Gc% doesnt equal imapctfulness, but if one player was certainly impactful it MUST be reflected in his high gc% score (assuming attacking, end product-related role). What you are arguing is against a blind conformity to gc% ranking, but this is not something anyone argued for. It is understood that you cant take it literally, but that doesnt make valid to go to the other extreme and deny it completely. There is a balanced view on gc% that you are throwing away as well.
With message you quoted in fact I was not aiming at discrediting GC%, I rather wanted to stress that even efficiency XG/G can be somewhat misleading, and that you can't escape enduring the effort of watching the footages to be able to say something truly sensible.
I agree with this specifically, but this stance doesn't reflect the way you typically address gc% in your posts or how you talk about all other stats outside of this conversation. It quickly gets lost in the way you phrase things.
Player can be great at passing in many ways. From creating high probability chances to consistently and safely orchestrating game from the deep. It is not clear-cut who is a better passer between Modrić and KDB, because it depends on what you need in your team. Shoting is not like that at all. There is one single purpose to taking a shot: to score a goal. So it is a simple problem to solve. How much you score based on how much you shot and quality of chances you have. That is finishing ability. The analogy between shoting and passing doesn't work at all. There is no other value to shoting other than scoring goals. You can argue about near misses or corner wons, etc., but these are not intentions behind shoting. Nobody shots to win a corner or build pressure. And this would mirror near through ball or cross misses that do the same, which is not what your analogy is about. But, to be hoenst, the statistic for corners won via shots or near misses would be a pretty cool inclusion to shot statistics if we could add to the analysis of shots. Like breaking down each shoting profile of a palyer down to goals scored, big chances scored/missed, xG, and then other outcomes of player's shots like corners won, near misses, etc. That would be cool. Your analogy is wrong tho.
2012 la liga season is one of two that Ronaldo won in 9 seasons in Spain and is often deemed as his best camapign. This is how his shoting looks like in that season compared to Lewandowski
Summary, the first dozens of games in league campaigns: Cristiano: 15 games 11 NP goals 93 shots (substracted scored pens) Messi: 19 games 26 NP goals 96 shots Lewandowski: 23 games 25 NP goals 92 shots How is Ronaldo's wastefulness justified? Let's analyze all seasons of choice for any great player of choice. And let's see how they stuck up against each other.
Seasons I would be interested in fully analyzing in the same way: Ronaldo 2008 Ronaldo 2010 Ronaldo 2012 Ronaldo 2014 Ronaldo 2015 Messi 2010 Messi 2012 Messi 2013 Messi 2015 Messi 2017 Messi 2018 Messi 2019 Lewandowski 2020 Lewandowski 2021 Haaland 2023 Suarez 2014 Neymar 2018 Salah 2018 Kane 2025 ... ? Others? Whoscored has data from 2010. 2008 would be difficult to do so
Look at his missed passes attempts. Almost all of them were crosses/through balls into dangerous areas. These are high risk attempts but no one will say he had poor decision making there. On the contrary, people will praise him for those risky passes. What people hate the most is players like verratti who only passes side/back. But all those passes ended on turnovers yet he's excused cause he created a lot. On the other hand Ronaldo's high risk finishing attempts are seen as bad decision making even though he scores quite a lot of goals
Here are a list of names that managed to equal, or beat Lionel Messi's La Liga assist tally for a season, and the extra number of inaccurate passes Lionel Messi had compared to them. 15/16: Luis Suarez (84 less inaccurate passes than Lionel Messi) 16/17: Luis Suarez (106 less inaccurate passes than Lionel Messi), Toni Kroos (165 less inaccurate passes than Lionel Messi), and Marcelo (61 less inaccurate passes than Lionel Messi) 17/18: Luis Suarez (110 less inaccurate passes than Lionel Messi), Pablo Fornals (65 less inaccurate passes than Lionel Messi) 18/19: Pablo Sarabia (97 less inaccurate passes than Lionel Messi) 19/20: Lionel Messi's assists productivity was unmatched 20/21: Iago Aspas (75 less inaccurate passes than Lionel Messi), Marcos Llorente (143 less inaccurate passes