Cardiff City players' XG 23/24.

[the other bob wilson]

Yes I know, some people will roll their eyes at the mere mention of XG and, to an extent, I agree with them, but I've been looking at this page

https://fbref.com/en/squads/75fae011/Cardiff-City-Stats

which is linked to in the Trust's latest newsletter and it is thought provoking stuff.

You compare City players actual goals figure with their XG and the clear trend is that, in most cases, our players exceeded or equalled their XG.

Players such as Ng, Grant, Bowler, Goutas and Ramsey all scored more than their XG figure and as for our much maligned strikers, Ugbo scored 4 against an XG of 4.1, Etete's goals and XG were identical at 3 and Diedhiou scored 2 against an XG of 1.5. To balance things a little, Yakou Meite was the biggest XG under achiever at the club with 2 scored against an XG of 4.3 - others who came up short included Rubin Colwill, 1 against an XG of 1.4 and Ryan Wintle with 2 scored against an XG of 2.5.

As I say, there will be those who place no relevance on these figures whatsoever, but it seems to me that if you do credit them with any sort of authenticity, the conclusion you draw from the figures is clear - our XG figures are low, but in many cases, the players exceeded their individual figure.

The cry is going up yet again for us to sign a fifteen to twenty goal a season striker during the summer because the ones we've got at the moment couldn''t hit that mythical barn door with a banjo, but I would argue that the XG figures are a justification for my own view that the strikers aren't the main problem with us,. Instead, it's our inability to create chances in open play for them - we used four "proper" strikers all season and while I agree that none of them were very convincing, I can't recall any of them missing a hatful of easy chances over the course of the season.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Yes I know, some people will roll their eyes at the mere mention of XG and, to an extent, I agree with them, but I've been looking at this page

https://fbref.com/en/squads/75fae011/Cardiff-City-Stats

which is linked to in the Trust's latest newsletter and it is thought provoking stuff.

You compare City players actual goals figure with their XG and the clear trend is that, in most cases, our players exceeded or equalled their XG.

Players such as Ng, Grant, Bowler, Goutas and Ramsey all scored more than their XG figure and as for our much maligned strikers, Ugbo scored 4 against an XG of 4.1, Etete's goals and XG were identical at 3 and Diedhiou scored 2 against an XG of 1.5. To balance things a little, Yakou Meite was the biggest XG under achiever at the club with 2 scored against an XG of 4.3 - others who came up short included Rubin Colwill, 1 against an XG of 1.4 and Ryan Wintle with 2 scored against an XG of 2.5.

As I say, there will be those who place no relevance on these figures whatsoever, but it seems to me that if you do credit them with any sort of authenticity, the conclusion you draw from the figures is clear - our XG figures are low, but in many cases, the players exceeded their individual figure.

The cry is going up yet again for us to sign a fifteen to twenty goal a season striker during the summer because the ones we've got at the moment couldn''t hit that mythical barn door with a banjo, but I would argue that the XG figures are a justification for my own view that the strikers aren't the main problem with us,. Instead, it's our inability to create chances in open play for them - we used four "proper" strikers all season and while I agree that none of them were very convincing, I can't recall any of them missing a hatful of easy chances over the course of the season.

You are conflating not being able to hit a barn door with not being able to hit a cow's are with a banjo. Your XG rating has been amended accordingly, old fruit.

[OurManFlint II]

Yes I know, some people will roll their eyes at the mere mention of XG and, to an extent, I agree with them, but I've been looking at this page

https://fbref.com/en/squads/75fae011/Cardiff-City-Stats

which is linked to in the Trust's latest newsletter and it is thought provoking stuff.

You compare City players actual goals figure with their XG and the clear trend is that, in most cases, our players exceeded or equalled their XG.

