Again from today's Guardian:
Jack Grealish can still be key for City, Newcastle look lost in transition and Leicester search for positives
I just do not see it. Did WH play "better?"
My eye test says no, although there were a few nervy moments, WH hit the post, and we visibly tired at the end, I think we played at least as well.
Let's look at some numbers. Right off the top these all need to be taken with a huge grain of salt, they are not dispositive, etc. but they are tools to supplement what we see when we watch 90 minutes. So a blanket disclaimer here.
xG had it Everton (0.43) 1-0 (1.43) West Ham, reflecting that Maupay's strike was real quality, ie a low-probablility shot that he converted; that we did not muster a whole lot otherwise; and that WH, for all of their shots and SOG superiority, didn't really do much more than that - +1 xG with a 14-7 shot advantage is not terrific.
whoscored.com had it decisively in Everton's favor. As always it's annoying that they put the blue team in red.
View attachment 184504
Look at the stats along the bottom and other than shots and corners there's some great signs for Everton in there. If you play with some of the individual stats what jumps out at you is that Myko and Gordon, who both seemed to have subpar games from the eye test, did a fantastic job shutting down their right, especially Bowen; that Iwobi, Gana, and Onana were excellent in midfield - Onana was dominant in the air, winning 6 duels when no one WH player had more than two; and the lopsided dribbles number showed an advantage in keeping the ball and getting forward without having to string together passes.
so there's support for the position that WH were "better," but I just reject out of hand the idea that we were bad.