than Lionel Messi), Toni Kroos (205 less inaccurate passes than Lionel Messi), Yannick Carrasco (171 less inaccurate passes than Lionel Messi), Karim Benzema (148 less inaccurate passes than Lionel Messi) It is only by the grace of Lionel Messi's unmatched assist-creation ability, that there are no more unflattering comparisons of this nature. Once we start using ratios, like the number of inaccurate passes made for a single assist, I can start naming decent volume of endless waves of quite mediocre players ranking above Lionel Messi. Possession lost, inacccurate passes, whichever metric you wish, it is the truth that Lionel Messi is given a lot of creative liscence, and often occupying the best pockets of spaces, made by the tireless running of his teammates while he makes a gentle stroll across the pitch. So maybe it isn't all free of charge. Just like a lot of great goal-scorers not being free of charge in terms of sunk-cost. The question of whether it was all worth it, does not come from dissection of the very narrow inspection of specific types of sunk-cost, depending on who one wants to attack, but more difficult to implement plus-minus models that actually mathematically figures out the holistic influence the absence of a player on the results. That has always been my belief. As for a my own thoughts on Lionel Messi, since nobody here truly wishes to discuss statistics. I think it is not a coincidence that most great goal-scorers also often rank high in the big chances missed rankings. It is the usual sunk-cost, to having a lot of goals. Lionel Messi is an extreme anomaly, who can waltz between his markers in a high threat zone, and manipulate his body and the ball in a manner that simultaneously distances himself from the marker, opens up the shot angle and closing the distance to goal, as well as planting his right foot, and striking with his preferred left, as if this was a shot training drill. The fact that he can do this, might be more of a testament of his ridiculous dribbling capacity to repeat that scenario over and over, than some proof that he can finish a wide range of acrobatic shots, weak-footed shots, headers earned after difficult aerial duels with deadly volume and reasonably efficient-return that other great goal-scorers may be known for. I also think Lionel Messi benefits a lot from his dribbling when it comes to his creative output, if you artificially limit his ability to manipulate the ball and his body angle with deft little touches for a better passing angle, and just limit things to his actual passing accuracy and execution of the ball-striking, I am not sure if you can still call him the best. Like let's remove every other superlative quality from Lionel Messi, and just limit things to his vision, and the execution of the pass itself, not the prior manipulation of the ball and the sick press evasion, and movement into the most dangerous zones of attack. Is he really levels above Toni Kroos? I think Lionel Messi, just like most playmakers with a ton of assists, also tends to miss a lot of passes. He also attempts a lot of risk-associated actions such as press-evasion or dribble attempts, that also lead to possession losses. This is reflected upon his statistics. His playmaking comes at a cost. It is his choice to do it, and it is up to the teammates to clean-up any messes. It is not statistically sound, to dig deep for any sunk-cost to goal-productivity, but just assume all playmaking came free of cost, and is a blessing to behold, and can just be measured via succesful attempts. And then wonder why these statistical lists all have playmakers at the top, is it really because they are the best no matter what? Or was the statistical design rigged in nature to begin with? I am always at a marvel for Lionel Messi's dribbling, and I think the conjunction of his other assets, incorporated within his dribbling, makes him an undeniable force of nature that is both effective, and next to impossible to mimic, but he has his costs too, just not shown by big chances missed, but in metrics like possession lost, or its more nuanced statistical cousin from my point of view, usage rate. How much of a resource-hog he is, will most likely be never a popular topic as Cristiano Ronaldo's tendency to over-shoot, but I think I've thrown in my incomplete ideas, not that statistical analysis helped resolve the deeper issue, of some people just wanting to lazily dunk on players they hate out of random statstical factoids.
