Hull City 2024/25 Season Analysis: Did xG Tell the Story?
For the 2024-2025 Championship season, Hull City’s expectations were notably high and centered firmly on securing a promotion playoff place, with an underlying ambition to challenge for automatic promotion to the Premier League.
After a promising seventh-place finish the previous season under Liam Rosenior, the mood turned to one of bold transition following a surprising and controversial change in management. The ambitious owner, Acun Ilicali, replaced Rosenior with German coach Tim Walter, signaling a desire for a more possession-dominant, attacking style to push the team over the line.
With a significant squad overhaul featuring both high-profile departures (like Jaden Philogene and Jacob Greaves) and new investments, the explicit expectation was to compete at the top end of the table. The fanbase entered the season with a mix of excitement about the new project and nervousness about whether such a major reset would deliver immediate results.
The Question
I wanted to look into whether xG was an accurate predictor of results over the season. Unfortunately xG was only available for 33 of the games but here is what we found.
Season Overview
Season Statistics
Hull City
Championship 2024/2025 Season Summary
Overall
Home
Away
xG Analysis
Based on 46 matches with xG data
Underperforming xG by 6.7 goals - unlucky or poor finishing.
A poor season with 12 Wins, 13 Draws, and 21 Losses. 44 goals scored with an xG of 39 – outperforming by 5 goals which could have been the difference between relegation and staying up.
The Key Finding: xG vs Results
xG Scatter Plot Analysis
Hull City - xG Scatter Plot
2024/2025 Season • 46 matches with xG data
Points below the diagonal = Hull City dominated on xG
Scatter Plot Analysis by Quadrant
Bottom-right quadrant (Hull’s xG was higher – 18 matches)
Hull won 8-9, drew 4-5, and lost 5-6. When Hull dominated on xG, they only converted this advantage into victories 47% of the time – a poor conversion rate that cost them points throughout the season.
Top-left quadrant (Opponent’s xG was higher – 13 matches)
Hull lost 7-8, drew 3-4, and won 2-3. When opponents dominated xG, Hull lost 58% of the time as expected, though they occasionally escaped with unlikely victories.
Overall xG Prediction Accuracy
xG correctly predicted Hull’s results in approximately 16-17 out of 31 clear matches (52-55% accuracy) – well below the typical 65-70% league-wide accuracy. The remaining matches were too close on xG to provide clear predictions. Hull’s inability to convert xG dominance into wins was the defining story of their season.
Season Trends
xG Difference Match-by-Match
xG Difference Bar Chart
Hull City xG Difference by Match 2024/2025
Bars above zero = Hull City dominated xG | Green bars below zero = Won despite being outplayed on xG
Chart Insight
The xG difference chart reveals Hull’s season-long struggle to convert statistical dominance into results. Multiple matches show positive xG differences (bars above zero) colored red – most notably against Millwall, Sheffield, Blackburn, and Swansea – where Hull created better chances but lost anyway.
Conversely, green bars below zero against Norwich, Sheffield United, and Oxford show Hull occasionally winning despite being outplayed on xG. The pattern is inconsistent throughout the season with no clear trend toward improvement, though Hull’s most dominant performances cluster toward the latter third of the season.
The large negative red bar against Plymouth stands out as Hull’s worst statistical defeat. Overall, the chart visualizes the central problem: Hull frequently dominated xG but failed to capitalize, while opponents proved more clinical.
Goals vs Expected Goals
Goals vs xG Comparison
Hull City - Goals vs xG 2024/2025
| Metric | Actual | Expected | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goals Scored | 44 | 39 xG | +5.0 |
| Goals Conceded | 54 | 36 xGA | -17.6 |
The Defensive Problem
Hull’s attacking performance marginally exceeded expectations, scoring 44 goals from an xG of 39 – outperforming by 5.0 goals. This suggests their forwards were reasonably clinical in converting chances.
However, the defensive picture tells a dramatically different story: Hull conceded 54 goals despite an xGA of only 36, underperforming by a staggering 17.6 goals.
This represents catastrophic defensive finishing – opponents converted chances at a far higher rate than expected. The defensive underperformance is more than three times the magnitude of the attacking overperformance, explaining why Hull’s underlying numbers looked competitive (xG 39 vs xGA 36) while their actual record was poor (44 goals for vs 54 against).
Home vs Away Performance
Home vs Away Breakdown
Hull City - Home vs Away 2024/2025
Home
23 pts from 23 games
Away
26 pts from 23 games
Key Finding: Playing at home did not seem to provide Hull City with any advantage – the team actually performed better away from home.
Case Studies
Case Study 1: When xG Got It Right
Hull City vs Oxford United (12 March 2025)
This match shows xG working as expected – Hull dominated xG and won. Stats aligned with result.
Match Statistics
Hull City
Oxford UnitedMatch Statistics
Case Study 2: When xG Got It Wrong
Hull City vs Sheffield United (24 January 2025)
Hull winning away to Sheffield Utd with an xG of just 0.46 and many other stats against them – a true bonus result on paper!
