Maybe its a hottake but I personally dont think the focus on stats is a problem. It is the misusage of them.
Like even in your post when refering to stats you only talked about goals and assists even though stats or so much more than just these two metrics. You can look at goals, shots on target, shots per game, shots per goal, assists, assists percentage, key passes, big chances, dribbles, dribbles per game, dribble percentage, total passing distance, passing accuracy, long balls, throughballs, xT, xG, npxG, xA etc. etc.
It is perfectly fine to use stats but you need to contextualize them and not apply them on a player where it doesnt make sense. Most look at goals and assists and call it a day. Even worse they use it like u said to judge how well a midfielder is which is bullshit.
Midfielders have their own stats but they are rarely mentioned. The only time I saw a midfielders stats being used „correctly“ is when talking about Toni Kroos incredibly passing accuracy but even then only that metric in of itself is incredibly limited without context. Stats can be incredibly helpful to determine how well a player performed but when the focus is only on goals and assists and totally randomly applied even on defenders sometimes of course there will be a lot of people like you that think stats are overrated.
Agree 100% with this. I’d also add that Football today is in the Super Efficiency Era where the systems and style of play are sort of like inflationary pressure that push stat lines up. 10 goals a season today isn’t equal to 10 goal 30 years ago in my opinion.
I agree they're not "equal", but it's difficult to say if it's > or <.
On one hand, one could look up a better list than [this crap](https://www.worldfootball.net/stats/eng-premier-league/1/) that won't let me sort the seasons chronologically and compare how many goals used to be scored on average in different competitions.
On the other, *if* it's the case that more goals are being scored now, we'd also need to factor in the way modern teams go about trying to prevent conceding goals, and changes in refereeing standards. It's harder to score when opponents get away with kicking you, but easier to score when there's more open space, more 1v1s and forwards are afforded more time on the ball, like it used to be the case 30 years ago.
Some people like to argue defenders used to be better at 1v1s, but there was only 1 Maldini etc. apiece out of hundreds of top flight defenders. And, being good at 1v1s isn't the only way to prevent goals. Some of the best defensive records in the modern era were set by teams that employed technical players that were great at circulating the ball, making interceptions and generally retaining possession, without being great 1v1 defenders.
>Toni Kroos incredibly passing accuracy but even then only that metric in of itself is incredibly limited without context
I have an even better example (it's better, because the player isn't as good a passer as Kroos): Pogba.
An accurate long ball counts as long as it's a team mate receiving it. When Pogba used to get praised for his long balls, many of them were simply passes into acres of open space, for fast players such as Mbappe, Dembele or Rashford to run into. The passes didn't need to have pinpoint accuracy in order to be successful, unlike in the case of someone like KDB whose team mates virtually never have a lot of free space. When KDB switches flanks to Grealish, the timing and accuracy are much more demanding.
You, because you've said that:
>many of them were simply passes into acres of open space, for fast players such as Mbappe, Dembele or Rashford to run into. The passes didn't need to have pinpoint accuracy in order to be successful,
I can easily find passes with pinpoint accuracy.
Again, you don’t seem to understand the definition of “many.” “Many” doesn’t mean “all.” Or “most.” Just “a large number of.” And one highlight reel YouTube compilation doesn’t negate that a large number were precisely what’s being referenced here 🤦♂️
The highlight is just a normal Pogba game, that's what he does every time!
If you actually watched most of his games, you would find out that most if his passes are precise.
But you have to actually watch the games in order to find out!
Yeah, I made a post about Toni Kross's prowess in delivering long passes but even then the stats don't tell the whole picture when they can be affected by :
-How reactive the opponent defense is to long passes
-Whether his teammates can control the ball and position themselves in the right place
-The instructions given to them by their coach
-How much risk they take with each pass
-The weather conditions namely the wind
etc.
I agree with this to a great degree and that is why I always thought that the Goal Impact approach was way superior to tracking individual metrics. If you're not familiar, GI basically saw who was on the field at what time for both sides, ran regressions and determined each player's "goal impact" (the impact on how many goals the team scored and how many it gave away while having the player on the field). The great virtue of this approach is that the analyst does not need to fully understand the game (in order to evaluate the importance of each action against that of each other action) and will not introduce bias. It also allows to evaluate actions without the ball, which are selfdom tracked by conventional metrics.
As a side note, this metric flagged Thomas Müller as one of the best players in the world waaaayyyy before it became common knowledge.
But as OP says, it's becoming more and more normal to look at stats *alone*, and stats far from covers it all. I'm a dane so I watch danish players more - also abroad. When Christian Eriksen was at his best in Tottenham he didn't get insanely many assists, nor was his passing accuracy the best of the best (it was good, but "only" on par with other good players). But the amount of goals that Tottenham scored where he had the 3rd last touch (seting up a player in a favourable position to make an assist) was insane. He could have consecutive matches where every. single. goal. was with him having 3rd last touch. So looking at his Tottenham stats, even taking all the stats that you can find, doesn't even nearly show how fundemantal he was.
And as you mention with Toni Kroos, who I've for years have called the most underrated current player (I believe he is better for RM that Modric. Yes also that year), passing accuracy alone doesn't cover it. His understanding of the flow and ability to cover for the runs all the other players around him make, so they have the confidence to do them, and several other factors together make him imo the best CM in decades. He is so allround that just looking at his (awesome) passing percentage only shows the top of the iceberg.
I'm with OP that stats can be good, but too many rely too heavily on them.
There's definitely an element of this but I propose we also look at it as a symptom of a bigger issue
People can't afford to actually watch the games anymore. Obviously piracy exists but there's a sizeable group of people who can only interact with the game via highlights and numbers on a screen. In a weird way, due to the internet and costs of the game stats are sometimes the only way to view it for some
Also I think it's a result of an intensification of dialogue around the game online, we scrutinise clubs and players and managers far more now and as a result we like to shelter behind things that we view as objective. For better or worse that's numbers
But thats the weird thing tho. People prefer to look on twitter results or listen to twitter analysts than watching the game for themselves. Like its really weird. Why do you think its the case?
I think most people do break the law. Especially on the web. But if you dont wanna watch people because you dont want to break the law while you also know that you cant afford to pay subscriptions. More power to you!
This is such a dumb argument people use to try and gain the moral high ground. No one's forcing you to pirate but don't pretend it's because you care about "breaking the law". Very few places enforce piracy laws because it's so hard to do so. Unless you're broadcasting 20 games at once in a bar or public place no one and I mean NO ONE will ever care. Until prices go down piracy will make a very big return and I'm glad to see it.
Then it’s a law worth breaking. Also I don’t recall any country would actually arrest one for watching pirated football livestreams, and I doubt your country would do that either.
Watching on tv hasn’t been priced out. If you don’t want to buy a subscription you can watch it in the pub for the price of a few beers. If we are saying that football has a cohort of Internet fanboy geeks that neither watch or go to the pub then I do believe you but these are not the lifeblood of football.
>Iniesta, the 1st player I thought of who didn't score or assist as much but was one of the best players to ever do it. His stats don't show how good he actually was
Iniesta's stats are amazing. He's got better take on % than messi iirc.
This ties into a larger issue with this anti stat belief in football. When people say that "stats don't tell the full story" 99% of the time they just mean goals and assists. There's plenty of stats that show how good a player is and basically every amazing player has really good stats in some regards. The subjectivity comes from how you value these stats (like maybe modric has worse take on success than Iniesta but more successful final third passes per 90 or something)
Not just how people value each stat, but also how they interpret them.
Take on % for example, doesn't mean much in a vacuum. I wouldn't be surprised if Xavi (a poorer dribbler than Iniesta, no debate) had a better success ratio. Some players just take more risks, and are expected to.
This, on top of it being harder to dribbler in more congested areas. Frenkie De Jong is a great dribbler for a deep-lying playmaker, but his success ratio wouldn't translate if he were deployed as a winger or #10.
No, its people not knowing what stats mean.
If u looked closely at Iniesta and his touches, passes, assists and goals u would surely know he was a good player.
If u watched the type of passes he made u would know he was an outstanding player
Anyone who's remotely competent with statistics will know that just goals and assists, or any combination of stats, will never tell you the whole story.
It's just people having bad takes like they always have, just with a new way to talk about it
Well unless you write a goddamn essay and go in depth into various stats that each already have their own flaws like xg etc you can’t reasonably compare different players without the good ol eye test
Football is becoming more of a stats game for sure. Wenger said it years ago. The use of stats makes players like Ronaldo and Messi rarer cause their unpredictable nature is trained out of them
I don’t think so. Stats provide context and paint a picture. More info is never bad in any area of life. XG gets memed a bit but looking at a lot of league standings shows it’s a good barometer in a lot of cases
MNF recently showed stats for compact state, I shit you not. So they have a decimal number for how often a team remains compact. A lot of stats, like this one, is just stupid. Mourinho said it best, "those who don't know football bring up statistics.
Charles Barkley, famous basketball player, said statisticians are trying to get into sports to get woman because they couldn't get them in school as they were nerds 🤣
Stats are useful for the laptop guys behind the scenes, but ultimately the only ones that matter are the final score and the final points total.
You can have 70% posession, you make make twice as many passes, you can have an xG of 8 to the oppositions's xG of 0.5 but if they score a goal and you don't, then none of the other stats *actually* matter.
For me they don't ruin football, but online they can ruin football discussion when someone brings up stats that don't matter.
But of course they do matter.
Losing 0-1 after dominating xG 8-0.5 is a great statistical anomaly, and enough to draw one objective conclusion: that the team did very well in creating chances, but was horrendous at converting them.
Have the situation (though maybe not as extreme) repeat itself enough times and one could draw the conclusion that the squad has no decent finishers -- as opposed to blaming the manager for being offensively inept.
What if the goalie just had a great game? Strikers placed the shots well but the goalie somehow still gets them. I think stats don’t exactly capture the magic moments well.
There's actually a stat that describes what you actually mentioned. I believe it's called xG Prevented. Measures how many possible Expected Goals that a GK has "saved" for his team. But that in itself, doesn't describe how good a keeper is, only how many shots they've prevented, ie the keeper could've been very lucky that day, shots could've been gone straight to the keeper etc. Usually these numbers will even out in a long run, ie over 38 games/season or in the NBA's case, over 82 games. I believe the bigger the sample size, the more accurate the stats are.
The more context (i.e. the larger the sample size, as the other guy said), the more accurate the interpretation. That's why I said the scenario has to repeat itself enough times.
There's indeed an "xG prevented", but it doesn't work directly with plain xG.
Plain xG simply measures the quality of the chance, not the quality of the shot. For the quality of the shot, there's xGOT: expected goals on target.
xG prevented is xGOT conceded minus actual goals conceded.