I wanted to add one little thing about Cristiano Ronaldo. I think there might be a correlation between supply to ball-to-feet, and Lionel Messi producing massive number of goals, because he cannot dribble past 5 players every time, unlike what YouTube suggests. So once the ball-to-feet supply is cut-off, Cristiano Ronaldo's wide repertoire of goal-scoring approaches may shine much more in comparison to Lionel Messi. I don't know what the best method of measuring this would be, maybe only counting their goal-return in games with under 50% possession, or maybe goals scored under non-ball-to-feet sequence of attack like corner-kicks. So in the realm of goal-scoring, I think Lionel Messi is more of a narrow-range perfectionist (despite his comparable overall volume), that might be targeted more easily in terms of choking the supply chain (narrower style of attack, means easier to spot how it is supplied), whereas Cristiano Ronaldo is more of the resource-hog in terms of shots attempted, and also the wider variety shooter, who is more practiced in the art of goal-scoring across a whole plethora of scenarios, and thus he can pull those things out of his hat, in unlikely but re-occuring scenarios that do come to you, if you play enough football at the highest levels, that mostly was best represented in his club performances. I think in the long-run, the ridiculously low-percentage acrobatic shots, and hopeful strikes from afar that he missed during meaningless and easy domestic schedule, may have set him up for success in the more difficult rounds of the UEFA Champions League. Even if it made his expected goal overperformance look worse. Just like Lionel Messi may try ludicrously low-chance passes in meaningless games that leads to a turnover, and maybe even an enemy goal. The practice might later be paid of in one his most important knock-out stages games.
Again, relating data points that are inherently not of the same kind, as you did with key passes and GCA. Passing is a multifunctional tool. Shooting is a single purpose tool. Passing -> outcomes Successful outcomes: 1. Ball retention (pressure-resistance) 2. Build-up 3. Progression 4. Chance creation Unsuccessful outcomes: 1. Missed pass Shoting -> outcomes Successful outcomes: 1. Goals 2. (very small fraction of it is corner wins and similar) Unsuccessful outcomes: 1. Missed shots Unsuccessful passes are an accumulative cost paid for achieving multiple desirable outcomes, not just chance creation. Unsuccessful shots are cost of trying to score a goal. So, conversion rate (goals ÷ (missed) shots) is very useful metric that is sensical. The assist ÷ (missed) pass attempts is a nonsensical parameter. @Isaías Silva Serafim , this answers you as well. The short answer is no. Lewandowski is not a player who thrives on passes in space, and he scores a lot from aerial shots. He is not as wasteful as Ronaldo. Haaland is one of the best at recieving passes in spaces, and he is absolute anomaly in conversaion rate. You say this: Then do this:
"Seens as bad decision making" Really? Ronaldo is considered as one of the greatest players of all time. Many would say he is the best or amongst very few best goalscorers in history of game. @Letmepost said Ronaldo is a better finisher than Messi few posts ago. Ronaldo has the biggest fandom in the world and possibly in entire history of football. Tell me, at what point is Cristiano criticized for his decision-making while shoting? This is not widely held conversation. For example, letmepost had no idea the extent to which Ronaldo shots and he is the one insisting on resource-demanding conversations. Narrative just few pages ago was that Ronaldo is this incredible alien with off the ball movement who scores because he pops up in the right place, at the right time. Facts say otherwise. That kind of guy is actually Haaland. Haaland is the best example of a striker he relies on off the ball movement to find himself in the most advantegous scoring situations and is incredibly efficient at utilizing as few chances as possible. Haaland is that guy. Ronaldo is not Haaland-type goalscorer. As I said, the best way I can desctibe Cristiano as a goalscorer is following: A premium goalscorer that comes with premium cost. Live by the sword, die by the sword. He got a bit better over the years at the Haaland-type scoring, that is true, but at no point is he what people are trying to make it seem like here. The mentality that Cristiano is praised for is the same mentality that produces this kind of player profile. He has never been about efficiency, but volume. The persistance mentality. https://youtube.com/shorts/gDtDDKmYW_o?si=Qj7fAKINbJIwEbiw
Continuing: Ronaldo 15 games, 17 goals, 50 team goals (34,0 G%) Messi 19 games, 28 goals, 59 team goals (47,5 G%) Lewandowski 23 games, 31 goals, 68 team goals (45,6 G%) The best performance is having the best goal contribution percantage (G%). By the narrativeon this thread, the guy who is having the best goal contribution percanatge would be the guy who is the msot tactically central and dominates resources. Facts say otherwise. The guy who is dominating resources the msot in terms of shots, is the guy who has the worst G%. So the idea that G% is correlated with dominating resources is literally the opposite. What makes someone dominate G% in this case, is quality of performance, not dominating resources.
