Could be wrong but I find them hard to believe. I mean who decides what a chance is and what a clear cut chance is? It's just someone's opinion and I find it very hard to believe that you have created more clear cut chances than man city for example.
The amount of pointless stats bounded about these days are ridiculous. Saw one yesterday about who runs the most and who sprints the most. I mean seriously what sort of nerd comes up with this Sheite and worse than that what sort of loser is actually interested in it

I don't have a problem with coming up with new stats that can aid analysis of the game, but the need to be reliably objective or, at the very least, create sample sizes that are actually meaningful enough to be taken seriously from a statistical standpoint.

I don't know the exact numbers involved, but if we're talking about 50 or 60 chances and factor in that what does or doesn't constitute a clear cut chance is far from set in stone, then it's hard to take these numbers seriously.

Stat analysis and the ensuing debate around them are one of the things keeping SSN going as a 24 hour channel. They literally have to keep creating things to talk about

These ones look misleading to me. They won't account for defending of set pieces for example where we have been awful for some time - some of that will be Kasper but mostly it's our terrible marking.

I do find it hard to believe that we create more clear cut chances than Man City especially considering the fact that Vardy has been shown to be one of the most clinical strikers in the league in terms of chances taken

Yeah no chance Leicester have created chances than City this season.

FAKE NEWS

There are stats... and there are stats.
These are stats that are just not needed and open to interpretation. The chaps that are running these numbers need to get out more

comment by RonaldVilliers (U21490)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
Yeah no chance Leicester have created chances than City this season.

FAKE NEWS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thanks for the clarification

The full article is on the BBC football website - makes interesting reading

Is the interpretation of the stats by the OP correct though, there were stats I mentioned a few weeks ago where we were top of the ‘expected’ chances rather than actual chances, that’s why it doesn’t make sense that we have created more than teams like Man City.

If the chances are weighted though to how many a team is expected to create, we’ve been doing very well and performing above expectations in that particular area.

I’m also in the camp of struggling to understand how they’ve got to these figures!

Stats should make sense in context of the reality of games. These don’t seem to.

If they were correct, I’d suggest we’d be challenging Man City for top spot. Last time I checked, we’re not.

Surely a chance is
Player in front of open goal > misses
Goal keeper saves shot on target
Defender clears off line
Player hit shot onto the goal frame or misses by inches

As we are better than man city
Is this because most of there chances become goals
Therefore dont count as chances ??

My interpretation of the stats was to suggest that we are arguably the most "negatively out of position" club given the stats, i.e. All things being equal we would be higher in the table based on this.

Of course, all other things are not equal. But regardless, this particular stat offers little else in the way of insight or anything particularly useful. Much like the stat it's created from - Expected Goals - it's more for people who like stats rather than something that actually wins you anything or serves any real purpose.

I do like Expected Goals - it helps to debunk a manager's nonsense when they're erroneously banging on about how their team deserved to do this, that or the other. However, the one in the OP is mostly just an "it's so unfair" stat that shouldn't be given particular respect.

"From the unlikely contender for an England World Cup place to signs that Leicester are not as far away as you might think from a return to the top end of the table, "

Hmm, We never were far away were we, fixtures and key players missing were the only issue all along?

I think the anomaly with re: Man City is that Man City are more clinical with the ‘lesser’ amount of ‘clear chances’ than we are with a ‘greater’ amount of ‘clear chances’. The increase in Man City’s ‘goals for’ in comparison to ours is that Opta are stating they score more from ‘less clear’ chances.

Of course it is subjective, but that doesn’t mean it’s bias (this would only occur if the analyst decided that a ‘clear chance’ for Leicester is different to their view on what a ‘clear chance’ for Man City is).

It’s mainly a load of rubbish I guess , but one would assume that , even a broad subjective view, would be reasonably accurate in terms of what a ‘good chance’ is And therefore there is some credence to the fact that we are making a lot of good chances but missing many more in comparison to some teams. Make of the stats what you will, but within their context of what they view as a ‘clear chance’ we are making ahellalot comparatively - and that’s a fact :D