Kolarov v Clichy v Azpilicueta (The Stats)

[Damocles]

Kolarov v Clichy is often discussed on the board here

For me Kolarov is definitely the superior player and the statistics would certainly reflect that.

The heat map shows that Kolarov plays on average about 10 - 15m further froward than Clichy

The heatmap doesn't take into account that Kolarov played as a winger numerous times last year These stats don't normalise for the fact that Kolarov has played as a winger and is also our free kick taker so will definitely have better goal threats.

You think Kolarov is the superior player and because of that you've interpreted the stats to reflect as such without having a fully rounded thought process on it. This is why people often criticise the usage of statistics - because they show little and are often used poorly

 

[somethingelse]

nice stats, Kolorov is more than just an attacking option sometimes he is Citys best attacker, his movement in setting up Nasris goal in the league cup final typifies his desire to get forward at all times
Clichy is also a very important player and has proved he can play right back despite his chronic effort at Fulham

 

[Deleted member 58619]

Kolarov v Clichy is often discussed on the board here

For me Kolarov is definitely the superior player and the statistics would certainly reflect that.

The heat map shows that Kolarov plays on average about 10 - 15m further froward than Clichy

The heatmap doesn't take into account that Kolarov played as a winger numerous times last year These stats don't normalise for the fact that Kolarov has played as a winger and is also our free kick taker so will definitely have better goal threats.

You think Kolarov is the superior player and because of that you've interpreted the stats to reflect as such without having a fully rounded thought process on it. This is why people often criticise the usage of statistics - because they show little and are often used poorly

That's a fair analysis, I was more posting the stats for people to see.

I do prefer Kolarov over Clichy, but know we are blessed to have such quality left backs.
I'm certainly not claiming to be an expert in statistical analysis and as someone said early they both have their strengths and qualities.

I know I wouldn't swap our two left backs for any other pair in the Premiership.

 

[Deleted member 58619]

Credit to the poster for such a thorough review but it is quite obvious that Clichy is better defensively and at retaining possession whilst Kolarov provides much more attacking intent and width to the side. In tougher games Kolarov can leave large gaps in behind, whilst Clichy prefers to play for the midfielder overlapping etc.

THis season a really interesting comparison will be Sagna v Zabaleta. Both are fantastic players, it is hard to know which will provide the most in attack/defence - Sagna is probably more of a goal threat but overall there is little to tell between them.

Thanks supercity88, I will go get you the stats for Sagna v Zabaleta for last season for your reference

 

[Deleted member 58619]

Zabaleta (LHS) v Sagna (RHS)

 

[Uwe's Stinky Trainers]

Where do you get your stats from north East?

 

[Bluebee2]

I really don't see your point in bringing the Spanish kid from Chelsea into it, great in depth stuff if you like that type of thing but that kid was playing left back as Maureen had fell out with Cole and is a right back.

 

[Neville Kneville]

The heatmap doesn't take into account that Kolarov played as a winger numerous times last year These stats don't normalise for the fact that Kolarov has played as a winger and is also our free kick taker so will definitely have better goal threats.

You think Kolarov is the superior player and because of that you've interpreted the stats to reflect as such without having a fully rounded thought process on it. This is why people often criticise the usage of statistics - because they show little and are often used poorly

Absolutely this, all the time. People just see what they want to see.

We can all see pretty obviously that Kolarov takes a better free kick than Clichy & hits more vicious crosses, we don't need stats for that. But where is the stat for Kolarov whacking the ball in when it wasn't the best option ? How many times did Clichy NOT crossing the ball but passing it intelligently to a City player, say Silva for instance, lead to us scoring a goal rather than blindly whacking it into the legs of a defender ? Kolarov creates stuff & also wastes the ball plenty. Both are a different option.

And Azpilicueta was the best fullback in the Premier League last season for me, because he kept stopping people from running past him & made them turn back & go somewhere else instead, which is what I like fullbacks to do first.

 

[@BluePhil8]

Not interested in stats. Clichy for the hard games, kolorov the easy ones. Perfect rotation.

Kolarov captained us in the win at Bayern.

Clichy got embarrassed all game long at Stamford Bridge by Torres and Schurrle. Poor against the rags in the 2-3 at the Etihad as well.

Kolarov is better and the only reason I think we play Clichy in some big games is because he doesn't take risks and always plays safe passes.

 

[Deleted member 58678]

For me, a good full back should be a good defender before all else. If you're lucky enough to have that and then have attacking talent too then you have an elite full back (Lahm and Alaba at Bayern München, for example).

Neither of our left backs are elite. One is a good defender and one is a good attacker, both are pretty average at the other side of being a full back. I'd prefer Clichy in tight games against the likes of Chelsea just because I prefer my full back to be a good defender first. But he also keeps the ball better too.

Overall I'd like to see a left back who is good at both main aspects of full back-ing, in the next few years.