It’s been a strong start to the season for the Silkmen, at least on paper even if our actual performances on the pitch have largely flattered to deceive. (Photo credits: Chelsie Ann Louise).
John Rooney’s men sit second in the National League North after 10 matches, just two points behind leaders Hereford, cementing Macclesfield FC among the early promotion contenders.
And not only that, Tuesday’ dramatic FA Cup qualifying win over Scarborough gives the Silkmen a presentable opportunity to reach the first round proper and dream of another giant killing act.
But how sustainable is our current league position, which clubs pose the greatest threat, and where might the table change as results begin to align more closely with the underlying performance data?
xG means Expected Goals, the quality of chances created
xGA means Expected Goals Against, the quality of chances conceded
xGD means Expected Goal Difference, calculated by subtracting xGA from xG.
The headline takeaways for Silkmen supporters is encouraging, but cautionary, given Rooney’s newly assembled squad is still to gel.
However, our league position is supported by positive underlying numbers, although a significantly tougher forthcoming schedule will provide a much more searching test of Macc’s. promotion credentials.
Elsewhere, Chester have produced the division’s strongest underlying performance, while Harborough Town and AFC Telford are playing considerably better than their league positions suggest.
Chorley, Hebburn Town and South Shields, meanwhile, are among the teams whose present results look least sustainable.
Executive summary
What the actual results tell us
Hereford lead with 23 points, have scored the most goals and conceded the fewest.
Macclesfield sit second with 21 points and possess the division’s second-best defensive record.
Oxford City and South Shields both have 20 points.
Chester are seventh despite having the league’s best xGD and shot differential.
Harborough are 17th despite taking more shots than any other team.
AFC Telford are 21st despite recording positive xG and shot differentials.
Radcliffe are bottom with six points.
What the underlying data suggests
Chester are the strongest team beneath the surface
Oxford City have the most balanced and sustainable profile among the current top three
Hereford are genuine title contenders, but their defensive record is unlikely to remain quite so exceptional
Macclesfield are a leading side, but face a dramatic increase in fixture difficulty
Harborough, Scarborough, Buxton and AFC Telford should climb
South Shields, Hebburn, Morecambe and Chorley are being flattered by current outcomes
Brackley, Southport and Spennymoor have genuinely relegation-level underlying numbers
Macclesfield FC: the wider comparison
For Macclesfield supporters, the encouraging point is that second place is supported by several strong underlying indicators despite many of us being frustrated by some disjointed performances on the pitch.
The caution is that the context around our schedule makes the coming period particularly hazardous. We’ll certainly discover a lot more about Rooney’s squad based on how we fare against South Shields, Hereford and Bedford this month.
Macclesfield’s league-wide position
Points 21 (2nd)
Goals scored 13 (Joint 12th)
Goals conceded 6 (2nd)
Actual goal difference +7 (3rd)
xG 18 (6th)
xGA 12 (Joint 3rd)
xGD +6 (Joint 3rd)
Shots taken 136 (4th)
Shots faced 108 (Joint 10th)
Shot difference +28 (Joint 5th)
Opponents faced PPG 0.92 (Easiest)
Opponents remaining PPG (Joint hardest)
Why Macclesfield are credible contenders
Macclesfield’s second place is not simply the product of favourable outcomes, but must be taken into context given the calibre of teams we’ve faced.
We have:
The joint-third-best expected goal difference
The third-best actual goal difference
The fourth-highest shot total
The joint-fifth-best shot difference
A strong underlying defensive profile
Scored five fewer goals than expected, despite an overreliance on Danny Elliott
Those figures describe a genuine leading side. Macclesfield are creating significantly more than their 13-goal return suggests, controlling the shot count and generally limiting the quality of opposition chances.
But clearly, we’ll need the likes of Luke Duffy, Jonathan Ustabasi and Josh Kay to quickly rediscover their shooting boots. And improvements to our injury and suspension list wouldn’t go amiss either!