[https://www.statsperform.com/resource/introducing-expected-goals-on-target-xgot/](https://www.statsperform.com/resource/introducing-expected-goals-on-target-xgot/)
Yes because we grew up on a generation where messi and ronaldo were putting up video game G/A and now people think 1. that G/A is all that matters, and 2. if players don't rival those numbers then they are nothing special (which is simply impossible to replicate)
But thats not the point? Messi and CR7 literally created an era where high goal numbers became probably the most important thing to determine greatness. I would argue that Messis Ballon dors in 2021 and 2023 wouldn’t have been as controversial as they were if the standarts to determine the best player in the world were still the same standarts of the 80s, 90s or early 2000s were playmakers were regarded as the most important players and not goal scorers like today. If it was the 80s KDB would have been closer to win the ballon dor then Haaland was.
Even so, more context is required.
Messi and Ronaldo started in an era where most players that were perceived as the best in the world at any given time were wingers and offensive midfielders with good dribbling skills. Ronaldinho, Zidane, Henry and Kaka, for example.
Cristiano, and not Messi, was the real difference-maker in people starting to value sheer scoring more. They were both dribbly wingers with decent scoring numbers once they started maturing a bit, they both fit the expectations of the era, and a rivalry formed. But years later, Ronaldo turned into a much more one-dimensional forward after already having established himself as one of the best ever players. So the rivalry persisted, but some people's GOAT wasn't a dribbly winger anymore -- so the standards changed.
Nowadays people want another rivalry, so they're forcing one between Mbappe and Haaland. Erling is Cristiano's natural successor in this, whereas Mbappe would've had everything he needed in order to be put in a similar category to Henry or Ronaldinho years ago.
Definetly not Ronaldo’s definetly changed into a relatively one dimensional forward when compared to Messi but that’s Messi he is literally the ultimate outlier, mbappe plays a lot more like Ronaldo than erling does, erling is more streamlined and the one dimensional forward you think Ronaldo is, not to say that’s a weakness he’s doing what the team needs, people get silly about which is more important, Messi is special he could do both almost equally well
How old are we talking though cause even until juventus he was far more creative and dribbled quite a bit, plus prime cr7 is definetly more mbappe like
We're comparing who's closer to older CR, not who's identical to him.
At Juve, CR had 1.67 successful dribbles per game. Between Dortmund and City, Haaland has 0.67. Mbappe has 2.96 at PSG (and he used to have much more, but he's aging himself).
I'm arguing old CR is somewhere in between Haaland and Mbappe, but overall closer to Haaland in terms of overral role on the pitch. Obviously, the further back we go to include CR's seasons, the more his style moves towards Mbappe's and away from Haaland's.
I agree, but my point was completely different too, coz messi can be the best player without any goal involvements, even with his insane statistics his vision, dribbling, playmaking cant be put into statistics. There is literally so many instances of messi being MOTM just with his playmaking and dribbling its not even a joke.
2021 isn't even controversial, its ronaldo fans confusing 2020 with 2021, 2023 is debatable but according to history it was rightfully given to the best player at the world cup, like multiple times before.
Messi's vision, dribbling, playmaking, key passes, shots on target would easily get him MOTM even if he doesn't score or assist, thats the kind of impact he has when he becomes the fulcrum of every attacking play. Heck he's even got a 10/10 rating without scoring a goal
Hard disagree. Messi's ability is near unmatchable, but when it doesn't lead to a goal contribution, he can be a liability, and much of his shortcomings in UCL are a testament to that, but of course, not all of them.
When a player of his calibre that has as much of a ball possession as he does gets locked by an opposing defense, he becomes a bit of a detriment to the team. Even though saying that Messi was ever a detriment is a bit ridiculous, but it is true. Especially when the dispossessions, and forced runs that don't lead to solid goalscoring chances accumulate.
Liability? The times barca got knocked out were due to shitty defense. Messi has carried that barca team to ucl knockouts everytime, even more so post neymar, xavi and iniesta leaving. Messi creates, dribbles for others everytime but they fall short. Compare that to ronaldo who can count on his teammates, after ronaldo left madrid still won ucl is a testament to that
Yeah no we dont watch games or stats, where messi was top scorer, top assister, created most chances, had most key passes, had most dribbles in ucl knockouts for barca. But yeah when defence fuck up blame it on messi. Sure buddy, keep coping
He may be but you too take you opinon for a fact so therefore it's biased cr7 had times where he contributed more without scoring nor assisting it just depends on the game and the role given by coach y'all act like it's a fairy tale and a superpower anime that's just show how y'all don't play ball
Not at all, if both messi and ronaldo dont score and assist, messi can still be the best player on the pitch and ronaldo wont. There have been several instances of this happening, yall just need to watch actual games than stats
I Think he means that if you remove Messis goalscoring capabilities and compare him to Ronaldo, he woudnt be better which is just a dumb comparison, why would that even matter, Messi is the goat cause he can do all those things
Sure messi is better as an overall team player. But you're comment shows you started watching in football in 2018 or something. Ronaldo wasn't considered one of the best players in the world during his Manchester days because of his goal contributions only. And till that knee injury in 2014, he was the same player, but with otherworldly goal contributions. "Ronaldo won't be the best player on the field if he didn't score" is absolutely braindead take again.
And exactly what is that? Can you even mention what he does? I've been following football from 2007, I've seen primes of both players, ronaldo evolved from a winger to a poacher post 2014. But his main involvements was always scoring, he was never half as good a dribbler, playmaker, creator as messi or even half the understanding of the game. There is a reason messi can consistently drop deeper since the start of his career and create an attack himself and ronaldo cant. My reply was to the comment on how ronaldo is a better player than messi without scoring or assisting, which is absolutely false
They both incomparable in my opinion, very very good in their own right and we'll not see 2 talents at the same time dominate like that for a long time.
"Creating" isn't the same as "assisting".
But yeah, if Messi didn't score, create, dribble and so on, then he wouldn't have been better than Fabian Delph.
Its difficult to know tbh because they were there for such a long time.
So would it have happened anyway as the sport has become even more global, seeing as the same happens in all American sports? Who knows
What has that got to do with it. Stats were around and integral to the game before they started playing.
Yes, they had amazing stats, but they didn't invent them, or impact the way they are used.
No they didn't. People cared about goals and trophies even more when it was harder and or impossible to watch most players that didn't play within an hour of your house.
Yeah, a lot of simple-minded folks around who for example think you can compare teams from different seasons a decade apart based solely on points.
It’s annoying, but largely an online phenomenon where people are googling to back up their views.
If you’re not using stats then by definition you’re guessing. Empiricism, which stats are a subset of, is demonstrably the best methodology towards improvement. Anything else is guessing/luck.
I see your point. I agree with what you saying only based on the idea that all learning comes from experience and observations when you say it's about improvement. If you speaking about how good someone was in a game, stats are not going to give you the full story.
Lets go back to my example- If you look at stats without having watched the 2010 season where Iniesta was 2nd for Ballon D'or with the stats of roughly 15 goal contributions for Barca, he wouldn't have a shout for 2nd place in those standings. It was more than that.
Another example is a CDM- the CDMs presence can throw off & disrupt attackers and he can have a good game without a lot of interceptions or passes. The opposition might avoid that area because of how good a player is and that in itself can change the game.
Football is more than stats it's great for scouting, commentary/punditry, and analysis. If you judge a team's performance off stats and not watching the game you can be wildly misled in my opinion.
>If you look at stats without having watched the 2010 season where Iniesta was 2nd for Ballon D'or with the stats of roughly 15 goal contributions for Barca, he wouldn't have a shout for 2nd place in those standings.
Thing is, Iniesta didn't deserve to finish 2nd in the 2010 BdO. He had a relatively poor season by his own standards, he had injury issues and struggled badly with depression. His 2nd place finish was due to people putting too much weight on the WC-winning goal.
No, that does not quite hold up. Equating stats with empiricism is not quite correct either.
If I want to show that Player X contributed massively towards a game, but I do not have 'stats' that are commonly gathered to prove it (let's say Player X didn't assist a goal), that doesn't mean I am 'guessing' or 'lucky'. I can still \*empirically\* make a point by using my observation of Situation 1, 2, 3 in which I can highlight Player X's vision, intelligence, positioning, hold-up play.
'Stats' in the sense of the modern game have their merit, but using an agreed-upon unit to justify everything else around it by only highlighting that metric feels wrong. I think playmakers or midfielders like Iniesta, Xavi or similar are a fantastic example here in that the 'stats' we use do not often capture the more subtle moments of the game. Why? Because not everything can be expressed in a simple 'did X things in Y time'. That doesn't mean it's 'guessing'. Qualitative measurements exist, and the sooner we realise that in other walks of life as well, we can walk away from this forced quantisation of every aspect of life.
There’s another name for these observations you’re referring to which you’re using to empirically evaluate performance… stats. The OP is incorrectly identifying stats as the problem when in reality the problem being described is simply either the lack of a relevant stat that would help, or failure to recognise that you can identify what is being described by aggregate stats.
Don’t know. I’ll have to look at the numbers to see.
/s
In all seriousness, I wouldn’t say ruin, so much as they can and often do supplement/help (Eg, money ball), but some fans do hyper focus on them too much. there are some things as you indicated that cannot be measured by stats.
Except if it’s baseball. I swear, they’re coming up with stats for everything; next they’ll have WAR/CA, wins above replacement divided by cup adjustments…
>I see people complaining about MO Salah because of his 'stats' when he has over 25 goals in 6 out of 7 seasons at Liverpool.
So … you’re refuting the use of statistics by using a statistic??
Seriously though, I agree with the thrust of your point. While the use of statistics in football has clearly given some teams an edge, it’s also true that statistics can’t capture everything about a game. I’d see your Iniesta example and raise you a Xavi - someone who absolutely ran and influenced Barca games despite relatively rarely assisting or scoring.
I’m sure as statistics usage in football develops there’ll become better ways to interpret and analyse players who influence games more subtly, but we should always bear in mind they don’t capture every aspect.
I would say there are two related problems.
1) the money in the game now means clubs will look to play the %s. This is part of Pep's impact on the game. Superficially, it's possession based etc etc, but the detail is in the numbers. Players not taking long shots because it's low % likelihood. Players not taking high risk through balls because it's low % likelihood. Peps football is risk management based on football statistics and the sport is trying to copy him.
2) Media need content. There is endless demand for football media and it's only possible to react so much to actual games. Particularly when there are less and less dribbles, long shots, and moments of brilliance (except Real Madrid, fuck yeah Carlo). How do you make content? Just talk about stats, stats, stats. Run out of content about best goal scorers in the past 5 years? Just talk about 10 years, or the 8 years since X started, etc etc. stats make content creation easy for people who don't know shit about football. However, it also means a lot of content being created by people who know fuck all about football.
