Kolarov and Johnson, the key to winning the league

[Quinny851]

His crosses, which were amazing this weekend, have over the course of the season, been inferior to Clichy's. Who himself isn't a great crosser.

I'm not sure what you mean by "inferior" but with 6 assists to zero so far Kolarov's crosses are a hell of a lot more effective.

Perhaps. I guess there is more than one way to look at their stats.
Clichy has connected on 15 of his 51 crosses
Kolarov has connected on 13 of his 61 crosses. This suggests Clichy is much more accurate at finding his target.

But one could also conclude he takes fewer risks, and thus gains fewer results. As Kolarov does put in more crosses per game, and this has led to actual goals, even though he is "inferior" to Clichy at finding a target with his crosses.

In the end, I guess how often you attempt a cross, and create tension in an oppositions area may be a more valuable statistic. And Kolarov does that on the average more often than Clichy.

Perhaps look at how many goals we've conceded with Kolorov in the side as opposed to Clichy. That could also be a telling arguement. I always feel a lot more confident whenever I see that Clichy is playing.

 

[Dax777]

AJ played well Saturday,nearly scored with a shot,set up balo who nearly scored,linked well,tracked back when needed,even sprayed a couple of accurate cross field balls,like everything on bluemoon,once an opinion on a player is formed it seems to stick,like Lescott not being able to pass or deJong slowing the team down.

Everyone played well on Saturday. But if we were to pick the least performing of all the players (who again all played well) Johnson will be #2, behind Hart (who due to no fault of his own, didn't do much). He was poor at reading basic overlapping runs. Zaba gave him that option on 7 occasions and he only made a good decision on one.

The beauty of that overlapping play is that you don't necessarily have to always pass it to the guy making the run, but that guy forces the defender to overplay towards the outside. Which in theory should give a tricky player like Johnson the added advantage of cutting inside for an open shot, or laying off early for an easy cross by the fullback.

Time and time again, he just kept doodling the ball unil Zaba was offside, had no space to run forward into, or the defensive help arrived. This is just poor tactical football on his part.

As for De Jong, even Komps had something to say about it last game. And yes, Lescott is uncomfortable on the ball. These things do not make them bad players, but simply states characteristics they exhibit.

 

[xenon_]

His crosses, which were amazing this weekend, have over the course of the season, been inferior to Clichy's. Who himself isn't a great crosser.

I'm not sure what you mean by "inferior" but with 6 assists to zero so far Kolarov's crosses are a hell of a lot more effective.

Perhaps. I guess there is more than one way to look at their stats.
Clichy has connected on 15 of his 51 crosses
Kolarov has connected on 13 of his 61 crosses. This suggests Clichy is much more accurate at finding his target.

But one could also conclude he takes fewer risks, and thus gains fewer results. As Kolarov does put in more crosses per game, and this has led to actual goals, even though he is "inferior" to Clichy at finding a target with his crosses.

In the end, I guess how often you attempt a cross, and create tension in an oppositions area may be a more valuable statistic. And Kolarov does that on the average more often than Clichy.

This is why statistics aren't the be-all and end-all for me.

How many of Clichy's crosses have missed the striker(s) and been picked up by Nasri on the opposite side or something, you know, where it counts as a 'cross completed' but really it wasn't a great cross.

What my eyes tell me that stats can't is that Kolarov puts better balls in, which create danger for the opposition defenders and can result in goals.

Stats are mint, don't get me wrong. But they don't tell everything

 

[Damocles]

Everybody likes stats until they disagree with them, and use the same tried excuse of "but....my eyes!"

 

[xenon_]

Everybody likes stats until they disagree with them, and use the same tried excuse of "but....my eyes!"

Hahaha, you might be right. But you being a stat-king, I expect such a response. I just can't put all my eggs into the stat-basket.

Quick example: Someone who doesn't watch 90 mins week in week out, but looks at stats might think that De Jong is a fantastic passer of the ball.

 

[Dax777]

I'm not sure what you mean by "inferior" but with 6 assists to zero so far Kolarov's crosses are a hell of a lot more effective.

Perhaps. I guess there is more than one way to look at their stats.
Clichy has connected on 15 of his 51 crosses
Kolarov has connected on 13 of his 61 crosses. This suggests Clichy is much more accurate at finding his target.