Match Statistics
Sheffield UtdHull CityMatch Statistics
Complete Season Results
Full Season Results with xG
Hull City - 2024/2025 Season
| Date | H/A | Opponent | Result | xG |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 Aug | H | Bristol City | D 1-1 | 1.67-1.25 |
| 17 Aug | A | Plymouth | D 1-1 | 0.80-0.69 |
| 24 Aug | H | Millwall | D 0-0 | 0.82-0.80 |
| 31 Aug | A | Leeds | L 0-2 | 0.49-1.46 |
| 13 Sep | H | Sheffield Utd | L 0-2 | 1.03-0.61 |
| 20 Sep | A | Stoke City | W 3-1 | 1.43-0.90 |
| 28 Sep | H | Cardiff | W 4-1 | 2.26-1.87 |
| 01 Oct | A | QPR | W 3-1 | 1.87-2.56 |
| 05 Oct | A | Norwich | L 0-4 | 0.99-3.83 |
| 20 Oct | H | Sunderland | L 0-1 | 0.49-1.05 |
| 23 Oct | H | Burnley | D 1-1 | 0.89-0.65 |
| 26 Oct | A | Derby | D 1-1 | 1.08-0.63 |
| 02 Nov | H | Portsmouth | D 1-1 | 1.40-1.01 |
| 05 Nov | A | Oxford United | L 0-1 | 1.02-0.80 |
| 10 Nov | H | West Brom | L 1-2 | 1.16-1.17 |
| 23 Nov | A | Luton | L 0-1 | 1.55-0.83 |
| 26 Nov | H | Sheffield Wednesday | L 0-2 | 1.00-2.16 |
| 30 Nov | A | Middlesbrough | L 1-3 | 1.21-1.84 |
| 07 Dec | H | Blackburn | L 0-1 | 0.96-0.30 |
| 11 Dec | H | Watford | D 1-1 | 1.51-1.11 |
| 14 Dec | A | Coventry | L 1-2 | 0.94-3.18 |
| 21 Dec | H | Swansea | W 2-1 | 1.40-0.84 |
| 26 Dec | A | Preston | L 0-1 | 0.74-0.66 |
| 29 Dec | A | Blackburn | W 1-0 | 1.33-1.25 |
| 01 Jan | H | Middlesbrough | L 0-1 | 0.31-0.89 |
| 04 Jan | H | Leeds | D 3-3 | 2.35-2.15 |
| 18 Jan | A | Millwall | W 1-0 | 0.61-0.71 |
| 21 Jan | H | QPR | L 1-2 | 1.15-1.34 |
| 24 Jan | A | Sheffield Utd | W 3-0 | 0.46-1.19 |
| 01 Feb | H | Stoke City | L 1-2 | 1.73-1.14 |
| 12 Feb | A | Burnley | L 0-2 | 0.35-1.46 |
| 15 Feb | H | Norwich | D 1-1 | 0.65-1.42 |
| 22 Feb | A | Sunderland | W 1-0 | 0.92-1.13 |
| 25 Feb | A | Cardiff | L 0-1 | 0.22-0.47 |
| 04 Mar | H | Plymouth | W 2-0 | 2.52-0.23 |
| 08 Mar | A | Bristol City | D 1-1 | 1.02-2.41 |
| 12 Mar | H | Oxford United | W 2-1 | 1.64-0.49 |
| 15 Mar | A | West Brom | D 1-1 | 0.25-0.99 |
| 29 Mar | H | Luton | L 0-1 | 0.68-0.69 |
| 05 Apr | A | Sheffield Wednesday | W 1-0 | 0.63-1.05 |
| 08 Apr | A | Watford | L 0-1 | 0.63-0.63 |
| 14 Apr | H | Coventry | D 1-1 | 0.94-1.12 |
| 18 Apr | A | Swansea | L 0-1 | 0.56-1.39 |
| 21 Apr | H | Preston | W 2-1 | 2.32-1.04 |
| 26 Apr | H | Derby | L 0-1 | 0.40-0.29 |
| 03 May | A | Portsmouth | D 1-1 | 2.28-0.78 |
Conclusion
So, did xG predict Hull City’s results?
The answer is: not particularly well.
With an accuracy rate of just 52-55% in clear cases – well below the typical 65-70% league-wide benchmark – xG proved to be a relatively poor predictor of Hull’s outcomes this season. However, this isn’t a failure of xG as a metric; rather, it reveals something fundamental about Hull’s campaign.
The scatter plot shows a season defined by marginal differences and tight contests, where most matches clustered around the equal xG line with no clear statistical advantage for either side.
The Real Story
Attack: +5.0 goals vs xG
Hull’s attacking unit deserve credit for outscoring their xG by 5.0 goals – clinical finishing that may well have been the difference between Championship survival and relegation to League One.
Defence: -17.6 goals vs xGA
This modest attacking overperformance was completely overwhelmed by a defensive catastrophe: conceding 17.6 goals more than expected. Whether through poor goalkeeping, defensive errors, or facing unusually clinical opponents, Hull’s defence turned manageable xG against them (36) into a season-defining leak (54 goals).
The underlying numbers suggested Hull should have been competitive – creating almost as many chances as they conceded – but the execution on both ends of the pitch determined their actual fate.
Final Verdict: xG told us what should have happened; Hull’s players determined what actually did.
