VAR is about to f*ck us here again

[redgunamo]

How did Fulham have an XG of 0.44 with ZERO shots on target?

Or are these stats *******s? ��

These stats are *******s.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

How did Fulham have an XG of 0.44 with ZERO shots on target?

Or are these stats *******s? ��

I don't remember it happening but if you spooned it over from three yards with the goal gaping a few times, you'd have no shots on target but a decent xG.

[redgunamo]

I don't remember it happening but if you spooned it over from three yards with the goal gaping a few times, you'd have no shots on target but a decent xG.

So the whole thing is just a posh, pseudo-learned way of saying "Should've"? A stat for stats' sake?

[Peter]

So the whole thing is just a posh, pseudo-learned way of saying "Should've"? A stat for stats' sake?

Indeed. How does one multiply the quality of chances and produce an overall number? Nonsense.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

So the whole thing is just a posh, pseudo-learned way of saying "Should've"? A stat for stats' sake?

Oh, I agree, but surely should have is a fairly decent synonym for expected in many regards?

But I don't really agree with it so I haven't looked into it enough to see how they work it out. DxGoes it take into account where all the opposition players are, how much time they had to control it and pick their spot etc? I think it's *******s, but I can see how you could have no spots actually on target but a high xG? Imagine you have ten shots all of which hit the woodwork. No ****s on target but you'd feel unlucky not to have had a comfortable win.

[redgunamo]

Oh, I agree, but surely should have is a fairly decent synonym for expected in many regards?

But I don't really agree with it so I haven't looked into it enough to see how they work it out. DxGoes it take into account where all the opposition players are, how much time they had to control it and pick their spot etc? I think it's *******s, but I can see how you could have no spots actually on target but a high xG? Imagine you have ten shots all of which hit the woodwork. No ****s on target but you'd feel unlucky not to have had a comfortable win.

That's just it, NORMAL people would simply say "Should've scored."

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

That's just it, NORMAL people would simply say "Should've scored."

Oh, I'm totally with you if you want to replace xG with shS - should have scored. Much better to say we shS 2.3 instead of we had an xG of 2.3.

"We got 3 points but didn't have it entirely our own way as Fulham shS 0.44 goals."

I think we should make than an Awimb rule - xG is banned, from now on shS only.

[PSRB]

never clear and obvious in a million years.

And it was a pen

What annoyed me was that the Fulham player didn't even complain as he knew he'd fouled him first

[Peter]

What annoyed me was that the Fulham player didn't even complain as he knew he'd fouled him first

Same at Newcastle. The keeper didn't complain at all, he knew he'd fouled him.