Are high scoring midfielders overrated?

Discussion in 'The Beautiful Game' started by leadleader, Mar 18, 2017.

?

How overrated??

  1. Very overrated

    2 vote(s)
    28.6%
  2. Slightly overrated

    2 vote(s)
    28.6%
  3. Not overrated at all

    3 vote(s)
    42.9%
  1. leadleader

    leadleader Member+

    Aug 19, 2009
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    As the title of the thread explicitly indicates, this thread aims to explore just how much value there is or isn't in the "end product" of high scoring midfielders. The first legendary players that I thought of, are as follows: (1) Frank Lampard, (2) Steven Gerrard, (3) Matt Le Tissier, and (4) Pavel Nedved. I have absolutely no idea about the differences that I will find between said players (if any), but I intend to give importance to the points that were directly produced by the goals, and also to the goals that were scored in very easy high scoring wins such as in 5-0 beatings. Any suggestions on other players that I should include to the list (of just 4 names at this point), will be appreciated.
     
    el-torero repped this.
  2. leadleader

    leadleader Member+

    Aug 19, 2009
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    #2 leadleader, Mar 18, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2017

    [​IMG]


    Frank Lampard 2005/2006 (John Terry)
    Home vs. West Bromwich Albion / 1-0 / 4-0 / 4-0 win
    Home vs. Aston Villa / 1-1 / 2-1 *PK* / 2-1 win
    Away vs. Liverpool / 1-0 *PK* / 4-1 win
    Home vs. Bolton / 2-1 / 3-1 / 5-1 win
    Away vs. Everton / 1-1 / 1-1 draw
    Home vs. Blackburn Rovers / 2-0 *PK* / 3-2 / 4-2 win
    Away vs. Portsmouth / 2-0 *PK* / 2-0 win
    (Home vs. Middlesbrough / 1-0 / 1-0 win)
    (Home vs. Wigan Athletic / 1-0 / 1-0 win)

    Home vs. Fulham / 2-0 / 3-2 win
    Away vs. West Ham / 1-0 / 3-1 win
    Home vs. Portsmouth / 1-0 / 2-0 win
    (Home vs. West Ham / 3-1 / 4-1 win)
    Away vs. Bolton / 2-0 / 2-0 win
    (Away vs. Bolton / 1-0 / 2-0 win)
    Home vs. Everton / 1-0 / 3-0 win

    Of his open-play goals, one could be indirectly credited for 3 points (a win), one was directly responsible for one point (a draw), another one could be indirectly credited as having produced 3 points (a win): a total of 7 points could be credited to his open-play goals. In comparison, John Terry scored three goals that could be directly credited as having produced 9 points (three wins). Discarding Lampard's other 13 goals—both from open-play and from the PK spot—Chelsea produces the same exact amount of points.


    Frank Lampard 2006/2007 (Ricardo Carvalho)
    Home vs. Manchester City / 2-0 / 3-0 win
    Away vs. Blackburn Rovers / 1-0 *PK* / 2-0 win
    (Home vs. Charlton Athletic / 2-1 / 2-1 win)
    Away vs. Fulham / 1-0 *PK* / 2-0 / 2-0 win
    Away vs. Sheffield United / 1-0 / 2-0 win
    (Away vs. Manchester United / 1-1 / 1-1 draw)
    Away vs. Bolton / 2-2 / 3-2 win
    Away vs. Wigan Athletic / 1-0 / 3-2 win
    Home vs. Wigan Athletic / 1-0 / 4-0 win
    Home vs. Blackburn Rovers / 2-0 / 3-0 win
    Away vs. Charlton Athletic / 1-0 / 1-0 win
    Away vs. Manchester City / 1-0 *PK* / 1-0 win
    (Home vs. Tottenham / 1-0 / 1-0 win)
    Total: 16 goals / 13 open-play / 3 penalty kicks

    Of his open-play goals, two could be indirectly credited for 6 points (two wins), and one could be directly credited for 3 points (one win): a total of 9 points could be credited to his open-play goals. In comparison, Ricardo Carvalho scored 3 goals, and his goals could be directly credited as having produced 7 points (two wins and one draw: the draw was against Manchester United, at Old Trafford). Discarding Lampard's other 8 goals—both from open-play and from the PK spot—Chelsea produces three points less if we assume that the Penalty Kick that Lampard scored, is not scored by some other player.


    Frank Lampard 2007/2008 (Michael Essien)
    (Home vs. Birmingham / 3-2 / 3-2 win)
    Away vs. Reading / 1-1 / 2-1 win
    Away vs. Liverpool / 1-1 *PK / 1-1 draw
    Home vs. Portsmouth / 1-0 / 1-0 win
    Away vs. Wigan Athletic / 1-0 / 2-0 win
    Away vs. Sunderland / 2-0 *PK* / 2-0 win
    Home vs. West Ham / 1-0 *PK* / 4-0 win
    (Home vs. Newcastle / 1-0 / 2-1 win)
    Home vs. Derby County / 1-0 *PK* / 3-0 / 5-0 / 6-0 / 6-1 win
    (Away vs. Tottenham / 2-1 / 4-4 draw)
    (Home vs. Wigan Athletic / 1-0 / 1-1 draw)
    (Away vs. Everton / 1-0 / 1-0 win)

    Total: 10 goals / 6 open-play / 4 penalty kicks

    Of his open-play goals, one could be directly credited for 3 points (one win), one was indirectly responsible for 3 points (one win): a total of 6 points could be credited to his open-play goals. In comparison, Michael Essien scored 5 goals, and his goals could be directly and/or indirectly credited for 11 points (three wins and two draws). Discarding Lampard's other 7 goals—both from open-play and from the PK spot—Chelsea produces one point less if we assume that the Penalty Kick that Lampard scored, is not scored by some other player.


