Son and Kane lead % of goals scored above 'expected goals' in Europe since 2016

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Son is a more clinical finisher, but that doesn't mean he's a better CF than Kane. Kane has all round skills which you don't seem to appreciate.
Liverpool's LW and RW are more clinical finishers than their CF.

Just below world class = non appreciation?

I think the point has been made well about predictions and fantasy here.
You live in a world where Son is a better finisher than Messi.

I live on planet earth
 

1966

Fan of football and the England NT. Club neutral.
“Taking into account difficulty” is just something that’s been added to try and water down the fact Kane conversion rate is 17%

Define a difficult shot
Mate, you clearly don't understand xG and your posts in this thread have been a complete mess. I stopped adding disagrees after two posts because it started to seem mean. And I'm one of the people who don't dislike you.
 

1966

Fan of football and the England NT. Club neutral.
I've been talking about G/xG ratio as the gold standard metric of clinical finishing for years now. I'm glad other people, including journalists, are finally on board!

A few things I'd add based on a lot of preexisting knowledge about this stuff:
2016 is a particularly favourable cut-off for Son in a Son/Kane comparison. If you take it from the true start of Kane's career, the gap shrinks. But they still remain the two most clinical in Europe for 2014-now. Kane has never had a season in which he's underperformed his xG. Son has and so has Lewa. I think that consistency also has intrinsic value.

For me, at least, the eye test supports the G/xG in terms of those two being the most clinical finishers but I would have them a lot closer (approximately in line with the longer-term data). G/xG isn't infallible, of course, and is directly bounded in utility by the numerous limitations inherent in xG models. Nonetheless, it's definitely the stat that comes closest to capturing objective clinicalness in a single number.
 
Last edited:

1966

Fan of football and the England NT. Club neutral.
Son is a more clinical finisher, but that doesn't mean he's a better CF than Kane. Kane has all round skills which you don't seem to appreciate.
Liverpool's LW and RW are more clinical finishers than their CF.
Good post. 100% Kane is a better CF than Son regardless of raw "clinicalness". Even if the G/xG ratios were a perfect reflection of reality (and they're not, as I talked about in my last post), they capture only one part of what it means to be a great striker. They don't even capture everything about finishing, let alone all the other aspects of CF play.

I would've thought it was obvious to think "hm, so if this guy is significantly outperforming Messi in these stats, maybe these stats don't capture everything that makes the best forward". I also would've thought it would be obvious experientially why Son is not a better candidate for the CF position: we've literally seen him try it with much less success than Kane. Not so long ago, there was a groundswell of (mostly) Son fanboys who claimed that Son would be a better CF than Kane; they were (rightly) derided for their simplistic belief that Son could do everything Kane could by reducing football down to just a few different attributes. (Edit to clarify: Son likewise has strengths that Kane doesn't, they're complimentary rather than oppositional and that's the spirit of my comparison.)

There are some silly conclusions being made from the stats in this thread. It perfectly encapsulates why I both love and hate xG. I love how fucking awesome it is as a progression in football statistics, but I hate how it's misused and abused far more often than not in casual football discourse. (I put a large share of the blame for this on the media for posting xG stats without any context to imply things that were never intended and aren't deductively sound.)
 
Last edited:
Good post. 100% Kane is a better CF than Son regardless of raw "clinicalness". Even if the G/xG ratios were a perfect reflection of reality (and they're not, as I talked about in my last post), they capture only one part of what it means to be a great striker. They don't even capture everything about finishing, let alone all the other aspects of CF play.

I would've thought it was obvious to think "hm, so if this guy is significantly outperforming Messi in these stats, maybe these stats don't capture everything that makes the best forward". I also would've thought it would be obvious experientially why Son is not a better candidate for the CF position: we've literally seen him try it with much less success than Kane. Not so long ago, there was a groundswell of (mostly) Son fanboys who claimed that Son would be a better CF than Kane; they were (rightly) derided for their simplistic belief that Son could do everything Kane could by reducing football down to just a few different attributes. (Edit to clarify: Son likewise has strengths that Kane doesn't, they're complimentary rather than oppositional and that's the spirit of my comparison.)

There are some silly conclusions being made from the stats in this thread. It perfectly encapsulates why I both love and hate xG. I love how fucking awesome it is as a progression in football statistics, but I hate how it's misused and abused far more often than not in casual football discourse. (I put a large share of the blame for this on the media for posting xG stats without any context to imply things that were never intended and aren't deductively sound.)
Completely agree, really good post.

Of course these stats aren't everything; and Messi is a prime example of a guy who can create his own chances through ridiculous dribbling which neither Son or Kane have. At the same time it's definitely a better stat than goal/shot percentage.
 