Two forms of regression pulling in opposite directions
Macclesfield’s attacking and defensive numbers tell very different stories:
Goals scored: Actual 13, Expected 18
Goals conceded: Actual 6, Expected 12
Goal difference: Actual +7, Expected +6
Our attack has underperformed by five goals, suggesting the scoring rate should rise if chance creation continues.
Our defence has conceded six fewer than expected, suggesting opponents are also likely to score more frequently unless Christian Dibble can continue his heroics (Scarborough aside!).
Those effects almost completely cancel one another. Macclesfield’s actual goal difference of +7 is only one goal better than their expected difference of +6.
The major red flag: fixture strength
No team in the division has faced weaker opponents than Macclesfield.
Our opening 10 opponents average only 0.92 points per game. In contrast, our remaining opponents average 1.49 points per game, the joint-hardest future schedule in the division.
That is the largest adverse schedule movement of any team in the National League North:
Opponents faced: 0.92 PPG
Opponents remaining: 1.49 PPG
Increase in difficulty: 0.57 PPG
This does not invalidate Macclesfield’s positive metrics. It means those metrics must now be reproduced against considerably stronger opposition. Fasten your seatbelts!
The key test is whether we can continue to:
Generate approximately 1.8 xG per match
Maintain a positive shot difference
Restrict opponents to approximately 1.2 xG
Produce results when defensive outcomes move closer to expectation
Comparison with the leading rivals
Hereford
Both teams have a +6 xGD, but Hereford have faced substantially stronger opposition and have easier remaining fixtures.
Hereford’s defensive record is even further ahead of expectation than Macclesfield’s, so both sides may concede more frequently. However, Hereford’s attacking return is fully supported, with 22 goals from 21 xG.
Current advantage: Hereford, principally because of schedule context and proven attacking output.
Oxford City
Oxford have a superior +9 xGD and a more balanced profile, with a similarly difficult future schedule.
Macclesfield have the slightly better shot difference, but Oxford have generated more xG and conceded slightly less xGA. Oxford’s actual goal difference is also much closer to their expected figure.
Underlying advantage: Oxford, although Macclesfield hold a one-point lead.
Chester
Chester have a dramatically stronger underlying process and a much easier remaining schedule, but remain four points behind Macclesfield with the natives already getting restless with new boss, Phil Parkinson, after one league win in six.
But Chester’s numbers paint an impressive picture. Their +13 xGD is more than double Macclesfield’s +6, while their +90 shot difference comfortably exceeds Macclesfield’s +28. Chester have also faced much stronger opposition.
Both teams have suffered from poor finishing, but Chester have not benefited from comparable defensive overperformance.
Underlying advantage: Chester.
Current-table advantage: Macclesfield.
Buxton
Buxton have a comparable xG profile, a stronger +51 shot difference and significantly easier forthcoming fixtures. They trail Macclesfield by five points and have had some erratic results recently (4-0 away defeats at South Shields and Morecambe).
Overall, Buxton’s underlying trajectory looks favourable, but Macclesfield’s existing points advantage remains meaningful. And the jury is out on the Bucks’ rookie new manager, Jordan Broadbent.
Current advantage: Macclesfield.
Schedule-adjusted trajectory: Buxton.
Scarborough Athletic
Scarborough have a slightly lower +5 xGD but a stronger +46 shot difference. They have also conceded exactly in line with xGA, making their defensive record more sustainable.
However, they trail Macclesfield by nine points and face a slightly harder schedule than the one already completed.
Advantage: Macclesfield, because the points gap is substantial.
Harborough Town
The Silkmen’s 1-0 win over Harborough looks likely to age well. That’s because Harborough have a +5 xGD and a much stronger +59 shot difference. Their position has been undermined by scoring only 10 goals from 19 xG.
They trail Macclesfield by nine points, so they still have considerable ground to recover even if their finishing improves.
Advantage: Macclesfield, although Harborough are a major upward mover to watch.