    Frank Lampard 2008/2009 (Belletti)
    Home vs. Portsmouth / 3-0 *PK* / 4-0 win
    (Home vs. Tottenham / 1-0 / 1-1 draw)
    Away vs. Manchester City / 2-1 / 3-1 win
    Away vs. Middlesbrough / 4-0 / 5-0 win
    Away vs. Hull City / 1-0 / 3-0 win
    Home vs. Sunderland / 4-0 / 5-0 win
    Home vs. West Bromwich / 2-0 / 2-0 win
    Away vs. Fulham / 1-1 / 2-1 *FK* / 2-2 draw
    Home vs. Stoke City / 2-1 / 2-1 win
    (Home vs. Stoke City / 1-1 / 2-1 win)
    Home vs. Wigan Athletic / 2-1 / 2-1 win
    Away vs. Newcastle / 1-0 / 2-0 win
    Home vs. Bolton / 3-0 *PK* / 4-3 win
    Total: 12 goals / 9 open-play / 2 penalty kicks / 1 free kick

    Of his open-play goals, one could be indirectly credited for one point (one draw), two could be directly credited for 6 points (two wins): a total of 7 points could be credited to his open-play goals. In comparison, Belletti scored 2 goals, and his goals directly and/or indirectly credited for 4 points (one win and one draw). Discarding Lampard's other 9 goals—both from open-play and from the PK spot—Chelsea produces one point less assuming that another player not named Lampard does not score from the free kick spot.


    Frank Lampard 2009/2010 (John Terry)
    Away vs. Sunderland / 1-2 *PK* / 3-1 win
    Home vs. Blackburn Rovers / 2-0 / 4-0 *PK* / 5-0 win
    Away vs. Bolton / 1-0 *PK* / 4-0 win
    (Home vs. Manchester United / 1-0 / 1-0 win)
    Home vs. Portsmouth / 2-1 / 2-1 win
    Away vs. West Ham / 1-1 *PK* / 1-1 draw
    Home vs. Sunderland / 4-0 / 7-1 / 7-2 win
    Home vs. Birmingham City / 2-0 / 3-0 / 3-0 win
    (Away vs. Burnley / 1-2 / 1-2 win)
    Home vs. Manchester City / 1-0 / 2-4 *PK* / 2-4 defeat
    Away vs. Portsmouth / 5-0 / 5-0 win
    Home vs. Aston Villa / 1-0 / 2-1 *PK* / 4-1 *PK* / 7-1 / 7-1 win
    Home vs. Stoke City / 3-0 *PK* / 5-0 / 7-0 win
    Away vs. Liverpool / 2-0 / 2-0 win
    Home vs. Wigan Athletic / 2-0 *PK* / 8-0 win
    Total: 22 goals / 13 open-play / 9 penalty kicks

    Of his open-play goals, one could be directly credited for 3 points (one win): a total of 3 points could be credited to his open-play goals. In comparison, John Terry scored 2 goals, and his goals could be directly credited for 6 points (two wins). Discarding Lampard's other 21 goals—both from open-play and from the PK spot—Chelsea produces the same exact amount of points.
     
    el-torero repped this.
  3. annoyedbyneedoflogin

    Juventus Football Clube Ajax Mineiro de Deportes
    Jun 11, 2012
    From outside: Scholes, Lampard and maybe Toni Kroos while at Bayern.

    Inside the box: lots of classic players if those count.

    Both: Gerrard, Ballack. Nedved's lack of defensive contribution doesn't really qualify him as a midfielder imho. However he was a great scorer. Le Tissier in his early years aswell. Vidal, like Lamps, had a few highscoring seasons thanks to some spotkicks.

    Im sure im forgetting some of the modern players but I hope this helps
     
    el-torero and leadleader repped this.
  4. leadleader

    leadleader Member+

    Aug 19, 2009
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    #4 leadleader, Mar 18, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2017
    [​IMG]


    (It seems odd to me that Le Tissier has no Free Kick goals in the seasons below, so it's definitely a probability that my source did not listed the Free Kick goals.)

    Matt Le Tissier 1992/1993
    Away vs. Queens Park Rangers / 1-0 / 1-3 defeat
    Home vs. Middlesbrough / 1-1 / 2-1 win
    Home vs. Queens Park Rangers / 1-0 / 1-2 defeat
    Home vs. Blackburn Rovers / 1-0 / 1-1 draw
    Away vs. Nottingham Forest / 1-0 / 2-1 win
    Away vs. Everton / 1-0 / 1-2 defeat
    Away vs. Middlesbrough / 1-1 / 1-2 defeat
    Away vs. Wimbledon / 1-1 / 2-1 win
    Home vs. Ipswich Town / 2-2 *PK* / 4-3 / 4-3 win
    Away vs. Arsenal / 3-3 / 3-4 defeat
    Home vs. Nottingham Forest / 1-2 / 1-2 defeat
    Away vs. Oldham Athletic / 1-1 / 2-4 / 3-4 / 3-4 defeat
    Total: 15 goals / 14 open-play / 1 penalty kick

    Of his open-play goals, three could be indirectly credited for 9 points (three wins), one could be directly credited for 3 points (one win), and one was directly responsible for one point (one draw): a total of 13 points could be credited to his open-play goals. Discarding Le Tissier's other 10 goals—both from open-play and from the PK spot—Southampton produces one point less if a player not named Le Tissier fails to score the one Penalty Kick that Le Tissier scored.


    Matt Le Tissier 1993/1994
    Home vs. Swindon Town / 1-0 / 2-0 / 5-1 win
    Home vs. Newcastle / 1-0 / 2-1 / 2-1 win
    Away vs. Liverpool / 1-2 / 2-3 / 2-4 defeat
    Away vs. Aston Villa / 1-0 / 2-0 / 2-0 win
    Away vs. Swindon Town / 1-1 / 2-1 win
    Home vs. Coventry City / 1-0 *PK* / 1-0 win
    Away vs. Newcastle / 1-2 / 1-2 defeat
    Away vs. Oldham Athletic / 1-0 / 1-2 defeat
    Home vs. Liverpool / 1-0 / 3-0 *PK* / 4-0 *PK* / 4-2 win
    Home vs. Wimbledon / 1-0 / 1-0 win
    Home vs. Oldham Athletic / 1-2 / 1-3 defeat
    Away vs. Norwich / 3-2 / 4-3 *PK* / 4-4 / 5-4 win
    Home vs. Blackburn Rovers / 3-1 *PK* / 3-1 win
    Home vs. Aston Villa / 1-0 / 3-1 / 4-1 win
    Away vs. West Ham / 1-1 / 3-2 *PK* / 3-3 draw
    Total: 25 goals / 19 open-play / 6 penalty kicks

    Of his open-play goals, five could be directly credited for 9 points (three wins), five could be indirectly credited for 9 points (three wins), and one indirectly contributed to a one point (one draw): a total of 19 points could be credited to his open-play goals. Discarding Le Tissier's other 14 goals—both from open-play and from the PK spot—Southampton produces eight points less assuming that a player not named Le Tissier fails to score the 5 Penalty Kicks that Le Tissier scored.


