Power n Glory wrote:jayramfootball wrote:theHotHead wrote:jayramfootball wrote:theHotHead wrote:jayramfootball wrote:theHotHead wrote:But Jay, if we take the Norwich game in isolation, its not our finishing that prevented us from scoring more goals (ESR chance aside), it was the quality of the chances we created that was the problem.
It was a combination.
ESR chance, Auba chance and Pepe chance (blocked on the line) - you'd expect 1 goal from those three chances ( in fact the xG combined for all 3 was about 1). We missed them all.
Then all the other chances - based on league averages a goal would result about 2-3% of the time so you'd expect 35-40 of those types of efforts to yield a goal.
Then the actual goal, which obviously had a very high xG.
That is why the xG came out at 2.7.
Now, if you refer back to a previous post I have already stated that we're only 4 games in, so the numbers can not be reflective of individual players yet and even for the whole team we only have a small data set.
For example, that ESR chance - we can forgive him. It's one chance and can easily be missed. If over the season, however, he has 10 of those types of chance and misses ALL of them, we'll be saying (rightly) that he has finished poorly this season.
That is why this data will be updated each week. The picture becomes more and more solid as more data is added, but as of now, 4 games in ... we are creating lots of chances (6th in the league), but not very good ones (19th in the league on average) and our finishing is the worst in the league.
No Jay, I agree you could reasonably expect 1 goal from ESR/Pepe/Auba chances most definitely but I disagree that you would expect a goal from the other chances, they were poor low quality chances, they never looked like being goals.
I agree with PnG, of we continue to create such poor quality chances in high numbers, we will struggle to score any goals!!
Those other lower percentage chances lead to goals game after game, year after year. Lower percentage, yes, but goals nonetheless.
Already pointed out 6 goals scored from low percentage chances by just 3 teams.
If I looked at every team I bet I would find that the difference between the goals scored from low quality and high quality chances was not that big.
No they don't Jay, they typically never amount to a goal, all you have done is show us some exceptions to the rule, you can always find an exception but, for the most part, for the vast majority of the so-called chances we created against Norwich, they don't amount to goals.
Lets do the analysis PNG has asked for, lets look at the percentage of 0.1xG chances that actually end up being goals. In fact, surely we can take this a step further, can't we look at each team's xG and match up actual goals to expected and see on how many occasions a team scored more than their expected goals. That will give us an idea of how many unexpected goals have been scored, right?!
My guess is there will be hardly any instances of that if any.
I am doing just that, so lets start with Man Utd
11 goals , 4 of which have been scored with an xG of <0.1 AND nearly 70% of all their chances being <0.1 quality.
I am doing this for every team and I suspect it's going to show a lot of goals scored from these low-quality chances.
Man Utd have not score 4 goals in one game from low xG chances. That’s the difference. You're looking at one Norwich game for us and saying we should have beaten them by 3 or 4 goals from mostly low xG chances.
No.
I said 2-3 goals is what we should have scored. xG was 2.7.
I am looking over the season.
Lets add us to the table
Man Utd have had 43 shots with an xG of <0.1 this season and have scored 4 goals from those low likelihood chances
We have had 48 shots with an xG of <0.1 this season and have scored 0 goals from those low likelihood chances
This tells us pretty conclusively that Man Utd are simply better at finishing both good chances and low percentage chances than we are.
When every team is in this table we're going to see a lot of goals from low-quality chances, I suspect. Will be interesting to see which teams do better with those half-chances/low percentage chances.
You are also wrong about Utd even in 1 game. Against Leeds, 2 of their 5 goals came from low xG chances of less than 0.1 and 11 of their 16 shots we're with an xG of <0.1.
No one anywhere ever said that 4 goals in a game would come from purely low xG chances.