But one could also conclude he takes fewer risks, and thus gains fewer results. As Kolarov does put in more crosses per game, and this has led to actual goals, even though he is "inferior" to Clichy at finding a target with his crosses.

In the end, I guess how often you attempt a cross, and create tension in an oppositions area may be a more valuable statistic. And Kolarov does that on the average more often than Clichy.

This is why statistics aren't the be-all and end-all for me.

How many of Clichy's crosses have missed the striker(s) and been picked up by Nasri on the opposite side or something, you know, where it counts as a 'cross completed' but really it wasn't a great cross.

What my eyes tell me that stats can't is that Kolarov puts better balls in, which create danger for the opposition defenders and can result in goals.

Stats are mint, don't get me wrong. But they don't tell everything

True, stats don't tell everything, but they tell more than a single persons eyes and memory does ALL the time. This is something folks need to understand. People who coalate stats, use their eyes too. But unlike fans, their eyes are trained on getting some particular fact. They have no subjective opinion of the player been statisticized. Just ticking the numbers.

We all have subjective opinions about our players. And when those subjective opinions are supported we are more likely to remember, and when they are not, we are more likely to forget, or apply less relevance to it.

Lest we forget, there was a time before the FA cup semis when most on bluemoon detested Yaya Toure. even on TV, you could hear the heavy moan whenever he misplaced a pass. Funny enough at that very time Yaya was top 3 on CIty's pass completion% and #1 on pass completion totals. Yet the subjective opinion on Bluemoon and the Stadium was that he was a poor passer who gave up the ball a lot and got tired often (and out of shape).

While in reality, the facts suggested he gave up the ball fewer than everyone except De Jong. Possessed it more times than anyone, and covered more ground that any other teammate over the course of a game. So it should be no surprise that he was more winded than the others. He was running more. Could he have been in better shape? Sure! But could he finish the game looking as mint as De Jong, had he only had to cover the distance De Jong covered? Absolutely.

This is why I always review stats against my watching and my subjective opinion.

Oh By the way, cross completed only calculates those that led to chances, not those picked up crossfield. Which by the way Kolarov has many of those too.<br /><br />-- Tue Feb 28, 2012 9:53 am --<br /><br />

Everybody likes stats until they disagree with them, and use the same tried excuse of "but....my eyes!"

Count me off that list. I always defer to the stats.

 

[xenon_]

Perhaps. I guess there is more than one way to look at their stats.
Clichy has connected on 15 of his 51 crosses
Kolarov has connected on 13 of his 61 crosses. This suggests Clichy is much more accurate at finding his target.

But one could also conclude he takes fewer risks, and thus gains fewer results. As Kolarov does put in more crosses per game, and this has led to actual goals, even though he is "inferior" to Clichy at finding a target with his crosses.

In the end, I guess how often you attempt a cross, and create tension in an oppositions area may be a more valuable statistic. And Kolarov does that on the average more often than Clichy.

This is why statistics aren't the be-all and end-all for me.

How many of Clichy's crosses have missed the striker(s) and been picked up by Nasri on the opposite side or something, you know, where it counts as a 'cross completed' but really it wasn't a great cross.

What my eyes tell me that stats can't is that Kolarov puts better balls in, which create danger for the opposition defenders and can result in goals.

Stats are mint, don't get me wrong. But they don't tell everything

True, stats don't tell everything, but they tell more than a single persons eyes and memory does ALL the time. This is something folks need to understand. People who coalate stats, use their eyes too. But unlike fans, their eyes are trained on getting some particular fact. They have no subjective opinion of the player been statisticized. Just ticking the numbers.

We all have subjective opinions about our players. And when those subjective opinions are supported we are more likely to remember, and when they are not, we are more likely to forget, or apply less relevance to it.

Lest we forget, there was a time before the FA cup semis when most on bluemoon detested Yaya Toure. even on TV, you could hear the heavy moan whenever he misplaced a pass. Funny enough at that very time Yaya was top 3 on CIty's pass completion% and #1 on pass completion totals. Yet the subjective opinion on Bluemoon and the Stadium was that he was a poor passer who gave up the ball a lot and got tired often (and out of shape).

