16 | Rodri - 2021/22 Performances

Status
Not open for further replies.
Phil Mitchell Foden said:
Using last season:

Rodri played 34 games last season, Rice 32.

Despite this Rice made 59 interceptions, Rodri 36.

Rice lost 105 duels, Rodri lost 135.

There are some areas Rodri was better though, like recoveries and clearances.

I don't mean to write Rodri off entirely by the way, so I understand the defences of him. I just worry he's a weakness in the side.

Rice made 0 errors leading to goals last season by the way, and they seem to be quite generous with how the define that also.
Click to expand...
Lastly, this is where you're losing me.

City play with way more possession than West Ham so it'll make sense that Rice would have more opportunities for interceptions.

Second why would you bring up how many duels he lost and not mention that Rodri still won over 200 duels where as Rice won less than 150?

I don't get it lol.
 
Phil Mitchell Foden said:
Using last season:

Rodri played 34 games last season, Rice 32.

Despite this Rice made 59 interceptions, Rodri 36.

Rice lost 105 duels, Rodri lost 135.

There are some areas Rodri was better though, like recoveries and clearances.

I don't mean to write Rodri off entirely by the way, so I understand the defences of him. I just worry he's a weakness in the side.

Rice made 0 errors leading to goals last season by the way, and they seem to be quite generous with how the define that also.
Click to expand...
You would expect Rice to intercept the ball more as West Ham have less possession. As you know, I rate Rodri very highly and the stats, to a large extent, back that up. There are more tenacious players, Fernandinho included, and they may win a higher percentage of duals but for a blend of attributes, there are very, very few I would swap for Rodri. He is also still a young man with relatively little experience of the English game. If he continues to improve, he will be truly exemplary.
 
MCFCFanTX said:
Lastly, this is where you're losing me.

City play with way more possession than West Ham so it'll make sense that Rice would have more opportunities for interceptions.

Second why would you bring up how many duels he lost and not mention that Rodri still won over 200 duels where as Rice won less than 150?

I don't get it lol.
Click to expand...
What is also noteable from watching our games is how often Rodri is targeted by opponents and those duels are often 2 on 1 not 1 on 1. Evidence of this is available on City+ full match replays.
 
Phil Mitchell Foden said:
Rodri played 34 games last season, Rice 32.

Despite this Rice made 59 interceptions, Rodri 36.
Click to expand...

MCFCFanTX said:
Lastly, this is where you're losing me.

City play with way more possession than West Ham so it'll make sense that Rice would have more opportunities for interceptions.

Second why would you bring up how many duels he lost and not mention that Rodri still won over 200 duels where as Rice won less than 150?

I don't get it lol.
Click to expand...
Rodri played in a side with 64% possession and Declan Rice 42%

Even if we assume all possession is equal, which it's not as clearly our opponents have much worse quality of possession, West Ham's opposition attempted 21,809 passes last season compared to our opponents 15,263.

So is it really surprising that Rodri made fewer interceptions? No.

If you were to adjust for possession, Rodri makes far more interceptions than Rice.

And despite the opposition having almost 50% more possession, Rodri still makes more tackles than Rice.
 
Last edited:
FantasyIreland said:
Fuck stats,use your eyes.
Click to expand...

Stats are a numerical representation of "eye-test". They aren't competing evaluation mechanisms.

For example, if you watched Brighton last season, you would think "jesus they create so many chances that they should win more matches, but the finishing is non existent". They scored 40 goals, whereas they had an xG of 51. xG is the measure of expected goals scored based on the type/location/quality of shots taken. In this case, xG suggests that they should have scored 51 goals with average finishing, but their forwards were not clinical and so they under-performed by 10 goals. That passes the eye test doesn't it? It's completely grounded in reality.

But why look at Brighton, let's bring the discussion closer home. You know based on eye-test, there's a common belief that we don't concede a lot of shots, but the ones we do end up straight in the net. It's extremely frustrating and people blame Ederson a little, but often we look at those shots and think "well what could he even do?!". Let's see what the stats have to say about that.

