I would argue that Wes is our most inventive player and creative in the sense that he has good vision for a pass. he is not our most creative player in the sense that he creates the most chances though, as has been said last year that was Snoddy.
If you were to ask me, I'd say that is far too narrow a definition. Often creativity is simply immeasurable. I watch Hoolahan play and irrespective of whether he is playing well or badly, I would assess his creativity in terms of the fact that, in my opinion, his vision is better than, say, Snodgrass's. Hoolahan seems, to me, to be thinking more creatively (even if not necessarily executing it well). That's what makes him our most creative player and, when he is playing well, is why he can have such a massive impact on the match. The stat shows that Snodgrass is our most effective player at creating chances. Not that he is our most creative player. I think there is a difference. Snodgrass is certainly the better player though, because ultimately effectiveness and consistency ultimately pay off, but I find Hoolahan more exciting to watch when he is playing well.
You've hit the nail firmly on the head for me, Vietnam. Wes will attempt far more intricate and inventive passes and generally sees gaps that no-one else does. I guess you could say Wes is inventive rather than creative.
What is the point of having "vision" if the play exemplifying it does not lead to chances created/goals scored or not conceded/points gained or not lost? OK you find Hoolahan exciting to watch when playing well. I find Arsenal good to watch when playing well. I enjoy watching Barcelona, and so on. But exciting or pretty football is not enough; the objective is to win games. The history of British football is exciting failure; Arsenal's recent history is plenty of pretty football, no honours. We'd all like to see pretty, exciting AND WINNING football (which is what Barcelona have managed to produce in recent years until foundering on ugly but effective football as played by Chelsea etc. etc.) When people complain that we (Norwich) lack creativity, they are not saying we don't play exciting and/or pretty football. They are saying we lack players able to regularly create chances.
I'm not saying there is a point - I agree it is wasted if you can't always execute the vision. I think if Hoolahan could, he wouldn't be playing for Norwich. I don't think we're disagreeing - I accept and agree that Hoolahan is not as effective as Snodgrass because he's not as consistent. I think when people say we lack creativity, they are saying we lack players able to regularly create good chances. I actually don't think we do lack creativity, unless we are playing badly, but that is a different thing. I think Hoolahan, when playing well, creates good chances, because of his vision. I have to say I think we've satisfactorily demonstrated that this debate is pointless, too, because it is quite clear that some of us want to measure on facts and figures, others prefer to go on feeling and instincts, neither of which are wrong, but neither of which paint the complete picture.
Now you are talking! I fully agree that current stats don't recognise the importance of this (though I think "the pass before the assist" is a bit misleading since a "killer" pass need not be immediately followed by a key pass or assist ("key passes" as defined by OPTA being, in effect, assists which don't lead to a goal). Last season Hoolahan was not our most creative player in the sense of creating most chances. Was he our most creative player in the sense of making the most "killer" passes? Lacking the necessary stats we have no way of deciding one way or the other. My suspicion is that Wes is not even our most creative player in that sense. "Killer" passes, as the article points out, can be made by any player, from any position, including goalkeeper. So crosses from wingers and full backs, balls over the top from midfield or defence, and so on, can all have "killer" quality. Does Wes actually make more killer passes than other players?
What does "going on feeling and instinct" mean here? What do your feelings and instincts tell you about Hoolahan?
They tell me: - FEELING - I like what he was trying to do there even though it hasn't come off - INSTINCT - I think what he did there wouldn't have been achieved by anyone else in our team Sorry I can't measure it, quantify it, divide it or average it Robbie, but that's how it is. Your probing here is pointless. Football players can only partly be chosen on pure stats.
My point isn't really to do with football, it's completely general. However, to illustrate from football, before the Man City match someone on here posted "I have a good feeling about tomorrow". I don't think he was anticipating 0:7. So I would ask him: how trustworthy are your "feelings". Just because they are "feelings" doesn't mean you can't ask how much trust ought to be placed in them. When people resort to saying "I just feel it" or "My instincts tell me", what they are really saying is "This is what I think, but don't ask me why I think it (= don't ask me to justify it)".
A completely different feeling and you know it. One is a feeling about the future, the other is a feeling about an event that I have witnessed, so the example doesn't work, given that yours is based on no evidence whatsoever, whereas mine are based on each person's personal interpretation of and response to a given scenario that they have witnessed - their evidence. I am trusting my own judgment of a player (and a huge amount of this is personal preference). That is something immeasurable and unquantifiable, just as it is inexplicable. It doesn't make it unjustifiable, though, which is what you are trying to suggest. Too much about football is taking a risk, hoping something will come off with a bit of luck, seeing good movement and being lucky enough to find the player - you can't measure this with stats.
Totally agree. As soon as we hit too many variables (and this means life outside of a laboratory), quantitative approaches have severe limitations. This is not the same as saying they are worthless - they can obviously be informative and suggestive and also have the value of helping to counter our tendency to see what we want to see - but they need to be used alongside other methods/approaches and they need to be used critically. Sorry, I guess I'm stating the obvious, but it is an obviousness that is often forgotten.