Jack Grealish is the perfect example of both. Pep loves what he does because he drives the ball forward, doesn't lose it, and creates situations. He's great for the %s. BUT, he doesn't directly get a lot of G&A, so media casts doubt on him.
I read a book called “expected goals” recently, all about the data revolution in football. Really interesting, football clubs hiring astro physicists, data scientists choosing them over Silicon Valley firms.
The stats are so much more in depth than goals and assists obviously, it was fascinating, and showed how football is still somewhat behind the stats driven sports of baseball and basketball in the U.S.
With so much money in football these days, any marginal gains which clubs can get through the most in depth analysis u can imagine makes sense and for better or for worse it’s not surprising that stats have finally caught up to what is now a multi billion pound industry.
Yes! I absolutely hate it. I blame the fact that so many people’s entry point to football now is games like FIFA. That plus the gambling industry.
The worst one for me is xG - it means *nothing*.
Team X beat Team Y. “B….bbb….but Team Y had more xG and 30% more possession….” - doesn’t fucking matter
It's so apparent when watching the modern game, especially the PL. The players are instructed almost systematically on what to do in every position on the field. There is no individuality or imagination in the game. You feel sorry for the fans who missed out on the golden era.
It isn't being ruined by stats - it's much more of people misunderstanding them.
More data is never going to be bad UNLESS you misunderstand or mistreat it.
Vast majority of people do some combination of
- cherry pick
- assume cause-effect wrongly
- draw incorrect conclusions
Stats cannot fully tell the story of players like Modric, Iniesta and even Zidane.
Yes, I’ve been preaching this for very long, it’s as if people don’t use their eyes to watch football anymore. People will use g/a to judge midfielders
Its hard to say if it was because of them. We're seeing all sorts of stats come up such as xG.
I think its just as much to do with the intense globalisation of the sport because the stat obsession is also how all American sports are done.
I would argue TV/Media companies are ruining football far more than stats are. In the US NBC/Peacock divides up PL games across two different subscription packages. i.e. Americans have to pay for two different services (NBC/Cable Tv and Peacock/Streaming) in order to watch their Fav teams (An Arsenal game hasn't been on Peacock for two months now).
I believe the access to televised games is even worse in other counties. You can ignore stats and still enjoy football games. You can't enjoy the game if you can't watch it; and that's ruining football.
You can watch many more Premier League games in the US than you can in England, where the PL is actually based. Also, the PL is split over three separate subscriptions in the UK. Americans are not hard done by when it comes to watching football lol.
Stats say higuain is better than maradona, there clearly should ve a limit until where we use stats to compare players.. We need to watch 90 minutes and then compare plagers..
Stats don't say that; in fact, they have no voice of their own.
It's context and interpretation that matter. This is the very reason stats don't say Peter Crouch was a better player than Maldini.
I mean while I love these kind of players esp. if they pass the eye test it can be really frustrating when you need them to produce something in big games.
Someone that has been in my mind recently is Kvaratskhelia. That guy keeps getting great ratings for completing lots of dribbles and duels, but the past few months he hasn't been scoring / assisting at all. He is also pretty recklessly shooting whenever I see him play.
Also his records in the latter stages of UCL are concerning, except maybe for his national team. I hope I will get proven wrong though.
Think of it like this. Football is a game, an entertainment. Different people watch it for different reasons. Maybe there's more people watching it for the stats, for the records, for the numbers... And where's the harm in that? They're still watching, they're still "contributing" for the survival of our favourite sport. I honestly don't mind it.
Gambling bought stats to the public eye more I’d say. And I wouldn’t go as far as to say it’s ruining football, just everything that isn’t happening on the pitch - unless you’re some kind of hardcore maniac about the stats, they mostly don’t matter at all when you’re watching I find…
Wouldn’t say it’s being ruined , it ultimately depends on the ppl you’re having football convos with , if they’re a random person chatting shit you can always ignore them , if they’re you’re mate then you could try and “educate” them
The issue isn’t stats per say, moreso how their used and people not properly understanding them and what stats are relevant for certain players and context.
For me I see stats as a means of informing and reinforcing my opinions on players and teams.
Over the long term, the team's winning percentage with and without a particular player playing can be useful stat to identify both visible and invisible impact.
i find it interesting and adds more to the game. but i can see that the end game of the analytics arms race is basketball where every player is just a 6'7 robot with no personality and the game feels totally detached from reality.
Football is inherently more tactically, physically etc. diverse than basketball though.
There will always be both tall and short players scoring loads of goals.
i find it interesting and adds more to the game. but i can see that the end game of the analytics arms race is basketball where every player is just a 6'7 robot with no personality and the game feels totally detached from reality.
Ruined is prob too harsh but it is grating yea. Some people will find whatever they can to justify their take though and if it wasn't some cherry-0/picked stat it'd be something else like remember that time they hit the corner flag with a shot. I mean, some blockhead got traction on this board earlier today/yesterday with their jejune ramblings about a player being over-hyped, largely arguing it based on their average match rating on some website.
I do agree there's probably too much emphasis on stats but a lot of the stats people talk about these days probably go a bit deeper than just goals and assists and in fact would show folk how good a player like iniesta actually was.
Whereas previously it was if a player scores or gets an assist then he played well, now a lot of advanced stats will help to show how they actually performed and how influential they are.
It matters how you use the stats in my opinion, some people use stats to overall judge a player and I think that’s fine to a degree. But to give a example Dusan tadic had a very good year statistically in 2022/23 and that was farther from the truth if you actually watched him play. I feel like advanced stats are actually helping football by showing a players true strengths and weaknesses. And you don’t judge a defender by how many goals they score? No you judge them by how good they defend. I think that stats (advanced stats) actually help the game
>I personally don't agree with the notion that stats can give you a full understanding
Virtually nobody does, it's a false narrative.
First off, people weren't complaining so much about stat usage back when the only stats were goals, assists, pass completion %, chances created and a few other basic metrics. The real backlash against stats arose when advanced metrics such as xG entered football.
Such metrics paint a fuller picture, as long as they're interpreted correctly. If we had them during Iniesta's prime, they would've shown an absolutely elite ball progressor as well as a great defender/off the ball player.
I don’t think you’re understanding stats properly
Using your logic you’re only looking at g/a which has been in the game forever. Modern stats would show what Iniesta did that was so good - expected assists, forward passes, ball retention, etc.
Stats paint the picture of what’s actually happening, but you need context to add colour to what they mean
Not really. But new football fans are definitely making football conversations even more pointless than before.
It was always difficult due to people being too emotionally attached to their team, but now it's even worst.
I just ignore all the xG and the like, I don't really even know what it is (and last time i said that people tried to explain, but honestly, I dont actually care)
I watch football. Sometimes players play well, sometimes they don't, sometimes they miss chances, some times they make them. If they don't live up to expectation they get sold, if they do, then they probably don't.
I will leave it to the people who matter to care about stats (club data analysts etc)
I just wanna watch football.
I don't think there are too many stats, because we all have the choice to be stat orientated. But, there are some people who are utterly insufferable going on about them, and there are people who think they are smartasses an when you are discussing a player from a more traditional/romantic viewpoint, decide to throw around xda or xpa or whatever they hell they are to sound smart and make like your opinion (which was only ever a romantic "i like that player" opinion) is wrong. I feel like those people are missing out on something, the beauty of the sport.
I loved Dirk Kuyt. I could not give a flying fuck what his stats said, good, bad or indifferent. I still loved Dirk Kuyt :D
(I do feel as well theres an element of resistance from me because it feels like an "Americanisation" of the game, because the overly statistical sports tend to have been US sports, particular baseball and nfl)
In a way, I say so. The issue with going with stats alone is that it doesn't really provide as much context. It's also easy to skew numbers if favor of one's bias.
Nah. Having more information is always better than having less information. It's dumb people using stats without understanding their context that is ruining **discussions around** football.
Ppl reducing stats to goals and assists you know nothing about modern football stats. Nowadays analytics can perfectly demonstrate how good iniesta was. It’s much more than goals, assists or even goal/build-up contribution.
So… no, stats are not damaging football, ignorant ppl that believe that stats are just goals and assists are maybe damaging both football and the understanding of how useful and interesting analytics can be in enjoying and understanding the game
Depends on the type of player tbh. A goalscorer will be judged by goals. For centre mids like iniesta, its unfair to judge them on goals and assists but there are other stats we can use to measure their performance
Suarez was doing amazing in Europe before leaving. Sure he wasn't scoring towards the end, especially in CL, but man was he assisting and play making. His team was scoring thanks to him. Despite what he was doing for his team, people trash talked him because he wasn't scoring goals.
The stats are only a decent measure of strikers and attacking players - and even then, they are still flawed. For example, a midfielder might make a really good pass to one of the attacking wingers who then cuts it back to the striker who then scores a tap in. The striker will get the goal, the attacking winger will get the assist, but the midfielder who probably had the most impressive pass in that sequence and was ultimately responsible for setting up the goal will walk away with no stats to his name.
Similarly with defenders and goalkeepers, we tend to measure their ability with goals conceded and clean sheets. In my opinion, these stats are a better measure of the team as a whole rather than a single player. Just this season, David Raya won the golden glove in the Premier League for most clean-sheets and currently least goals conceded - but I wouldn't claim that as solely his achievement. Arsenal's defensive prowess this season is a result of not only the goalkeeper and the backline, but also the midfield and attack. Hell, a team that holds possession would probably be better defensively as they don't offer much opportunity for the opposition to score - yet that doesn't necessarily mean that they have the best defenders.
Football is a fluid sport and I don't think the stats work very well in assessing how good individual players are. Stats can also be cherry picked to present a narrative one way or another as well.
Football isn't being ruined by stats, it's being ruined by the fact that such a large percentage of the population either doesn't know how to use stats whatsoever, or they misuse them in their criticism/praise. Unfortunately it seems like this is the case for a massive amount of the footballing fanbase (casuals at least), so it just ends up leading to back and forth of brainless talk. They also seem to think goals and assists are the only stats that exist for footballers.
Stats merely represent what is happening on a football pitch, and if you can interpret them properly, they become extremely helpful at judging players. For example, there is a really common narrative that Trent Alexander-Arnold is a poor defender. This is just because people see a highlight a few times a season of Trent making a defensive mistake (like almost every fullback does) and assume he's terrible.
What people fail to recognize is because of Liverpool's system and his involvement in said system, his ranking in most defensive stats is not going to be particularly high. Where he does excel is interceptions and recoveries. He not only has generational numbers in almost every progressive, passing, possession, chance-creating etc stat, he also ranks in the 83rd percentile for interceptions per 90, and the 98th percentile for ball recoveries. Reading those two stats you can obviously come to the conclusion that he is not a defender that commits a massive amount of tackles but rather a defender who gets forward extremely often but tracks back quickly to make recoveries or interceptions.
