Contextualised by the wider data/views of the coaching staff.
The discussion on here was prompted, at least in part, by our xG being quoted as being between 2.1 and 3.2(ish) - it's hardly an SI unit and the people plugging it as a useful thing are the people selling it. Forgive me if I'm skeptical.
(apols, I just guess it bugs the scientist in me seeing how it's pinged about on forums and in punditry. We have endless debates at work about how stuff quoted to two decimal places can give people a false impression of accuracy when it's drawn from a bunch of highly variable/ interpretable inputs, so seeing something analogous here just sets my teeth on edge)
Posted By: Cardiff Canary, Nov 27, 19:59:51
Written & Designed By Ben Graves 1999-2025