Interesting stats and analysis here: http://www.eplindex.com/23366/jermain-defoe-progressed-avb-stats-analysis.html Basically we all know that when JD's on the pitch he could get you a goal any minute. As an impact sub last year I thought he was almost as good as we could hope for. This year as a regular starter people (including myself) have thought he's done even better than last year. But actually his playing time, goals scored, assists etc are very similar for this season as for the whole of last season. Now despite thinking for large parts of his Spurs career (almost all, to be honest) that JD was not part of our best striking line-up I have to admit that he really has kept improving over the last few years and I'm very happy to have him at the club. But AVB has not suddenly turned him into a more effective performer, the stats (yeah I know - lies, damn lies etc) would suggest. Which I thought was interesting. I guess one factor that should be taken into account is that this year he has been playing as a lone striker (something I thought I would never see implemented with any success) so his stats being the same perhaps reflect favourably on him bearing that in mind.
It is interesting but as much as I love stats you can only put so much importance in them. I cringe when I see stats about "clear cut chances" and "key passes" though as trying to create a more important statistic through complicated parameters or through subjectivity gives you a bunch of numbers that are meaningless. Observations you can make about Defoe this season are that his finishing has continued improving as has his fitness, he's more aware of the players around him(although at times he's been his greedy old self), he moves about the pitch more and he's not always offside. The finishing and fitness were improving under Redknapp with special coaching so I wouldn't thank AVB for that but even last season, for all his goals(mostly against weaker opposition), he wasn't having an impact in big games and particularly struggled when he was the lone striker and up against 2 centre backs. If you like AVB you'll say he's made Defoe better and if you don't you'll say his improvement would've happened anyway. What is clear is that Defoe is better than ever, hungrier than ever and most importantly he's matured. Even as someone who's switched between writing him off and adoring him countless times during his time as a Spurs player, I can say his growing love for the club throughout is what makes supporting club football special. If we went out in January and bought a big name striker like some want I'd be very disappointed he wants to stay at Spurs and he wants to play regular football, which he's earned.
All this goes to show to me is that 'Arry should of started him more last season instead of 20mins as a sub.
A few fans picked up on a couple of stats about defoe, which was he never scored "winning" goals and would be more likely to score when the game is already seen to have have been won, or in the past when he had a great season he only scored in a hatful of games, such as five agaisnt wigan. I would say that was unfair on the guy, but this season there is no doubt he is scoring goals to win games, decisive goals but for me he has always been a top player. When we had berba & keane, defoe was fantastic at coming off the bench and played some fantastic football, i remember jol using him as an inside forward on the left agaisnt seville in the uefa cup and he run them ragged, so he isn't just an out and out striker, his technical skills aren't bad, its just his main game is to score. We have made some odd decisions over the years, such as signing bent when we already had berba/keane & defoe and this year it looked to be an odd decision to have defoe playing as a lone striker but credit to the little guy, he has always stuck around, always puts in great effort, never moans (much) and is in the best form of his career.
Yeah but the point of the stats is that they imply that he is NOT playing any better this year than last. His goals per minute ration is pretty similar. He's just scored his goals quicker this season cos he's had more game time. But, minute for minute, he's performing the same as last time out. (Of course coming on as a sub against tired legs perhaps is a factor here. And would imply an improvement this season cos he's had to do it over 90 mins and against fresh opposition).
This!! Well said boss. He's also surprised me massively playing as the lone striker. Previous performances from him and the team in past seasons indicated to me that it would never work. What ever he and AVB have been working on, has been spot on. I don't think there's anyone else like him in the league. He's a massive danger and i couldn't believe it when we sold him!!
I don't understand why anybody is surprised that Defoe scores goals, when given the chance. It's pretty much what he's always done. Yes, he's a confidence player, and Harry took that away from him by mostly confining him to the bench - but given that confidence by his new manager, he's delivered. He's got his faults, but if it's goals you want then there's very few more dangerous strikers in the Premiership. To me, the mark of a top player is that the opposition know all about him - know all his moves, etc. but they still can't stop him doing what he does best. Tells me that Defoe is a top striker.
Stats. Loved by the media because it enables all kinds of spurious views to sound like they are some kind of scientific measurement. Spurious? Yes because we are not comparing like for like. All moves in football are the result of many different factors. When Defoe scores a goal, or misses, it is the final act of the product of many players on both sides. In other words each goal/chance is unique. Indeed the terms chance and sitter are both subjective. These kind of statistics are so 'loose' as to be worse than useless simply because they sound scientific and give weight to an otherwise poor argument. We might just as well take a number of paintings by Picasso count the brushstrokes and then declare that this one is better or worse because he used more paint. In football just like a painting we have to use our eyes, our emotions and our logic to be able to make a comment that has value. Counting 'assists', chances, brushstrokes, minutes or paint will lead us to missing the point. In football the only statistics that mean anything are simply the number of goals your team score compared to the number the opposition score all the other stats, are amusing but of limited value because football is an art not a science. So my subjective comment on Defoe is that he seems to be more aware of players around him than before, is happier because he has become the main man and is therefore a greater asset than he was last season. Bollocks to the numbers.
Obvious improvement this year on his all round game for which the little man must have credit, anonymous in some games still, but thats the life of a striker sometimes. I think I'm right that in previous seasons he's missed large chunks with injury, usually just when he's on a roll! so it'll be interesting to see what he can do over a full season, hopefully staying fit.
interesting spurf I think your "painting" analogy could also be used to sum up what it is that makes us like certain players over others. - and why those certain players are what we call "tottenham players", and why we just don't warm to others. You're right, sometimes our eyes, emotions and logic are most important. We could have a midfielder that has a 100% pass rate, but if none of those passes lead to some real creativity or some assists, no one will notice the 100% pass rate stat, until it's put under their nose by someone. Like you say, it's about the "art" and what stands out; not necessarily the science.
