In modern football analysis, expected goals (xG) has become a staple metric used to evaluate performance. While much attention is given to xG in attack, its defensive counterpart, xG conceded, is equally crucial. When compared with actual goals conceded, this metric offers valuable insights into a team’s defensive effectiveness and the performance of its goalkeeper.
In this article, we break down the difference between xG conceded and actual goals conceded, explore why the gap between them matters, and show how analysts and coaches use these stats to evaluate defensive performance.
What Is xG Conceded?
xG conceded refers to the total expected goals a team or goalkeeper is predicted to concede based on the quality of chances allowed. Each shot faced is assigned an xG value based on factors such as:
- Distance to goal
- Angle of the shot
- Type of assist (e.g., through ball, cross, set piece)
- Body part used (foot, head, etc.)
- Shot situation (open play, counterattack, penalty, etc.)
For example, if a team faces shots with xG values of 0.2, 0.4, and 0.3, the team’s xG conceded is 0.9 for that game — meaning they were expected to concede roughly 0.9 goals based on the quality of chances they allowed.
What Are Actual Goals Conceded?
This is straightforward: actual goals conceded is the number of goals a team or goalkeeper actually lets in over a given period. While xG conceded reflects the probability of conceding based on shot quality, actual goals conceded is the real outcome.
Why Compare xG Conceded to Actual Goals Conceded?
The comparison between the two metrics helps identify whether a team’s defense is overperforming, underperforming, or performing as expected.
Underperformance
If a team concedes more goals than their xG conceded, this may point to:
- Poor goalkeeping
- Individual defensive errors
- Bad luck (e.g., deflections, own goals)
- Systemic defensive issues (e.g., failing to block shots, weak defending in key areas)
Overperformance
If a team concedes fewer goals than their xG conceded, it can indicate:
- Excellent goalkeeping
- Effective last-ditch defending
- Tactical discipline that limits clear follow-up chances
- A bit of luck or opponents’ poor finishing
xG Conceded ≈ Goals Conceded
This typically suggests the defense is performing in line with expectations, neither particularly lucky nor unlucky.
Use Case: Evaluating Goalkeepers
This comparison is especially valuable when assessing goalkeepers. A goalkeeper who consistently concedes fewer goals than expected is likely saving their team points and outperforming the average shot-stopper.
For example, if a goalkeeper faces 50 shots with a combined xG of 15 but only concedes 10 goals, they’ve saved 5 “expected goals” — a sign of elite shot-stopping.
This metric is often referred to as Goals Prevented or Post-Shot xG minus Goals Conceded, depending on the data provider.
Use Case: Evaluating Defensive Systems
From a tactical standpoint, xG conceded can reveal how well a team limits high-quality chances.
- A team with low xG conceded per game generally restricts opponents to low-probability shots — a mark of a solid defensive setup.
- A team with high xG conceded but few actual goals allowed may be relying too heavily on their goalkeeper and could regress over time.
Therefore, consistent overperformance in defense should be viewed with caution — it may not be sustainable unless the team adjusts to limit shot quality.
Example: Team A vs Team B (Over a 10-Game Period)
| Team | xG Conceded | Goals Conceded | Difference |
| Team A | 12.0 | 9 | -3.0 |
| Team B | 8.0 | 12 | +4.0 |
- Team A is overperforming defensively — possibly due to strong goalkeeping.
- Team B is underperforming — possibly due to errors, poor luck, or ineffective defensive structure.
Conclusion
The relationship between xG conceded and actual goals conceded is a powerful lens for understanding defensive performance. It moves analysis beyond simple goal tallies and into the quality of chances a team allows.
For coaches, scouts, analysts, and fans, this comparison helps identify:
- Whether a team or goalkeeper is performing above or below expectations
- Structural defensive weaknesses
- Potential regression or improvement in defensive outcomes
In short, combining these metrics offers a more nuanced, data-driven view of how well a team defends — and whether their defensive performance is sustainable over time.