{"id":1477899,"date":"2026-09-22T09:46:25","date_gmt":"2026-09-22T08:46:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.squawka.com\/en\/?post_type=features&p=1477899"},"modified":"2026-09-30T16:55:29","modified_gmt":"2026-09-30T15:55:29","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: 22nd September 2026, after Gameweek 5.<\/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
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>\nManchester United \u25b211<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n10<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n+5<\/td>\n11<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\nBrighton \u25b21<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n11<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n+4<\/td>\n10<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/td>\nArsenal \u25bc1<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n+4<\/td>\n10<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/td>\nManchester City \u25bc3<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n+2<\/td>\n10<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5<\/td>\nBrentford \u25bc1<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n10<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n+3<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6<\/td>\nSunderland \u25b28<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n+2<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7<\/td>\nNottingham Forest \u25b26<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n+2<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8<\/td>\nBournemouth \u25b29<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n+1<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9<\/td>\nLiverpool \u25bc3<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n+1<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10<\/td>\nLeeds United \u25bc5<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11<\/td>\nChelsea \u25bc1<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n-2<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12<\/td>\nTottenham \u25b28<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n-2<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13<\/td>\nFulham \u25b26<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n-1<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14<\/td>\nEverton \u25bc7<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n-1<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15<\/td>\nHull City \u25bc7<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n-1<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16<\/td>\nIpswich Town \u25bc5<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n-3<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17<\/td>\nCrystal Palace \u25bc2<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n-2<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18<\/td>\nCoventry City \u2013<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n-3<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19<\/td>\nNewcastle United \u25bc10<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n-3<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20<\/td>\nAston Villa \u25bc4<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n-6<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody><\/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\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>\nxG For<\/th>\nxG Against<\/th>\nxG Diff<\/th>\n<\/tr><\/thead>
1<\/td>\nBrighton<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n10.58<\/td>\n8.20<\/td>\n+2.38<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\nManchester United<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n9.56<\/td>\n5.92<\/td>\n+3.64<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/td>\nBrentford<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n9.23<\/td>\n6.59<\/td>\n+2.64<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/td>\nSunderland<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n9.21<\/td>\n7.39<\/td>\n+1.82<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5<\/td>\nManchester City<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n8.66<\/td>\n6.49<\/td>\n+2.17<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6<\/td>\nArsenal<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n7.67<\/td>\n4.79<\/td>\n+2.88<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7<\/td>\nLiverpool<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n7.67<\/td>\n5.97<\/td>\n+1.70<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8<\/td>\nNottingham Forest<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n7.54<\/td>\n4.75<\/td>\n+2.79<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9<\/td>\nBournemouth<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n7.25<\/td>\n5.71<\/td>\n+1.54<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10<\/td>\nFulham<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n7.24<\/td>\n8.15<\/td>\n-0.91<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11<\/td>\nChelsea<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n7.05<\/td>\n8.38<\/td>\n-1.33<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12<\/td>\nLeeds United<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n7.05<\/td>\n6.25<\/td>\n+0.80<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13<\/td>\nEverton<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n6.51<\/td>\n6.59<\/td>\n-0.08<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14<\/td>\nIpswich Town<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n5.89<\/td>\n7.98<\/td>\n-2.09<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15<\/td>\nCrystal Palace<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n5.76<\/td>\n9.05<\/td>\n-3.29<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16<\/td>\nHull City<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n5.42<\/td>\n6.52<\/td>\n-1.10<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17<\/td>\nTottenham<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n5.27<\/td>\n8.19<\/td>\n-2.92<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18<\/td>\nNewcastle United<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n4.86<\/td>\n8.73<\/td>\n-3.87<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19<\/td>\nAston Villa<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n4.55<\/td>\n8.49<\/td>\n-3.94<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20<\/td>\nCoventry City<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n4.53<\/td>\n7.36<\/td>\n-2.83<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

Five gameweeks in, the xG table has a new leader \u2014 and it\u2019s the side sitting 12th in the real one. Manchester United are still unbeaten on underlying numbers and top our alternative standings, an 11-place gap that\u2019s the biggest in the division. Sunderland (14th real, 6th xG), Bournemouth (17th real, 8th xG) and bottom-of-the-table Tottenham (12th on xG) are all playing far better than their results, while Newcastle United (9th real, 19th xG) and Everton (7th real, 14th xG) are living furthest beyond their means.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brighton remain the league\u2019s sharpest finishers \u2014 16 goals from 10.58 xG \u2014 with Manchester City (13 from 8.66) and Newcastle United (nine from 4.86) also well above expectation. Nottingham Forest are now the division\u2019s most wasteful side, with four goals from 7.54 xG, and Coventry City and Tottenham have three goals between them from nearly 10 combined xG.<\/p>\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>\nGoals Scored<\/th>\nxG For<\/th>\n+\/-<\/th>\n<\/tr><\/thead>
1<\/td>\nBrighton<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n16<\/td>\n10.58<\/td>\n+5.42<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\nManchester City<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n13<\/td>\n8.66<\/td>\n+4.34<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/td>\nNewcastle United<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n4.86<\/td>\n+4.14<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/td>\nChelsea<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n10<\/td>\n7.05<\/td>\n+2.95<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5<\/td>\nIpswich Town<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n5.89<\/td>\n+1.11<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6<\/td>\nBrentford<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n10<\/td>\n9.23<\/td>\n+0.77<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7<\/td>\nHull City<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n5.42<\/td>\n+0.58<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8<\/td>\nArsenal<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n7.67<\/td>\n+0.33<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9<\/td>\nCrystal Palace<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n5.76<\/td>\n+0.24<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10<\/td>\nLeeds United<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n7.05<\/td>\n-0.05<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11<\/td>\nEverton<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n6.51<\/td>\n-0.51<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12<\/td>\nAston Villa<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n4.55<\/td>\n-0.55<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13<\/td>\nLiverpool<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n7.67<\/td>\n-0.67<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14<\/td>\nBournemouth<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n7.25<\/td>\n-1.25<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15<\/td>\nManchester United<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n9.56<\/td>\n-1.56<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16<\/td>\nFulham<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n7.24<\/td>\n-2.24<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17<\/td>\nSunderland<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n9.21<\/td>\n-3.21<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18<\/td>\nTottenham<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n5.27<\/td>\n-3.27<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19<\/td>\nCoventry City<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n4.53<\/td>\n-3.53<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20<\/td>\nNottingham Forest<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n7.54<\/td>\n-3.54<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

GW5 xG results<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Brentford vs Chelsea<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n