My point is it’s going in anyway. So the 0.2 becomes a 0.9 and it appears we’ve created more. When we really haven’t. Surely that’s a flaw in the stats. If sterling isn’t there they don’t score so surely that’s different?
You're not massively wrong but having enough pressure on a team that you have a striker unmarked in the middle of the goal meaning he converts an 80% chance tells part of the story frankly. We had enough pressure on city to create an 80% chance of bagging a goal. Its not skewed its literally what happened. In isolation it feels funny but tbh, it just is what happened.
And yes that was going in but on many many other occasions, more often than not, it's saved or blocked or cleared or misses or hits the woodwork.
If you have a striker on hand to get it across the line rather than it getting cleared e.g v Liverpool last year, then the story is different.
Anyway it isn't perfect and you probably could debate that, there's lots of odd anomalies as there probably is in most human data. E. G. Burnley tend to concede high xg chances but teams fail to convert them due to how he organises his defence, or how when a player is hot, he's just hot. He's in the zone and finishing above his xg, and there's nothing to explain it beyond stuff is going in better than you could mathematically predict.
but anyway the fact remains that over the course of the year it does generally bear out in the league table, and helps to provide an extra level of nuance to your reading of the table beyond points, games, goals.