{"id":1477899,"date":"2026-08-25T14:57:49","date_gmt":"2026-08-25T13:57:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.squawka.com\/en\/?post_type=features&p=1477899"},"modified":"2026-08-25T14:57:51","modified_gmt":"2026-08-25T13:57:51","slug":"premier-league-xg-table","status":"publish","type":"features","link":"https:\/\/www.squawka.com\/en\/features\/premier-league-xg-table\/","title":{"rendered":"Premier League xG table 2026\/27: The alternative league standings based on Expected Goals"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Welcome to Squawka\u2019s Premier League xG table for the 2026\/27 season \u2014 an alternative league standings table showing what the Premier League would look like if every match finished on Expected Goals (xG) rather than the actual score.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Games are won by the goals that actually go in, but xG tells us how matches played out in terms of chances created and conceded. You could go as far as to say it shows who deserved to win. So, over 38 gameweeks, which teams would rise and which would fall if xG decided every result?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last updated: 25 August 2026.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Premier League xG table 2026\/27<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Pos<\/th>\nTeam<\/th>\nP<\/th>\nW<\/th>\nD<\/th>\nL<\/th>\nGF<\/th>\nGA<\/th>\nGD<\/th>\nPTS<\/th>\n<\/tr><\/thead>
1<\/td>\nBrentford \u25b22<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\nLiverpool \u25b28<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/td>\nBrighton \u25bc2<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/td>\nManchester City \u25b24<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5<\/td>\nArsenal \u25bc3<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6<\/td>\nManchester United \u25b211<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7<\/td>\nChelsea \u25bc1<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8<\/td>\nIpswich Town \u25bc1<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9<\/td>\nEverton \u25bc5<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10<\/td>\nCrystal Palace \u25b26<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11<\/td>\nNottingham Forest \u25b24<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12<\/td>\nLeeds United \u25bc3<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13<\/td>\nHull City \u25bc8<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n-1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14<\/td>\nFulham \u25bc2<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n-1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15<\/td>\nSunderland \u25bc1<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n-1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16<\/td>\nBournemouth \u25bc3<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n-2<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17<\/td>\nCoventry City \u25b21<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n-2<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18<\/td>\nNewcastle United \u25bc7<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n-3<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19<\/td>\nAston Villa \u25b21<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n-3<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20<\/td>\nTottenham \u25bc1<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n-5<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The arrows next to each team show how their xG-table position compares with their position in the real Premier League table at the same stage of the season.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

*Expected Goals values correct as of the latest update.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How the xG table works<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

To build the table, we look at every individual Premier League match and turn the xG numbers into a result. Each team\u2019s xG for the match is rounded to the nearest whole number \u2014 0.5 and above rounds up, anything below rounds down \u2014 and that gives us the xG scoreline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s an example from last season: Man City recorded an xG of 2.47 against Wolves, which rounds down to 2. Wolves posted 0.56, which rounds up to 1. So the xG result was Man City 2-1 Wolves \u2014 three points for City in the xG table, whatever the real score was.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Points, goals for, goals against and goal difference are all worked out from those rounded xG results, exactly as they would be in the real table. All xG values come from Opta, the data provider behind Squawka\u2019s stats, with final values confirmed once each gameweek is complete.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Premier League xG for and against 2026\/27<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Alongside the alternative table, we\u2019re tracking every club\u2019s cumulative xG across the season \u2014 the raw, unrounded totals. Teams are ranked by xG For, so the side creating the best chances in the Premier League sits top. xG Against shows the quality of chances each team has given up, and xG Diff is the gap between the two.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Pos<\/th>Team<\/th>P<\/th>xG For<\/th>xG Against<\/th>xG Diff<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
1<\/td>Brentford \u25b22<\/td>1<\/td>6.01<\/td>0.62<\/td>5.39<\/td><\/tr>
2<\/td>Liverpool \u25b28<\/td>1<\/td>4.81<\/td>1.52<\/td>3.29<\/td><\/tr>
3<\/td>Brighton \u25bc2<\/td>1<\/td>4.05<\/td>1.47<\/td>2.58<\/td><\/tr>
4<\/td>Arsenal \u25bc2<\/td>1<\/td>2.48<\/td>0.25<\/td>2.23<\/td><\/tr>
5<\/td>Manchester City \u25b23<\/td>1<\/td>2.8<\/td>0.67<\/td>2.13<\/td><\/tr>
6<\/td>Manchester United \u25b211<\/td>1<\/td>2.79<\/td>1.86<\/td>0.93<\/td><\/tr>
7<\/td>Ipswich Town<\/td>1<\/td>1.6<\/td>1.07<\/td>0.53<\/td><\/tr>
8<\/td>Chelsea \u25bc2<\/td>1<\/td>2.53<\/td>2.16<\/td>0.37<\/td><\/tr>
9<\/td>Crystal Palace \u25b27<\/td>1<\/td>1.98<\/td>1.68<\/td>0.3<\/td><\/tr>
10<\/td>Nottingham Forest \u25b25<\/td>1<\/td>0.88<\/td>0.75<\/td>0.13<\/td><\/tr>
11<\/td>Leeds United \u25bc2<\/td>1<\/td>0.75<\/td>0.88<\/td>-0.13<\/td><\/tr>
12<\/td>Everton \u25bc8<\/td>1<\/td>1.68<\/td>1.98<\/td>-0.3<\/td><\/tr>
13<\/td>Fulham \u25bc1<\/td>1<\/td>2.16<\/td>2.53<\/td>-0.37<\/td><\/tr>
14<\/td>Sunderland<\/td>1<\/td>1.07<\/td>1.6<\/td>-0.53<\/td><\/tr>
15<\/td>Hull City \u25bc10<\/td>1<\/td>1.86<\/td>2.79<\/td>-0.93<\/td><\/tr>
16<\/td>Bournemouth \u25bc3<\/td>1<\/td>0.67<\/td>2.8<\/td>-2.13<\/td><\/tr>
17<\/td>Coventry City \u25b21<\/td>1<\/td>0.25<\/td>2.48<\/td>-2.23<\/td><\/tr>
18<\/td>Aston Villa \u25b22<\/td>1<\/td>1.47<\/td>4.05<\/td>-2.58<\/td><\/tr>
19<\/td>Newcastle United \u25bc8<\/td>1<\/td>1.52<\/td>4.81<\/td>-3.29<\/td><\/tr>
20<\/td>Tottenham \u25bc1<\/td>1<\/td>0.62<\/td>6.01<\/td>-5.39<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