    Matt Le Tissier 1994/1995
    Away vs. Aston Villa / 1-1 / 1-1 draw
    Away vs. Tottenham / 1-1 *PK* / 2-1 / 2-1 win
    Home vs. Nottingham Forest / 1-1 *PK* / 1-1 draw
    Home vs. Everton / 2-0 / 2-0 win
    Away vs. Leicester City / 2-4 / 3-4 defeat
    Home vs. Norwich / 1-1 *PK* / 1-1 draw
    Away vs. Blackburn Rovers / 1-2 / 2-3 / 2-3 defeat
    Home vs. Aston Villa / 2-1 / 2-1 win
    Home vs. Wimbledon / 2-2 / 2-3 defeat
    Away vs. Sheffield Wednesday / 1-1 *PK* / 1-1 draw
    Home vs. Manchester City / 2-1 / 2-2 draw
    Home vs. Tottenham / 2-2 / 3-2 / 4-3 win
    Away vs. Chelsea / 1-0 / 2-0 win
    Away vs. Wimbledon / 1-0 / 2-0 win
    Home vs. Crystal Palace / 3-1 / 3-1 win
    Home vs. Leicester City / 2-0 / 2-2 draw
    Total: 20 goals / 16 open-play / 4 penalty kicks

    Of his open-play goals, two could be directly credited for 6 points (two wins), two could be indirectly credited for 3 points (one win), and two indirectly contributed to 2 points (two draws): a total of 11 points could be credited to his open-play goals. Discarding Le Tissier's other 14 goals—both from open-play and from the PK spot—Southampton produces six points less assuming that a player not named Le Tissier fails to score the 4 Penalty Kicks that Le Tissier scored.


    Matt Le Tissier 1995/1996
    Home vs. Nottingham Forest / 1-1 *PK* / 2-3 *PK* / 3-4 defeat
    Home vs. Queens Park Rangers / 2-0 / 2-0 win
    Home vs. Blackburn Rovers / 1-0 *PK* / 1-0 win
    Home vs. Manchester United / 3-0 / 3-1 win
    Away vs. Bolton / 1-0 / 1-0 win
    Total: 7 goals / 4 open-play / 3 penalty kicks

    Of his open-play goals, one could be directly credited for 3 points (one wins): a total of 3 points could be credited to his open-play goals. Discarding Le Tissier's other 6 goals—both from open-play and from the PK spot—Southampton produces three points less assuming that a player not named Le Tissier fails to score one of the Penalty Kicks that Le Tissier scored.


    Matt Le Tissier 1996/1997
    Away vs. Leicester City / 1-2 *PK* / 1-2 defeat
    Home vs. Nottingham Forest / 2-2 / 2-2 draw
    Home vs. Middlesbrough / 2-0 / 3-0 / 4-0 win
    Away vs. Coventry City / 1-0 / 1-1 draw
    Home vs. Sunderland / 2-0 *PK* / 3-0 win
    Home vs. Manchester United / 2-0 / 6-3 win
    Away vs. Sheffield Wednesday / 1-1 *PK* / 1-1 draw
    Away vs. Tottenham / 1-2 / 1-3 defeat
    Home vs. Newcastle / 2-2 / 2-2 draw
    Home vs. Sheffield Wednesday / 2-0 *PK* / 2-3 defeat
    Away vs. Newcastle / 1-0 / 1-0 win
    Home vs. Blackburn Rovers / 2-0 / 2-0 win
    Total: 13 goals / 9 open-play / 4 penalty kicks

    Of his open-play goals, one could be directly credited for 3 points (one win), two could be directly credited for 2 points (two draws), and one could be indirectly credited for one point (one draw): a total of 6 points could be credited to his open-play goals. Discarding Le Tissier's other 9 goals—both from open-play and from the PK spot—Southampton produces one point less assuming that a player not named Le Tissier fails to score one of the Penalty Kicks that Le Tissier scored.
     
    el-torero repped this.
  5. leadleader

    leadleader Member+

    Aug 19, 2009
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    #5 leadleader, Mar 18, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2017
    I'm using the idea of "midfielders" a bit loosely. The reason why, is because a lot of "attacking midfielders" and/or "second strikers" do not really attempt more shots than a player like Frank Lampard, or the difference in terms of shot attempts is so small that it can be somewhat ignored or discounted. For example: Matt Le Tissier in his 1993-95 days is not a player who tried that many shots from long range, from watching all the games that can be watched of him in his better years, I don't see him as a player who tries more speculative shots than Pavel Nedved or Frank Lampard or even Andrea Pirlo (who wasn't a high scoring midfielder but definitely had a license to try highly speculative long range attempts).
     
    el-torero repped this.
  6. holto

    holto New Member

    Mar 11, 2017
    Club:
    --other--
    In the case of Paul Scholes most definitely not. He was, and continues to be, vastly underrated in the eyes of the masses.

    Platini also, was worth his weight in gold.

    I can think of a good few who are/were overrated though. Lampard stands out as one. Van der Vaart offered little else. Nedved likewise.
     
    carlito86 and el-torero repped this.
  7. leadleader

    leadleader Member+

    Aug 19, 2009
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    #7 leadleader, Mar 18, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2017
    Of course there are always exceptions to any rule, mate. But generally, my impression over the years is that high scoring midfielders are overrated—I'd never actually analyzed the numbers before, but it's an intuitive impression that I've formed over the years. And I dare suspect that it offers some insights into why low scoring midfielders like Zinedine Zidane, Andres Iniesta, Carlos Valderrama, Xavi Hernandez, were known to make a difference against the better opponents—even though their lack of scoring stats imply that they must also lack end product.

    Gheorghe Hagi 1991/1992 is another interesting one to look at imo: he was basically or almost a midfielder in 1991/1992, but he also was scoring goals from all ranges.
     
    el-torero repped this.
  8. comme

    comme Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 21, 2003
    As a fundamental point, the whole premise to this is flawed, even if it is still interesting.

    Goals are significant even where the scoreline is wider than one goal. You can win 4-0 but the first goal was significant because it broke the deadlock, changed the nature of the task and drew out the other side, allowing you to hit them on the counter.

    Equally a goal to make it 2-0 or 3-0 can be massively significant in denting opposition hopes of a comeback or taking the pressure off your own side.

    So if you simply discount any goals scored that didn't "directly" contribute to points then you are likely to be missing something.
     