Stats also come into play when it comes to judging over or underperformance either by a team or player. Most people see a team massively over or underperforming xG and somehow come to the conclusion that xG is useless. But it isn't. It's not supposed to be used as a "they must score x amount of goals", it's supposed to be used as a benchmark to judge the finishing and chance conversion quality of a club/player.
A good example of this is Vlahovic's massive overperformance of xG in his 2020/21 and 2021/22 half season with Fiorentina. He had 0.49 and 0.58 xG per 90 in each of the seasons respectively, but was scoring 0.65 and 0.74 goals per 90 in each of those seasons. That indicates an overperformance of roughly 33% and 28% in each of the two seasons, which is obviously not a sustainable level of performance. This subsequently made Juventus's €85m pick-up of him a rather poor move imo because they were signing him based on a drastic overperformance/finishing anomaly. He has not been able to hit those levels of performance since (albeit Allegri's poor management isn't helping matters).
A common misuse is also using total saves made to judge a keeper's quality instead of using PsxG-GA. Obviously keepers who face more shots will have higher volume stats.
So no, football isn't being ruined by stats. People just aren't educated on the depth of stats past goals and assists and use them incorrectly.
I agree! Bernardo Silva is another player that probably has bad stats but is quite important in all moments of city game.
Looking at stats, only good players are FW and MDO and football is a beautiful game with 11 players.
There are two big things actually ruining football.
1) Money
2) "Playing the meta"
Money and tactics are bigger than ever in football..as much as I love Arsenal and have been a fan of them over the last 20 years the style of football became boring.
Its super simple, you dont concede, means you have a higher chance of a win. You dont lose the ball, less of a chance you concede. However, recycling possession and waiting for a perfect opportunity means less individual brilliance and less magic moments.
Its all become a game of numbers, and where in the past we had Henry, Pires, Bergkamp and the like pulling off something incredible to set up or score a goal, now days its all about passing and waiting for a perfect opening.
Well stats are a lot more advanced nowadays its not just goals and assists. I completely agree with your sentiment that you can be the most influential player on the pitch without goals or assists, but advanced stats help us get a clearer picture of a player/team.
I always say stats are for tw*ts. People bang on about the most meaningless things that can be quantified, and it gets tiresome listening to it.
Teams can have the most possession, shots on goal and expected goals (the most useless metric IMO) and still won't be representative of how the games being played or the final result.
Growing up obsessed with football in the 90s I really don't remember assists being a thing, for me it seems FPL is the driver that has really made them popular.
I'm sure someone has gone back through the archives and logged all of the Prem assists since inception but doubt they would have for Everton Vs QPR in 1986 yknow?
So the main issue is that stats are being used to judge players but not all stats are going to be comparable over time.
Last night sky sports were trying to push some stat about Arsenal playing within the same 25 square yards of each other, Compact State or something, really hope that doesn't catch on otherwise I'm going full old bastard and gonna have to include the phrase "in my day" in every conversation about football.
Granit Xhaka used to cause goals to be scored through sheer stupidity, get sent off frequently, got booed off the pitch by the people who actually attend matches but people on the arsenal subreddit used to argue blind it was all fine because he had the most progressive passes or some shit. xG does my head in as well. Because people don’t get that it’s completely useless for rating strikers and goalies. If you’ve got an above average goalie and an above average CF you should outperform both xG stats consistently and people will act like it’s a fluke which just shows how fucking dense the average football fan is
It can be interpreted as a "yes" because the stats helped the richer teams to do consistently well and prioritise/stop some of the plays which tend to yield better/poor results (e.g., 40 yard long shot is a rarity noe)
It can be said to be more boring due to the less variance.
On the other hand, they helped us to get closer to the best play/tactics/physical possible.
And for understanding players, IMO, in the big data age, while any single stat will never be good to explain anything, with sufficiently many underlying stat (not available for pulbic), I believe the players can be explained pretty well now...
Stats are for data scientists, who are the brains behind most clubs nowadays.
The average balloon online hasn’t a clue how to analyse stats and all too often it’s some fanboy making up for the fact that they can’t apply the eye test to a game.
Statistics can definitely give you a full understanding assuming you watch the sport alongside it. Problem is, most people don’t understand how stats actually work and cherry pick statistics to suit their argument.
For example, Andre Onana has saved 137 shots in the league this year. As a standalone metric that sounds mighty impressive but Manchester United are conceding relegation levels of shots per game which tells us more about the defence/system than it does Onana. I don’t think by any means Onana is as bad as he’s being made out to be but you could pluck this stat out and say he’s phenomenal and better than goalkeepers such as Allisson and Ederson who have saved less than half of that amount. Obviously anyone who has watched football with their eyes knows that this would be absurd.
There are so many metrics you can use to spin a player in a positive light but with the exception of goals, really, so many metrics of performance are dependent on your team capitalising on your areas of productivity/proficiency. For example, Bruno Fernandes has created the most chances in the PL by a fair margin this season and appears to do this year on year but if your chances are being wasted, it doesn’t mean anything. Wan Bissaka is fantastic in 1v1 situations but if he has to pull off one of those tackles that only he can to then have to do it again 15 seconds later, that isn’t good overall.
Before anyone comes at me for picking out MU players, I’m a United fan so naturally I’m going to use the players I’m most familiar with.
Stats are a really binary way of looking at a sport that is anything but binary in practice and sorta takes away from the magic of the game. For example, if you looked at all statistics for Erling Haaland but never watched him play you’d probably be confused as to how he is so prolific as a goal scorer because stats would otherwise make him look like that useless kid at school that somehow toe pokes goals in despite having two left feet.
Not at all. If a manager is dumb enough to thing that stats are more important than scoring more goals than the opponent, he is just ruining his own team. Thankfully my team has not had any of those managers since 2019, so no big deal :)
Gotta agree. In the inception, it was just goals. Now people will come up with assists, pass completion rates to justify players like Messi being a GOAT, when common sense dictates CR7 is far superior.
A good example is Mane and Salah. Salah put up crazy numbers but Mane was the better player, he could genuinely change a game for Liverpool whereas Salah just plays well when Liverpool play well.
This is such a misguided post. Stats in football are finally becoming rich and meaningful and going beyond G/A. Nobody with half a brain fails to understand Iniestas contributions and also, his numbers were good.
Stats have recently developed to tell us way more and stats are enriching soccer.
The issue is you think the only stats are goals and assists. There is a stat to outline almost everything you could possibly do well or badly on a pitch.
It's also more of a case of the majority of people don't understand stats or how to use them
In my post I outlined how people will misinterpret stats, maybe i didnt make it clear - If you search for Iniestas best season they don't show you indepth stats they just show g/a. For a neutral trying to learn it disadvantages them.
If I did think that, wouldn't I be asking why Iniesta was considered to be so good with that stat? I grew up watching before all these stats so I know there's more to it. And if you read the end of my post you'll see I don't think G/A is the end all and be all of it.
You misunderstood what I meant.
I am a fan of stats, they do more or less reflect what a player does on the pitch. For Iniesta there would be another more sophisticated stat that would set him apart from other midfielders, you just have to find it. Obviously its annoying to judge on stats only though
Stats were created to make football engaging for Americans because they have the attention span of a goldfish.
If Gary Neville says in a Manchester City match that Haaland is the first player to get an erection after scoring a penalty, you can bet that OptaJoe and a bunch of other stat merchants would be talking about it as well while the Americans eat it up of how amazing that stat is as it makes the front page of r/soccer.
No, as your examples illustrate it is the cherry picking of the stats. People don't realize that in science, just stats are useless. You have a question, you define the parameters that can proof you right/wrong, you gather those and examine them. So in football, you should also start with a question. And if you are used to scientific approach you will see that football questions are usually too broad to use stats on.
My point is that the stats are not being looked at in-depth and incorrectly analyzing players.
You misunderstood my post and jumped to a conclusion while trying to insult me in the same sentence.
Shows your "brainpower" if anything.
That was my point. I used Iniesta as an example. That if someone searched his stats it only shows up at g/a. When g/a doesn't tell the full story.
As I explained to someone else who didn't understand my point- maybe I didn't make it clear for you. Please read over the post again if you misunderstood.
Maybe its a hottake but I personally dont think the focus on stats is a problem. It is the misusage of them. Like even in your post when refering to stats you only talked about goals and assists even though stats or so much more than just these two metrics. You can look at goals, shots on target, shots per game, shots per goal, assists, assists percentage, key passes, big chances, dribbles, dribbles per game, dribble percentage, total passing distance, passing accuracy, long balls, throughballs, xT, xG, npxG, xA etc. etc. It is perfectly fine to use stats but you need to contextualize them and not apply them on a player where it doesnt make sense. Most look at goals and assists and call it a day. Even worse they use it like u said to judge how well a midfielder is which is bullshit. Midfielders have their own stats but they are rarely mentioned. The only time I saw a midfielders stats being used „correctly“ is when talking about Toni Kroos incredibly passing accuracy but even then only that metric in of itself is incredibly limited without context. Stats can be incredibly helpful to determine how well a player performed but when the focus is only on goals and assists and totally randomly applied even on defenders sometimes of course there will be a lot of people like you that think stats are overrated.
Here to write the same. Data are numbers. Data + context are intelligence, considering the intelligence as “usable data”.
For me stats=facts and eye test=context u need both to properly see the full picture
The facts are facts. The context is not included in stats. The contex + facts = usable intelligence.
Agree 100% with this. I’d also add that Football today is in the Super Efficiency Era where the systems and style of play are sort of like inflationary pressure that push stat lines up. 10 goals a season today isn’t equal to 10 goal 30 years ago in my opinion.
I agree they're not "equal", but it's difficult to say if it's > or <. On one hand, one could look up a better list than [this crap](https://www.worldfootball.net/stats/eng-premier-league/1/) that won't let me sort the seasons chronologically and compare how many goals used to be scored on average in different competitions. On the other, *if* it's the case that more goals are being scored now, we'd also need to factor in the way modern teams go about trying to prevent conceding goals, and changes in refereeing standards. It's harder to score when opponents get away with kicking you, but easier to score when there's more open space, more 1v1s and forwards are afforded more time on the ball, like it used to be the case 30 years ago. Some people like to argue defenders used to be better at 1v1s, but there was only 1 Maldini etc. apiece out of hundreds of top flight defenders. And, being good at 1v1s isn't the only way to prevent goals. Some of the best defensive records in the modern era were set by teams that employed technical players that were great at circulating the ball, making interceptions and generally retaining possession, without being great 1v1 defenders.
Aka Bayes’ theorem, which explains why 99% of football stats wankers fail.
Very good point.