Lionel Messi Is Impossible | FiveThirtyEight I found that an article from 2014 basically mentioned everything that was hashed out in this debate, in one form or another. A) Shooting efficiency and volume Messi is more effective at converting his shots into goals, than Cristiano Ronaldo, who prefers a greater variety and volume of shot-selection. The y-axis seems to be shot conversion rate, which is basically a worse version of expected goal under/over-performance for me, so this is just a rudimentary data, that tells us what we already know. B) Resource-demand and positive-return for that demand Lionel Messi is more of all-around resource-hog, in terms of deciding the fate of an attacking sequence, than Cristiano Ronaldo (except for the heavily published data about Cristiano Ronaldo's tendency to monopolize the shooting attempts) that can be measured somewhat as actions that can be sequence-ending events, including: 1) Shot-attempts 2) Key passes 3) Inaccurate passes 4) Unsuccessful take-ons 5) Other forms of turnovers It isn't a perfect proxy for usage rate, but it does point in that direction. And it turns out when we take into account all these actions, Lionel Messi would most likely be the higher usage rate player, from what I've gathered from how it is calculated, at least. The interesting point is that, Lionel Messi is the more resource-heavy out of the two, but also the most impactful in terms of positive outcome events (goals and assists) per possession used. Cristiano Ronaldo is not far behind, and there is some unnamed mystery player with a good positive return per possession used, but uses much less possessions than most. Conclusion 1) Lionel Messi is nearly untouchable in terms of statistics that measure clinical finishing, and it somewhat ties into his dribbling ability from my point of view. Things like goal-conversion rate, and big-chances-missed-to-goal ratio, cannot tell us much more, than what expected goal overperformance values already tells us. Repeating the same exercise, over and over, with slight alterations in approach, without aims to discover something new, is just another rub-and-tug session. 2) Almost every search I did, has Lionel Messi, having a high usage rate (or sequence usage, as some statistical sites label it), or a high rating, for a proxy of the concept such as "possessions used", "possession ending actions", "sequence ending actions" than what is normally found. I have not found many that mentions Cristiano Ronaldo, but this article does measure "possessions used" for both, and I think it aligns with how much resource both players demand from the team, and the risk of turnovers they inherently have in the process of trying to attack the opposing team. 3) If one decides to hyper-focus on the greatest gulf between the two players, and try to establish some universally applicable statement, based on that specific data factoid, that's just intellectual dishonesty. Pretending that monopoly of shots means that a player is the most resource-heavy, is also hilarious from my point of view. I would always call a player like Zlatan Ibrahimovic more resource reliant, than a player who shoots as much as him.
Turns out, resource demanded, isn't measured only by counting the number of shots. A player that risks the most turnovers within the team, and ranks first for multiple seasons, within the given set-up, as the player who loses possession the most, in the process of his only method of contributing to the team, is not resource heavy? What is Lionel Messi doing so much, once we disregard these risk-inherent plays? Pressing and tracking back after the turnovers he caused? Trying to measure the resource-cost of Lionel Messi through shots-taken, is like measuring player performance by their goals only. I thought this entire thread was a giant debate to escape that route. And it is all in vain.