  9. leadleader

    leadleader Member+

    Aug 19, 2009
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    #9 leadleader, Mar 18, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2017
    The best it could ever hope to be is "flawed." It's an inevitable certainty: there's just no non-flawed way of measuring and predicting the value of the 2-0 goal in a 4-0 thrashing. So there should be no doubt at all, that it is inevitably flawed. In my opinion however, it does have enough merit to deserve enough credibility so as to answer the question with enough conviction.

    I'm definitely missing something. My point is: when you give high scoring midfielders the value that was given to Frank Lampard—you are also likely to be missing something. And dare I say: I think you'd be missing more than I am.

    Overall: my opinion is that midfielders, just by analyzing their roles, are not really designed to make a big difference on the basis of "scoring lots of goals for a midfielder." If they score lots of goals: it's because (1) they are lacking in areas such as technique and creativity, and (2) they are taking lots of penalty kicks and free kicks and they also have a complementary license to attempt speculative long range shots. I cannot name a midfielder whom I think made a measurable and a considerable difference to the league standing of his team, on the basis of "he scored a lot of goals for a midfielder." I just don't see how that measurably or significantly improves a club's standing in the league. That's the opinion that I've formed over the years at least, and I find that the data pretty much points in that direction. I'd be more than willing to change my mind, however, if somebody can show me high-scoring-midfielders who made it count when it mattered the most or, if somebody can show me how Lampard scoring 22 goals instead of 12 goals made an actual difference in terms of league standing.

    That's why I've detailed the exact goals, but again: my problem with the goals that broke the deadlock when Chelsea played against clearly inferior teams, is that when you look at the other games, somebody else broke the deadlock and yet the final scoreline is eerily similar to what the scoreline was when it was Lampard who broke the deadlock. That's why I'm willing to simply discount all those goals, and see what conclusions are reached—however flawed—from that. Because if I started looking at goals that broke the deadlock, and 2-1 goals (to go ahead by one goal), and 1-0 goals, and 3-1 goals (to go ahead by two goals), the conclusion that I'll get is that Lampard's impressive goal scoring ability repeatedly (predictably) disappears against the top clubs, because the top clubs are typically the clubs that don't allow players like Lampard to stat-pad. Cristiano Ronaldo in his post-peak got away with it, because that's all CR7 offered in his post-peak years. But a player like Lampard just can't make his goal scoring ability count against the top clubs nor in the World Cup nor in the Euro—the odd occasion here or there does not undo the clear pattern one gets by looking at consecutive seasons of his at his best.

    Looking at the overall pattern: in my opinion there is more reason to believe that the 2-0 or 3-0 goals in a 4-0 win don't really do all that much when you play for Chelsea. The majority of the games serve as an argument, that the outcome tends to be the same, regardless of who scores the 2-0 or 3-0 goals: Chelsea will probably win those games 1-0 or 2-0 even without Lampard's goals.

    I intend to offer more complete data, including Champions League games, but I think the additional data will point towards the same direction.
     
    el-torero repped this.
  10. holto

    holto New Member

    Mar 11, 2017
    Club:
    --other--
    I almost mentioned Hagi in my "not overrated" list, but i didnt think people would remember him. He was, as i remember, the only Romanian worth remembering. A bit like Enzo Scifo dragging a desparate Belgium in his wake. Both were rememberable [sic].
     
  11. comme

    comme Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 21, 2003
    That seems to assume that goals scored by a midfielder are worth something different to goals scored by another position.

    Goals (all players, all teams) are not evenly distributed. So it is impossible to say what an extra ten goals are worth, that all depends on circumstances but generally speaking an extra goal has value.

    That is harder for Chelsea. In the 2009-10 season they won 27/38 games so an additional goal could only have been beneficial in 11 of their games. Moreover they scored 103 goals, the highest since 1961 and ended with the best goal difference in history.

    Only 8 of their 27 wins that season were by a one goal margin. Those 8 games saw Chelsea score 14 goals.

    In other words of their 103 league goals you are counting 89 of them as being meaningless or insignificant. 90% of their goals you are assigning no worth to.

    The whole thing simply assumes that someone else will score the goals for you. You might as well have a thread about why goals in general are overrated because in many instances they don't prove decisive.
     
    artielange84 and barroldinho repped this.
  12. leadleader

    leadleader Member+

    Aug 19, 2009
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    #12 leadleader, Mar 18, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2017
    That's quite the clever strawman argument. Strikers and/or forwards will score more goals, and that creates a larger sample size to separate and define the world class scorers i.e. I would not define 90% of their goals as worthless, because a significantly larger portion of their goals are directly or indirectly meaningful with regards to the actual points. It's the same for a defender like John Terry: he scores 3 goals, and all 3 are directly or indirectly responsible for a gain in points—how could I possibly state that 90% of his goals would have no worth? Midfield players are the ones who score a large portion of meaningless goals, relative to their total count: that is, the difference between 22 goals and 14 goals is more or less entirely meaningless with regards to the league standing in the league. So no: at no point have I stated or implied that 90% of Chelsea's total goals have no worth.

    Lampard scored 16 goals: Chelsea won the league with 91 points.
    Lampard scored 15 goals: Chelsea finished in 3rd place, with 75 points.
    Lampard scored 22 goals: Chelsea won the league with 86 points.
    Lampard scored 11 goals: Chelsea finished in 2nd place, with 83 points.
    Lampard scored 10 goals: Chelsea finished in 2nd place, with 85 points.
    Lampard scored 7 goals: Chelsea finished in 3rd place, with 83 points.

    Chelsea would've produced the same exact amount of points, had you totally discounted a significant portion of Lampard's goals. The same would not be true if you counted how many of Didier Drogba's goals were directly or indirectly responsible for a gain in points. Same for John Terry, Ricardo Carvalho, Michael Essien, and every other defensive players who scores a low amount but a meaningful small amount. It's mostly or mainly midfielders like Frank Lampard, Michael Ballack, Pavel Nedved, who tend to get a lot of praise for scoring a bunch of meaningless goals.

    No more of an assumption than your own assumption of preference: which assumes that someone else will not score the goals whenever Lampard fails to. In any case, I have every reason to believe that my assumption is more consistently reinforced by statistics—whereas your assumption is definitely less reinforced by the relevant statistics. The relevant statistics repeatedly show that Chelsea wins the games by more or less the same scorelines, or by slightly lesser scorelines, regardless of Lampard's goals—this happens far more frequently than your assumption that Chelsea might not win a 4-0 game if you take away 2 goals by Lampard.

