big chances are judged at the moment of shooting, based on how clear the opportunity is. It is a binary version of xg (numeric version).definition doesn’t care about how close it came — it cares about the type of chance the player had when they shot. The type of pressure player was on when a shot was taken, combined with the angle, distance, (all factors used in xG).So NO, the stat wasn’t wrong, it’s simply doesn’t give the whole picture. A team can concede 3 goals and still have 0.5 xg conceded, with no big chances. It just shows the nature of goals/shots conceded.there were some obvious big chances given upNot as per the definition of a "big chance". Also, that stat doesn't necessarily show the whole picture. So nobody is questioning about the fact that the defense wasn't perfect and needs improvement. You can't question authenticity of a stat based on what you feel or saw. One can however question the observation/conclusion that's claimed out of the stat. We didn't have this under our previous manager and that's an obvious improvement. whether you like it or not, irrespective of which opponent we played against - that's the observation. You can challenge that if you dare.

0