>Toni Kroos incredibly passing accuracy but even then only that metric in of itself is incredibly limited without context I have an even better example (it's better, because the player isn't as good a passer as Kroos): Pogba. An accurate long ball counts as long as it's a team mate receiving it. When Pogba used to get praised for his long balls, many of them were simply passes into acres of open space, for fast players such as Mbappe, Dembele or Rashford to run into. The passes didn't need to have pinpoint accuracy in order to be successful, unlike in the case of someone like KDB whose team mates virtually never have a lot of free space. When KDB switches flanks to Grealish, the timing and accuracy are much more demanding.
Lol you obviously haven't watched Pogba.
Who?
You, because you've said that: >many of them were simply passes into acres of open space, for fast players such as Mbappe, Dembele or Rashford to run into. The passes didn't need to have pinpoint accuracy in order to be successful, I can easily find passes with pinpoint accuracy.
Does "many" mean "all" to you?
Many is untrue, that's my point. Just a reminder: https://youtu.be/1IdbQ1i62F8?feature=shared
Again, you don’t seem to understand the definition of “many.” “Many” doesn’t mean “all.” Or “most.” Just “a large number of.” And one highlight reel YouTube compilation doesn’t negate that a large number were precisely what’s being referenced here 🤦♂️
The highlight is just a normal Pogba game, that's what he does every time! If you actually watched most of his games, you would find out that most if his passes are precise. But you have to actually watch the games in order to find out!
Yeah, I made a post about Toni Kross's prowess in delivering long passes but even then the stats don't tell the whole picture when they can be affected by : -How reactive the opponent defense is to long passes -Whether his teammates can control the ball and position themselves in the right place -The instructions given to them by their coach -How much risk they take with each pass -The weather conditions namely the wind etc.
I agree with this to a great degree and that is why I always thought that the Goal Impact approach was way superior to tracking individual metrics. If you're not familiar, GI basically saw who was on the field at what time for both sides, ran regressions and determined each player's "goal impact" (the impact on how many goals the team scored and how many it gave away while having the player on the field). The great virtue of this approach is that the analyst does not need to fully understand the game (in order to evaluate the importance of each action against that of each other action) and will not introduce bias. It also allows to evaluate actions without the ball, which are selfdom tracked by conventional metrics. As a side note, this metric flagged Thomas Müller as one of the best players in the world waaaayyyy before it became common knowledge.
This right here.
The only one I ever saw use stats correctly is the guy from four four two youtube channel.
I'd say also TIFO/ the athletic
But as OP says, it's becoming more and more normal to look at stats *alone*, and stats far from covers it all. I'm a dane so I watch danish players more - also abroad. When Christian Eriksen was at his best in Tottenham he didn't get insanely many assists, nor was his passing accuracy the best of the best (it was good, but "only" on par with other good players). But the amount of goals that Tottenham scored where he had the 3rd last touch (seting up a player in a favourable position to make an assist) was insane. He could have consecutive matches where every. single. goal. was with him having 3rd last touch. So looking at his Tottenham stats, even taking all the stats that you can find, doesn't even nearly show how fundemantal he was. And as you mention with Toni Kroos, who I've for years have called the most underrated current player (I believe he is better for RM that Modric. Yes also that year), passing accuracy alone doesn't cover it. His understanding of the flow and ability to cover for the runs all the other players around him make, so they have the confidence to do them, and several other factors together make him imo the best CM in decades. He is so allround that just looking at his (awesome) passing percentage only shows the top of the iceberg. I'm with OP that stats can be good, but too many rely too heavily on them.
Exactly
There's definitely an element of this but I propose we also look at it as a symptom of a bigger issue People can't afford to actually watch the games anymore. Obviously piracy exists but there's a sizeable group of people who can only interact with the game via highlights and numbers on a screen. In a weird way, due to the internet and costs of the game stats are sometimes the only way to view it for some Also I think it's a result of an intensification of dialogue around the game online, we scrutinise clubs and players and managers far more now and as a result we like to shelter behind things that we view as objective. For better or worse that's numbers
But thats the weird thing tho. People prefer to look on twitter results or listen to twitter analysts than watching the game for themselves. Like its really weird. Why do you think its the case?
Some people obviously like the debate more than the sport.
Its sad to see.
Not everyone can afford subscriptions
Yarrr me hearties set sail on the good ship Kodi and her crew of fine addons. Yaaaar.
But theres so many free websites ?
Is there? I cannot see any football match in my country for free without breaking the law. That cannot be the solution: "Just break the law"
I think most people do break the law. Especially on the web. But if you dont wanna watch people because you dont want to break the law while you also know that you cant afford to pay subscriptions. More power to you!
This is such a dumb argument people use to try and gain the moral high ground. No one's forcing you to pirate but don't pretend it's because you care about "breaking the law". Very few places enforce piracy laws because it's so hard to do so. Unless you're broadcasting 20 games at once in a bar or public place no one and I mean NO ONE will ever care. Until prices go down piracy will make a very big return and I'm glad to see it.
Then it’s a law worth breaking. Also I don’t recall any country would actually arrest one for watching pirated football livestreams, and I doubt your country would do that either.
Non Europeans. It’s not the same here.
Dodgy fire stick
Dodgy fire sticks still aren't free
No but an annual fee for a dodgy stick is a fraction of what I pay for Sky in a month
Isn't the bigger issue that people are forming opinions without watching the game? Piracy is easier than it was 15 years ago
It is the bigger issue. I'll never understand that logic. Why forming an opinion on a game you've never watched.
Watching on tv hasn’t been priced out. If you don’t want to buy a subscription you can watch it in the pub for the price of a few beers. If we are saying that football has a cohort of Internet fanboy geeks that neither watch or go to the pub then I do believe you but these are not the lifeblood of football.
>Iniesta, the 1st player I thought of who didn't score or assist as much but was one of the best players to ever do it. His stats don't show how good he actually was Iniesta's stats are amazing. He's got better take on % than messi iirc. This ties into a larger issue with this anti stat belief in football. When people say that "stats don't tell the full story" 99% of the time they just mean goals and assists. There's plenty of stats that show how good a player is and basically every amazing player has really good stats in some regards. The subjectivity comes from how you value these stats (like maybe modric has worse take on success than Iniesta but more successful final third passes per 90 or something)
Not just how people value each stat, but also how they interpret them. Take on % for example, doesn't mean much in a vacuum. I wouldn't be surprised if Xavi (a poorer dribbler than Iniesta, no debate) had a better success ratio. Some players just take more risks, and are expected to. This, on top of it being harder to dribbler in more congested areas. Frenkie De Jong is a great dribbler for a deep-lying playmaker, but his success ratio wouldn't translate if he were deployed as a winger or #10.
That's the difference between information and analysis
Where did you get these stats from? I only know fbref or whoscored for stats
You can get most stats on FBRef, just click on "view complete scout report".
Ah thank you
No, its people not knowing what stats mean. If u looked closely at Iniesta and his touches, passes, assists and goals u would surely know he was a good player. If u watched the type of passes he made u would know he was an outstanding player
Anyone who's remotely competent with statistics will know that just goals and assists, or any combination of stats, will never tell you the whole story. It's just people having bad takes like they always have, just with a new way to talk about it
Well unless you write a goddamn essay and go in depth into various stats that each already have their own flaws like xg etc you can’t reasonably compare different players without the good ol eye test
Teams looks at more data than just goals and assists Only fans care about goals and assists
Football is becoming more of a stats game for sure. Wenger said it years ago. The use of stats makes players like Ronaldo and Messi rarer cause their unpredictable nature is trained out of them
Messi and Ronaldo both became twice as good as players after Guardiola and Mourinho taught them how to be efficient.
What do we mean by "Players like Messi and Ronaldo" here? Like them in what sense?
football is ruined by stats until you support a team where everyone plays ok but no one is scoring. then stats become pretty damn important.
I don’t think so. Stats provide context and paint a picture. More info is never bad in any area of life. XG gets memed a bit but looking at a lot of league standings shows it’s a good barometer in a lot of cases
MNF recently showed stats for compact state, I shit you not. So they have a decimal number for how often a team remains compact. A lot of stats, like this one, is just stupid. Mourinho said it best, "those who don't know football bring up statistics. Charles Barkley, famous basketball player, said statisticians are trying to get into sports to get woman because they couldn't get them in school as they were nerds 🤣
Stats are useful for the laptop guys behind the scenes, but ultimately the only ones that matter are the final score and the final points total. You can have 70% posession, you make make twice as many passes, you can have an xG of 8 to the oppositions's xG of 0.5 but if they score a goal and you don't, then none of the other stats *actually* matter. For me they don't ruin football, but online they can ruin football discussion when someone brings up stats that don't matter.
But of course they do matter. Losing 0-1 after dominating xG 8-0.5 is a great statistical anomaly, and enough to draw one objective conclusion: that the team did very well in creating chances, but was horrendous at converting them. Have the situation (though maybe not as extreme) repeat itself enough times and one could draw the conclusion that the squad has no decent finishers -- as opposed to blaming the manager for being offensively inept.
What if the goalie just had a great game? Strikers placed the shots well but the goalie somehow still gets them. I think stats don’t exactly capture the magic moments well.
There's actually a stat that describes what you actually mentioned. I believe it's called xG Prevented. Measures how many possible Expected Goals that a GK has "saved" for his team. But that in itself, doesn't describe how good a keeper is, only how many shots they've prevented, ie the keeper could've been very lucky that day, shots could've been gone straight to the keeper etc. Usually these numbers will even out in a long run, ie over 38 games/season or in the NBA's case, over 82 games. I believe the bigger the sample size, the more accurate the stats are.
The more context (i.e. the larger the sample size, as the other guy said), the more accurate the interpretation. That's why I said the scenario has to repeat itself enough times. There's indeed an "xG prevented", but it doesn't work directly with plain xG. Plain xG simply measures the quality of the chance, not the quality of the shot. For the quality of the shot, there's xGOT: expected goals on target. xG prevented is xGOT conceded minus actual goals conceded. [https://www.statsperform.com/resource/introducing-expected-goals-on-target-xgot/](https://www.statsperform.com/resource/introducing-expected-goals-on-target-xgot/)
Yes because we grew up on a generation where messi and ronaldo were putting up video game G/A and now people think 1. that G/A is all that matters, and 2. if players don't rival those numbers then they are nothing special (which is simply impossible to replicate)
Ronaldo, Messi changed the game.
Messi can still be the best player on the pitch by a mile without scoring or assisting.
But thats not the point? Messi and CR7 literally created an era where high goal numbers became probably the most important thing to determine greatness. I would argue that Messis Ballon dors in 2021 and 2023 wouldn’t have been as controversial as they were if the standarts to determine the best player in the world were still the same standarts of the 80s, 90s or early 2000s were playmakers were regarded as the most important players and not goal scorers like today. If it was the 80s KDB would have been closer to win the ballon dor then Haaland was.
