xG (goals), xA (assists), xCS (clean sheets), xP (points), and expected anything are great tools to help quantify anticipated success, only to be met with unmet disappointment.

The student with a 4.0 GPA was expected to land their dream job, but their interview was horrible.

The realtor expected to sell the house for $425,000, but they didn’t get any bids.

The company was expected to beat earnings, but they reported just under, and the stock plunged 6%.

The striker was expected to score 7.02 goals, but they only managed to score two goals.

The team was expected to be 2nd in the table with 28.73 points, but they are 8th in the table with 24 points.

As humans, we hate uncertainty. I bagged two goals in the game, but what were the expected goals? Did I overperform or underperform xG? At its most basic level, it helps confirm what you thought the outcome should be. And that can lead to disappointment because of hindsight.

If you overperform, you’ll ask why you didn’t get more high quality chances. If you underperform, you’ll wonder why you didn’t finish more of those chances. You want more either way.

If we are going to look to learn from the past, I think the first thing we should look at is the technique rather than focus on the quality of the chance. Lead with the technique change, and use data to justify it if needed, not the other way around.