I agree with you - to a point. The problem is xG still has flaws (needs to measure game state because teams will build xG when 3-0 down and the other team takes foot off gas etc, and should take into account who's shooting - obviously Haaland is more likely to score than Ake). To be fair those new game state graphs seem to be trying to remedy this somewhat.
Also, as I said, I like it as a stat in principle (though I agree it doesn't necessarily mean you dominated the game if you win it, just created better chances) - as I said my problem is how the numbers are sometimes calculated. I gave two examples above where the xG of Spurs and Man City in games against Man United just did not seem right. If I thought it was very accurate I would trust it more. But how did City have less than 2 xG against United last week and how did Spurs only have 0.8 xG that night they scored four? In both games those teams had objectively good chances that fell to good finishers.
The problem for me isn't the idea of the stat - it's that how it is calculated and some of the context it neglects can make it seem more flawed than it could be.
@Birdy what do you think? Are these thoughts fair?