What Macclesfield need to demonstrate
The finishing improvement must arrive
Macclesfield’s 18 xG and 136 attempts should ordinarily produce more than 13 goals. Better finishing would provide greater margin if the defensive record begins moving closer to expectation, which seems likely given the quality of opposition we are facing this month.
Can our chance creation must survive the stronger schedule?
The most important question is not whether the five-goal attacking deficit corrects. It is whether Macclesfield continue producing 1.8 xG per match against better teams. Right now, the jury on John Rooney’s side is clearly out.
The defensive process must remain strong
Conceding only six goals is unlikely to be sustainable from 12 xGA. However, 12 xGA across 10 matches is still a strong underlying defensive record.
The Silkmen do not need to continue conceding at their present rate, but they must prevent a significant rise in the quality and volume of chances allowed.
We must retain our shot advantage
A +28 shot difference is strong. If that remains positive during the harder run, it would provide persuasive evidence that Macclesfield’s promotion challenge is sustainable.
With Dawson and Kay back in the fold, Elliott nearing full fitness and Duffy and Ustabasi surely due an upturn in form, the Silkmen are capable of finding more gears.
Silkmen verdict
Macclesfield are a genuine leading team, but probably not the second-best side beneath the results. To the surprise of no one who has watched us consistently this season so far.
Our current position reflects a good performance level, excellent defensive outcomes and the advantage of having faced the league’s weakest schedule.
The most likely direction is:
Goals scored increase, but so much seems to rest on Danny Elliott staying fit
Goals conceded also increase
Our overall goal difference remains positive
Our points-per-game rate falls from its current 2.1
We remain firmly in play-off contention
We could face growing pressure from Chester, Oxford, Buxton, Scarborough and Harborough.
The Silkmen’s existing points advantage should not be discounted. Our rivals still need to translate superior metrics or more favourable schedules into actual results.
But the next phase will reveal far more than the opening 10 matches. If Macclesfield maintain positive xG and shot differences against stronger opposition, the case for a sustained title challenge will become considerably more convincing.
If not, our positive data metrics should regress and confirm what our eyes are broadly telling us based on what we’ve witnessed so far.
Team-by-team analysis
1. Hereford FC: 23 points
Actual: 22 scored, five conceded, +17 goal difference.
Underlying: 21 xG, 15 xGA, +6 xGD, +18 shot difference.
Schedule: 1.42 opponents-faced PPG, 1.34 remaining.
Hereford’s attack is entirely supported by the data. The outlier is their defence, with only five goals conceded from 15 xGA. Their actual goal difference is 11 goals better than expected, the largest positive gap in the division.
The easier remaining schedule should help protect them from some defensive regression.
Verdict: Serious automatic-promotion contenders, but not as dominant as their +17 goal difference suggests.
2. Macclesfield FC: 21 points
Actual: 13 scored, six conceded, +7 goal difference.
Underlying: 18 xG, 12 xGA, +6 xGD, +28 shot difference.
Schedule: 0.92 faced, 1.49 remaining.
Macclesfield’s second place is supported by good underlying numbers. Their attacking improvement may, however, be offset by defensive regression.
The decisive issue is their move from the weakest opening schedule to the joint-hardest remaining programme.
Verdict: Credible promotion contenders, but second place will be severely tested by stronger opposition.
3. Oxford City: 20 points
Actual: 18 scored, seven conceded, +11 goal difference.
Underlying: 20 xG, 11 xGA, +9 xGD, +26 shot difference.
Schedule: 1.02 faced, 1.47 remaining.
Oxford have the most balanced profile among the current top three. Their actual goal difference is close to expectation, and their +9 xGD is second only to Chester.
Their remaining schedule is difficult, but performance at both ends looks sustainable.
Verdict: Strong automatic-promotion and play-off contender.
4. South Shields: 20 points
Actual: 15 scored, 13 conceded, +2 goal difference.
Underlying: 14 xG, 17 xGA, -3 xGD, -24 shot difference.
Schedule: Slightly easier ahead.