Sofascore Football on X: "⚠️ | QUICK STAT Most losses of possession by a player in a single Premier League match this season: 1⃣ 45 - Trent Alexander-Arnold v Leicester City (13 February) 2⃣ 39 - Trent Alexander-Arnold v Burnley (21 January) 3⃣ 38 - Trent Alexander-Arnold v Southampton (4 January) https://t.co/yraaSJwvYx" / X Is Trent Alexander-Arnold a high resource-demand player? For me he is. His usage rate tends to be always in the upper end. Then isn't okay to say Lionel Messi, from what we understand about usage rate, and its associated metrics such as possessions lost, or inaccurate passes, or turnovers caused, is most likely a high resource-demand player also? LiveScore on X: "Lionel Messi & Trent Alexander-Arnold have lost possession more times than any other players in Europe's top 5 leagues this season... No risk no reward https://t.co/nULklSxsTC" / X I think this is more relevant than deciding that Jamie Vardy is the most resource heavy ball-hog the world has ever seen, because his shot-participation rate was high. Or saying that the strikers of all teams are the most resource-heavy by default because they take the most shots.
I guess De Bruyne's mid-range pass 'connection rate' would be significantly higher than C.Ronaldo's long-range shot scoring rate though (although the gap might narrow a fair bit using De Bruyne's pre-assist+assist rate from such passes which you might prefer, even if the breakdown of the potential goal scoring move wouldn't strictly be after his own action if the pass was successfully played, and beneficially so for the receiver). I guess that's the case comparing most passers to most shooters in these scenarios though. Even a player like Gheorghe Hagi who could score long-range wonder goals nevertheless didn't take the approach of going a lot for such attempts during his stand-out World Cup for example:
If we assume that each sequence from a team is like a "tennis rally", but instead of a point being decided for each rally, and there are around 3 to 4 points available from all of those rallies collectively. The team in possession, is like the "tennis server" looking to score a point, and once there is a turnover, they immediately become the "tennis receiver". The above data means, each team might get around a 100 sequences per game, with 1.5 to 2 points available per game, assuming there are around 3 to 4 goals per game on average. Everytime there is a turnover, there is a swing: 1) Team A is in possession of the sequence, with maybe a small chance to score. Each team probably has around 1.5 expected goals per game, and if that is achieved for every 100 sequences, maybe each sequence has around 0.015 valuation on average. 2) There is a turnover. 3) Team B has a sequence, also maybe with a small chance to score, maybe 0.015 in the opposite direction So maybe a 0.03 swing. So if a player loses the ball 26 times trying to playmake or make a difference as an attacker, maybe it is not that small a number. It isn't just what the team should be ready to handle when being in service of such a creative genius, it is a real cost. ESPN FC on X: "Messi lost the ball 26 times in PSG's loss to Lyon yesterday, the most by any player on the pitch. He's lost 498 possessions in Ligue 1 this season, tied for 4th most https://t.co/iDXEBKjb0f" / X Because there are only 3~4 goals per match, it also means that each bad miss, is like throwing away one of the key components adding up to the 1.5 xG or so. And all of this is probably built into Sofascore. Every bad miss probably costs a striker a ballpark figure of around 0.3 away from his rating, and every bad turnover probably costs a player 0.03 or so (if 1.5xG for every 100 team sequences, is turned into 1.5xG for every 100 sequences for the enemy team). A player that has over 30 turnovers, maybe would maybe get punished harder than a striker who missed one 0.3 valuation high quality chance. I think what we are discussing right now was probably being debated, and then decided by the people who made up the Sofascore algorithmic scores. But it seems like from WhoScored punishes the turnovers more than Sofascore, and neither seem to punish it as harshly as I imagined. Maybe it is the same weight as succeeding a pass, but given the opposite swing, and the ease with which most passes are completed (around 75~80%?), I initially would have assumed a heavier weight that is closer to double or triple of a single pass completed value. Okay, I'm lost on this one.