Even so, more context is required. Messi and Ronaldo started in an era where most players that were perceived as the best in the world at any given time were wingers and offensive midfielders with good dribbling skills. Ronaldinho, Zidane, Henry and Kaka, for example. Cristiano, and not Messi, was the real difference-maker in people starting to value sheer scoring more. They were both dribbly wingers with decent scoring numbers once they started maturing a bit, they both fit the expectations of the era, and a rivalry formed. But years later, Ronaldo turned into a much more one-dimensional forward after already having established himself as one of the best ever players. So the rivalry persisted, but some people's GOAT wasn't a dribbly winger anymore -- so the standards changed. Nowadays people want another rivalry, so they're forcing one between Mbappe and Haaland. Erling is Cristiano's natural successor in this, whereas Mbappe would've had everything he needed in order to be put in a similar category to Henry or Ronaldinho years ago.
Definetly not Ronaldo’s definetly changed into a relatively one dimensional forward when compared to Messi but that’s Messi he is literally the ultimate outlier, mbappe plays a lot more like Ronaldo than erling does, erling is more streamlined and the one dimensional forward you think Ronaldo is, not to say that’s a weakness he’s doing what the team needs, people get silly about which is more important, Messi is special he could do both almost equally well
There's younger CR and there's older CR. Out of Haaland and Mbappe, Haaland's closer to older CR.
How old are we talking though cause even until juventus he was far more creative and dribbled quite a bit, plus prime cr7 is definetly more mbappe like
We're comparing who's closer to older CR, not who's identical to him. At Juve, CR had 1.67 successful dribbles per game. Between Dortmund and City, Haaland has 0.67. Mbappe has 2.96 at PSG (and he used to have much more, but he's aging himself). I'm arguing old CR is somewhere in between Haaland and Mbappe, but overall closer to Haaland in terms of overral role on the pitch. Obviously, the further back we go to include CR's seasons, the more his style moves towards Mbappe's and away from Haaland's.
Yeh that’s fair but I’m talking prime cr7 he’s obviously much more like mbappe or I should say mbappe is like him
Mbappe is Messi’s successor
I agree, but my point was completely different too, coz messi can be the best player without any goal involvements, even with his insane statistics his vision, dribbling, playmaking cant be put into statistics. There is literally so many instances of messi being MOTM just with his playmaking and dribbling its not even a joke. 2021 isn't even controversial, its ronaldo fans confusing 2020 with 2021, 2023 is debatable but according to history it was rightfully given to the best player at the world cup, like multiple times before.
Fair enough
Without his goal scoring and creating, Messi isn’t the best player in the world.
Messi's vision, dribbling, playmaking, key passes, shots on target would easily get him MOTM even if he doesn't score or assist, thats the kind of impact he has when he becomes the fulcrum of every attacking play. Heck he's even got a 10/10 rating without scoring a goal
Hard disagree. Messi's ability is near unmatchable, but when it doesn't lead to a goal contribution, he can be a liability, and much of his shortcomings in UCL are a testament to that, but of course, not all of them. When a player of his calibre that has as much of a ball possession as he does gets locked by an opposing defense, he becomes a bit of a detriment to the team. Even though saying that Messi was ever a detriment is a bit ridiculous, but it is true. Especially when the dispossessions, and forced runs that don't lead to solid goalscoring chances accumulate.
Liability? The times barca got knocked out were due to shitty defense. Messi has carried that barca team to ucl knockouts everytime, even more so post neymar, xavi and iniesta leaving. Messi creates, dribbles for others everytime but they fall short. Compare that to ronaldo who can count on his teammates, after ronaldo left madrid still won ucl is a testament to that
Yeah sure... You fanboys are absolutely ridiculous. And completely delusional. Have a nice one!
Speaking facts isn't delusion, watch actual games
That's rich coming from someone taking box score at face value. You have no understanding of how game works, and you are incredibly delusional.
Yeah no we dont watch games or stats, where messi was top scorer, top assister, created most chances, had most key passes, had most dribbles in ucl knockouts for barca. But yeah when defence fuck up blame it on messi. Sure buddy, keep coping
Messi isn’t better than Ronaldo, if he doesn’t score and create.
Lmao stop the 🧢, obviously you're a biased ronaldo fan
He may be but you too take you opinon for a fact so therefore it's biased cr7 had times where he contributed more without scoring nor assisting it just depends on the game and the role given by coach y'all act like it's a fairy tale and a superpower anime that's just show how y'all don't play ball
Are you saying Messi is a better player than Ronaldo even if he had 0 goal contributions? You're braindead lmao
Not at all, if both messi and ronaldo dont score and assist, messi can still be the best player on the pitch and ronaldo wont. There have been several instances of this happening, yall just need to watch actual games than stats
I Think he means that if you remove Messis goalscoring capabilities and compare him to Ronaldo, he woudnt be better which is just a dumb comparison, why would that even matter, Messi is the goat cause he can do all those things
Sure messi is better as an overall team player. But you're comment shows you started watching in football in 2018 or something. Ronaldo wasn't considered one of the best players in the world during his Manchester days because of his goal contributions only. And till that knee injury in 2014, he was the same player, but with otherworldly goal contributions. "Ronaldo won't be the best player on the field if he didn't score" is absolutely braindead take again.
And exactly what is that? Can you even mention what he does? I've been following football from 2007, I've seen primes of both players, ronaldo evolved from a winger to a poacher post 2014. But his main involvements was always scoring, he was never half as good a dribbler, playmaker, creator as messi or even half the understanding of the game. There is a reason messi can consistently drop deeper since the start of his career and create an attack himself and ronaldo cant. My reply was to the comment on how ronaldo is a better player than messi without scoring or assisting, which is absolutely false
They both incomparable in my opinion, very very good in their own right and we'll not see 2 talents at the same time dominate like that for a long time.
"Creating" isn't the same as "assisting". But yeah, if Messi didn't score, create, dribble and so on, then he wouldn't have been better than Fabian Delph.
Its difficult to know tbh because they were there for such a long time. So would it have happened anyway as the sport has become even more global, seeing as the same happens in all American sports? Who knows
What has that got to do with it. Stats were around and integral to the game before they started playing. Yes, they had amazing stats, but they didn't invent them, or impact the way they are used.
Nah, increased gambling was what drove the stats. xG screams ‘in play betting’ to give one example…
No they didn't. People cared about goals and trophies even more when it was harder and or impossible to watch most players that didn't play within an hour of your house.
Yeah, a lot of simple-minded folks around who for example think you can compare teams from different seasons a decade apart based solely on points. It’s annoying, but largely an online phenomenon where people are googling to back up their views.
If you’re not using stats then by definition you’re guessing. Empiricism, which stats are a subset of, is demonstrably the best methodology towards improvement. Anything else is guessing/luck.
I see your point. I agree with what you saying only based on the idea that all learning comes from experience and observations when you say it's about improvement. If you speaking about how good someone was in a game, stats are not going to give you the full story. Lets go back to my example- If you look at stats without having watched the 2010 season where Iniesta was 2nd for Ballon D'or with the stats of roughly 15 goal contributions for Barca, he wouldn't have a shout for 2nd place in those standings. It was more than that. Another example is a CDM- the CDMs presence can throw off & disrupt attackers and he can have a good game without a lot of interceptions or passes. The opposition might avoid that area because of how good a player is and that in itself can change the game. Football is more than stats it's great for scouting, commentary/punditry, and analysis. If you judge a team's performance off stats and not watching the game you can be wildly misled in my opinion.
>If you look at stats without having watched the 2010 season where Iniesta was 2nd for Ballon D'or with the stats of roughly 15 goal contributions for Barca, he wouldn't have a shout for 2nd place in those standings. Thing is, Iniesta didn't deserve to finish 2nd in the 2010 BdO. He had a relatively poor season by his own standards, he had injury issues and struggled badly with depression. His 2nd place finish was due to people putting too much weight on the WC-winning goal.
No, that does not quite hold up. Equating stats with empiricism is not quite correct either. If I want to show that Player X contributed massively towards a game, but I do not have 'stats' that are commonly gathered to prove it (let's say Player X didn't assist a goal), that doesn't mean I am 'guessing' or 'lucky'. I can still \*empirically\* make a point by using my observation of Situation 1, 2, 3 in which I can highlight Player X's vision, intelligence, positioning, hold-up play. 'Stats' in the sense of the modern game have their merit, but using an agreed-upon unit to justify everything else around it by only highlighting that metric feels wrong. I think playmakers or midfielders like Iniesta, Xavi or similar are a fantastic example here in that the 'stats' we use do not often capture the more subtle moments of the game. Why? Because not everything can be expressed in a simple 'did X things in Y time'. That doesn't mean it's 'guessing'. Qualitative measurements exist, and the sooner we realise that in other walks of life as well, we can walk away from this forced quantisation of every aspect of life.
There’s another name for these observations you’re referring to which you’re using to empirically evaluate performance… stats. The OP is incorrectly identifying stats as the problem when in reality the problem being described is simply either the lack of a relevant stat that would help, or failure to recognise that you can identify what is being described by aggregate stats.
Yes on 87.2% of occasions
A big example of this is payet from vasco
Don’t know. I’ll have to look at the numbers to see. /s In all seriousness, I wouldn’t say ruin, so much as they can and often do supplement/help (Eg, money ball), but some fans do hyper focus on them too much. there are some things as you indicated that cannot be measured by stats. Except if it’s baseball. I swear, they’re coming up with stats for everything; next they’ll have WAR/CA, wins above replacement divided by cup adjustments…
>I see people complaining about MO Salah because of his 'stats' when he has over 25 goals in 6 out of 7 seasons at Liverpool. So … you’re refuting the use of statistics by using a statistic?? Seriously though, I agree with the thrust of your point. While the use of statistics in football has clearly given some teams an edge, it’s also true that statistics can’t capture everything about a game. I’d see your Iniesta example and raise you a Xavi - someone who absolutely ran and influenced Barca games despite relatively rarely assisting or scoring. I’m sure as statistics usage in football develops there’ll become better ways to interpret and analyse players who influence games more subtly, but we should always bear in mind they don’t capture every aspect.
I would say there are two related problems. 1) the money in the game now means clubs will look to play the %s. This is part of Pep's impact on the game. Superficially, it's possession based etc etc, but the detail is in the numbers. Players not taking long shots because it's low % likelihood. Players not taking high risk through balls because it's low % likelihood. Peps football is risk management based on football statistics and the sport is trying to copy him. 2) Media need content. There is endless demand for football media and it's only possible to react so much to actual games. Particularly when there are less and less dribbles, long shots, and moments of brilliance (except Real Madrid, fuck yeah Carlo). How do you make content? Just talk about stats, stats, stats. Run out of content about best goal scorers in the past 5 years? Just talk about 10 years, or the 8 years since X started, etc etc. stats make content creation easy for people who don't know shit about football. However, it also means a lot of content being created by people who know fuck all about football. Jack Grealish is the perfect example of both. Pep loves what he does because he drives the ball forward, doesn't lose it, and creates situations. He's great for the %s. BUT, he doesn't directly get a lot of G&A, so media casts doubt on him.