South Shields’ points total is much stronger than their process. They are being outshot, have a negative xGD and have conceded four fewer goals than expected.
Verdict: The current top-four team most likely to fall.
5. Hebburn Town: 18 points
Actual: 16 scored, 16 conceded, level goal difference.
Underlying: 13 xG, 19 xGA, -6 xGD, -12 shot difference.
Schedule: Unchanged.
Hebburn have scored three more than expected and conceded three fewer. Their fifth-place position is weakly supported by the underlying data.
Verdict: Significant regression risk.
6. Spalding United: 17 points
Actual: 14 scored, eight conceded, +6 goal difference.
Underlying: 16 xG, 12 xGA, +4 xGD, -2 shot difference.
Schedule: Easier ahead.
Spalding have a positive xG profile, a difficult opening schedule and only modest overall overperformance. Their near-neutral shot balance is the principal limitation.
Verdict: Sustainable play-off candidate.
7. Chester FC: 17 points
Actual: 13 scored, nine conceded, +4 goal difference.
Underlying: 20 xG, seven xGA, +13 xGD, +90 shot difference.
Schedule: 1.60 faced, 1.32 remaining.
Chester possess the league’s best xGD, strongest shot difference, lowest xGA and easiest remaining schedule. Their finishing is seven goals below expectation, which in part explains their stuttering form after winning their opening four games.
Verdict: The strongest underlying team and a genuine title contender IF the data is to be trusted. Will their results catch up with the stats?
8. King’s Lynn Town: 16 points
Actual: 20 scored, 15 conceded, +5 goal difference.
Underlying: 17 xG, 14 xGA, +3 xGD, level shot difference.
Schedule: Significantly harder ahead.
King’s Lynn have a respectable positive profile, but their scoring is three goals above expectation and their shot balance is neutral.
Verdict: Fringe play-off contender, with some risk of slipping.
9. Buxton FC: 16 points
Actual: 18 scored, 15 conceded, +3 goal difference.
Underlying: 19 xG, 14 xGA, +5 xGD, +51 shot difference.
Schedule: 1.58 faced, 1.33 remaining.
Buxton have produced excellent control metrics on paper against difficult opposition and now face a much easier schedule.
Verdict: Strong candidate to climb and a credible play-off side.
10. Bedford Town: 16 points
Actual: 14 scored, 14 conceded, level goal difference.
Underlying: 14 xG, 17 xGA, -3 xGD, -26 shot difference.
Schedule: Much harder ahead.
Bedford have negative xG and shot differentials despite facing a relatively easy opening schedule. Their attack is already exactly in line with expectation.
Verdict: Likely to fall into the lower half.
11. Morecambe: 14 points
Actual: 14 scored, nine conceded, +5 goal difference.
Underlying: 13 xG, 14 xGA, -1 xGD, -11 shot difference.
Schedule: Slightly harder ahead.
Morecambe’s positive actual goal difference disguises a slightly negative underlying profile. They have conceded five fewer than expected.
Verdict: Lower-mid-table profile with regression risk.
12. Chorley: 14 points
Actual: 16 scored, 17 conceded, -1 goal difference.
Underlying: 12 xG, 21 xGA, -9 xGD, -50 shot difference.
Schedule: Virtually unchanged.
Chorley have scored four more than expected and conceded four fewer. Their actual goal difference is eight goals better than its underlying equivalent.
Verdict: Major fall candidate and potential relegation battler.
13. Merthyr Town: 13 points
Actual: 12 scored, 11 conceded, +1 goal difference.
Underlying: 16 xG, 17 xGA, -1 xGD, +5 shot difference.
Schedule: Slightly easier ahead.
Merthyr’s poor finishing is offset by conceding six fewer goals than expected. Their shot balance is positive, but their xG balance remains marginally negative.
Verdict: Mid-table profile.
14. Scarborough Athletic: 12 points
Actual: 15 scored, 12 conceded, +3 goal difference.
Underlying: 17 xG, 12 xGA, +5 xGD, +46 shot difference.
