Wasn't lack of luck on Birdy part. Man simply makes categorical statements and can't own up to getting it wrong like many before him
Also worth mentioning aggregate xG is different depending on where you take it from, see here (Chelsea 3.0 - Real 2.6)
https://fbref.com/en/matches/e78b60c2/Chelsea-Real-Madrid-April-6-2022-Champions-League
https://fbref.com/en/matches/9d7bfc65/Real-Madrid-Chelsea-April-12-2022-Champions-League
Doesn't even matter either way. Could be like 10-1 on chances and I'd still fancy us to get through based on Benzema on-form influence alone
What Birdy doesn't realize is that with an experienced team that prepares to absorb and concede shots (which will inflate the opponent stat) without getting too rattled, the chance volume does not dictate a close contest. Mourinho teams would have lost on xG time and again back in the day and you'd absolutely never dare to count them out in a cup tie or chat shite that their approach is incorrect (well, unless you're dogmatic about it and will never concede that reactive football or pragmatism can be useful). This RM is not nearly as effective at parking buses and often needs a spark (overturned Marcos Alonso goal, Werner goal) + athletic midfield in order to start playing to true potential. And yet this guy will come out and categorically state affair 'won't be close' implying we're doomed to fail only to get mugged off in the end because he doesn't account for other variables, like keepers fucking it up in front of Benzema or subs making a massive difference regardless when they're introduced, lol
I'm not going to go into all the different tables, but surely you know Chelsea had way more attempts on target over the two legs, i think the one i, and most others found is more accurate.
Of couse xG doesn't take into account that once 3-0 arrived we would have to play differently, and other variables, its just a calculator on whats most likely to happen with the shots that are given.
Then again, you are allowed to have an elite striker, and the other team may not have that, which has been one of my criticisms of xG over the years, who shoots matters a fair bit, when you average it out.
Was it close? I think so, but i do think Chelsea were better as a unit overall, but they couldn't see it trough, it is what it is.
Birdy do make very absolute statements i agree, such as PSG would get absolutely dominated by us(we pulled through, but it wasn't a domination at all), or that Chelsea would hammer us(he wasn't entirely wrong though), another one i saw was that City was the absolute favorite for CL by a long shot.
They might win, or they may not, but as you've said, he doesn't take into account variables.