Roo I'm pretty sure that if I could be arsed I could compile some stats that would show that Bent was as good as Gazza in scoring goals. Why would I want to; love Gazza, hate Bent that will do for me.
yeah exactly. similar story with me and other players we'd had, and ones who currently play for us. back to Defoe....
For those of you who are old enough to remember, one of the big criticisms of Jimmy Greaves was that he didn't work hard enough, and that "all he did was score goals" Well, unless I'm missing something, what's the aim of this game again??
Of course stats are a mixed bag and, frankly, useless much of the time. I made that point in my original post. But I'm sure no-one would say that stats are ALWAYS useless. For instance if I told you that Aaron Lennon covered ten times the distance during a game than Gareth Bale that would inspire some thoughts in you regarding those players, wouldn't it? If the stats showed that every single shot Defoe has had this season has been on target then that would be a fact about his current form which would live in your head, wouldn't it? And if Defoe has scored about the same number of goals this season as last over roughly the same period of time then that statistic will (hopefully) have an effect as to whether or not you want to say "Defoe is scoring far more goals this year than last". I basically ignore stats 95% of the time but to say that they are never relevant or useful is too much. If a footballer had 100% stats for tackle successes, passing accuracy, dribbles completed, shots to goals then you would have to think that they are almost certainly doing something amazingly right. Because maximising the number of passes, tackles, shots that succeed is definitely a good thing. Because it means that you are more likely to score goals and not concede them. No-one, however, has ever done a painting, enjoyed a painting or bought a painting on the strength of the number of brush-strokes. The subjective opinions that we form of players are formed from the very facts that generate stats. When player X gives the ball away AGAIN then that will be understood as an instinctive "Oh FFS!" but will also be reflected in their stats. So there is at least a parallel between stats and opinions. In a way that there is no parallel between numbers of brush-strokes and quality of a painting. Stats are just a tool. You wouldn't use a hammer for every job you do but that doesn't mean that hammers are useless. Same with stats.
Very good riposte lenny, and on the face of it a watertight argument, is it enough to sway me from my position that stats are a hindrance to the appreciation of football? Not quite! let's see if I can explain why. If you told me that Lennon had covered ten times the distance during a game than Bale would it inspire some thoughts. Hmm! yes it would probably cause some speculation as to why and might, as I said, be amusing but it's importance or not depends on a whole lot of other factors. So let's look at what these stats are measuring. Passing Accuracy? Footballer X achieved 80% success? So 8 out of 10 of his passes reached his intended target, great! It does not tell us if these passes were effective in the context of the game which is what is important. Naughton's pass back to Lloris as an example. I successful pass for his stats but a very poor pass in the context of the game. In other words the bald figure of how many completed passes a player makes can mask the fact that many of these passes were poor decisions and put the receiving player under pressure. 80% passing accuracy sound good and could be used to support an argument for the player but to do so is to take out the small matter of the context of the game. Same for dribbling, tackling, back heels, overhead kicks, headers or any other set of 'completed successfully' stats. What matters is what these actions achieved in the context of the game not how many there were. A player could have an impressive set of stats but be a liability in a game depending on what he did with these skills. Taarabt at Spurs for example! If a player had very poor success rates at these actions he would be just that, a poor player but we wouldn't need a set of figures to tell us that, we would see it. The shots on target? Sound important but again you have to look at each individual event to find out why it was off target or not. Even the number of goals a striker achieves is dubious because his ability to take chances is dependent on the team providing them. A top striker in a poor team will not score as many as he would he would in a top team. As you say you ignore 95% of stats but others don't and many make judgments based on these figures. Defoe is NOT better than last season or Defoe IS better than last season. Only the subjective watching of the games can really answer this question and being subjective is always open to debate hence the existence of sites like this. The use of stats in such debates or media articles is as I said spurious and therefore a hindrance to decent debate AND misses the point of the ART of football.
Hmmm....a lot of semantics going around here. To get back to the basics, whatever you think of the stats, or whatever you want to call them, the question " Is Defoe better than last year?" Should, IMO, relate to his primary function, I.e. sticking he ball in the back of the oppositions' net. Looking at it that way, the answer has to be, Yes.
I think someone said it best Defore has matured as a striker. I believed that maturity is a result of the personal tragedy in his life which have worked to strenghten his character. Sometime events in our life leaves us in a funk which sometime we never recover or the events renews our focus and dedication. Defore has a coach who believe in him at the most important time in his career and it has shown in his action on the pitch. Unlike say Palacious who never seemed to have recovered from his brother death as he is not the same player since the tragic event.... just my thoughts
I think JD has improved massively on his overall game. His goal scoring hasn't improved, he's always been known as arguably the country's best predator in the box but he has improved on is his work rate and team work. He's constantly running the channels now to pick up loose ends which we've not seen too much of in the past (West Ham goal springs to mind!) and he's also making a few neat passes when on the edge of the box (ala Walker yesterday) where he'd usually only look for goal. He's been tracking back a lot more than usual too to help out with defensive duties which is nice to see.
Cost him his place in the 1966 World Cup Final (but given that Hurst got a hat-trick you could barely criticise Ramsey for that, perhaps Greaves should have been in instead of Roger Hunt). Greaves had a much better strike rate than Defoe though and could justify his selection on the grounds of goals only. Defoe isn't so clinical so needs other strings to his bow to make him as great a player as Greaves. Based on this season's form he is beginning to convince me that he is worth his place. He's never going to be in the top ten strikers in the world but I'm not sure that anyone we can afford would be much of an improvement
