tax as they all do
Point being we all have opinions they are seldom un biased

It's all pretty transparent to be honest.

For example, we can look up the data behind Aubamyangs chance in the 82nd minute when he was played in and shot at the keeper with his left foot.
We can see the data tells us that chance would have been taken about 1 in 8 times and converted to a goal which seems reasonable to me.
All 30 of our chances against Norwich and all 59 this season so far can be looked up in the same way.

Transparent and objective - and makes sense when see the typical chance conversion percentages applied to each chance.

30 chances against Norwich????? One every three minutes??? Which Norwich were they showing on my tele?

30 shots - all of varying quality in terms of the chance.
All listed in the link - when who where on the pitch and the quality of the chance.
Like I said - fact-based - and can not be run from or changed. No matter how much you want your subjective view to be true.

30 chances you say.
That's total
How many whilst ESR, ode, saka, pepe, auba were on together

You can see that here:
https://understat.com/match/16407
Every shot and associated quality of the chance that created the shot is shown by minute.

I believe, from a quick scan of the data, that 12 of our 30 shots came after Partey and ESR came on - including the shot from the chance created for the goal, of course.

That is where statistics become grey.
Soon paper as good as that sounds, and to be fair it's better than I thought .
I didnt see it that way at all. But I are currently watching very objectively.
Will be an interesting visit to Burnly against a physical route 1 team everything we dont cope with.
I expect changes at the back, but there shouldn't be, let these guys gel

Yeah that stat is iffy. Consider when we played at Highbury and used to average about 30 attempts per match at home - leading up to and including our Invincibles squad, these 30 attempts vs Norwich do not correlate.

[jayramfootball]

Yeah that stat is iffy. Consider when we played at Highbury and used to average about 30 attempts per match at home - leading up to and including our Invincibles squad, these 30 attempts vs Norwich do not correlate.

Shot stat is an actual. If interpreted on its own it is misleading, hence the other stats that provide the quality of the chances created and our performance at finishing chances.
The reason we rank 19th in the league in terms of shots to goals is down to a combination of the quality of the chance and our poor finishing.