Mate, you clearly don't understand xG and your posts in this thread have been a complete mess. I stopped adding disagrees after two posts because it started to seem mean. And I'm one of the people who don't dislike you.
Xg is based on fantasy
That’s why Son is a “better finisher than Messi and Kane”
 
I've been talking about G/xG ratio as the gold standard metric of clinical finishing for years now. I'm glad other people, including journalists, are finally on board!

A few things I'd add based on a lot of preexisting knowledge about this stuff:
2016 is a particularly favourable cut-off for Son in a Son/Kane comparison. If you take it from the true start of Kane's career, the gap shrinks. But they still remain the two most clinical in Europe for 2014-now. Kane has never had a season in which he's underperformed his xG. Son has and so has Lewa. I think that consistency also has intrinsic value.

For me, at least, the eye test supports the G/xG in terms of those two being the most clinical finishers but I would have them a lot closer (approximately in line with the longer-term data). G/xG isn't infallible, of course, and is directly bounded in utility by the numerous limitations inherent in xG models. Nonetheless, it's definitely the stat that comes closest to capturing objective clinicalness in a single number.
This statistics compares actual number of goals scored and compares it to the 'expected goals' a player had. Expected goals is based on the difficulty of a goalscoring opportunity. A sitter is close to 1 xG, while a long range chance may be 0.1 xG.


bePpYKw.png


1. This shows how clinical Son is, as he's miles out in front. Also shows how special Kane is by scoring 100+ goals and being above Messi. Looks 'world class' to me sammyspurs sammyspurs

2. Also a bit worrying that we seem to be relying on Son and Kane to convert chances that aren't necessarily clear cut. This is from 2016 to early 2021 so something for both Poch and Jose to reflect on, in terms of creativity of our midfield.

3. Expected goals aren't a perfect measure, so like all stats take it with a pinch of salt.
Looking at this chart, firstly it's interesting that data is shown for '20 of Europe' s best goalscorers'. How were these selected? Who was left out? It makes you wonder if there were some awkward data points that didn't fit the narrative.

Secondly if we are to believe '% over xG' or 'G/xG' is a good measure of goalscoring/finishing ability, this should meet the sniff test. So why is Aguero coming out as a bang average finisher? Not just average in this chart of top players, but average across the whole dataset that xG has been calculated on (presumably league-wide), since his goals scored barely exceed xG. Benzema is even worse. According to this, well below average as a 'finisher' compared to his peers.

How would you prove the validity of G/xG as a measure of intrinsic finishing ability? I don't think you can, as 'finishing ability' is subjective. There are so many variables in the xG model, and aspects of chance quality that are not captured. Maybe Son's outperformance is due to some quirk of when he chooses to shoot, or something about the type of chances he gets that is not captured by xG.

xG is interesting in quantifying the quality of chances created by teams, but when you get into these individual players metrics, you start to see some odd stuff.
 

snowkarl

Supporter
He/She/Aye/Nye
Looking at this chart, firstly it's interesting that data is shown for '20 of Europe' s best goalscorers'. How were these selected? Who was left out? It makes you wonder if there were some awkward data points that didn't fit the narrative.

Secondly if we are to believe '% over xG' or 'G/xG' is a good measure of goalscoring/finishing ability, this should meet the sniff test. So why is Aguero coming out as a bang average finisher? Not just average in this chart of top players, but average across the whole dataset that xG has been calculated on (presumably league-wide), since his goals scored barely exceed xG. Benzema is even worse. According to this, well below average as a 'finisher' compared to his peers.

How would you prove the validity of G/xG as a measure of intrinsic finishing ability? I don't think you can, as 'finishing ability' is subjective. There are so many variables in the xG model, and aspects of chance quality that are not captured. Maybe Son's outperformance is due to some quirk of when he chooses to shoot, or something about the type of chances he gets that is not captured by xG.

xG is interesting in quantifying the quality of chances created by teams, but when you get into these individual players metrics, you start to see some odd stuff.
Son has had insane over performances on his xG that put him as literally the best finisher in the world in the past few years.

Of course it can also be attributed to the fact that his chances are often 1v1s and how he gets into goal scoring chances with his pace and movement, but the overperformance is just too big. Other players are quicker and get just as good chances as him.

He has flaws but his finishing, work rate and movement is incredible. Underrated somehow, even by Spurs fans.
 
Son has had insane over performances on his xG that put him as literally the best finisher in the world in the past few years.

Of course it can also be attributed to the fact that his chances are often 1v1s and how he gets into goal scoring chances with his pace and movement, but the overperformance is just too big. Other players are quicker and get just as good chances as him.

He has flaws but his finishing, work rate and movement is incredible. Underrated somehow, even by Spurs fans.
Son has become a good finisher. But these stats don't convince me he's been better than, for example, Messi or Aguero.
 
Top Bottom