Frankly I dont think this impect thing has any relevance to how good teams are. There are much better metrics to measure teams by like, shots on net, possession etc. Ranking teams by how many defenders they beat, that frankly doesn't make much sense to me. By defenders, do they mean any player who is defending ? Is this anywhere on the pitch ? This is all very ambiguous to be honest, I think its actually quite silly. For instance if a team is bunkering, and the opposing team is completely controlling the match, they aren't going to beat very many defenders. That doesn't mean they are a poor team. I think this is a case of bending statistics to mean something which they are not. Statistics can be very misleading, I think that is quite the case with this impect thing.
Possession stats are totally meaningless. When the score is even, it might indicate which side has more interest to win the match and is more willing to take risks committing greater numbers to win the ball. But it doesn't mean that team is better. The same way, all things being equal, a side the defends with 9-10 players behind the ball should do better defensively than a side that doesn't, by the same token, a side that is committing more numbers in midfield and pressing up will naturally have more possession of the ball. The price they pay for that is they will leave space behind them to be exposed. That doesn't make them better but simply more willing to take risks. Shots on goal are also not all that telling. Belgium was far more dangerous against England (before their 2nd goal) even if they didn't get too many shots on goal and fumbled many of their chances. That would be true even if England (I haven't checked) had more shots on goal that didn't much test Courtois but technically required that he catch the ball. As for what you mentioned about a side that bunkers not being exposed as often in the back, the IMPECT measure looks at the net figures ultimately. Meaning if you bunker and don't allow an opponent more than say 10 situations where the opponent gets behind your defense, but aren't able to threaten the opposing side at all by getting behind their defense either because of the lack of numbers you commit upfront, you will still end up with a negative balance or net statistic. All that said, as I explained earlier, the most telling stats are those that have the greatest correlation to the result that is achieved between two teams. If a side that has more possession wins 9/10 of the matches, then possession stats would be important. But when the actual figures show that teams with more possession are quite often on the losing end of the scoreboard, there is no real correlation established between possession and the result. I don't know how well the IMPECT will do in the long run. But I certainly would add their stats on top of the slew of stats that clearly show less correlation and are frankly less telling.
Here is how the teams ranked by Whoscored average player ratings. So basically if we average the score of each player that played for each team. A far better metric IMO than defenders bypassed. 1. Belgium 2. Brazil 3. Croatia 4. France 5. Russia 6. England 7. Uruguay 8. Sweden 9. Colombia 10. Spain 11. Denmark 12. Nigeria 13. South Korea 14. Mexico 15. Portugal 16. Serbia 17. Japan 18. Peru 19. Germany 20. Switzerland 21. Iran 22. Argentina 23. Senegal 24. Tunisia 25. Poland 26. Morocco 27. Costa Rica 28. Iceland 29. Australia 30. Egypt 31. Saudi Arabia 32. Panama
I agree that possession stats dont necessarily mean anything. Saudi Arabia was actually ranked in the top 5 or 6 teams at this WC by possession, however Impect scores have even less meaning, because there is simply no context to where the defenders were bypassed, and how many defenders were behind the ones that were bypassed. It means very little to be honest, I actually think shots on goal and possession are much more meaningful stats.
Those are interesting stats too. But no particular statistics tell you everything. All of them tell you something and ultimately we each have our own sense who did better or worse.
Congrats to the OP for finding a stat where his team is Top 10, but the bottom line is the quote. BTW, to anyone watching, it was fairly obvious Iran was the team #17, the best not to make it out of group, together with Senegal.
Here is how whoscored.com ranks the teams by possession % 1. Spain 2. Germany 3. Argentina 4. Saudi Arabia 5. Brazil 6. Switzerland 7. Croatia 8. England 9. Portugal 10. Mexico 11. Japan 12. Belgium 13. Tunisia 14. France 15. Australia 16. Poland 17. Colombia 18. Peru 19. Morocco 20. Nigeria 21. Uruguay 22. Denmark 23. Egypt 24. Serbia 25. Senegal 26. Costa Rica 27. Sweden 28. South Korea 29. Panama 30. Russia 31. Iceland 32. Iran
Although I am not a Carlos Queiroz fan, and don't like our style that much, the rankings based on possession should tell you why possession isn't all that telling. Iran was clearly and indisputably not #32. Saudi Arabia even more clearly wasn't #4. Tunisia wasn't #13. And Spain and Germany were far from #1 and #2 respectively. If the game is decided by the scoreboard, and exceptions are meant as exceptions not the rule, you can't possibly find much correlation between the possession stats and how the teams did in this World Cup in terms of their results. You need to find the statistical measure that has the closest correlation to the results.
The credit shouldn't go to me as much as the Carlos Queiroz fans who used the IMPECT statistics in response to his critics in Iran who used others which were far less flattering to Iran. They are the ones who basically introduced me to IMPECT but I was impressed by how close the R16 and quarterfinalists matched their top 10. I am content with Iran being regarded anywhere between #17-#20 and that is how I would rate us.
you would think that these Impect scores would somehow correlate with dribbles per game, being that it is based on defenders bypassed. Here is whoscored.com ranks based on dribbles per match. I found something that Nigeria ranked #1 !!!!!! 1. Nigeria 2. Brazil 3. Spain 4. Mexico 5. Argentina 6. Belgium 7. Croatia 8. Morocco 9. South Korea 10. Australia 11. France 12. Portugal 13. England 14. Saudi Arabia 15. Tunisia 16. Germany 17. Serbia 18. Senegal 19. Costa Rica 20. Switzerland 21. Iran 22. Denmark 23. Peru 24. Iceland 25. Uruguay 26. Colombia 27. Russia 28. Panama 29. Sweden 30. Egypt 31. Poland 32. Japan
The possession stats to me show more a teams style and the type of team they played. For example any team that played against Spain is automatically going to have their possession stats lowered from that one match because Spain is so dominating in possession. Whereas if you play a team like Panama your possession stats will likely be scewed up which is probably what happened with Tunisia. Low possession sometimes indicates counter attacking sides, other times it indicates teams that just cannot get control of matches. At the same time you cannot tell me that Iran having the least possession of all the teams in the tournament is not indicative of anything, besides simply strategy, and the level of opponents they played.
Our possession stats are mostly because of strategy and tactics. I am sure of that. The best way to understand it is how Iran used to play South Korea and how we play them now. Before Queiroz, Iran's h2h record against South Korea was more or less even, but Iran would usually dominate possession and be the more aggressive side offensively. Under Queiroz, our h2h record against South Korea has been lopsidedly in our favor but in terms of possession, South Korea usually has more possession. But even with that greater possession, they would end up with 0 shots or chances against us (or 1-2 in S.Korea), while we would have plenty more. You can go and watch Iran-South Korea games from different eras and periods and see what I mean. Or you can contrast how we began our game in World Cup 2006 against Mexico, dominating possession in the first half, to how we began our games against Nigeria and Morocco in World Cup 2014 and 2018. The tactics Queiroz prefers might actually work better for us, but they also influence both the kind of players he selects, the kind of players he leaves behind, and the kind of stats you find.
Here is why impect is yet another stat without much meat. If it was a solidly reliable indicator of performance, then major betting professionals would be going all out on this. Yet no one is breaking the bank at betting sites. Statistics can be made to fit a narrative. Yet, they are just numbers unless they are grounded in reality. In this case, the reality is that no one used them to become an overnight millionaire. People will tell you 1 thing but they will do another. Follow the dollar.