City had a (PSxG - GA)/90 of 0.03. That's quite a mouthful. PSxG is expected goals based on high likely the goalkeeper is to save the shot. GA is goals allowed. So (PSxG - GA) is measuring "what's the difference between how many goals a goalkeeper should have conceded and how many he actually did". Dividing by 90 just gives us per match number. A value of 0.03 suggests that actually Ederson didn't under or over-perform. The kind of shots that he faced were of such high quality that on average a GK wouldn't be expected to save them anyway. Top of the (PSxG - GA)/90 table is Aston Villa with a value of 0.2 and I think anyone who watched them last year would agree that their GK (Martinez) had a monster season, producing some unreal saves. And the stat completely aligns with reality!

If you've the time to pour over stats like these, you will find that they almost always agree with the eye-test. So what is the use of stats then? Well if based on a real-world comparison you find that xG is pretty reliable, then instead of watching every match, you can just look at a number and deduce if the team had good/average/bad finishers.

Now say I'm looking for a player who is a great finisher. As a scout, I don't have to physically watch 10,000 matches a year anymore to find that hidden gem. I can use stats to find the profile of players who typically overperform xG. Say that is a list of 5 players. Now with a smaller set of players, I can go to the actual matches and look at these 5 players specifically to confirm if they do indeed pass the eye test.

So stats are useful. The underlying framework which enables us to generate stats in football is the same framework that captures the text on a physical paper accurately when you take a photo using your phone. It's all algorithms and models designed for a specific purpose, with a limited set of variables/features and trained using real world data.
 
sky_blue said:
Stats are a numerical representation of "eye-test". They aren't competing evaluation mechanisms.

For example, if you watched Brighton last season, you would think "jesus they create so many chances that they should win more matches, but the finishing is non existent". They scored 40 goals, whereas they had an xG of 51. xG is the measure of expected goals scored based on the type/location/quality of shots taken. In this case, xG suggests that they should have scored 51 goals with average finishing, but their forwards were not clinical and so they under-performed by 10 goals. That passes the eye test doesn't it? It's completely grounded in reality.

But why look at Brighton, let's bring the discussion closer home. You know based on eye-test, there's a common belief that we don't concede a lot of shots, but the ones we do end up straight in the net. It's extremely frustrating and people blame Ederson a little, but often we look at those shots and think "well what could he even do?!". Let's see what the stats have to say about that.

City had a (PSxG - GA)/90 of 0.03. That's quite a mouthful. PSxG is expected goals based on high likely the goalkeeper is to save the shot. GA is goals allowed. So (PSxG - GA) is measuring "what's the difference between how many goals a goalkeeper should have conceded and how many he actually did". Dividing by 90 just gives us per match number. A value of 0.03 suggests that actually Ederson didn't under or over-perform. The kind of shots that he faced were of such high quality that on average a GK wouldn't be expected to save them anyway. Top of this table is Aston Villa with a value of 0.2 and I think anyone watched them last year, they would agree that the guy had a monster season, producing some unreal saves. And the stat completely aligns with reality!

If you've the time to pour over stats like these, you will find that they almost always agree with the eye-test. So what is the use of stats then? Well if based on a real-world comparison, you find that xG is pretty reliable, then instead of watching every match, you can just look at a number and deduce if the team had good/average/bad finishers.

Now say I'm looking for a player who is a great finisher. As a scout, I don't have to physically watch 10,000 matches a year anymore to find that hidden gem. I can use stats to find the profile of players who typically overperform xG. Say that is a list of 5 players. Now with a smaller set of players, I can go to the actual matches and look at these 5 players specifically to confirm if they do indeed pass the eye test.

So stats are useful. The underlying framework which enables us to generate stats in football is the same framework that captures the text on a physical paper accurately when you take an image using your phone. It's all algorithms and models designed for a specific purpose, with a limited set of variables/features and trained using real world data.
Click to expand...
Im sure that was a brilliant post ;-)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.