This is a long review. TL;DR: I do not recommend this book to anyone.
The Good: the topic is interesting and is becoming increasingly important in the world of football, and the book is very easy to understand that, like the author said, anyone who has completed elementary school can follow along.
The Bad (there's a lot):
1) My absolute largest problem with the book: expected goals is never actually shown to be predictive. Now, I do think xG is useful and a better metric than a lot of the current ones, but if you're an author clearly trying to appeal to regular football fans who don't care for statistics, then the burden is on you to show "here is why xG is a good metric for long-term success." Throughout the book, we're inundated with "xG is a better predictor of long-term performance than the points table" and "xG cuts out the randomness of the sport to measure real performance," yet, we are never actually shown why this is! I was baffled by this. All I ask for is perhaps a scatterplot with xG on the x-axis and actual goals on the y-axis, for all teams in many of the top European leagues, over a long-period (5 years). If xG is such a good metric for long-term performance that eliminates randomness, then the R^2 value should be reasonably high for this plot, no? Why doesn't the author do anything close to this? The idea of R^2 can be explained to a beginner within a page, so it is not like it is too complicated. The only part of the book where the author supports the idea that xG is a good predictor in long-term performance is when he says that every player (bar Messi) does not consistently overperform his xG over a few years. BUT THE AUTHOR NEVER GIVES ANY QUANTITATIVE EVIDENCE FOR THIS. This single claim is the most interesting sentence in the entire book, but the author just tells the reader to look it up themselves if they don't believe it. Not even joking. How can I take this book seriously when it makes so many claims about how xG is a great metric and then shows close to ZERO numerical evidence for it???
2) This "book" could easily be fit into one or two articles on a blog, no exaggeration. Within each chapter, the information is repeated so many times that I honestly believe each chapter could be at least a third or half of its size. For some reason, the author likes to start a lot of the chapters with a somewhat detailed description of what he is about to write about, then the author goes on to elaborate slightly on what he has already explained pretty well in the introduction, and then tends to end the chapter by once again summarizing the same exact points but with no new profound conclusion. The actual formatting of the book makes it obvious that it was trying to fluff the content to reach 200 pages: child-like large font, huge white-spaces between chapter subsections, entire full-page chapter cover page, very elaborate algebraic steps, etc. Some of the chapters are entirely repeated throughout the book to the point where you don't need to read them in the first place. All in all, this book could be shortened to around 30 pages of regular-font text, instead of the 200 pages I had to read.
3) The book's tone comes off as simultaneously condescending and as victimized. Half the book is the author saying that all the media pundits, managers, and even fans are stupid because they let their biases affect their judgements instead of just relying on statistics. The other half of the book is the author complaining that the average fan doesn't like xG. Perhaps if the author didn't talk like he was superior to others for using statistics, the average fan wouldn't feel so opposed to such a metric. On a personal note, I disagree with how the author approaches the ideal use of xG. Somehow, the author completely ignores that football is first and foremost a sense of identity and shared entertainment for fans, not an intellectual debate about who can judge team performances more accurately. So, when the author verbatim says that fans should encourage their clubs to have a high turnover rate of players because it would be more efficient for maximizing profits per xG, it completely disregards that fans have emotional attachment to players and for many, having the identity of the club be one that cares for it players and fosters fan-player relationships is more important than marginally better on-field results or profits. In the chapter about scouting, the author fawns over the Brentford owner who, and I quote from the book, "doesn't view each player as a player, but as an amount of money. Each player represents an intrinsic value of worth, like stocks in the stock market." Who can read this and not take a step-back and realize how dehumanizing and, frankly, boring it is to view football this way? No wonder xG has, according to the author, faced so much resistance from fans and pundits if the outcome is seeing a fully human player as simply a statistic, or even worse, a bag of money. This is real-world football, not the game Football Manager. This reminds me of that Nike 2014 World Cup ad titled "Risk Everything" that was about a scientist who created perfect football-playing robots that made no mistakes, always made the most accurate play, etc. They quickly replaced the real "flawed" football players of the world, but with their departure also went the fans, since the game became boring. After reading this book, part of me thinks the xG revolution described in this book will cause fans to turn away from the sport. And to be honest, after reading this book, I partly want to see xG fail and not gain any traction in the mainstream, since the vision presented by the author is one of numbingly boring statistics replacing all emotional aspects of the game.