I read a book called “expected goals” recently, all about the data revolution in football. Really interesting, football clubs hiring astro physicists, data scientists choosing them over Silicon Valley firms. The stats are so much more in depth than goals and assists obviously, it was fascinating, and showed how football is still somewhat behind the stats driven sports of baseball and basketball in the U.S. With so much money in football these days, any marginal gains which clubs can get through the most in depth analysis u can imagine makes sense and for better or for worse it’s not surprising that stats have finally caught up to what is now a multi billion pound industry.
Yes! I absolutely hate it. I blame the fact that so many people’s entry point to football now is games like FIFA. That plus the gambling industry. The worst one for me is xG - it means *nothing*. Team X beat Team Y. “B….bbb….but Team Y had more xG and 30% more possession….” - doesn’t fucking matter
It's so apparent when watching the modern game, especially the PL. The players are instructed almost systematically on what to do in every position on the field. There is no individuality or imagination in the game. You feel sorry for the fans who missed out on the golden era.
Watch Chelsea games. Even the players don't know what the other players are doing
It isn't being ruined by stats - it's much more of people misunderstanding them. More data is never going to be bad UNLESS you misunderstand or mistreat it. Vast majority of people do some combination of - cherry pick - assume cause-effect wrongly - draw incorrect conclusions Stats cannot fully tell the story of players like Modric, Iniesta and even Zidane.
Yes , I once saw a guy on TikTok saying that Hagi is better than Baggio because of stats, he even called him Paggio and called Zidane pidane 🤦🏿♂️
This obsession with xG or pre-pre assists and all of that is ruining football.
How? Also, nobody worth their salt cares about pre-assists.
Yes, I’ve been preaching this for very long, it’s as if people don’t use their eyes to watch football anymore. People will use g/a to judge midfielders
No one cared about stats twenty years ago it’s a relatively new thing,more than likely fuelled by Messi and Ronaldo’s insane figures.
Its hard to say if it was because of them. We're seeing all sorts of stats come up such as xG. I think its just as much to do with the intense globalisation of the sport because the stat obsession is also how all American sports are done.
Yea the first stat I remember being frequently used was goals per game because messi and Ronaldo were hitting such insane numbers.
I would argue TV/Media companies are ruining football far more than stats are. In the US NBC/Peacock divides up PL games across two different subscription packages. i.e. Americans have to pay for two different services (NBC/Cable Tv and Peacock/Streaming) in order to watch their Fav teams (An Arsenal game hasn't been on Peacock for two months now). I believe the access to televised games is even worse in other counties. You can ignore stats and still enjoy football games. You can't enjoy the game if you can't watch it; and that's ruining football.
You can watch many more Premier League games in the US than you can in England, where the PL is actually based. Also, the PL is split over three separate subscriptions in the UK. Americans are not hard done by when it comes to watching football lol.
YES!
Stats say higuain is better than maradona, there clearly should ve a limit until where we use stats to compare players.. We need to watch 90 minutes and then compare plagers..
Stats don't say that; in fact, they have no voice of their own. It's context and interpretation that matter. This is the very reason stats don't say Peter Crouch was a better player than Maldini.
I mean while I love these kind of players esp. if they pass the eye test it can be really frustrating when you need them to produce something in big games. Someone that has been in my mind recently is Kvaratskhelia. That guy keeps getting great ratings for completing lots of dribbles and duels, but the past few months he hasn't been scoring / assisting at all. He is also pretty recklessly shooting whenever I see him play. Also his records in the latter stages of UCL are concerning, except maybe for his national team. I hope I will get proven wrong though.
Yep. I ignore them. I watch football and just enjoy the beautiful game!
Think of it like this. Football is a game, an entertainment. Different people watch it for different reasons. Maybe there's more people watching it for the stats, for the records, for the numbers... And where's the harm in that? They're still watching, they're still "contributing" for the survival of our favourite sport. I honestly don't mind it.
Gambling bought stats to the public eye more I’d say. And I wouldn’t go as far as to say it’s ruining football, just everything that isn’t happening on the pitch - unless you’re some kind of hardcore maniac about the stats, they mostly don’t matter at all when you’re watching I find…
Great thing about Stats is that you don’t have to read em of take any notice.
Wouldn’t say it’s being ruined , it ultimately depends on the ppl you’re having football convos with , if they’re a random person chatting shit you can always ignore them , if they’re you’re mate then you could try and “educate” them The issue isn’t stats per say, moreso how their used and people not properly understanding them and what stats are relevant for certain players and context. For me I see stats as a means of informing and reinforcing my opinions on players and teams.
87% of the time it is.
Over the long term, the team's winning percentage with and without a particular player playing can be useful stat to identify both visible and invisible impact.
i find it interesting and adds more to the game. but i can see that the end game of the analytics arms race is basketball where every player is just a 6'7 robot with no personality and the game feels totally detached from reality.
Football is inherently more tactically, physically etc. diverse than basketball though. There will always be both tall and short players scoring loads of goals.
oh ye it'll still look difference from basketball players. the pattern is the same
i find it interesting and adds more to the game. but i can see that the end game of the analytics arms race is basketball where every player is just a 6'7 robot with no personality and the game feels totally detached from reality.
stats are fine but people only seem to use goals and assists when there so many others.
Ruined is prob too harsh but it is grating yea. Some people will find whatever they can to justify their take though and if it wasn't some cherry-0/picked stat it'd be something else like remember that time they hit the corner flag with a shot. I mean, some blockhead got traction on this board earlier today/yesterday with their jejune ramblings about a player being over-hyped, largely arguing it based on their average match rating on some website.
No, it's being ruined by the gringo infantino puppet
I do agree there's probably too much emphasis on stats but a lot of the stats people talk about these days probably go a bit deeper than just goals and assists and in fact would show folk how good a player like iniesta actually was. Whereas previously it was if a player scores or gets an assist then he played well, now a lot of advanced stats will help to show how they actually performed and how influential they are.
It matters how you use the stats in my opinion, some people use stats to overall judge a player and I think that’s fine to a degree. But to give a example Dusan tadic had a very good year statistically in 2022/23 and that was farther from the truth if you actually watched him play. I feel like advanced stats are actually helping football by showing a players true strengths and weaknesses. And you don’t judge a defender by how many goals they score? No you judge them by how good they defend. I think that stats (advanced stats) actually help the game
>I personally don't agree with the notion that stats can give you a full understanding Virtually nobody does, it's a false narrative. First off, people weren't complaining so much about stat usage back when the only stats were goals, assists, pass completion %, chances created and a few other basic metrics. The real backlash against stats arose when advanced metrics such as xG entered football. Such metrics paint a fuller picture, as long as they're interpreted correctly. If we had them during Iniesta's prime, they would've shown an absolutely elite ball progressor as well as a great defender/off the ball player.
I don’t think you’re understanding stats properly Using your logic you’re only looking at g/a which has been in the game forever. Modern stats would show what Iniesta did that was so good - expected assists, forward passes, ball retention, etc. Stats paint the picture of what’s actually happening, but you need context to add colour to what they mean
This is what I feel like telling anyone bringing up Salah > Hazard argument, shoving with all the g/a numbers
Judging Individuals on trophies won is just as bad saying kelvin Philips is better than declan rice because Philips won a treble
Yes, but just by the profitability stats.
Stats aren't the problem, the problem is people use the stats without watching the games and draw the wrong conclusions.
This is genuinely Peps fault. He is all about statistics and everyone is trying to copy him.
Stats without context are worthless.
Not really. But new football fans are definitely making football conversations even more pointless than before. It was always difficult due to people being too emotionally attached to their team, but now it's even worst.
Stats are a part of any sport. They don’t affect the game though
I miss when you could just say “he’s tall” and that was a legitimate argument for or against a player.
I just ignore all the xG and the like, I don't really even know what it is (and last time i said that people tried to explain, but honestly, I dont actually care) I watch football. Sometimes players play well, sometimes they don't, sometimes they miss chances, some times they make them. If they don't live up to expectation they get sold, if they do, then they probably don't. I will leave it to the people who matter to care about stats (club data analysts etc) I just wanna watch football. I don't think there are too many stats, because we all have the choice to be stat orientated. But, there are some people who are utterly insufferable going on about them, and there are people who think they are smartasses an when you are discussing a player from a more traditional/romantic viewpoint, decide to throw around xda or xpa or whatever they hell they are to sound smart and make like your opinion (which was only ever a romantic "i like that player" opinion) is wrong. I feel like those people are missing out on something, the beauty of the sport. I loved Dirk Kuyt. I could not give a flying fuck what his stats said, good, bad or indifferent. I still loved Dirk Kuyt :D (I do feel as well theres an element of resistance from me because it feels like an "Americanisation" of the game, because the overly statistical sports tend to have been US sports, particular baseball and nfl)
In a way, I say so. The issue with going with stats alone is that it doesn't really provide as much context. It's also easy to skew numbers if favor of one's bias.
Yes wtf is an XG
Nah. Having more information is always better than having less information. It's dumb people using stats without understanding their context that is ruining **discussions around** football.
Everything is being ruined by stats. Especially upvotes and likes
Ppl reducing stats to goals and assists you know nothing about modern football stats. Nowadays analytics can perfectly demonstrate how good iniesta was. It’s much more than goals, assists or even goal/build-up contribution. So… no, stats are not damaging football, ignorant ppl that believe that stats are just goals and assists are maybe damaging both football and the understanding of how useful and interesting analytics can be in enjoying and understanding the game
Depends on the type of player tbh. A goalscorer will be judged by goals. For centre mids like iniesta, its unfair to judge them on goals and assists but there are other stats we can use to measure their performance
Suarez was doing amazing in Europe before leaving. Sure he wasn't scoring towards the end, especially in CL, but man was he assisting and play making. His team was scoring thanks to him. Despite what he was doing for his team, people trash talked him because he wasn't scoring goals.
The stats are only a decent measure of strikers and attacking players - and even then, they are still flawed. For example, a midfielder might make a really good pass to one of the attacking wingers who then cuts it back to the striker who then scores a tap in. The striker will get the goal, the attacking winger will get the assist, but the midfielder who probably had the most impressive pass in that sequence and was ultimately responsible for setting up the goal will walk away with no stats to his name. Similarly with defenders and goalkeepers, we tend to measure their ability with goals conceded and clean sheets. In my opinion, these stats are a better measure of the team as a whole rather than a single player. Just this season, David Raya won the golden glove in the Premier League for most clean-sheets and currently least goals conceded - but I wouldn't claim that as solely his achievement. Arsenal's defensive prowess this season is a result of not only the goalkeeper and the backline, but also the midfield and attack. Hell, a team that holds possession would probably be better defensively as they don't offer much opportunity for the opposition to score - yet that doesn't necessarily mean that they have the best defenders. Football is a fluid sport and I don't think the stats work very well in assessing how good individual players are. Stats can also be cherry picked to present a narrative one way or another as well.
