Anyway
@Birdy, look, it might come across as if I am taking shots at you. But that is not it - I like you, think you're a good guy and intelligent. I just don't know why you are so beholden to xG/stats in general (the same way I like Tempt but am baffled by his Lewy love, or think Fati is a superb guy but am perplexed why he loves Ronaldo, that sort of thing). No doubt you guys find some of my views bizarre too but I am talking from my own perspective here.
I think you're too dogmatic with stats. Yes, they can be useful, but they can also be misleading and remove plenty of context. They're just a tool or a guide - they aren't the be all and end all. I don't agree that you can decide who deserved to win 20 games by simply posting each team's respective xG - football is a lot more complex than that, there's far more to it than quality of chances. Plus, as I have said, you take these xG numbers (3.50) or whatever, and believe them on faith, without actually questioning the validity of the model or its predictive powers. Surely the fact that different models predict differing stats should imply it is flawed?
I am not a luddite, or dinosaur, who thinks stats are the devil and we should go back to never having them. Not at all. But there needs to be balance, too. They can never be the be all and end all and watching the game (the eye test) has to count for a lot too. Now, in my examples above, I will pre-empt what you will likely say - that I watch United games through the lens of my bias against them and hatred. That is true to an extent. But I like to think I can analyse a game to a decent level too, and what I saw in that game against Bournemouth was that the Cherries had large spells where they were in control, had spells where they were winning 50-50 duels and toying with United. However, the xG says they only created 0.7 xG outside their penalty, and that United created a lot more. I can never accept that because for me the Semenyo third goal is a better chance than anything United created. A lot of United chances were cutbacks to the edge of the box, which weren't amazing chances if you actually watched the game (plus take into account their forwards and other players are generally horrible finishers and showcased that by skying most of them anyway).
Ditto the Spurs game - no way did they have an expected goals of 0.4 or whatever, that is a joke from watching that game. Yet United fans and other people cling to this without actually questioning how valid these predictive models are. They just 'assume' they are right and flawless without even understanding themselves how they are generated. They don't actually understand the stats they keep mentioning. I am sure they have some use, but hanging on them like they are the be all and end all is not the way to do it.
Like I say, I like you and get on with you, but I think you should acknowledge more the qualitative aspect of football - not all shots, chances, dribbles, passes are equal. For instance, someone posts pass completion percentage of a player - it doesn't tell you the difficulty of each pass, or whether each pass was weighted correctly or very difficult to control etc (but maybe the receiver did control it and did well, alternatively another pass could be great and the receiver lets it run under his foot). Oftentimes a player successfully completes a pass, but the pass is behind the receiver and it takes all the momentum out of the move. Things like that cannot be measured by cold hard numbers.
Like I say, stats are a decent rough guide, but they should never be used unquestioningly to decide who is a better team, who deserved to win, who is the better player etc. Especially not a flawed, superficial stat like xG.
I am just posting this to further expand on my own opinions regarding stats vs watching or eye test, and to highlight that it isn't anything personal and I am not picking at you. I just feel you lean too far into stats territory and don't take enough account of more qualitative, emotional, personal stuff. Crude analogy, but it would be like looking at stats for rapes or something coldly, but not actually asking individual women who were raped what their experience was (in semi-structured interviews), to understand the personal feelings and emotions behind the rapes.
My own opinion is you need a decent balance of both, with more weight going to what your eyes and your knowledge base tells you. Rather than just using stats all the time.