It doesn't. Like I showed you, most missed pass attempts especially for playmakers like Messi are mostly risky ones and doesn't matter if it's for chance creation, ball progression or ball retention cause the negative outcome is also a turnover just like a missed shot. And there are much more missed passes than missed shots. Yet somehow taking riskier passes is a good thing if you create a lot of chances but taking riskier shots isn't a good thing even if you're scoring a lot. In a general sense no. But especially between Messi fans it's a common trend to say Ronaldo is a bad decision maker when they are faced with the argument that Ronaldo is a better finisher because he can score from distances and angles that Messi is not capable of. Those same fans don't say Messi has bad decision making cause he attempts a lot of risky passes in order to create great chances and in fact they praise players like Messi, KDB or Yamal for playing those risky passes. Also, Ronaldo has just as good if not better off the ball movement as Haaland and is a better goalscorer overall precisely because he scores the kind of goals Haaland scores but ALSO from distances and angles Haaland doesn't. Haaland is very strong at off ball movement but also is a very good ball striker as sometimes he's in good position but he receives a very bad pass yet somehow he scores. He also has a very good game vision and timing as he rarely is offside. But Ronaldo is even better at taking half chances even when he's in good position. He's better at deceive the defenders with his movement. But he ALSO takes riskier shots cause he has the ability to convert them
Here you're comparing mid range passes with long range shots, mate. And even so, yes, KDB completes more long passes than Ronaldo convert long range goals but KDB generates more turnovers with his long range passes than Ronaldo with his long range shots. That's the nature of the game. Ronaldo takes at most 7 shots a game and only half or less of them are from out of box while KDB attempts over 10 long passes a game.
The red line on the graph is odd and doesnt make sense. It doesnt make sense that more shots per game should on average result in a higher conversion rate. It is trying to fit a linear relationship to a non-linear empirical data. By this graph, if we extended the red line towards 10 shots per game, then expected conversion rate would be 30%? For 20 shots per game a 40%? It is wrong. Effective = achieved output Efficiency = output / input Whether Messi is more effective finisher than Ronaldo depends on a match sample we look at. But Messi is more efficient finisher than Ronaldo based on what was seen, meaning he did more ouput with less input. Messi plays more efficiently than Ronaldo given optimal environments for them we've seen. This would mean that Messi would not be more efficient if he was forced to play like Ronaldo and vice versa. Messi in general plays with more efficiency, which is partly due to him, and partly due to their circumstances they actually had. Conversion rate is not just worse version of xG, because xG is agnostic to shot volume, which is part of the resource thread you are pursuing. So you can't just ignore conversion rate from now on. It has to be included for the sake of this line.for example, player A and B can both have equal xG and overperformance of it, while different conversion rates. It is not ignorable data once you have xG profile, just like actual shot count. There is more insight embedded in this data then xG alone.
Reposting: deleted previous post. I made an error. Hopefully not any other... This is what I mean by xG and conversion rate difference. Conversion rate is not a diet-coke version of xG, they are fundamentally different pieces of information, that correlate, but are not the same. Messi is not better than Ronaldo at just overperforming xG, which is the same thing as saying that Messi has a better conversion rate. That is a false statement. Messi is doing two things simultaniously better than Ronaldo 1. Has a better overperformance of xG 2. Is more efficent in terms of conversion rate. Because you can simultaniously have better xG performance and worse conversion rate. For example: Player A and B both have 50 xG. Player A is overperforming xG by +10 and player B is performing at exactly the same level as xG. So we have two pieces of information for two players: Player A 50 xG P (xG performance) = +10 Player B 50 xG P = 0 We can calculate goals each scored from that easily, 60 and 50 goals respectively. However, if I asked you to calculate how many shots each player took in this sample size, you wouldnt be able to do so, because it lacks information. But if we add conversion rates for each player, it can be done: Player A 50 xG P = +10 60 goals + CR (conversion rate) = 15% = 0,15 Player B 50 xG P = 0 50 goals + CR = 25% = 0,25 I purposefully made this the case where Player A is better at xG performance, but worse in conversion rate than player B. This is a plausible and common situation. Based on this we can calculate some cool information and gain insight into what is happening behind the scene in more depth. Formulas needed: CR = goals / shots Another way to use the equation: Goals = CR * shots (equation 1) P = Goals - xG Goals = P + xG (equation 2) Putting two labeled equations together (1 and 2), we get formula for calculating number of total shots: CR * shots = P + xG Shots = (P + xG)/CR Now, based on CR information we can calculate number of shots each player took: Player A: Shots = (P + xG)/CR = (10 + 50)/0,15 = 400 shots Player B Shots = 200 shots We couldnt do that before when we lacked CR information, because xG and CR are not the same pieces of information, so they have independent value. Adding another formula for how much on average each shot had xG value: Shot xG (xG value of one shot) = xG / shots Player A Shot xG = 50 / 400 = 0,125 Player B Shot xG = 0,25 This is now richer picture of what is actually happening. Player A is performing better than expected in terms of shots he took, but he has done that with a much greater volume of shots than player B. Player A is not able to generate as much value per shot as player B. In realistic scenario, this would likely mean that the average of shot xG is lowered by player A's numerous attempts of low probability shots, but despite player A's shot demands, his return of investment (ROI) is greater than player B. Underlying dynamics of xG values would remain hidden without data for conversion rate, meaning conversion rate is not a diet-coke version of xG. We could have accessed the insight about dynamics by adding only data on number of shots (without ever calculating conversion rate per se). Regardless, it serves to prove a fundamental difference between xG performance and conversion rate. So Messi is not just doing one thing "better" than Ronaldo. He is doing two separate things better simultaniously. This is in alignment with your intent of analyzing resources.
