How xG Killed the Long Shot

Until recently, managers and teams would have to manually track and record various aspects of the game to find better and better strategies based on previous performances. However, in recent years, the sport has undergone a massive revolution thanks to the development of advanced tracking technology and data analysis. These tools allow teams to collect data on every player, pass, shot and tackle, giving them a vast amount of information which they can use to optimize their performances. and while this may initially seem as a rather innocent introduction, its impact on how the game is played is fare greater than anything we could have imagined. And one particular innovation in 2012 has undoubtedly gone on to become one of the most widespread and insightful statistic. And that stat is Expected Goals. No other metric has changed the game quite as much as xG, and in today’s video we’re going to be taking a look at the massive impact it’s had on football tactics.

If you enjoyed this video please leave a like & subscribe for more!
__________________________________________________________________________________
FOLLOW THESE AWESOME PAGES
__________________________________________________________________________________
Chapters
00:00 Intro
00:53 Soccerment
01:28 a Divisive Stat
01:44 How it's Calculated
02:43 How it's Used
03:48 The Impact on Tactics
04:36 How it's Changed Chance Creation
05:17 A Change in Playstile?
07:07 Is This Shift Justified?
07:51 Limitations
08:16 The Future of Football?

[aceofspoons]

I think a far bigger factor in the decrease in low xG shots around 2010 (4:04 graph) was the possession football revolution.
Everyone and their nans suddenly wanted to pass and keep the ball, and hopeful longshots are a certain way to lose possession.
That Guardiola Barcelona team really did change the tactics of the game in a seismic way.

I'm not saying statistic didn't play a part aswell, but even the youngest football fan can appreciate tiki taka, not just mathematicians

[felix_is_small]

I’m new to football but as an nba fan this shift lines up so well with our pace and space revolution. The long range mid fielders and midrange specialist are an interesting comparison.

[kvineet]

Then comes Fede Valverde who is in fact encouraged by the coach to take more shots as Anchelotti said that if Fede won't score at least 10 goals he'll rip his coaching license. But this is also the human element as a specific player is being asked to do this not everyone and if his shots will terrorize the opposition then it could lead to him being crowded more and opening opportunities for others ultimately increasing the xG of the team.

[DrZaius]

As a mathematician, I always talk about putting any statistics in context. Shots from (far) outside the box were always very unlikely, yet through survivorship bias they looked better than they were. Meaning that back in the day when you would see about 2min of every game, logically the 20 garbage shots didn't make the highlights, but the golden one would. Just looking at how abyssmal the probabilities are it's a smart development that managers don't want their players to just roll the dice from 30m out.

However, obsession about a singular statistic can often make it misleading. If managers focus everything on maximizing xG, they will create a team with high xG that will very likely underperform. Individual xG is also very iffy - is Haaland a good player because he outperforms his xG? But then what about a player that is able to create many chances but isn't as great at putting them away? He might underperform but still have great stats because he can create chances others can't.

As a general rule, having new tools will improve things - but how much they will improve will depend on the people interpreting the tools.

[pravinraj]

I believe the reasons for quality of chance creation based on xG even affects players too. As it cascades to their performance and market values. Sometimes strikers are pressured to finish with a limited chances they are getting.

[FootballMeta]

Hey All! Firstly, thanks for the feedback on the video, I can see xG is truly a divisive stat lol. I've removed a small section of the video with some math's calculations, as apparently they were wrong, so thank you to everyone who pointed that out 🙌 I'll double check next time I need to whip out a calculator

[EneldoSancocho]

Some penalties are still absurd, they change lost balls and unlucky defending for high chances of scoring.
If penalties weren't so dominant in xg a lot of shoots would be taken from outside the box and probably more shots in general

[Darkblade]

xG is just like possession: value that shows dominance of one team over the other. As dominating team is more likely to win it correlates with winning but it is not a cause of the victory. Many teams use more defensive tactics letting the opposition to dominate the game. Keeping the clean sheet with occasional chances is a viable tactics especially for cup competitions.

[garethnicholas]

This is interesting. I think part of Dyche's success at Burnley was in forcing opponents to shoot from range or cross the ball. Nick Pope excels at dealing with crosses and stopping long-range shots, and this was a key part of Burnley qualifying for Europe.

[LowkAlexander]

As a casual American football fan I became hooked watching compilations of long shots as a kid. I do miss it but the quality of attacks and build ups has become a new reason to watch. I do wonder if this has affected the strategy of set pieces

[mafiasquirrel]

One question I have about xG is if it is a living statistic, is it constantly being updated as games are playing. Because xG was originally compiled from data pre-xG, but the fact tactics are now changed to fit xG, like where and when to shoot means that xG will change as a result of its own impact. For example I can imagine in the not too distant future short range attempts and chances will become less successful as teams potentially looks for goalkeepers with pure reflexes and ball distribution over speed, reach, height and defenses will know about how to best defend xG based attacking strategies, thereby creating more quality opportunities and success rates for long shots

[anythingpeteives]

I think one reason shots from outside the box have become more rare is because the build up play is so god damn slow allowing defenders to get in position well before the ball even makes it to the final third.

[tabletbrothers]

4:33 Mate, your y-axis has to start at 0.
Edit 1: Same at 5:11.
Edit 2: Again at 7:22.

[muhammadaasimabdulkhadirty]

Can you do more individual tactics videos?Like based on position?

[aitorgarciaaguirre]

Despite I understand of the inefficiency of the long shot in terms of goal creation, there are some perks of this type of shot not captured by xG. For instance, generally, long shots tend to finish the play, either by scoring, the ball going out of bounds or a good save by the keeper. Either way, this allows the defense to fall back and massively decreases the chances of a counterattack. Also, if you have a good long-distance scorer, will force the defense to spend more resources guarding him, creating more space in the sides and, therefore, allowing your wings to play more freely. I understand the importance of xG but following blindly one statistic without proper knowledge of its implications and what the models are leaving out, that's to say, misinterpreting what the coefficient says and overreaching to conclusions it's a really bad practice.

[faramund]

Obviously if you are close to the goal and straight in front of it, you are more likely to score. Which is why it is much more heavily defended.

The question is, is it balanced. Is the ease at which an opportunity is created in balance with the chance of scoring. If it is, then it doesn't really matter.

At the end of the day it probably isn't balanced because when you shoot, most often you lose the ball. Which is why teams would rather work towards a high quality chance for a longer time than to rush things. Most teams will more easily control a game on the ball than off the ball. But there are exceptions of course.

[DanTheStripe]

The World Cup graph was really, really interesting to see. I believe Manchester United only recently started hiring a specalist data analyst team - probably explains why we've been so pants in the league!

I think xG is also incredibly useful for recruitment, not just tactics. Finding players who can consistently outperform their xG or xA for midfielders/playmakers is one of the reasons why Liverpool have done so well in recruitment in the past 5 years or so, and United not doing it explains why they've splashed big money on absolute flops.

Great video.

[brunogripp]

Funny that. Brazilian football has always been suspicious of the long shot. We thought that those 30 yard screamers typical of the English football were a sign of a lack of footballing intelligence. Nice to know that data analysis has proven us right.

[devinaustin]

I remember when goals just outside the box wouldn't be taken as a long shot now thats what so many compilations have

[benoleno]

I think your maths is wrong. At 5:32 you say the chance of scoring two long range shots is 4%. This is only true for one specific combination of the 5 shots (in your case the far left and far right shots) - however there are 10 possible combinations of 5 unique shots so in fact it is 10 x 4% = 40%. This is much higher than the 25% for the two tap ins. Sorry if I'm missing something - please correct me if I'm wrong :)