    And yes: goals in general are overrated in my opinion. But it's the high scoring hard working midfielders who get the bigger share of the propaganda for scoring goals that don't actually appear to add anything actually meaningful to the club's actual league standing.

    An extra goal does have value. The problem is that the vast majority of all the relevant statistics all appear to point towards the same direction: the value of an extra goal when you play a non-defensive midfield role for Chelsea, tends to be less, arguably way less, than the literal number implies.

    It's not an assumption: it's an inevitable certainty. If you play as a forward or as a striker, you will have more chances to score goals, you will also tend to score more goals, and therefore you should score more of the type of goals that can be directly or indirectly credited for points. What exactly about this fact is an assumption? Yes, goals are worth something different if you play a role that requires you to score a greater portion of the type of goals that are directly and/or indirectly responsible for an actual gain in points. Frank Lampard never in his prime played a role that truly required him to score such goals in order to be useful to the team: he scored his goals, and he received a great deal of credit for it, but Chelsea would more or less win the same exact amount of points if Lampard scored 14 goals or if Lampard scored 22 goals. England's national team in my opinion paid the price for falling for the propaganda of "high scoring midfielders who have the hard work to go with the goals."

    High scoring midfielders do not appear to score many of the type of goals that can be directly or indirectly credited for a gain in points. What exactly is so fundamentally unfair about a basic space-time related principle? And by the same logic: a midfielder who splits a defense wide open with a magnificent pass, and the Gareth Bale who receives the aforementioned magnificent pass to then simply play a short square-assist for Cristiano Ronaldo to tap in—the pass from the midfielder who split the defense wide open, is worth far more than the square-short-easy-pass that gets defined as an assist. What exactly is so fundamentally unfair about the space-time reality that players who play different roles will tend to either score more important goals or produce more important passes or participate in a more active way?

    Overall: yes, goals do appear to be worth something different depending on the role that the player plays. That's more or less precisely why players like Andres Iniesta are forgiven for their seemingly ludicrous low scoring. And have you noticed how Iniesta's goal scoring ability in 'big games' compares to that of Frank Lampard?

    KO stage of the Champions League, against top tier clubs (goals):


    Lampard 2006-2011: 4 games vs. Barcelona (one PK goal), 6 games vs. Liverpool (2 open-play goals and one PK goal), 2 games vs. Inter Milan (zero goals), one Final vs. Manchester United (one open-play goal), another 2 games vs. Manchester United (zero goals). Total: 3 open-play goals, 2 penalty kicks, out of 15 games. (His goal stats stay the same if you add another 2 games vs. Barcelona in season 2011-12.)

    Iniesta 2008-2012: 4 games vs. Chelsea (2 open-play goals), 2 games vs. Bayern Munich (zero goals), 2 games vs. Inter (zero goals), 2 games vs. Real Madrid (zero goals), 4 games vs. AC Milan (one open-play goal), 2 Finals vs. Manchester United (zero goals, but considered one of the better performers of the game in both finals). Total: 3 open-play goals, zero penalty kicks, out of 16 games.

    The underlying problem or flaw to be criticized, is that Andres Iniesta consistently demonstrates his main characteristics against the best clubs. Frank Lampard's signature characteristic of being a "high scoring midfielder" evaporates against the better clubs, this pattern can be easily measured at both league level and Champions League level: if his goals are not worth anything less than goals by players who actually need to score their fair portion of meaningful goals, then why does Lampard's goal scoring ability decline to the level of Andres Iniesta when he plays against top tier clubs? And why does it happen consistently at the Premier League, the Champions League, the World Cup, and also the Euro?
     
    el-torero and annoyedbyneedoflogin repped this.
  13. lessthanjake

    lessthanjake Member+

    May 9, 2015
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Hypothetically, getting lots of goals from your midfielder sounds great. I think there's a natural tendency to think that those goals are simply on top of the goals your striker(s) will score regardless.

    But I'm not sure it works that way. One important thing is that high-scoring midfielders tend to derive a good bit of their scoring from being penalty takers. Obviously, penalty goals are important, but they aren't goals above and beyond what your team would score without you. Someone else could take those penalties. Second, a lot of these midfielders make lots of darting runs into the box. These runs might result in goals, but they typically require other players on the team to compensate by playing more defensively. Those other players who are playing more defensively will probably get fewer goals than they would if they played alongside a less aggressive midfielder.

    So, when it comes to midfielders, I think scoring goals may be a bit overrated, because those goals often come at the expense of goals for teammates. That doesn't mean I wouldn't want such a player on my team. It just means that I don't think the goals that player scores are all extras that wouldn't happen without him. To me, probably the most useful goalscoring skill for a midfielder to have is the ability to score long-distance goals. Sometimes the team is not clicking, and if a midfielder can just belt a ball into the net when nothing is really on, that seems very helpful. Of course, that same player might waste many promising attacks by missing such shots. But if you've got a midfielder with good decision-making ability and a good long-distance shot, I think it's pretty valuable in grinding out difficult matches.
     
    barroldinho and leadleader repped this.
  14. leadleader

    leadleader Member+

    Aug 19, 2009
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    That's more or less what it comes down to in my opinion. The best high scoring midfielder I've seen is Pavel Nedved in season 2002-03, and he never again nor before replicated that form. It's just an incredibly difficult ability to replicate against the better teams. As is also evident when you look at Frank Lampard's and Michael Ballack's numbers against the top tier clubs.

    Players like Matt Le Tissier or Rivaldo can make it count against the top tier clubs, but that's in great part (in my opinion) a direct result of how much conviction they invested in that specific area of their games. For instance, a player like Matt Le Tissier will never work as hard as Lampard or Ballack, but in working less, he creates more freedom in his own mind and also in terms of stamina, to perfect his ability for those moments of magic he was known for. He had a tendency for showing up against the top tier clubs, in large part because of the practice and the compromise that he invested (from a young age) into a highly specific area of his game, and in that regard I consistently find that it is the experts, not the players whom are good at many things, but the players whom are extraordinary at specific things—the experts are the ones who have a tendency for doing well against the top tier opponents. Lampard with all the defensive work he needed or was expected to put in, was almost guaranteed to never be able to use his goal scoring ability in a way that the extra goals could be directly and/or indirectly credited for points that were gained.
     
  15. comme

    comme Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 21, 2003
    You simply haven't got anywhere near enough data here to draw the conclusions that you are doing here.

