Quote Originally Posted by ncfcog View Post
I base my fair score stats on the xG data I have available to me. The club will have much greater detail in their data than I do to deduce their fair score.

Essentially it’s a metric used to determine performance vs results and to identify where improvements can be made to make sure good performances are always rewarded.

I mentioned on the Notts County Talk pod that Neal Ardley actually recorded 7 points more than expected based on performances this season. That would suggest we overachieved in several games and that this is not actually sustainable.

If you look at Ian Burchnall’s first 8 games he’s recorded 7 points but performances actually suggest that should have been 15 points. He’s been let down by poor finishing, defensive mistakes and some fantastic saves by opposition goal keepers. The margins are so small which is why data plays such a big part in the modern game.
This is a genuine question - at the end of the season - which would we prefer?

Over-achieving in the xG data and getting promoted.
Under-achieving in the xG data and missing out.

I suppose that over a season, like penalties etc it should even itself out - I'm sure there must be data available to give results. It does seem though that often teams get promoted by winning games when they don't play well.

We obviously need to over-achieve when xG is low and achieve when it's good. I agree though that relying on the first over a long period is simply not sustainable. But is 7 points really that much? It's only winning 2 and drawing 1 you didn't deserve to based on 'fair play'