4) A certain word repeated throughout the book irritated me to no end, and that was the word "deserved." The author would constantly claim, "xG shows which team deserved to win" and "the xPoints table shows which teams deserve to be top of the league." First of all, something being deserved is ultimately a subjective statement, but the author acts like it can be objectively determined. But I get it, random-chance events (luck) shouldn't count for what a team deserves or not, I guess. But then prove to me that xG completely cuts off luck and all that we're left with is pure team/player skill. This goes back to my first point in this review: we're never shown why xG is actually a good metric. I'd be happier if the author just said "the xPoints table shows where we would expect the team to be points-wise if they had average players taking their shots." Now that's a statistically-accurate and neutral statement about what xG and xPoints actually measures, not what is deserved or not. Perhaps the author simply uses the word "deserved" to be more concise and applicable to average non-statistically-inclined fans, but it also makes the statement subjective and, going back to my third point in this review, even condescending.
5) The book is full of contradictions in its messaging that makes me think the author just came up with arguments for xG as he was writing the book, with no long-term planning. The most egregious one came right at the end of the book. After spending quite literally the entire book criticizing all types of humans in football (managers, pundits, fans) for having biases when judging players and teams, and that instead they should rely purely on statistics (xG), the author then casually reveals that Smartodds, the statistics-aggregator company the author bats for, actually uses humans to judge what the xG of an attack should be. Am I crazy for thinking this goes completely against what the author talks about throughout the entire book? The author defends this saying that it is good because it is a blend of computer statistics and human intuition. But why should this be good? The author makes no effort to not constantly criticize non-statistics driven decision-making within the sport, but now when it's a multi-millionaire bet-adjacent company doing it, it's not only fine but actually better than using only computers?
Another one of my big gripes was the chapter on player xG. The author spends the first few pages of the chapter talking about how difficult it is to measure the ability of a player because of all the randomness and the team aspect of the game. Plus, determining who is better is often subjective. Then towards the end, the author uses xG and xA to show why Messi is such a statistical anomaly. Ok, Messi is unbelievable, I agree with that. But then the very last two sentences of the chapter annoyed me to no end. They read, "Our eyes have told us for years that Messi is the best player in the world. The Expected Goals data proves it." Look, I'm not a statistician, but I remember from middle-school science that you can't just say "this data proves a subjective claim." The section just came off as childish. Yes, the data strongly supports that Messi is more clinical with his shots than other players, or that his teammates are less clinical than you'd expect them to be given Messi's passes to them, but to then use that and say "this proves he is the greatest player in the world" seems like a bit of a jump into a realm of subjectivity the author is not well equipped for.
Also, the author waits until the end of the book to describe the flaws of xG, which include the fact that defensive formation and positioning during the shot aren't taken into account when calculating xG. The author quickly mentions this point and then moves on, but I was left thinking about it for a while. Isn't this extremely important? Isn't the location of defenders and goalkeepers perhaps even more important than the position of the shot? You will find no sufficient answer to this question in this book.
6) The book uses a surprising amount of anecdotes to talk about a subject which is about large aggregated data. The scouting chapter focuses almost entirely on one club that uses xG; the player xG chapter focuses on certain players like Ronaldo, Hazard, Mane, and a few others; the first half of the book seems to revisit the same Arsenal-Manchester City match a thousand times. Expected goals is a statistic based on aggregated averages, so why not use more examples that incorporate that? Ironically, the author seems to bring up more examples that contradict the power of xG as a predictive tool (like the aforementioned Arsenal-Manchester City match), so, since the author never shows sufficient empirical support for xG as a predictive tool, the anecdotes included in the book only made me more suspicious of xG. It really is laughable.
7) The writing style is mundane and unexciting, and there are a few grammar errors and typos, one of which was so obvious it makes me think no one actually proof-read the book before publishing.
8) Just when the book is about to get into an exciting topic, like how xPoints is actually calculated from xG, the author writes a very vague statement about how the problem is approached (in the xP example, he just says a "computer simulation" is done to predict how many times a team would win given the xGs in the match. Ok? So talk about standard deviation and variance. Talk about how those are calculated and how they're incorporated into the simulation.) Someone who already knows the basics of xG will find no value in this book.
I've never before written such a long review for a book, but in the middle of reading this book, I found myself getting irrationally angry at the way the author chose the talk about this otherwise fascinating topic. I do not recommend this book for anyone.