Jadon Sancho

[Centurions]

Are you one of those rare guys like me who much prefers qualitative data ie the eye test to rate players?

It feels like a lot of football fans these days just count up stats. Now, stats have their place, but people seem to not wanna watch players these days.

In 2014 World Cup Di Maria scored the winner against Switzerland. Ronaldo scored a meaningless penalty in the 2014 CL Final in the last min of extra time. Both of them were invisible otherwise. Equally, Messi was MoM in 2015 CL Final but didn't score.

But when we count up stats, whose game goes down as better?

I blame it on the Football Manager generation myself ;)

 

[Messi38]

I blame it on the Football Manager generation myself ;)

Yeah it could be, but it seems like even some older guys buy into it now.

It's maybe all the statistical modelling in professional football.

The worst is when you get told your eyes are biased and stats are not. Not only is that garbage as stats out of context are VERY biased, but it basically implies there's no point even watching players anymore.

When I see those posters on Redcafe comparing the two Ronaldos, and going on about the fake ones superior goal record, but not taking into context things like bigger disparity between strength of teams now, more goals scored in la Liga when C Ronaldo was there than serie A when L Ronaldo was there, and just generally the idea that being the best goalscorer does not automatically make you the best footballer, in fact often it's the playmaker who is best, it annoys me.

That's why I love David Silva, Xavi and Iniesta. You had to watch them to see their genius. Any idiot can count up goals and assists (I know Silva got assists too), but to watch true beautifully aesthetic players on the park is a privilege.

Prime Messi marries both, end product as well as being amazing to watch and omnipresent throughout games, dictating them.

 

[Dax777]

Are you one of those rare guys like me who much prefers qualitative data ie the eye test to rate players?

It feels like a lot of football fans these days just count up stats. Now, stats have their place, but people seem to not wanna watch players these days.

Sorry, but No! This is one of those false narratives. Most people use qualitative eye tests too.But yet after doing that many still come to very different and often varied conclusions about the same player. What stats often does is support what the eyes of some see and uncovers what some of our biases are.

The notion that stats say something opposite of what everyone sees is ludicrous. There are often 2 sides (or more) with varying opinions on a player. Even after watching the very same game.

What this argument often really means is this: "I am a better judge of football talent than you, and so when our opinions differ I trust my eyes more than your opinion." But the funny thin is, everyone feels this way about their "eye test" and their ability to judge talent. So there really isn't much insight there.

And, the above is wholely separate from the issue of when there simply isn't enough information gathered on "eye tests". Just coz you've watched a guy have 2 great games, doesn't mean that should Trump a season's worth of stats telling a different story. Lowb pass completion rates, low scoring and assist rates, tackles and interception rates over a season cannot be overcome by your 2 games where he was great in the "eye test."

In 2014 World Cup Di Maria scored the winner against Switzerland. Ronaldo scored a meaningless penalty in the 2014 CL Final in the last min of extra time. Both of them were invisible otherwise. Equally, Messi was MoM in 2015 CL Final but didn't score.

But when we count up stats, whose game goes down as better?

Actually, probably Messi. As goals are not the only stats. Some stats are so detailed in what they cover that it's almost impossible for the "eye test" (with all the antecedent biases that come with it) to be better in the long run.

There are ways in which the eye test is better for example in it's narrative capacity in small sample sizes (i.e like in the games you've described). But if you are trying to understand the long term quality of a player and attempt to project his performance now to the future, I'd take a well collated stat everyday over some summary opinion laced naturally with bias.

 

[BringBackSwales]

I'd take a well collated stat everyday over some summary opinion laced naturally with bias.

I’d agree, like united have at least 3 times more possession and attacks than us based on the number of pens they get?

 

[Messi38]

Sorry, but No! This is one of those false narratives. Most people use qualitative eye tests too.But yet after doing that many still come to very different and often varied conclusions about the same player. What stats often does is support what the eyes of some see and uncovers what some of our biases are.

The notion that stats say something opposite of what everyone sees is ludicrous. There are often 2 sides (or more) with varying opinions on a player. Even after watching the very same game.

What this argument often really means is this: "I am a better judge of football talent than you, and so when our opinions differ I trust my eyes more than your opinion." But the funny thin is, everyone feels this way about their "eye test" and their ability to judge talent. So there really isn't much insight there.

And, the above is wholely separate from the issue of when there simply isn't enough information gathered on "eye tests". Just coz you've watched a guy have 2 great games, doesn't mean that should Trump a season's worth of stats telling a different story. Lowb pass completion rates, low scoring and assist rates, tackles and interception rates over a season cannot be overcome by your 2 games where he was great in the "eye test."


Actually, probably Messi. As goals are not the only stats. Some stats are so detailed in what they cover that it's almost impossible for the "eye test" (with all the antecedent biases that come with it) to be better in the long run.

There are ways in which the eye test is better for example in it's narrative capacity in small sample sizes (i.e like in the games you've described). But if you are trying to understand the long term quality of a player and attempt to project his performance now to the future, I'd take a well collated stat everyday over some summary opinion laced naturally with bias.