Players such as Ng, Grant, Bowler, Goutas and Ramsey all scored more than their XG figure and as for our much maligned strikers, Ugbo scored 4 against an XG of 4.1, Etete's goals and XG were identical at 3 and Diedhiou scored 2 against an XG of 1.5. To balance things a little, Yakou Meite was the biggest XG under achiever at the club with 2 scored against an XG of 4.3 - others who came up short included Rubin Colwill, 1 against an XG of 1.4 and Ryan Wintle with 2 scored against an XG of 2.5.

As I say, there will be those who place no relevance on these figures whatsoever, but it seems to me that if you do credit them with any sort of authenticity, the conclusion you draw from the figures is clear - our XG figures are low, but in many cases, the players exceeded their individual figure.

The cry is going up yet again for us to sign a fifteen to twenty goal a season striker during the summer because the ones we've got at the moment couldn''t hit that mythical barn door with a banjo, but I would argue that the XG figures are a justification for my own view that the strikers aren't the main problem with us,. Instead, it's our inability to create chances in open play for them - we used four "proper" strikers all season and while I agree that none of them were very convincing, I can't recall any of them missing a hatful of easy chances over the course of the season.

This is it, could you imagine what Andy Coles XG would have been at Man Utd, he was on at least 4 in 1 conversation (and still scored a hat full).

Blackburn & Plymouth nearly went down with the "20 goal a season" player.

[the other bob wilson]

You are conflating not being able to hit a barn door with not being able to hit a cow's are with a banjo. Your XG rating has been amended accordingly, old fruit.

As it turns out, I did look up "couldn't hit a barn door with a banjo" and "couldn't hit cow's arse with a banjo" and they both brought back references - being a refined soul from Pentrebane, I was always going to opt for the barn door.

Let's not forget either that more than twenty years ago (where does the time go? ), the excellent Peter Thorne was being called the barn door by some on here when he was going through a long lean spell in front of goal during our 02/03 promotion season.

[BLUETIT]

Yes I know, some people will roll their eyes at the mere mention of XG and, to an extent, I agree with them, but I've been looking at this page

https://fbref.com/en/squads/75fae011/Cardiff-City-Stats

which is linked to in the Trust's latest newsletter and it is thought provoking stuff.

You compare City players actual goals figure with their XG and the clear trend is that, in most cases, our players exceeded or equalled their XG.

Players such as Ng, Grant, Bowler, Goutas and Ramsey all scored more than their XG figure and as for our much maligned strikers, Ugbo scored 4 against an XG of 4.1, Etete's goals and XG were identical at 3 and Diedhiou scored 2 against an XG of 1.5. To balance things a little, Yakou Meite was the biggest XG under achiever at the club with 2 scored against an XG of 4.3 - others who came up short included Rubin Colwill, 1 against an XG of 1.4 and Ryan Wintle with 2 scored against an XG of 2.5.

As I say, there will be those who place no relevance on these figures whatsoever, but it seems to me that if you do credit them with any sort of authenticity, the conclusion you draw from the figures is clear - our XG figures are low, but in many cases, the players exceeded their individual figure.

The cry is going up yet again for us to sign a fifteen to twenty goal a season striker during the summer because the ones we've got at the moment couldn''t hit that mythical barn door with a banjo, but I would argue that the XG figures are a justification for my own view that the strikers aren't the main problem with us,. Instead, it's our inability to create chances in open play for them - we used four "proper" strikers all season and while I agree that none of them were very convincing, I can't recall any of them missing a hatful of easy chances over the course of the season.

Thank f uck I can’t understand any of this

[Keyser Soze]

Yes I know, some people will roll their eyes at the mere mention of XG and, to an extent, I agree with them, but I've been looking at this page

https://fbref.com/en/squads/75fae011/Cardiff-City-Stats

which is linked to in the Trust's latest newsletter and it is thought provoking stuff.

You compare City players actual goals figure with their XG and the clear trend is that, in most cases, our players exceeded or equalled their XG.

