WPM R9 vs Newcastle Jets | Wed 9th March | 9:45pm | SS7

MetalLegNZ

We set up to win on the counter.
When you play that way you have to expect to have little possession as you are always looking for the quick release.

We also sat deeper to invite them in to create those pockets of space.

It was an excellent example of a manager and team knowing how to set up to win a game of footy.

Simply going off the stats, we were very lucky to win this match. 

We had an xG of 1.32, Newcastle had an xG of 3.14. Statistically speaking, Newcastle should have won and won quite comfortably.

Ninja

MetalLegNZ

We set up to win on the counter.
When you play that way you have to expect to have little possession as you are always looking for the quick release.

We also sat deeper to invite them in to create those pockets of space.

It was an excellent example of a manager and team knowing how to set up to win a game of footy.

Simply going off the stats, we were very lucky to win this match. 

We had an xG of 1.32, Newcastle had an xG of 3.14. Statistically speaking, Newcastle should have won and won quite comfortably.

Yet on another day, both there goals could have been ruled out.

Ninja

MetalLegNZ

We set up to win on the counter.
When you play that way you have to expect to have little possession as you are always looking for the quick release.

We also sat deeper to invite them in to create those pockets of space.

It was an excellent example of a manager and team knowing how to set up to win a game of footy.

Simply going off the stats, we were very lucky to win this match. 

We had an xG of 1.32, Newcastle had an xG of 3.14. Statistically speaking, Newcastle should have won and won quite comfortably.

A penalty is worth 0.8xG so we nailed our other scoring opportunties. Good work team.

djtim3000

Ninja

MetalLegNZ

We set up to win on the counter.
When you play that way you have to expect to have little possession as you are always looking for the quick release.

We also sat deeper to invite them in to create those pockets of space.

It was an excellent example of a manager and team knowing how to set up to win a game of footy.

Simply going off the stats, we were very lucky to win this match. 

We had an xG of 1.32, Newcastle had an xG of 3.14. Statistically speaking, Newcastle should have won and won quite comfortably.

A penalty is worth 0.8xG so we nailed our other scoring opportunties. Good work team.

And also it certainly didn’t feel that way- so for me either the weighting or the coding seems wrong. Throw in that I’ve seen it convincingly argued that the double jeopardy yellow shouldn’t apply as there wasn’t a genuine attempt to win the ball there’s at all…
In short, lies, damn lies and…

David Bal's goal had a xG of 0.07, but a xOnTarget of 0.04 according to the A-League xG tweet I saw, cos I noted at the time how stupid that is. A shot can't be more likely to go in than it is to hit the target - tells you exactly what the xG stat is worth.

xG in its current format is a poorly understood statistic that is actively misleading when applied to small sample sizes and really shouldn't be used to analyse single matches. It provides a better picture when applied over a season to identify trends, but the algorithm behind it isn't detailed enough to accurately identify how likely any given shot actually is to go in. They've done a reasonable approximation based on historical data but it is very prone to putting strange percentages on routine shots.

Nelfoos

David Bal's goal had a xG of 0.07, but a xOnTarget of 0.04 according to the A-League xG tweet I saw, cos I noted at the time how stupid that is. A shot can't be more likely to go in than it is to hit the target - tells you exactly what the xG stat is worth.

xG in its current format is a poorly understood statistic that is actively misleading when applied to small sample sizes and really shouldn't be used to analyse single matches. It provides a better picture when applied over a season to identify trends, but the algorithm behind it isn't detailed enough to accurately identify how likely any given shot actually is to go in. They've done a reasonable approximation based on historical data but it is very prone to putting strange percentages on routine shots.

 
xGOT is a bit different to xG, so it’s possible to have different figures like that. xG measures the probability of a goal before the shot, so there was a 7% chance of a header from Ball’s position being scored. xGOT measures the probability after the shot, so the probability by their metrics was that a header towards the middle of the goal is only a 4% probability of being a goal, because it’s easier to save than if it were in the corner.

Every xG model is different, because they’re such a subjective thing, but Fotmob’s xG (which has equal values for Ball’s goal) has Waine’s goal at 0.32 xG, given the position he was in, but a massive 0.87 xGOT because of where he placed the ball.

For what it’s worth, FotMob has the xG for this game a lot closer, with the Phoenix having 1.50 to Newcastle’s 2.29.