Sorry but completely disagree, whats the point in even watching football if we can't judge players and have to deign to stats? And stats are often taken out of context.

The fact you say 'probably messi' when his 2015 cl final performance was so much better than theirs in those games is telling. C ronaldo had similar stats in euro 2016 to maradona in 86, but watch the vastly superior quality of maradona s goals, assists and general play.

Stats do help but most football fans throw them around with no context. Youre advocating not bothering judging players by watching them. Why did scouts even go watch players before stats then?

Theres things that don't show up in stats, like a genius turn, or an incredible touch, the quality of a pass or dribble. If you're referring to more than goal and assist stats i can get on board more but I still think its flawed which is why the term qualitative data exists.

 

[Dax777]

Sorry but completely disagree, whats the point in even watching football if we can't judge players and have to deign to stats? And stats are often taken out of context.

Of course we can judge players by watching them. You are arguing against a straw man here. The question is this though, if you thought he was great and I thought he was poor, are we both right?

The fact you say 'probably messi' when his 2015 cl final performance was so much better than theirs in those games is telling. C ronaldo had similar stats in euro 2016 to maradona in 86, but watch the vastly superior quality of maradona s goals, assists and general play.

Again, patently wrong. I said probably Messi coz I don't remember each game clearly, and was going on your narrative claim. For the record, in probably 90% of cases or more when the stats says a certain player played best, mostly the eye test also agrees.

Can the stats fail to tell the whole story? Absolutely. But here is the kicker, so can the "eye test." For the record, I'm a bit of an analytical addict when it comes to football, and I often watch the same game multiple times trying to evaluate one player or another or the overall tactics or lack thereof.

I can tell you that my opinion on where the players rank in terms of how well each played changes almost 100% of the time from the first viewing to say the 3rd or 4th. Eye tests gets better with multiple viewing of the same games. This is something most 'Eye Test' proponents don't recognize.

Stats do help but most football fans throw them around with no context. Youre advocating not bothering judging players by watching them. Why did scouts even go watch players before stats then?

Again, this is a straw man. Of course you have to watch a player, at no point did I say otherwise. You should use every btool at your disposal to reach the best conclusions.

But if the question is which is better if you only had to go with one. Stats are far superior to one time views of a player, period!

Theres things that don't show up in stats, like a genius turn, or an incredible touch, the quality of a pass or dribble. If you're referring to more than goal and assist stats i can get on board more but I still think its flawed which is why the term qualitative data exists.

1. Yes I am referring to more than goals and assists stats. That's so 1990s and not particularly the most predictive of future performance.

2. Sure, stats can't you about a genius turn it an incredible touch. So here is an example, Messi, Mahrez and Bernado all have incredible touches (frankly quite similar in that respect) all have a great turn, yet if you check their stats, you'd quickly recognize that it's Messi you want over the other 2. Why, his stats are far superior. He brings islt more consistently. Stats show that better.

 

[mccity]

 

[Messi38]

Of course we can judge players by watching them. You are arguing against a straw man here. The question is this though, if you thought he was great and I thought he was poor, are we both right?

Again, patently wrong. I said probably Messi coz I don't remember each game clearly, and was going on your narrative claim. For the record, in probably 90% of cases or more when the stats says a certain player played best, mostly the eye test also agrees.

Can the stats fail to tell the whole story? Absolutely. But here is the kicker, so can the "eye test." For the record, I'm a bit of an analytical addict when it comes to football, and I often watch the same game multiple times trying to evaluate one player or another or the overall tactics or lack thereof.

I can tell you that my opinion on where the players rank in terms of how well each played changes almost 100% of the time from the first viewing to say the 3rd or 4th. Eye tests gets better with multiple viewing of the same games. This is something most 'Eye Test' proponents don't recognize.



Again, this is a straw man. Of course you have to watch a player, at no point did I say otherwise. You should use every btool at your disposal to reach the best conclusions.

But if the question is which is better if you only had to go with one. Stats are far superior to one time views of a player, period!

1. Yes I am referring to more than goals and assists stats. That's so 1990s and not particularly the most predictive of future performance.

2. Sure, stats can't you about a genius turn it an incredible touch. So here is an example, Messi, Mahrez and Bernado all have incredible touches (frankly quite similar in that respect) all have a great turn, yet if you check their stats, you'd quickly recognize that it's Messi you want over the other 2. Why, his stats are far superior. He brings islt more consistently. Stats show that better.

Fair enough mate. I do respect your opinion anyway and stats are important as long as they're in depth and put in proper context. My issue isn't so much with stats but the flagrant misuse of them by fans.

Enjoy tonights game.

 

[Dax777]

Fair enough mate. I do respect your opinion anyway and stats are important as long as they're in depth and put in proper context. My issue isn't so much with stats but the flagrant misuse of them by fans.

Enjoy tonights game.

Fair point mate.

 

[01cravend]

Stat padding player in a stat padding league