Ultimately, this is the goalscoring equation that describes every goalscoring performance and every type of a player's goalscoring profile. The E=mc^2 of goalscoring if you will: G = S * (xG/S) * (G/xG)
ChatGPT: A simple way to describe goalscoring output is: G = S * (xG/S) * (G/xG) Where: G = goals S = shots (shot volume) xG/S = average xG per shot (shot quality / shot selection / chance quality) G/xG = goals per expected goal (finishing above or below expectation) This naturally creates a 2x2 matrix if you put: x-axis = xG/S (left = low, right = high) y-axis = G/xG (down = low, up = high) And represent shot volume S as the size of a dot (small dot = few shots, big dot = many shots). What each axis means: Moving right (higher xG/S) means the average shot is “cleaner” or more valuable: closer range, better angle, less pressure, better setup. It reflects shot selection, movement, timing, and chance creation leading to higher-quality attempts. Moving up (higher G/xG) means finishing is outperforming expectation: converting more goals than the xG model predicts from those attempts. It reflects execution: technique, composure, disguise, keeper manipulation, and speed of finishing. How to read the dot size: Bigger dot (higher S) means more total attempts. This can come from greater involvement, more attacking presence, team dominance, higher usage, or a tendency to shoot earlier/more often. Smaller dot (lower S) means fewer attempts, which can be due to role, team context, selectivity, or limited access. The four quadrants: Top-right (high xG/S, high G/xG): High shot quality and high finishing. This is the most efficient scoring profile: attempts are valuable on average, and they get converted above expectation. Even a medium-sized dot here produces high goals, because both multipliers are strong. A large dot here produces extreme goal totals because quality + finishing + volume all compound. Top-left (low xG/S, high G/xG): Lower average shot quality, but strong finishing above expectation. Goals come from converting difficult or lower-value attempts at a high rate. Output depends heavily on the finishing multiplier G/xG. If it drops toward average, goal output falls quickly unless shot quality improves. Dot size matters a lot: a big dot can still generate high totals because volume amplifies the finishing advantage. Bottom-right (high xG/S, low G/xG): High-quality chances, but finishing is average/below expectation. The shot diet is strong (xG/S is high), but the conversion of that value into goals is not maximized. Goal totals can still be good if shot volume S is large, because lots of high-quality chances create many expected goals. If finishing improves, the same chance profile yields a sharp jump in goals. Bottom-left (low xG/S, low G/xG): Low shot quality and low finishing relative to expectation. This is the least productive scoring profile. Attempts are low-value on average and are not being converted efficiently. Increasing volume S alone can raise goal totals, but often at a poor return because both multipliers are weak. Improvements here usually require either better shot quality (move right) or better finishing (move up), ideally both. A practical way to interpret any point on the matrix is: xG/S tells you what kind of shots are being taken (quality of attempts) G/xG tells you how well those shots are being finished (conversion above expectation) S tells you how many opportunities are being created/used (volume) Two players can have similar goals G while living in different parts of the matrix, because different combinations of S, xG/S, and G/xG can produce the same output.