STAT ATTACK

no.. not really..

The English press seems obsessed with stats, and the OPTA thingy is just ridiculous.

Does the average English football fan actually believe you can tell anything from % tackles succesful or % passes completed? To me it is like comparing apples and pears.

I think passing can be important.

Not the amount you pass but the percentage you complete the pass. No point playing 5,000 passes if you are going to give 2,000 away.

Oleguerisntthatbad wrote:no.. not really..

The English press seems obsessed with stats, and the OPTA thingy is just ridiculous.

Does the average English football fan actually believe you can tell anything from % tackles succesful or % passes completed? To me it is like comparing apples and pears.

Nope i don't think so.
However the average Arsenal fan does

@ park imo they are bs half the time also, someone can pass it back to the defenders all the time and have a better rate than someone who is trying to make through balls....Yet the person making through balls is 10x the passer.

But it all depends on what position you play and the style of the team.. A CB better have a pass completion % that is 80-90% whereas a winger could be great yet still only manage 30%.. Also a Barcelona player has to have a higher % than say a Betis player since we play a possession game and they play counter attack..

You can't compare it across clubs.

Usually the players at the top of the passing stats are the better players - I think the top 5 last season were Scholes, Essien, Cesc, gilberto and carrick.

The % shots on target stat is also useful. It proves that Defoe is pants

Those stats say close to f@ck all. Especially the ones about passing.

Stats like this in sport is more of an American obsession. In particular for baseball where everything can be classified.

Football just doesn't lend itself that way - too many artefacts (statistical term for taints) that cloud the stat result.
Style, tactics, end product, build up, stats, team strategy. Not to mention how does one qualify vision or decision making? Or how to free up the defence or stretch for other forwards?
And stats would always make a DM the worst player on the pitch (bookings, tackles, no goals, assists etc).

Tweedle wrote:Usually the players at the top of the passing stats are the better players - I think the top 5 last season were Scholes, Essien, Cesc, gilberto and carrick.

The % shots on target stat is also useful. It proves that Defoe is pants

for the passing stats though you also have to factor in the way they are playing for a better team with better movement and therefore always more players available to pass to and less pressure on them from the opposition


stats are pretty much useless to try to go off

for the assists stats for example one player can go on a mazy run beating ten players, then he passes to someone who simply moves it on to someone else to tap into an empty net. the person who actually created the goal gets no credit towards it at all

Tweedle wrote:Usually the players at the top of the passing stats are the better players - I think the top 5 last season were Scholes, Essien, Cesc, gilberto and carrick.

The % shots on target stat is also useful. It proves that Defoe is pants

I can disprove the shots on target stat if you want me too.

I agree on the assists stat - the passing stat I think is useful though and the goals stat is also pretty valid

Do you pay much attention to the number of times fouled stat? I actually like that one.. it gives an indication of who is the key player and/or who likes to dribble.

Stats can be manipulated to fit arguments but i do believe they can at times be beneficial in football, hence the use of Prozone.

DD wrote:

Tweedle wrote:Usually the players at the top of the passing stats are the better players - I think the top 5 last season were Scholes, Essien, Cesc, gilberto and carrick.

The % shots on target stat is also useful. It proves that Defoe is pants

I can disprove the shots on target stat if you want me too.

Well, no takers...

The shot on target only counts the shots you took (on target). Generally its good statistic and guide.

Shots on target is a good thing but not if their bad shots, like:
1) A striker who has a weak shot gets it on target but can't actually get it past the keeper.
2) A striker who shoots on target, but is a blaster type of striker who's devoid of subtlety, but however also often hits the keeper, as he can't be bothered to aim it past the keeper or isn't even capable to (Cisse).

In those cases you'd rather have a striker who has the ability to finish (i.e., good touch) rather than one who has a better on target ratio.


Even goal/shot percentage (a generally better marker for strikers) doesn't tell the whole story in certain situations and it can make a good striker look bad.
Finishing percentage
1) A good striker is supposed to have most of his shots on target and have a finshing of about 33% (1 in 3). Thus he must at least try to finish the balls he's supplied. However, if a striker also make something out of nothing he will finsh that chance once in 5 times (because those are more difficult).
Thus striker A is a good finsher and scores 10 out of 30 balls, he'll have a 33% average finshing
Striker B is a good finisher, but can also make something out of nothing:
He scores 10 out of 30 balls, but makes something out of nothing 10 times but finishes 2 of those chances. As a result his finishing % will be (12 in 40) 30%, thus lower than striker A's 33%, even though striekr B is by far the better striker.

So you see.
Stats only tell part of the story, but doens't lend themselves well to exceptions (which football is filled with).
That was a simple but clear example.

Oleguerisntthatbad wrote:
Does the average English football fan actually believe you can tell anything from % tackles succesful or % passes completed? To me it is like comparing apples and pears.

You can tell something from these stats - you can tell what percentage of tackles were successful or passes were completed. You can't tell much more than that. Breaking down football to statistics shows the problem of reducing anything in the world to mathematics - it doesn't tell the whole story and sometimes can be incredibly misleading.

Oleguerisntthatbad wrote:Do you pay much attention to the number of times fouled stat? I actually like that one.. it gives an indication of who is the key player and/or who likes to dribble.

There's a similar one called "abused" which is number of times fouled leading to an opponent being booked or sent off, which is pretty interesting.

Gronkjaer used to be the king of this, nowadays it's Essien (at CFC).

Oleguerisntthatbad wrote:no.. not really..

The English press seems obsessed with stats, and the OPTA thingy is just ridiculous.

Does the average English football fan actually believe you can tell anything from % tackles succesful or % passes completed? To me it is like comparing apples and pears.

Stats has no value. They get value if you know how to interpertate them....

English media always seems to overlook that second part of my thesis.

For instance, Babel hasn't scored many goals but does that say anything of his talent??? People on here put a lot of cr@p about the Babel stats while it didn't make any sense.... The only poster who talked sense about Babel was Agooner!