u were super furious a few years ago when ppl were judging bumley about 25 games into the season. now u wanna draw conclusions on the usefulness or otherwise of xg based on 6 games

xg says mun have been shite for years, including the year they finished 2nd (6th in xpts)

it will most assuredly settle on that conclusion once again when we're a decent number of games in

and anyway its close to a meaningless conclusion. everyone is aware that eg bournemouth being above spuds in the table after 6 games is approx meaningless, same way that mun being (very slightly) ahead of pool in the xGs after 6 games is approx (but not quite as) meaningless

the metric (and those like it) are not designed and obviously shouldn't be expected to completely eliminate variance such that after 6 games u can declare ah i see that arsenal are in a relegation fight, it's just supposed to dampen the swongs by inspecting the underlying reasons for why goals occur rather than goals which have occurred

if you go into xG land with the expectation that every ounce of random chance has been extracted for you then yea you're gonna have a bad time

Remember last season when Arsenal went on a long unbeaten run and the eyetest said it was because of Emerys inspiring half-time talks.

I thought FIFA couldn't get any worse than Idris Elba as a presenter for the FIFA Best Awards, but it appears they have excelled themselves with this woman.

As a Leeds fan, this is so so weird. Bielsa and Leeds won the FIFA fair play award for letting Villa score the equaliser in the 1-1.
To get this after spygate is a bizarre choice.

Not much love in room for the acceptance speech.

I'm not saying it is not at all useful, but i don't think people are doing themselves any favours by blindly trusting it.

I don't get furious when I'm arguing with people on the internet, but other than that I think you're wrong as usual.

I was probably arguing against them using xG to judge them at all, not that the sample size wasn't big enough, especially as after 25 games a few years ago we were either 7th or 12th in the table, depending on what you meant by "a few".

Bristol City fans win lengthy legal battle vs West Midlands fuzz

Haha brilliant!
Alisson wins goalkeeper of the year, but he had gone for a slash when his name was announced.

dunno about blind judgement. but i think xG-based predictions have been doing well against the fat blokes/internet experts recently and will continue to do so

Yet a week ago he was trying to be "in the head" of watford fans and got rekt.

sounds like you're the xG denier if you want Ole out. He's better than lol PLOP! Liverpool just running good. Manchester United the actual best team in Europe. And that's the bottooooom line cuz UNDERSTAT (tm) said so!

xG >>>> eye test!

and Messi beats VVD to the FIFA Best player award, denying Liverpool the clean sweep of coach, goalkeeper and player.

They must've based the decision on xG.

A teenager getting John Terry riled up is funnier than him doing so to the average fan.

So the conclusion here is that based on the xG-stats, OGS and United are actually both good? Is there any room for thinking that United is not good? (good = top 4, in this case).

Just trying to figure out why they look so horrible but have good stats.

an actual understat 'prediction' (in contrast to the above tomfoolery) is that pool are in fact not really that close to city, based primarily on the fairly large gap in xpts last year

i am pretty interested to see if that one turns out to be correct

not a teenager

My Liverpool eyetest v. your United xG points gained over rest of season bet. Name the price

How many actual real life points do they have to finish behind them for your actual understand prediction to be proven correct?

As we have experienced, so many times, we will never be able to know if it is correct. (unless they adjust the model again, post season)

United look bad because you want it to be that way, plus all the expert pundits are telling you they are bad.

However, if they had not ran about 6 pts below expectation then everyone would be saying that they're pretty good, OGS one of the promising young managers in the game and so on.

xG says pool are about 35 goals better than mun since the start of last year. not sure what the problem is

Never really cared much for Megan Rapinoe, but that was an excellent speech. She's won me over.

Utter BS

Ok then I'll wager that United will continue to "run bad" or whatever euphemism you want to use for being a pretty a shitty football team. And as the Understat TM guided wager I'll take "run good" (eye test = really ****ing good football team) Liverpool to continue to "run better" than "run bad" United.

Then where did this Understat Utd xpts performing better than Liverpool come from?

Sounds reasonable. Hopefully i can win back some of the money i lost stubbornly betting them last season over and over.