xG overperformers and underperformers<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Now the season is under way, this is where we\u2019ll pick out the teams whose real results are furthest from their xG \u2014 the sides riding their luck, and the ones playing much better than their league position suggests. That includes the sharpest finishing gaps: the teams scoring well above or below what their xG says they should.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last season showed how big those gaps can get. Sunderland finished 7th in the real Premier League table but just 18th on xG \u2014 an 11-place gap and the biggest overachievement in the division. Going the other way, Crystal Palace\u2019s underlying numbers were good enough for 7th, yet they finished 15th in reality, while Chelsea\u2019s xG said 5th against a real finish of 10th.The table below tracks finishing over- and underperformance: each club\u2019s actual goals scored against their cumulative xG, ranked by the difference. A positive number means a team is scoring more than their chances deserve; a negative number means they\u2019re wasting them.<\/p><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pos<\/th>Team<\/th>P<\/th>Goals Scored<\/th>xG For<\/th>+\/-<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
1<\/td>Arsenal \u25b21<\/td>1<\/td>3<\/td>2.48<\/td>0.52<\/td><\/tr>
2<\/td>Newcastle United \u25b29<\/td>1<\/td>2<\/td>1.52<\/td>0.48<\/td><\/tr>
3<\/td>Chelsea \u25b23<\/td>1<\/td>3<\/td>2.53<\/td>0.47<\/td><\/tr>
4<\/td>Ipswich Town \u25b23<\/td>1<\/td>2<\/td>1.6<\/td>0.4<\/td><\/tr>
5<\/td>Bournemouth \u25b28<\/td>1<\/td>1<\/td>0.67<\/td>0.33<\/td><\/tr>
6<\/td>Everton \u25bc2<\/td>1<\/td>2<\/td>1.68<\/td>0.32<\/td><\/tr>
7<\/td>Leeds United \u25b22<\/td>1<\/td>1<\/td>0.75<\/td>0.25<\/td><\/tr>
8<\/td>Hull City \u25b23<\/td>1<\/td>2<\/td>1.86<\/td>0.14<\/td><\/tr>
9<\/td>Brighton \u25bc8<\/td>1<\/td>4<\/td>4.05<\/td>-0.05<\/td><\/tr>
10<\/td>Sunderland \u25b24<\/td>1<\/td>1<\/td>1.07<\/td>-0.07<\/td><\/tr>
11<\/td>Fulham \u25b21<\/td>1<\/td>2<\/td>2.16<\/td>-0.16<\/td><\/tr>
12<\/td>Coventry City \u25b26<\/td>1<\/td>0<\/td>0.25<\/td>-0.25<\/td><\/tr>
13<\/td>Tottenham \u25b26<\/td>1<\/td>0<\/td>0.62<\/td>-0.62<\/td><\/tr>
14<\/td>Manchester City \u25bc6<\/td>1<\/td>2<\/td>2.8<\/td>-0.8<\/td><\/tr>
15<\/td>Nottingham Forest<\/td>1<\/td>0<\/td>0.88<\/td>-0.88<\/td><\/tr>
16<\/td>Aston Villa \u25b24<\/td>1<\/td>0<\/td>1.47<\/td>-1.47<\/td><\/tr>
17<\/td>Crystal Palace \u25bc1<\/td>1<\/td>0<\/td>1.98<\/td>-1.98<\/td><\/tr>
18<\/td>Manchester United \u25bc1<\/td>1<\/td>0<\/td>2.79<\/td>-2.79<\/td><\/tr>
19<\/td>Liverpool \u25bc9<\/td>1<\/td>2<\/td>4.81<\/td>-2.81<\/td><\/tr>
20<\/td>Brentford \u25bc17<\/td>1<\/td>3<\/td>6.01<\/td>-3.01<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

GW1 xG results<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Arsenal vs Coventry City<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n