We should've beaten the Bombers on Saturday
The stats don't lie.
Subscribe to Hawks Insiders for the best brown and gold coverage in the business - including exclusive interviews, analysis, match recaps, and pods.
SIMON MORAWETZ applies a modern soccer concept called Expected Goals (xG) to explain how we should’ve beaten the Bombers in our first hit out of 2024.
Leaving the MCG on Saturday, it felt like the four-goal margin flattered the Bombers somewhat.
We’d been in it up to our ears for most of the game. The margin was less than 10 points at every change. But for Essendon goals in the last seconds of both the second and third quarters, it could have been a very different story.
The stats sheet agrees. It paints a picture of a team who played its hand as best it could: we largely broke even on disposals and were +6 for contested possessions. We were +6 for inside 50s despite winning nine fewer clearances.
Notably, apart from the clearance count, these were improvements on last year, when we were +2 on average for contested ball and -2 for inside 50s. We took 12 contested marks this week where we averaged nine last year, and our newly-restocked forward line took 19 marks inside 50, a clear improvement on last year’s average of 11.
As is often the case, the difference between the two sides came down to Essendon taking their chances, and us failing to take ours. It is at this point that I bring in a modern soccer concept known as Expected Goals (xG).
What is xG and why is it helpful?
xG is an advanced metric that takes the results of thousands of historical shots at goal and determines how likely a future shot is to go in. A shot close to goal without much angle has a higher xG (close to 1) than a shot from long range (close to 0).
If a team is creating lots of good chances, it will have a high xG, and that can be a better gauge of how well it has played than, say, how many goals it actually scores.
Over time, xG gives us a better (and more objective) indication of how a team is playing than their win-loss record. Teams that consistently outperform their opposition in terms of xG tend to win more than they lose.
If you would like to look depper into the world of xG in modern soccer, take a look at an xG explainer here.
AFL footy sorely needs a similar metric. Used and understood correctly, it would provide a much deeper understanding of the game for fans (and, ideally, media).
xG in the AFL?
To fill the void, a number of fan-made attempts at the metric have popped up over time. This one, by a footy statistician known as @AFLLab, indicates that based on the quality of chances created, Hawthorn should have outscored Essendon by about ten points on Saturday.
Of course, the obvious response is “yeah, but they didn’t”. Essendon won. Bad kicking is bad footy and all that. That isn’t really the point. The point is that we played good footy, and could have got the points playing exactly the same way on another day. It’s a realisation that can get lost in the disappointment of defeat.
What does it all mean?
Losing sucks, but it’s important not to lose sight of the big picture. We’ve already shown several areas of statistical improvement as compared to last year, albeit only in one game. Our forward line looks as functional as it has for years. Winning the xS is barely consolation, but cold comfort is still comfort.
The path to progress isn’t a straight line, but as long as we keep putting up strong xS numbers, we’re well and truly on it.
Don’t forget to listen in as the HI team goes live on Wednesday nights on X (formerly Twitter) Spaces. Follow us on and Facebook (if you’re into that sort of thing) as well.
Totally agree Simon. Love your information about English Football. In many ways it felt like a win in almost all sense except the scoreline. Which happens in Football (Soccer as many call it) that your side can dominate most stats except the scoreline. Made even more impressive when you think that Sicily and Newcombe were not strong contributors. Saw lots of positive signs and I expect a strong finish to the year from the Hawks. We will trouble every side this year and on days when we do make the most of our chances we will win more than we lose. Gave me even more sense that we are on the right track and just missing a few pieces of the jigsaw. Phillips must surely play this week to provide that extra tall in place of Finn. Using him as a sub was silly really. Would have made more sense to play him at the start tagging Merrett and then bring on a fast runner in the last quarter.
Thanks for a great article Simon. I believe that Champion Data does a metric called Expected Score and Simon Goodwin referred to it after their first final loss last year (the expected score indicated that Melbourne ought to have won). Both to the eye and borne out in a number of the key stats from Saturday's game, we were highly competitive, and it was a game that we could have won. Your xS analysis is just another stat that confirms that view and gives us further encouragement. What I liked most about the game, is that the things that didn't work, appear to be readily fixable, especially centre clearances which were a strength last season and set shot kicking for goal. While we improved from round one last year, whether we've really improved will be measured over a larger sample - here's hoping that we have a real crack against a seasoned finalist on Saturday.