    Putting to one side the singly important fact that goals actually influence the patterns of play in a match, you are drawing conclusions based on cherry picking a few games and a few goals from a few players.

    You don't have the data and to think that you do shows that your knowledge of statistics is paper thin.

    You have then drawn some sweeping conclusions about the type of goals that attacking midfielders score and the value associated with them. Again, something that you just don't have anything like the data to substatiate.

    So this is probably one of the worst examples of cherry picking that I have ever seen.

    You have randomly chosen 5 seasons for Lampard and 4 seasons for Iniesta and then arbitrarily selected what you consider to be games against big teams.

    But what makes it a particularly blatant and egregious case of data manipulation is that you have chosen the seasons purely to load your own argument. So you have chosen to ignore the 4 goals that Lampard scored against Bayern Munich and Barcelona in 2004-5 and the penalty that he scored against them in the following season. Suddenly things look rather more lopsided.

    Moreover, your definition of "big games" is purely subjective.

    These are the actual goals scored by Iniesta in the Champions League:

    2005-6 (1)

    Udinese - 1 (Group Stage)

    2006-7 (2)

    Levski Sofia - 2 (Group Stage)

    2007-8 (1)

    Lyon - 1 (Group Stage)

    2008-9 (1)

    Chelsea - 1 (Semi Final)

    2010-1 (1)

    Shakhtar Donetsk - 1 (Quarter Final)

    2011-2 (3)

    Viktoria Plzen - 1 (Group Stage)

    Milan - 1 (Quarter Final)

    Chelsea - 1 (Semi Final)

    2012-3 (1)

    Celtic - 1 (Group Stage)

    2016-7 (1)

    Celtic - 1 (Group Stage)

    Goals by round:


    Group Stage - 7

    Quarter Final - 2

    Semi Final - 2


    Goals by opponent:


    Big 4 League: 4

    Non-big 4: 7

    These are the Champions League goals scored by Frank Lampard:

    2003-4 (4)

    Lazio - 2 (Group Stage)

    Arsenal - 1 (Quarter Final)

    Monaco - 1 (Semi Final)


    2004-5 (4)


    Barcelona - 1 (Round of 16)

    Bayern Munich - 3 (Quarter Final)


    2005-6 (2)


    Anderlecht - 1 (Group Stage)

    Barcelona - 1 (Round of 16)


    2006-7 (1)


    Barcelona -1 (Group Stage)


    2007-8 (4)


    Olympiacos - 1 (Round of 16)

    Fenerbahce - 1 (Quarter Final)

    Liverpool - 1 (Semi Final)

    Manchester United - 1 (Final)


    2008-9 (3)


    Bordeaux - 1 (Group Stage)

    Liverpool - 2 (Quarter Final)


    2009-10 (1)


    Atletico Madrid - 1 (Group Stage)


    2011-2 (3)


    Valencia - 1 (Group Stage)

    Napoli - 1 (Round of 16)

    Benfica - 1 (Quarter Final)


    2013-4 (1)


    Steaua Bucharest - 1 (Group Stage)


    Goals by round:


    Group Stage - 8

    Round of 16 - 4

    Quarter Final - 8

    Semi Final - 2

    Final - 1


    Goals by opponent:


    Big 4 League: 16

    Non-big 4: 7

    So actually your suggestion that he consistently demonstrates some ability against the big teams is misplaced. Most of his goals are scored against the cannon fodder of Viktoria Plzen, Celtic and Levski Sofia. Meanwhile Lampard has scored most of his Champions League goals in games in the knock out stages that actually mattered.

    Iniesta is a 1 goal in 10 games player. That's just what he is. His record in La Liga is 1 in 10 (34 in 403), his record in Classicos is 1 in 10 (3 in 33), his record in Europe is 1 in 10, his record for Spain is 1 in 10 (both in major championships and outside that).

    Frank Lampard, without penalties, is a 1 goal in 4 games player. That is true in basically every competition that he has scored.

    Now why don't you come back with some more cooked up and manipulated numbers to prove why that's wrong.

    Alternatively, why don't you try and analyse some data properly.
     
    artielange84, barroldinho and carlito86 repped this.
  16. comme

    comme Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 21, 2003
    In major tournaments, their records look like this:

    Iniesta - 26 games (10 World Cup, 16 Euros), 15 Group Stage, 1 Knock Out

    Lampard - 14 games (10 World Cup, 4 Euros) - 10 Group Stage, 4 Knock Out

    Iniesta - 2 goals (1 Group Stage, 1 Knock Out)

    Lampard - 3 goals * (2 Group Stage, 1 Knock Out)

    * Not including the "goal" against Germany that never was.
     
    artielange84 and barroldinho repped this.
  17. comme

    comme Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 21, 2003
    Which is true of almost every element or aspect of football. It's a constant trade off positionally between attack and defence, being in a position to create and being in a position to finish. It's true of strikers, midfielders and defenders. To get something (a goal, assist, tackle, whatever), you often have to give something else up.

    In terms of shots from long-distance the all-timer leader in the Premier League is .... Frank Lampard with 41.7 more than his nearest rival.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/f...es-deadliest-long-range-shooters-of-all-time/

    In fact he's scored more goals from outside the box than Iniesta has in his entire league career.
     
    artielange84 repped this.
  18. carlito86

    carlito86 Member+

    Jan 11, 2016
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    #18 carlito86, Mar 20, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2017
    LOL
    comparing iniestas goalscoring ability{or lack thereof}to a player like lampard is like saying koscielny can defend as good as facchetti/maldini{ie they are worlds apart}

    high scoring mids contrary to leadleaders propaganda are not usually lacking in the technical department
    if he would've bothered to do even a tiny bit of research he would've stumbled across the goal exploits of lothar matthaus in inter Milan who scored a shit load of goals in a ultra defensive league{relatively speaking of course ,in his best season he notched around 23 goals in a single season which was pretty remarkable for a cm playing in Italy[ late 80s to early 90s]
     
    artielange84 repped this.
  19. carlito86

    carlito86 Member+

    Jan 11, 2016
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    hagi scored 40 goals in a season playing for steaua bucharest
    that is goal tally that many dozens of world strikers did not even sniff in their careers

    by the way placing iniesta/xavi next to zidane when it comes to goalscoring is a complete insult and we've been over this already actually a while ago
    zidane scored approx 151 career goals in under 800 games
    iniesta+xavi barely scored over 160 combined goals in over 1500 career games
    they simply cannot be compared
     
    artielange84 repped this.
  20. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    He scored 16 goals in 31 league games that season (1990-91), including 7 penalties. That's a scoring ratio of 0.29.