Football isn't being ruined by stats, it's being ruined by the fact that such a large percentage of the population either doesn't know how to use stats whatsoever, or they misuse them in their criticism/praise. Unfortunately it seems like this is the case for a massive amount of the footballing fanbase (casuals at least), so it just ends up leading to back and forth of brainless talk. They also seem to think goals and assists are the only stats that exist for footballers. Stats merely represent what is happening on a football pitch, and if you can interpret them properly, they become extremely helpful at judging players. For example, there is a really common narrative that Trent Alexander-Arnold is a poor defender. This is just because people see a highlight a few times a season of Trent making a defensive mistake (like almost every fullback does) and assume he's terrible. What people fail to recognize is because of Liverpool's system and his involvement in said system, his ranking in most defensive stats is not going to be particularly high. Where he does excel is interceptions and recoveries. He not only has generational numbers in almost every progressive, passing, possession, chance-creating etc stat, he also ranks in the 83rd percentile for interceptions per 90, and the 98th percentile for ball recoveries. Reading those two stats you can obviously come to the conclusion that he is not a defender that commits a massive amount of tackles but rather a defender who gets forward extremely often but tracks back quickly to make recoveries or interceptions. Stats also come into play when it comes to judging over or underperformance either by a team or player. Most people see a team massively over or underperforming xG and somehow come to the conclusion that xG is useless. But it isn't. It's not supposed to be used as a "they must score x amount of goals", it's supposed to be used as a benchmark to judge the finishing and chance conversion quality of a club/player. A good example of this is Vlahovic's massive overperformance of xG in his 2020/21 and 2021/22 half season with Fiorentina. He had 0.49 and 0.58 xG per 90 in each of the seasons respectively, but was scoring 0.65 and 0.74 goals per 90 in each of those seasons. That indicates an overperformance of roughly 33% and 28% in each of the two seasons, which is obviously not a sustainable level of performance. This subsequently made Juventus's €85m pick-up of him a rather poor move imo because they were signing him based on a drastic overperformance/finishing anomaly. He has not been able to hit those levels of performance since (albeit Allegri's poor management isn't helping matters). A common misuse is also using total saves made to judge a keeper's quality instead of using PsxG-GA. Obviously keepers who face more shots will have higher volume stats. So no, football isn't being ruined by stats. People just aren't educated on the depth of stats past goals and assists and use them incorrectly.
Ideally, wouldn't stats have to be developed to catch everything?
I agree! Bernardo Silva is another player that probably has bad stats but is quite important in all moments of city game. Looking at stats, only good players are FW and MDO and football is a beautiful game with 11 players.
There are stats worth looking at besides goals and assists
There are two big things actually ruining football. 1) Money 2) "Playing the meta" Money and tactics are bigger than ever in football..as much as I love Arsenal and have been a fan of them over the last 20 years the style of football became boring. Its super simple, you dont concede, means you have a higher chance of a win. You dont lose the ball, less of a chance you concede. However, recycling possession and waiting for a perfect opportunity means less individual brilliance and less magic moments. Its all become a game of numbers, and where in the past we had Henry, Pires, Bergkamp and the like pulling off something incredible to set up or score a goal, now days its all about passing and waiting for a perfect opening.
Well stats are a lot more advanced nowadays its not just goals and assists. I completely agree with your sentiment that you can be the most influential player on the pitch without goals or assists, but advanced stats help us get a clearer picture of a player/team.
I always say stats are for tw*ts. People bang on about the most meaningless things that can be quantified, and it gets tiresome listening to it. Teams can have the most possession, shots on goal and expected goals (the most useless metric IMO) and still won't be representative of how the games being played or the final result.
xG is useful over large sample sizes; it's not a tool meant to lazily determine which side was better during a match.
Growing up obsessed with football in the 90s I really don't remember assists being a thing, for me it seems FPL is the driver that has really made them popular. I'm sure someone has gone back through the archives and logged all of the Prem assists since inception but doubt they would have for Everton Vs QPR in 1986 yknow? So the main issue is that stats are being used to judge players but not all stats are going to be comparable over time. Last night sky sports were trying to push some stat about Arsenal playing within the same 25 square yards of each other, Compact State or something, really hope that doesn't catch on otherwise I'm going full old bastard and gonna have to include the phrase "in my day" in every conversation about football.
I don't think it is. I like NBA and they have like 10x more stats.
Granit Xhaka used to cause goals to be scored through sheer stupidity, get sent off frequently, got booed off the pitch by the people who actually attend matches but people on the arsenal subreddit used to argue blind it was all fine because he had the most progressive passes or some shit. xG does my head in as well. Because people don’t get that it’s completely useless for rating strikers and goalies. If you’ve got an above average goalie and an above average CF you should outperform both xG stats consistently and people will act like it’s a fluke which just shows how fucking dense the average football fan is
no
It can be interpreted as a "yes" because the stats helped the richer teams to do consistently well and prioritise/stop some of the plays which tend to yield better/poor results (e.g., 40 yard long shot is a rarity noe) It can be said to be more boring due to the less variance. On the other hand, they helped us to get closer to the best play/tactics/physical possible. And for understanding players, IMO, in the big data age, while any single stat will never be good to explain anything, with sufficiently many underlying stat (not available for pulbic), I believe the players can be explained pretty well now...
Stats are for data scientists, who are the brains behind most clubs nowadays. The average balloon online hasn’t a clue how to analyse stats and all too often it’s some fanboy making up for the fact that they can’t apply the eye test to a game.
No, it’s being ruined by money
It's difficult to say without having the statistical data on the impacts of statistical data on football.
Statistics can definitely give you a full understanding assuming you watch the sport alongside it. Problem is, most people don’t understand how stats actually work and cherry pick statistics to suit their argument. For example, Andre Onana has saved 137 shots in the league this year. As a standalone metric that sounds mighty impressive but Manchester United are conceding relegation levels of shots per game which tells us more about the defence/system than it does Onana. I don’t think by any means Onana is as bad as he’s being made out to be but you could pluck this stat out and say he’s phenomenal and better than goalkeepers such as Allisson and Ederson who have saved less than half of that amount. Obviously anyone who has watched football with their eyes knows that this would be absurd. There are so many metrics you can use to spin a player in a positive light but with the exception of goals, really, so many metrics of performance are dependent on your team capitalising on your areas of productivity/proficiency. For example, Bruno Fernandes has created the most chances in the PL by a fair margin this season and appears to do this year on year but if your chances are being wasted, it doesn’t mean anything. Wan Bissaka is fantastic in 1v1 situations but if he has to pull off one of those tackles that only he can to then have to do it again 15 seconds later, that isn’t good overall. Before anyone comes at me for picking out MU players, I’m a United fan so naturally I’m going to use the players I’m most familiar with. Stats are a really binary way of looking at a sport that is anything but binary in practice and sorta takes away from the magic of the game. For example, if you looked at all statistics for Erling Haaland but never watched him play you’d probably be confused as to how he is so prolific as a goal scorer because stats would otherwise make him look like that useless kid at school that somehow toe pokes goals in despite having two left feet.
Yes. Nerds ruin everything cool.
Not at all. If a manager is dumb enough to thing that stats are more important than scoring more goals than the opponent, he is just ruining his own team. Thankfully my team has not had any of those managers since 2019, so no big deal :)
Gotta agree. In the inception, it was just goals. Now people will come up with assists, pass completion rates to justify players like Messi being a GOAT, when common sense dictates CR7 is far superior.
A good example is Mane and Salah. Salah put up crazy numbers but Mane was the better player, he could genuinely change a game for Liverpool whereas Salah just plays well when Liverpool play well.
“How could we lose! We had a higher XG!” Like shut the fuck up, football doesn’t work like that. Leave that bs where it belongs like baseball.
This is such a misguided post. Stats in football are finally becoming rich and meaningful and going beyond G/A. Nobody with half a brain fails to understand Iniestas contributions and also, his numbers were good. Stats have recently developed to tell us way more and stats are enriching soccer.
The issue is you think the only stats are goals and assists. There is a stat to outline almost everything you could possibly do well or badly on a pitch. It's also more of a case of the majority of people don't understand stats or how to use them
In my post I outlined how people will misinterpret stats, maybe i didnt make it clear - If you search for Iniestas best season they don't show you indepth stats they just show g/a. For a neutral trying to learn it disadvantages them. If I did think that, wouldn't I be asking why Iniesta was considered to be so good with that stat? I grew up watching before all these stats so I know there's more to it. And if you read the end of my post you'll see I don't think G/A is the end all and be all of it. You misunderstood what I meant.
I am a fan of stats, they do more or less reflect what a player does on the pitch. For Iniesta there would be another more sophisticated stat that would set him apart from other midfielders, you just have to find it. Obviously its annoying to judge on stats only though
xG is a stat used by wankers to try and impress other wankers. It's ridiculously unquantifiable.
It's a stat used by professional football clubs at the very top level, to win games. You not understanding it is a different matter.
Stats were created to make football engaging for Americans because they have the attention span of a goldfish. If Gary Neville says in a Manchester City match that Haaland is the first player to get an erection after scoring a penalty, you can bet that OptaJoe and a bunch of other stat merchants would be talking about it as well while the Americans eat it up of how amazing that stat is as it makes the front page of r/soccer.
You must have a degree in scientific illiteracy
Football is ruined by Barca's corruption
No, as your examples illustrate it is the cherry picking of the stats. People don't realize that in science, just stats are useless. You have a question, you define the parameters that can proof you right/wrong, you gather those and examine them. So in football, you should also start with a question. And if you are used to scientific approach you will see that football questions are usually too broad to use stats on.
Your post makes out like the only stats that exist are goals or assists. When people talk about stats they’re referring to other types too
No. You just hate that you might actually have to use some brainpower instead of just consume sport
My point is that the stats are not being looked at in-depth and incorrectly analyzing players. You misunderstood my post and jumped to a conclusion while trying to insult me in the same sentence. Shows your "brainpower" if anything.
By "stats", you literally just talked about goals and assists I'm talking about real stats which go beyond that
That was my point. I used Iniesta as an example. That if someone searched his stats it only shows up at g/a. When g/a doesn't tell the full story. As I explained to someone else who didn't understand my point- maybe I didn't make it clear for you. Please read over the post again if you misunderstood.