I go to football matches to enjoy the occasion and hopefully see Saints play well and win, and i do not look at any individual player statistics at any time afterwards. All im interested in is my perception of a game + that of other supporters ( home & away ) and my friends afterwards in the pub. I understand why some people take a lot from stats, but they dont interest me at all. My son and his friends on the other hand love them - but then they think that they are experts due to playing bloody football manager games on a computer !
True in a way, but often a TV camera shows enough of the field to see the movement of players in the same broad area of the field.
Many of the things you count, don't count. Many of the things you can't count, really count. Sorry to quote what was an Einstein quote allegedly.. some say it was someone else's but he kept it on his desk.. Either way it seems apposite..
I will touch on this writers first two points. I can't really be bothered rambling on beyond that. The midfield battle is won via possession, passes completed, total tackles, total interceptions and aerial duels etc. Simply giving one stat like tackle completion to claim United won the midfield battle is missing the point of the stats. United did actually win the midfield battle in that game and dominated possession so I don't really think that's a good example from the writer. That goal he's referring to was actually Spurs' SECOND goal and the game was on December 1st, not in November. It was a brilliant goal by Sandro and difficult to blame Cleverley at all for it. An interception has to be an intentional act. If the opponent throws away the ball to a stationary player then it won't count as an interception, but as a turnover by the player losing the ball. If a player reads a pass and intercepts it nicely he'll get credit. Basically the writer doesn't know much about what he's writing about. It takes what you are saying into account. Winning a dribble is in the stats. Key passes and crosses completed are also there. Eden Hazard has man of the match statistically from yesterday's game due to completing so many dribble despite being the most dispossessed player from either team. He had 11 dribbles won, 2 key passes, drew 4 fouls, got dispossessed 7 times, had 2 turnovers with 81% passing accuracy. Demichelis had 90% passing, had no turnovers and only got dispossessed once but had a much lower rating as he had no key passes, no dribbles, no shots, didn't draw a foul etc. They've given Hazard a rating of 8.9 and Demichelis 6.81. If Hazard had picked up an assist or goal the difference between the two players' ratings would have been greater. http://www.whoscored.com/Matches/720717/Live I think the biggest problem with the stats is a misuse of passing completion stats. People get carried away with it, they start doing silly things like comparing the passing completion for players like Cork and Lambert.
Well, like I said before, I bet Le Tiss must have been a very non-descript player, statistically speaking.....
I don't agree. He'd have been very good statically in an attacking sense. Things like dribbles won, key passes, crosses completed, goals and assists all help your rating. If a player is good it will be reflected in their rating.
He might have mucked up the system...at his size the equipment may have mistaken him for two people standing close together.
You are right and about a zillion threads back, I mentioned that my son found an old Sky re-run of Norwich v Saints from MLTs days. One of the 5-4, 4-3, 3-3 games, and MLT scored a hat-trick and got all the plaudits. Having watched the 30 minute highlights, they must have been the only times he, a: moved; and b: didn't give the ball away.
No. When you watch a game you think of things in your head like who is not giving the ball away, who is creating chances, who is winning everything in the air, dribbles won, who's getting dispossessed etc. Those are effectively your own personal 'stats', I judge the players purely on what I see if I'm at a game. I usually know pretty much what the official stats will say without looking at them, I think they are generally very fair and reliable for judging how a player has performed if I haven't seen a game..that's why I'm defending them. They take into account what is required from players in different positions which is fair.
If you watch the match, you get the feel of it. You cannot watch every person all the time. Also we are all influenced by prejudice...our favourites get away with stuff that we wouldn't tolerate in another player. Stats provide the bare facts. Both stats and watching the game are evidence.
Yes, and I think the point of the article is that if you think back to the Man City game, does anyone really want to know Osvaldo's stats or would you just like to see that goal again?
[/QUOTE] It takes what you are saying into account. Winning a dribble is in the stats. Key passes and crosses completed are also there. Eden Hazard has man of the match statistically from yesterday's game due to completing so many dribble despite being the most dispossessed player from either team. He had 11 dribbles won, 2 key passes, drew 4 fouls, got dispossessed 7 times, had 2 turnovers with 81% passing accuracy. Demichelis had 90% passing, had no turnovers and only got dispossessed once but had a much lower rating as he had no key passes, no dribbles, no shots, didn't draw a foul etc. They've given Hazard a rating of 8.9 and Demichelis 6.81. If Hazard had picked up an assist or goal the difference between the two players' ratings would have been greater. http://www.whoscored.com/Matches/720717/Live I think the biggest problem with the stats is a misuse of passing completion stats. People get carried away with it, they start doing silly things like comparing the passing completion for players like Cork and Lambert.[/QUOTE] Is now a good time to mention that whoscored.com have Wanyama averaging 6.87 points per game this season, and Cork 6.76? Also Mile Jedinak CM at Palace averages 7.42 and is said to be the 15th best player in the Premier League this season to date - better than any Saints player. Also interesting it that the best 8 players in the Championship are all defenders apparently!! (I'm being facetious people, you don't need to answer!) ;-)
Just so you know, Cork's average has taken a hit from not starting every match. Cork's actually averaging 7.04 when he starts. Jedinak is a good player.. that doesn't surprise me. He deals with a lot defensively. They are just stats at the end of the day. You just need to keep a good balance and not get carried away with them.
They are both excellent footballers, so we should be so happy to have them both i reckon ! But this is a football forum .... !
Completely wrong. Le Tiss was very like Papin. He would have few moments in a game but they were key. There were some rare games where he was in control for long periods but most games it was a few moments of brilliance with not much else. Of course in football goals win games and if a few moments gets you a goal or 2 then that player is worth much more than the 'workhorse' that runs for 90 minutes yet doesn't really change the result of the game. So Le Tiss would have very high success figures over the season but not percentages. Once the unsuccesful were added in the percentages would be low and would not represent his value to the team. The argument back then was quite different in England to France. Le Tissier was not in the England sides because 'he was lazy'. Papin was a France regular because he would produce moments. Both players might only have 1 or 2 moments in a match but they would normally be incredibly important moments. You could argue that in the modern game and especially the way Pochettino plays that the above is no longer applicable because a player like Le Tiss may produce a couple of key moments but may well cause the other team to have more key moments too. When the whole team is doing defensive and attacking work rather than the old fashioned defenders defend, midfielders break up and create and forwards finish, then you need all 10 (11?) to be involved in the game for 90 minutes. When I go to a Saints game I will never do the player ratings. Getting caught up in the atmosphere, being influenced by crowd reactions. Being distracted by looking around etc all influences my opinion. On a stream I still have my 'hopefully soon to be reissued' red and white glasses on BUT I am more focused on watching the game and the atmosphere is not swaying me at all.