Schedule: Slightly harder ahead.
Scarborough rank among the league leaders for shot control and underlying goal difference. Their actual defensive record exactly matches xGA.
Verdict: Clear improvement candidate with genuine play-off potential.
15. Hednesford Town: 12 points
Actual: 17 scored, 17 conceded, level goal difference.
Underlying: 16 xG, 15 xGA, +1 xGD, +18 shot difference.
Schedule: 1.08 faced, 1.49 remaining.
Big spending Hednesford are falling short of expectations, recorded against one of the weakest opening schedules. Their actual and expected outcomes are closely aligned.
Verdict: Better than a relegation side on process, but vulnerable because of the schedule.
16. Marine: 12 points
Actual: 12 scored, 12 conceded, level goal difference.
Underlying: 15 xG, 14 xGA, +1 xGD, +8 shot difference.
Schedule: Easier ahead.
Marine have a mildly positive profile against difficult opposition and have scored three fewer than expected.
Verdict: Likely to improve modestly towards mid-table.
17. Harborough Town: 12 points
Actual: 10 scored, 12 conceded, -2 goal difference.
Underlying: 19 xG, 14 xGA, +5 xGD, +59 shot difference.
Schedule: Easier ahead.
Harborough have taken the most shots in the division and scored nine fewer goals than expected. Their underlying profile belongs much higher in the table.
Verdict: One of the clearest candidates to climb.
18. Worksop Town: 12 points
Actual: 10 scored, 16 conceded, -6 goal difference.
Underlying: 15 xG, 17 xGA, -2 xGD, -26 shot difference.
Schedule: Easier ahead.
Worksop have scored five fewer than expected, but their overall process remains negative.
Verdict: Likely to improve modestly while remaining in the lower half.
19. Brackley Town: 12 points
Actual: 11 scored, 19 conceded, -8 goal difference.
Underlying: Eight xG, 19 xGA, -11 xGD, -58 shot difference.
Schedule: Considerably easier ahead.
Brackley possess the league’s worst xGD. Their attack is already three goals above expectation and their defence is performing exactly in line with xGA.
Verdict: Genuine relegation candidate.
20. Southport: nine points
Actual: 13 scored, 20 conceded, -7 goal difference.
Underlying: 11 xG, 19 xGA, -8 xGD, -63 shot difference.
Schedule: Slightly harder ahead.
Southport have the league’s worst shot difference, while their attack is already scoring above expectation.
Verdict: Strong relegation candidate.
21. AFC Telford: nine points
Actual: Eight scored, 15 conceded, -7 goal difference.
Underlying: 15 xG, 12 xGA, +3 xGD, +28 shot difference.
Schedule: Much easier ahead.
Telford’s actual goal difference is 10 goals worse than expected. They are winning both the xG and shot battles and have faced difficult opponents.
Verdict: Unlikely to remain in the bottom four if the process continues.
22. Darlington: seven points
Actual: 12 scored, 21 conceded, -9 goal difference.
Underlying: 15 xG, 21 xGA, -6 xGD, -27 shot difference.
Schedule: Much easier ahead.
Darlington have some attacking upside, but their defensive record is completely supported by the underlying data.
Verdict: Relegation candidate, but not beyond recovery.
23. Spennymoor Town: seven points
Actual: 11 scored, 21 conceded, -10 goal difference.
Underlying: 13 xG, 21 xGA, -8 xGD, -59 shot difference.
Schedule: Hardest faced, substantially easier remaining.
Spennymoor’s opening schedule has been brutal, but their underlying process remains extremely poor.
Verdict: Strong relegation candidate.
24. Radcliffe: six points
Actual: Nine scored, 20 conceded, -11 goal difference.
Underlying: 13 xG, 19 xGA, -6 xGD, -31 shot difference.
Schedule: Second-hardest faced, considerably easier remaining.
Radcliffe’s bottom position is slightly harsher than their underlying performance. They have scored four fewer than expected and receive considerable fixture relief.