While in reality, the facts suggested he gave up the ball fewer than everyone except De Jong. Possessed it more times than anyone, and covered more ground that any other teammate over the course of a game. So it should be no surprise that he was more winded than the others. He was running more. Could he have been in better shape? Sure! But could he finish the game looking as mint as De Jong, had he only had to cover the distance De Jong covered? Absolutely.

This is why I always review stats against my watching and my subjective opinion.

Oh By the way, cross completed only calculates those that led to chances, not those picked up crossfield. Which by the way Kolarov has many of those too.

-- Tue Feb 28, 2012 9:53 am --

Everybody likes stats until they disagree with them, and use the same tried excuse of "but....my eyes!"

Count me off that list. I always defer to the stats.

Oh... I see. Okay then.

In response to your overall post, I understand and agree with you on the importance of stats and how our eyes and memories are no match for the collation of data, especially when you consider that we have our biases for/against certain players.

I try to use stats often to back up my points of view, and there's been times that stats have changed my opinion, but, as we both agree, they do not tell everything.

As for Kolarov and Clichy, I admit, I'm struggling to accept that Clichy's crossing is indeed better. But there's nothing anyone can do there to change that except me. All I can do is bare your words in mind as I continue to watch City.

 

[Damocles]

Everybody likes stats until they disagree with them, and use the same tried excuse of "but....my eyes!"

Hahaha, you might be right. But you being a stat-king, I expect such a response. I just can't put all my eggs into the stat-basket.

Quick example: Someone who doesn't watch 90 mins week in week out, but looks at stats might think that De Jong is a fantastic passer of the ball.

There's a point in here to make. Stats are always correct. It's the way that people use stats to back up their argument that is incorrect.

Good example here. The stat that De Jong has ~90% pass completion doesn't say that he is a good passer, it says that he is an accurate passer. Average passes per game combined with pass completion combined with ratio of long balls and crosses adds up to who is a good passer. For the record, it looks like Yaya is the best passer on the team with Silva ever so slightly behind him, but only due to the amount of crosses.

In his two appearances, Pizarro has only given the ball away once and that was a long ball that ran a little too far.

 

[xenon_]

Everybody likes stats until they disagree with them, and use the same tried excuse of "but....my eyes!"

Hahaha, you might be right. But you being a stat-king, I expect such a response. I just can't put all my eggs into the stat-basket.

Quick example: Someone who doesn't watch 90 mins week in week out, but looks at stats might think that De Jong is a fantastic passer of the ball.

There's a point in here to make. Stats are always correct. It's the way that people use stats to back up their argument that is incorrect.

Good example here. The stat that De Jong has ~90% pass completion doesn't say that he is a good passer, it says that he is an accurate passer. Average passes per game combined with pass completion combined with ratio of long balls and crosses adds up to who is a good passer. For the record, it looks like Yaya is the best passer on the team with Silva ever so slightly behind him, but only due to the amount of crosses.

In his two appearances, Pizarro has only given the ball away once and that was a long ball that ran a little too far.

Yeah, I completely agree with this. Because I don't have access (or rather don't try to access) stats, I get them from this forum in dribs and drabs, with a point of view already attached. And it's for this reason that I choose not to put all my faith in them. If, however, I had all the stats in front of me and could make my own conclusions, then it would be different.

Thanks for nailing it on the head.

 

[allan harper]

Everybody likes stats until they disagree with them, and use the same tried excuse of "but....my eyes!"

Hahaha, you might be right. But you being a stat-king, I expect such a response. I just can't put all my eggs into the stat-basket.

Quick example: Someone who doesn't watch 90 mins week in week out, but looks at stats might think that De Jong is a fantastic passer of the ball.

There's a point in here to make. Stats are always correct. It's the way that people use stats to back up their argument that is incorrect.

Good example here. The stat that De Jong has ~90% pass completion doesn't say that he is a good passer, it says that he is an accurate passer. Average passes per game combined with pass completion combined with ratio of long balls and crosses adds up to who is a good passer. For the record, it looks like Yaya is the best passer on the team with Silva ever so slightly behind him, but only due to the amount of crosses.

In his two appearances, Pizarro has only given the ball away once and that was a long ball that ran a little too far.

Stats can also be wrong. I remember Pizarro trying to thread a ball into Milner in the last few minutes of the Porto game that was intercepted by a Porto player.