    In all competitions he scored 23 goals in 46 games, including 9 penalties (2 of 6 goals in UEFA Cup were penalties; the goal in the semi final and the goal in the final). That's a scoring ratio of 0.30 in all competitions.

    His penalty miss against Sampdoria handed the same Sampdoria the title, but it is probably his best club season indeed.
    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2009/jun/25/sampdoria-1991-rob-smyth

    In the whole Serie A career it was 115 games, 40 goals and 17 penalties. Scoring ratio of 0.20 as an attacking midfielder.

    Somewhat comparable to a Lampard when factoring in the lower goals per game.

    (a slightly more defensive player as Rijkaard has 17 goals without penalties in 142 games, ratio of 0.12 as central defender/defensive midfielder/central midfielder)
     
  21. leadleader

    leadleader Member+

    Aug 19, 2009
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    A considerable correction with regards to the data below.

    EDIT:

    KO stage of the Champions League, against top tier clubs (goals):

    Lampard 2006-2012: 6 games vs. Barcelona (one PK goal), 6 games vs. Liverpool (2 open-play goals and one PK goal), 2 games vs. Inter Milan (zero goals), one Final vs. Manchester United (one open-play goal), another 2 games vs. Manchester United (zero goals), and another Final vs. Bayern Munich (zero goals). Total: 3 open-play goals, 2 penalty kicks, out of 22 games.

    Iniesta 2008-2015: 4 games vs. Chelsea (2 open-play goals), 6 games vs. Bayern Munich (zero goals), 2 games vs. Inter (zero goals), 2 games vs. Real Madrid (zero goals), 4 games vs. AC Milan (one open-play goal), 2 games vs. Atletico Madrid (zero goals), 2 Finals vs. Manchester United (zero goals, but considered one of the better performers of the game in both finals). Total: 3 open-play goals, zero penalty kicks, out of 22 games.

    Lampard's ability to score one goal per every four games, becomes 3 goals per every 22 games against the top tier clubs. According to @comme - Lampard should've scored at least 5 open-play goals, with an extra 2 games to increase his open-play numbers. Instead, Lampard scored 3 open-play goals, literally the same amount as Iniesta.
     
    el-torero repped this.
  22. comme

    comme Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 21, 2003
    This whole thread is a waste of time. I have never questioned that data exists that could help you to draw conclusions. That though should be the starting point of any investigation.

    Instead you have an opinion which you are trying to support using manipulated data. You have no interest in finding the "truth" or in potentially being proved wrong. You have made a decision and are then trying to load the statistics to support that. That is the end of it.

    To get even close to finding the answer you would need to examine the number and significance of goals at a much bigger level, to stratify the data by goalscorer, position, club, opposition.

    By the time you finish I'm sure you will think you have proved your point. That only goes to show that you have no clue what you are talking about.
     
    artielange84 repped this.
  23. leadleader

    leadleader Member+

    Aug 19, 2009
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    #23 leadleader, Mar 21, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2017
    I'm re-writing a response, as this website insists on using a crazy 30 minute editing deadline, which makes it particularly difficult for the posters who do not have the time to properly revise everything they write, before the 30 minute deadline runs out. I tried to delete the original reply so as to prevent the back-and-forth that would perhaps (predictably) be generated by the original reply, but because I do not (and with every reason) trust the moderators of this forum, I have no idea if my request will be satisfied, and to be perfectly honest, I think it probably won't be satisfied because that's the tendency when I ask for very minor requests and/or favors in this website. Anyways.

    EDIT:

    You have inadvertently shot down your own credibility in this argument better than I ever could. You don't even seem to understand the self-explanatory difference between a top tier club, and what at most could be credited as a German Manchester City.

    Liverpool 2003-2009: eliminated in the Preliminary Group (2002-03), eliminated in the Round of 16 by Olympique Marseille (2003-04), won the Final vs. AC Milan (2004-05), eliminated in the Round of 16 by Benfica (2005-06), lost the Final vs. AC Milan (2006-07), eliminated in the Semi Finals by Chelsea (2007-08), eliminated in the Quarter Finals by Chelsea (2008-09).

    Chelsea 2003-2009: did not qualified to the Champions League (2002-03), eliminated in the Semi Finals by Monaco (2003-04), eliminated in the Semi Finals by Liverpool (2004-05), eliminated in the Round of 16 by Barcelona (2005-06), eliminated in the Semi Finals (2006-07), nearly won the Final (2007-08), eliminated in the Semi Final (2008-09).

    Bayern Munich 2003-2009: eliminated in the Preliminary Group (2002-03), eliminated in the Round of 16 by Real Madrid (2003-04), eliminated in the Quarter Finals by Chelsea (2004-05), eliminated in the Round of 16 by AC Milan (2005-06), eliminated in the Quarter Finals by AC Milan (2006-07), did not even qualified to the Champions League (2007-08), eliminated in the Quarter Finals by Barcelona (2008-09).

    Notice a difference? Bayern Munich was nothing more than a German Manchester City, clearly not at the same level as Chelsea and Liverpool and Barcelona. Frank Lampard scored 4 goals precisely against the inferior opponents that he scored his goals against. But Frank Lampard's goal scoring ability repeatedly evaporated when he played vs. Barcelona, Manchester United, Liverpool, and the other top tier clubs. You have at best, mostly further proved my point and at the same time pointed out that I overlooked one goal vs. Barcelona 2004-05. And at worst, you have yet again displayed a passive-aggressive personality (with regards to specific posters who for no good reason seem to consistently get more of the aggressive part of the aforementioned dynamic). Overall, I just think that you've made yourself look quite childish in the process of denouncing me for so-called 'egregious' data manipulation where there CLEARLY was none.

    Bayern Munich 2004-05:

    1-0 defeat vs. Juventus (an old and declined Juventus)
    1-0 defeat vs. Juventus (again, an old and declined Juventus)
    2-2 draw vs. Ajax
    1-0 defeat vs. Arsenal.
    2 expected wins vs. Maccabi Tel Aviv
    4-0 win vs. Ajax (an expected win, mind you)
    3-1 win vs. Arsenal
    3-2 win vs. Chelsea

    Bayern Munich played 10 games. Out of those 10 games, 4 of them were expected wins against significantly inferior clubs such as Maccabi Tel Aviv and Ajax (the latter of which managed to get a draw in one of the two games). When Bayern Munich played against relative top tier opposition: 2 defeats vs. Juventus, one defeat and one win vs. Arsenal, one win and one defeat vs. Chelsea, eliminated in the Quarter Finals (2004-05), eliminated in the Round of 16 (2003-04), eliminated in the Round of 16 (2005-06), did not even qualified (2007-08), etc. If I define Bayern Munich 2004-05 as top tier opposition, then where exactly do I draw the line?