Players such as Ng, Grant, Bowler, Goutas and Ramsey all scored more than their XG figure and as for our much maligned strikers, Ugbo scored 4 against an XG of 4.1, Etete's goals and XG were identical at 3 and Diedhiou scored 2 against an XG of 1.5. To balance things a little, Yakou Meite was the biggest XG under achiever at the club with 2 scored against an XG of 4.3 - others who came up short included Rubin Colwill, 1 against an XG of 1.4 and Ryan Wintle with 2 scored against an XG of 2.5.

As I say, there will be those who place no relevance on these figures whatsoever, but it seems to me that if you do credit them with any sort of authenticity, the conclusion you draw from the figures is clear - our XG figures are low, but in many cases, the players exceeded their individual figure.

The cry is going up yet again for us to sign a fifteen to twenty goal a season striker during the summer because the ones we've got at the moment couldn''t hit that mythical barn door with a banjo, but I would argue that the XG figures are a justification for my own view that the strikers aren't the main problem with us,. Instead, it's our inability to create chances in open play for them - we used four "proper" strikers all season and while I agree that none of them were very convincing, I can't recall any of them missing a hatful of easy chances over the course of the season.

Thanks for that - a good find. The way I would read that is that we are a clinical team in front of goal. If those statistics are repeated next year, we needn’t sign many players beyond replacing expiring loans or sub-par players.

What Bulut needs to focus on is:

1. Creating more chances so that the high “XG to goals conversion” turna to more goals

2. Reduce the goals conceded

But with statistics like that it seems we are at least clinical and resourceful, we just don’t create enough, which most of us can see with our eyes. Good to see the stafistics meet the eyeball test, I think.

[North Cardiff Blue]

This is it, could you imagine what Andy Coles XG would have been at Man Utd, he was on at least 4 in 1 conversation (and still scored a hat full).

Blackburn & Plymouth nearly went down with the "20 goal a season" player.

When he wasn't on the pitch the other strikers didn't get the four shots off, a big part of being a striker is being in the right place, most of ours aren't, Ugbo was probably the best.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

You are conflating not being able to hit a barn door with not being able to hit a cow's are with a banjo. Your XG rating has been amended accordingly, old fruit.

The cow's arse and banjo reference is always associated with Dave Bassett, innit?

[Rjk]

looking at the overall shot stats, we have had the 4th lowest number of shots this season, with only Preston, Milwall and Rotherham managing fewer than us.
Our average shot distance is one of the highest, indicating that more of our shots are from distance and not from as good a chance (only 5 teams shot from further out on average)

these 2 things together can go some way to explain why we had the 3rd lowest xG in the division (ahead of only Preston and Rotherham)

If you look at the Shot creating actions (the something that is done to create the opportunity for a shot, a pass, a tackle, a dribble etc whatever it is), one thing immediately stands out - all the players who have done that the most for us per 90 have hardly played any football, for one reason or another.

SCA per 90

Ramsey - 4.27
Colwill - 3.73
Robinson - 3.72
Turnbull - 3.53
Ashford - 3.46
Giles - 3.21 (ignore as only from 0.3 90 minutes)
Ralls - 3.19
Tanner - 3.13

of those only Ralls has played more than half the available minutes this season, and most have played far far less.

[the other bob wilson]

looking at the overall shot stats, we have had the 4th lowest number of shots this season, with only Preston, Milwall and Rotherham managing fewer than us.
Our average shot distance is one of the highest, indicating that more of our shots are from distance and not from as good a chance (only 5 teams shot from further out on average)

these 2 things together can go some way to explain why we had the 3rd lowest xG in the division (ahead of only Preston and Rotherham)

If you look at the Shot creating actions (the something that is done to create the opportunity for a shot, a pass, a tackle, a dribble etc whatever it is), one thing immediately stands out - all the players who have done that the most for us per 90 have hardly played any football, for one reason or another.

