It has been a strange year so far for AC Milan in 2023 as they have dropped out of the race for three trophies yet are back among the best eight sides in Europe.
MilanNews recall how January was a month that saw the defensive unit completely lose their stability as they conceded three against Inter, four against Lazio then five against Sassuolo, but in February the switch to a three-man defence brought back some organisation.
The team certainly looked safer and the back line more protected but many feel that it has come at the expense of attacking fluidity and individual flair, as the FootyStats xG (expected goals) trackers have shown.
➤ Milan 1-0 Torino (xG 1.06-1.47)
➤ Milan 1-0 Tottenham (1.75-1.50)
➤ Monza 0-1 Milan (1.41-1.78)
➤ Milan 2-0 Atalanta (1.51-0.63)
➤ Fiorentina 2-1 Milan (2.15-1.24)
➤ Tottenham 0-0 Milan (1.50-1.75)
➤ Milan 1-1 Salernitana (2.35-1.08)
Milan scored 7 goals against an overall xG of 11.44, finding themselves with a deficit of 4.44 which essentially means that the Rossoneri scored between four and five goals less than what one would have expected from their attacking production.
Nonetheless, the data also shows that their xG was actually lower than their opponents in the games against Torino and Fiorentina while against Monza it was nearly the same.
Milan created so many chances but the strikers just can’t score even after they got the easiest chances in front of the goal.
These xG stats are very off compared to several others I’ve seen.
FotMob
Milan 1-0 Torino (xG 1.37-0.81)
Milan 1-0 Spurs (xG 1.89-0.44)
Monza 0-1 Milan (xG 0.50-2.25)
Milan 2-0 Atalanta (xG 1.76-0.11)
Fiorentina 2-1 Milan (xG 2.15-0.89)
Spurs 0-0 Milan (xG 0.47-1.42)
Milan 1-1 Salernitana (xG 2.29-0.78)
Total: Milan 7-3 Opponents (xG 11.87-5.26)
Nowhere near the conclusion of this article. Milan have more than double the xG of their opponents over this stretch.
And I’m confident that these stats are a better approximation of the truth than the ones from the article based off the fact that the article has Atalanta having 0.63 xG in a game where they had 2 shots and none on target. There’s no way if you watched that game you would believe that.
Your data simply shows that our shot quality even worse than the data used in the article. (11.87xG vs 11.44 xG).
Though yeah Atalanta having 0.63 xG is bizzare as I don’t recall they even have a shot on target?
That’s the frustrating thing about xG is that different platforms have different interpretations. FotMob have different to FootyStats, so we are left none the wiser as to how we can really trust ‘Expected Goals’. Thanks for sharing alternative data though