Verdict: Credible survival chance, but still a bottom-six side on process.
Top five by actual performance
Points gained
Hereford: 23
Macclesfield: 21
Oxford City: 20
South Shields: 20
Hebburn Town: 18
Goals scored
Hereford: 22
King’s Lynn Town: 20
Oxford City: 18
Buxton: 18
Hednesford Town: 17
Fewest goals conceded
Hereford: 5
Macclesfield: 6
Oxford City: 7
Spalding United: 8
Chester and Morecambe: 9
Actual goal difference
Hereford: +17
Oxford City: +11
Macclesfield: +7
Spalding United: +6
King’s Lynn Town and Morecambe: +5
Top five by underlying performance
Expected goals created
Hereford: 21
Oxford City: 20
Chester: 20
Buxton: 19
Harborough Town: 19
Lowest expected goals conceded
Chester: 7
Oxford City: 11
Macclesfield: 12
Spalding United: 12
Scarborough Athletic and AFC Telford: 12
Expected goal difference
Chester: +13
Oxford City: +9
Hereford: +6
Macclesfield: +6
Buxton, Scarborough and Harborough: +5
Shots taken
Harborough Town: 157
Chester: 151
Scarborough Athletic: 149
Macclesfield: 136
Buxton: 132
Fewest shots faced
Chester: 61
Buxton: 81
Hednesford Town: 95
AFC Telford: 97
Oxford City and Harborough Town: 98
Shot difference
Chester: +90
Harborough Town: +59
Buxton: +51
Scarborough Athletic: +46
Macclesfield and AFC Telford: +28
Where actual and underlying data diverge most
Biggest attacking overperformers
Chorley: four goals above xG
King’s Lynn Town: three above
Hebburn Town: three above
Brackley Town: three above
Southport: two above
Biggest attacking underperformers
Harborough Town: nine goals below xG
Chester: seven below
AFC Telford: seven below
Macclesfield: five below
Worksop Town: five below
Biggest defensive overperformers
Hereford: 10 fewer goals conceded than xGA
Macclesfield: six fewer
Merthyr Town: six fewer
Morecambe: five fewer
Oxford City, South Shields and Spalding United: four fewer
Actual goal difference furthest above xGD
Hereford: +11
Chorley: +8
Morecambe: +6
Hebburn Town: +6
South Shields: +5
Actual goal difference furthest below xGD
AFC Telford: -10
Chester: -9
Harborough Town: -7
Radcliffe: -5
Worksop Town: -4
Hardest opening schedules
Spennymoor Town: 1.70 opponents-faced PPG
Radcliffe: 1.66
Chester: 1.60
Buxton: 1.58
Brackley Town: 1.58
Easiest remaining schedules
Chester: 1.32 remaining-opponents PPG
Buxton: 1.33
Hereford: 1.34
Spennymoor Town: 1.35
South Shields, Spalding United and Brackley Town: 1.36
Predictions
These are directional projections from a 10-match sample. They weigh current points, actual goal difference, xGD, shot control, schedule strength and actual-versus-expected performance.
Automatic-promotion contenders
Chester
Chester have the strongest underlying profile, the easiest remaining schedule and only a six-point gap to first place.
Hereford
Hereford possess the strongest actual record, a credible attacking process and favourable fixtures ahead. Their defensive record should regress, but the overall team remains strong.
Oxford City
Oxford possess the league’s second-best xGD and the most balanced profile among the current top three.
Macclesfield
Macclesfield’s chance creation should produce more goals, but our defensive overperformance and schedule change create substantial uncertainty.
The points already banked provide a strong platform. The next phase will determine whether we can maintain our advantages against better opponents.
Most likely title battle: Chester, Hereford and Oxford City, with Macclesfield firmly involved.