SCA per 90

Ramsey - 4.27
Colwill - 3.73
Robinson - 3.72
Turnbull - 3.53
Ashford - 3.46
Giles - 3.21 (ignore as only from 0.3 90 minutes)
Ralls - 3.19
Tanner - 3.13

of those only Ralls has played more than half the available minutes this season, and most have played far far less.

That certainly tells a story - Turnbull and Ramsey would have played more if they were available for the whole season, but that really does encapsulate the sort of thing I was trying to talk about in the thread contrasting a club like Peterborough with us.

[City123]

That certainly tells a story - Turnbull and Ramsey would have played more if they were available for the whole season, but that really does encapsulate the sort of thing I was trying to talk about in the thread contrasting a club like Peterborough with us.

I think though in reality Ramsey OR Turnbull would have played more had thet been available all season and likely hugely limited Colwill's gametime who's second on the list

Bulut's persisstence with (at least) 2 holding midfielders really limits our chance creation. I imagine Ralls' numbers for example are inflated by set plays

[the other bob wilson]

I think though in reality Ramsey OR Turnbull would have played more had thet been available all season and likely hugely limited Colwill's gametime who's second on the list

Bulut's persisstence with (at least) 2 holding midfielders really limits our chance creation. I imagine Ralls' numbers for example are inflated by set plays

Fair point.

[Rjk]

That certainly tells a story - Turnbull and Ramsey would have played more if they were available for the whole season, but that really does encapsulate the sort of thing I was trying to talk about in the thread contrasting a club like Peterborough with us.

it also tells a story that the likes of Bowler, Grant, Meite don't really feature in the top dozen or so players

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Thank f uck I can’t understand any of this

Basically, a very expensive computer program based on a cornucopia of data collated by experts and statisticians produced the following output regarding City's season:

"Super Cardiff? Fragile! listless!, XG: all atrocious."

[BLUETIT]

Basically, a very expensive computer program based on a cornucopia of data collated by experts and statisticians produced the following output regarding City's season:

"Super Cardiff? Fragile! listless!, XG: all atrocious."

Cornucopia, are they in the Euro’s ?

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Cornucopia, are they in the Euro’s ?

The literal meaning of the word is actually 'horn of plenty'. Oooh, I say, missus.....

[Rjk]

looking at the overall shot stats, we have had the 4th lowest number of shots this season, with only Preston, Milwall and Rotherham managing fewer than us.
Our average shot distance is one of the highest, indicating that more of our shots are from distance and not from as good a chance (only 5 teams shot from further out on average)

these 2 things together can go some way to explain why we had the 3rd lowest xG in the division (ahead of only Preston and Rotherham)

If you look at the Shot creating actions (the something that is done to create the opportunity for a shot, a pass, a tackle, a dribble etc whatever it is), one thing immediately stands out - all the players who have done that the most for us per 90 have hardly played any football, for one reason or another.

SCA per 90

Ramsey - 4.27
Colwill - 3.73
Robinson - 3.72
Turnbull - 3.53
Ashford - 3.46
Giles - 3.21 (ignore as only from 0.3 90 minutes)
Ralls - 3.19
Tanner - 3.13

of those only Ralls has played more than half the available minutes this season, and most have played far far less.

One vaguely interesting thing is 4 of the top 6 are Welsh - with a Scotsman and an Irishman completing the 6.

[LA Bluebird]

If you look at that it's very telling that basically none of Bulut's first choice attacking three (Grant, Bowler, Etete/Meite/Diedhiou) are up there, passes the eye test though. If he's to be here next season and have any success, he's either got to have better players or find a way to get them the ball with options ahead of them, preferably both.

[WJ99mobile]

We can all argue on the why (for me it’s the slow build up play and the lack of line changes) but we can all at least agree on the what.

We are very poor at creating chances.

[life on mars]

XG , SCA , load of bollocks , never mind the stats , they have all been on the beach for weeks

[PontBlue]

XG , SCA , load of bollocks , never mind the stats , they have all been on the beach for weeks

Have they been on the beach since October?