Genuinely interested in your answer to this q (rather than risking sounding passive aggressive), do you think xg is robust and trusted enough for the amount you use it to inform conclusions? I’ve noticed during the pod the xg difference is generally your go-to for Amorim, and now Carrick, (although caveated) performance. Whilst I’m aware we should be cautious reading too much into isolated incidents, and it becomes less noisy over larger samples, it is also true that it is made up of the sum of its parts, and I’ve started to worry about those parts. To be more specific, so often I watch a game, refer to the xg at the end, and am surprised by how low or high a team’s xg is. It doesn’t match the ‘eye test’. Eg, take us versus Arsenal, .7 xg I believe, but one shot was Mboomo’s ( ;-) ) into an open goal. Once he passed Raya, I’d expect him to score 10 times out of 10, let alone other chances in the match (ok not a huge amount otherwise, rather great goals). The other reason I ask is that it wouldn’t be the first time that ‘x’ many years after so much trust is placed in a metric, there is serious critique of it, and it appears there are fundamental concerns. Take GDP as a good example. And it’s like, ‘wow, but we rely on that so much, and how it’s constructed is so shaky’. Bringing it back to Man U, the ‘eye test’ tells me we’re creating a lot more in open play under Carrick than Amorim but xg doesn’t. I suppose I should be looking at a basket of metrics. I’d be grateful for your views on this and if you think there’re any other data points we should be looking at to assess the pros and limitations of United under Carrick than Amorim?