Play-off contenders: second to seventh
Strongest candidates
Chester
Hereford
Oxford City
Macclesfield
Buxton
Scarborough Athletic
Spalding United
Credible challengers
Harborough Town
King’s Lynn Town
Marine
Current top-seven teams at significant risk
South Shields
Hebburn Town
Projected play-off-strength group
Chester
Oxford City
Hereford
Macclesfield
Buxton
Scarborough Athletic
Spalding United
Harborough are the team most likely to break into that group if their finishing improves sharply.
Relegation candidates: 21st to 24th
Brackley Town
They possess the league’s worst xGD, an attack already exceeding expectation and the third-worst shot difference.
Southport
Southport have the worst shot difference, a -8 xGD, an attack already scoring above expectation and a slightly harder schedule ahead.
Spennymoor Town
Their difficult schedule provides genuine mitigation, but their xG and shot differentials remain firmly at relegation level.
Chorley
Chorley currently sit 12th, but their -9 xGD, -50 shot difference and eight-goal positive actual-versus-expected gap make them a serious future relegation candidate.
Next most vulnerable
Darlington
Radcliffe
Bedford Town
Hebburn Town
Most likely current bottom-four escapee
AFC Telford, by a considerable margin.
Five teams most likely to fall
1. Chorley
Their -9 xGD, -50 shot difference and eight-goal positive outcome gap indicate that 12th place is being badly flattered.
2. Hebburn Town
They sit fifth despite a -6 xGD and have overperformed at both ends.
3. South Shields
They are fourth despite a -3 xGD and -24 shot difference.
4. Morecambe
Their +5 actual goal difference comes from a -1 expected figure, driven largely by conceding five fewer goals than expected.
5. Bedford Town
They have 16 points despite negative xG and shot differentials against a favourable opening schedule. The remaining fixtures are much harder.
The Hereford exception
Hereford are the league’s largest statistical overperformer, but they are not among the teams most likely to fall substantially.
They also possess:
A strong attack
Positive xGD
Positive shot difference
A two-point lead
An easier schedule ahead
Their defensive record should regress, but the overall team remains strong.
Five teams most likely to climb
1. Chester
Best xGD, best shot difference, a difficult opening schedule and the easiest remaining programme.
2. Harborough Town
Most shots in the division, +5 xGD, +59 shot difference and nine goals below expectation.
3. AFC Telford
An actual goal difference 10 goals worse than expected, positive xGD, positive shot balance and an easier schedule ahead.
4. Scarborough Athletic
Fourteenth despite a +5 xGD and +46 shot difference.
5. Buxton
Ninth despite a +5 xGD, +51 shot difference and a difficult opening schedule that becomes much easier.
Just outside
Radcliffe
Worksop Town
Marine
Final assessment
For Macclesfield supporters, the overall picture is positive. The Silkmen’s second-place position is supported by strong chance creation, a positive expected goal difference and one of the division’s better shot balances.
The warning is that Macc’s first 10 opponents have been substantially weaker than those faced by their principal rivals. Our remaining 36 fixtures (as we stand) are the joint-hardest in the division.
Hopefully our attacking return will improve, but some defensive regression is likely to accompany it.
The wider league picture contains several striking disparities:
Hereford: Elite actual results, supported by good but less exceptional underlying performance.
Macclesfield: Strong actual and underlying performance, but with a major increase in fixture difficulty ahead.
Chester: Elite underlying performance, but poor recent results.
Harborough: Upper-table process undermined by exceptionally poor finishing.
AFC Telford: Mid-table or better process producing relegation-zone outcomes.
Chorley: Relegation-level process producing mid-table outcomes.
Southport and Brackley: Poor results genuinely supported by poor underlying data.
The strongest upward pressure comes from Chester, Harborough, AFC Telford, Scarborough and Buxton.
The strongest downward pressure comes from Chorley, Hebburn Town, South Shields, Morecambe and Bedford Town.
For the Silkmen, the early points returns are vital and belief remains that Rooney HAS built a squad with genuine promotion credentials.
The next challenge is to demonstrate that the same underlying strengths can be maintained against a much more demanding set of opponents. The proof will be in the pudding.
Top read thanks Ben. So much data, it must have taken you ages to put that together.