What counts as a good xG value for a single shot?

Below 0.05 is a speculative effort and around 0.1 is a half chance. Anything from 0.3 upwards is a clear chance, and a penalty sits near 0.78. A shot above 0.5 is one that should be scored more often than not.

Is xG the same across every data provider?

No. Each provider trains its own model on its own event data, so values for the same shot can differ by 0.05 to 0.1. xG Stat runs on independent professional event data, which is why figures here will not always match another site exactly.

Does xG account for who is taking the shot?

No, and that is deliberate. The model values the chance, not the player, so every shot from the same position with the same build up is worth the same. Comparing a player's goals against their xG is what isolates finishing.

Can xG be trusted over a single match?

For teams, largely yes: a side creating 2.5 xG almost certainly played better than one creating 0.4, whatever the scoreline said. For individual players a single match tells you very little, because one chance can dominate the total.

Why does a team's xG differ from the goals they scored?

Because finishing varies. Over a handful of matches the two can diverge widely, and over a full season they usually converge. A persistent gap in either direction is the signal worth investigating.

Expected Goals

Expected goals measures the quality of a chance as the probability that a shot of that type is scored, so a shot worth 0.5 xG should be scored about half the time.

Why it matters. It shows who is reaching good scoring positions even when the goals have not arrived, which is the most reliable early sign of what is coming next.

Figures from xG Stat’s own models, built on Wyscout event data. Updated 6 August 2026.

Six inputs decide a shot's number

A model trained on hundreds of thousands of historical shots scores every new one from 0 to 1: the share of near-identical attempts that went in.

Distance to goal. The single biggest factor.
Angle. How much of the goal frame the shooter can actually aim at. A shot from the penalty spot beats one from the same distance on the byline.
Body part. Strong foot, weak foot and header convert at different rates from identical positions.
Shot type. Open play, set pieces, free kicks and penalties each carry their own base rate.
Assist type. A cut-back to the penalty spot leaves a defence more exposed than a cross from the same position.
Defensive pressure. Where the defenders and the goalkeeper stood when the shot was struck.

The model never sees who took the shot. Every player hitting the same chance gets the same number. That is deliberate. It turns the gap between a player's goals and their xG into a clean read on finishing, not a number that already has finishing baked in.

Read one shot at face value, then stop

A shot worth 0.5 xG goes in about half the time and misses about half the time. Missing one proves nothing. Getting into the position to take it does.

Match totals carry the real signal. Add up every shot a team took and you get a picture of the chances created, independent of finishing. A side that creates 2.4 xG and loses 1-0 played well and lost. That is not consolation: teams in that position score more and win more over the following weeks than the scoreline suggests.

Season totals settle further still. Goals and xG converge across a full campaign, because outscoring or underscoring your chance quality is hard to sustain over several hundred shots. The gap between the two columns is one of the clearest signals on a league table.

Sample size bites hardest at player level. A single penalty is worth roughly eight speculative efforts from outside the box. Five goals from 2.1 xG is a good month, not proof of a gift for finishing, and it takes hundreds of shots to tell the two apart. That is why a player's xG predicts their next ten matches better than their goals do.

xG answers three different questions

Judging whether a team is good. Cut through the results. A side seventh on a run of tight wins and a side fourteenth after four one-goal defeats can carry near-identical xG numbers. The table tends to move towards both of them over time.

Judging which player produces next. xG leads goals as an indicator, not the other way round. A forward whose goals dried up while chance quality held is a different case from one whose chances dried up too. Only one of those is a problem worth worrying about.

Explaining what actually happened. "They were unlucky" becomes "they created four clear chances and scored none of them", a claim you can check against the shot list rather than argue about.

The objections, and why they do not hold

"It ignores finishing skill." It isolates finishing. Comparing goals against xG is the only way to measure it, and that comparison needs the second number to exist.
"A high xG miss proves the player is poor." Reaching a 0.8 xG position is the hard, repeatable part. Converting any single chance mostly is not.
"It cannot handle set pieces or penalties." Every shot carries its build-up type, and a penalty carries its own base rate near 0.78. Use non-penalty xG when you need open play alone.
"Different sites disagree, so the number is unreliable." Providers train different models on different event data, and values for one shot can move by around 0.1 between them. They agree on direction almost every time. xG Stat runs on one independent data source throughout, so every figure on this site is at least consistent with every other figure on it. That matters more for comparison than matching somebody else's number, and why our numbers differ has the full story.

Most expected goals

2025/26 final

1E. HaalandManchester City26.3
2Igor ThiagoBrentford21.4
3D. Calvert-LewinLeeds United17.9
4O. WatkinsAston Villa16.8
5J. MatetaCrystal Palace14.0
6A. SemenyoManchester City12.9
7R. JiménezFulham12.5
8João PedroChelsea12.1
9B. MbeumoManchester United12.0
10V. GyökeresArsenal11.9

See every player's numbersData to Mon 25 May, 15:00

FAQ

Related terms

See xG across the Premier League

Every player, team and match measured on the chances created rather than the scoreline.