    And of course Frank Lampard's goal scoring record will be much better than Iniesta's, if I started defining teams like Bayern Munich 2004-05 as a top tier club of the time. The problem of course, still comes back to the assumption that Chelsea did not actually needed Lampard scoring 4 goals in order to eliminate a clearly inferior team. It is extremely reasonable to assume (on the basis of imperfect but comprehensive data), that if you replace Lampard with Iniesta, Chelsea also very probably eliminates Bayern Munich 2004-05. In which case, Iniesta almost certainly would not have scored a single goal in those two games. In which case, what would that say about Lampard's ability for scoring goals against teams that Chelsea SHOULD eliminate anyways?

    Moreover, Barcelona 2004-05 is a legitimate but minor 'data manipulation' on my part, but more of an accidental data manipulation as I didn't wanted to stretch that far into a player's careers. For instance, season 2005-06 until season 2009-10 (i.e. the season where Lampard scored a career high of 22 league goals), already makes for 5 seasons of Lampard's careers. How far do I need to stretch in order to measure Lampard's relative prime? Six seasons is a very long time, for any player. Here is what I get when I correct the data:

    KO stage of the Champions League, against top tier clubs (goals):

    Lampard 2005-2012: 8 games vs. Barcelona (one open-play goal and one PK goal), 6 games vs. Liverpool (2 open-play goals and one PK goal), 2 games vs. Inter Milan (zero goals), one Final vs. Manchester United (one open-play goal), another 2 games vs. Manchester United (zero goals), and another Final vs. Bayern Munich (zero goals). Total: 4 open-play goals, 2 penalty kicks, out of 20 games.

    Iniesta 2008-2015: 4 games vs. Chelsea (2 open-play goals), 4 games vs. Bayern Munich (zero goals), 2 games vs. Inter (zero goals), 2 games vs. Real Madrid (zero goals), 4 games vs. AC Milan (one open-play goal), 2 games vs. Atletico Madrid (zero goals), 2 Finals vs. Manchester United (zero goals, but considered one of the better performers of the game in both finals). Total: 3 open-play goals, zero penalty kicks, out of 20 games.

    Overall: you have needlessly accused (insulted) me of having 'egregiously' manipulated the data, which is a straw man, and a particularly insulting straw man at that—because there is no "egregious data manipulation" in not wanting to define Bayern Munich 2004-05 as a top tier club: it demonstrably wasn't a top tier club by most if not every conceivable measure. And even when Barcelona 2004-05 is RIGHTFULLY added, it doesn't actually change much of anything, and it certainly doesn't excuses the needlessly aggressive tone whereby I was in no uncertain terms depicted as "an egregious con man who manipulates data." Your accusation was a reckless and an insulting straw man argument, and you knew that that was your deliberate aim before you even began typing your so-called counter argument.

    Frank Lampard in a nutshell: 4 goals against a German Manchester City, ZERO goals vs. Liverpool, and one goal vs. Barcelona. Rinse and repeat with every other of his better seasons.

    Another lazy and needlessly aggressive argument by you. I did not randomly chose anything: Iniesta played 2 out of 3 Finals between 2009 and 2011, added to another 3 Semi Finals between 2010 and 2013. If I chose any prime time 5 seasons for each of the players, Iniesta would've always been in a disadvantage, because Iniesta played a larger portion of his games against top tier opponents. Hence why I had to stretch an extra season with Lampard, in order to equalize. It doesn't change much of anything, but I should have used season 2004-05 as one of the additional seasons, instead of season 2011-12. I used season 2011-12 because Chelsea actually won the Champions League, and because that season was closer to season 2009-10 (i.e. the season in which Lampard scored a career high of 22 goals). There was no conspiracy to undermine Lampard, which is obvious when you look at the actual results when the data is corrected.

    The definition of "big game" is always inherently subjective one way or the other. A Quarter Final vs. Wolfsburg is regarded as a big game in some circles... But generally, league games against demonstrably inferior opponents that Chelsea beats by margins of over 2 goals, are generally not defined as "big games" in any consistent sense.

    You have repeatedly demonstrated a suspect inability to understand that the premise of this thread cannot be consistently measured by literal statistics—an assumption one way or the other, will always be made. The premise of the thread is: are high scoring midfielders overrated? If your argument is that Lampard's goal scoring ability is literally just one goal better than Iniesta's when you isolate the games against the top tier clubs, but that, on the other hand, Lampard scores a lot of goals against a bunch of inferior opponents—what exactly are you proving or disproving?

    Lampard's scoring ability is not overrated because he can score lots of goals against inferior opponents but then declines to Iniesta-like numbers against the top tier clubs?

    Most of Iniesta's goals are scored against cannon fodder, exactly just like Lampard. But Iniesta does not have the reputation that he has because he scores one goal per every four games, but rather because his main strengths consistently show up against the top tier clubs—Lampard's ability to score one goal per every four games, becomes 4 goals per every 20 games when he plays against the top tier clubs. That's more or less the opposite of what happens with Iniesta's main strengths (when Iniesta plays against top tier opponents).


    KO stage of the Champions League, against top tier clubs (goals):


    Lampard 2005-2012: 8 games vs. Barcelona (one open-play goal and one PK goal), 6 games vs. Liverpool (2 open-play goals and one PK goal), 2 games vs. Inter Milan (zero goals), one Final vs. Manchester United (one open-play goal), another 2 games vs. Manchester United (zero goals), and another Final vs. Bayern Munich (zero goals). Total: 4 open-play goals, 2 penalty kicks, out of 20 games.

    Iniesta 2008-2015: 4 games vs. Chelsea (2 open-play goals), 6 games vs. Bayern Munich (zero goals), 2 games vs. Inter (zero goals), 2 games vs. Real Madrid (zero goals), 4 games vs. AC Milan (one open-play goal), 4 games vs. Atletico Madrid (zero goals), 2 Finals vs. Manchester United (zero goals, but considered one of the better performers of the game in both finals), and one Final vs. Juventus (zero goals but recognized as the official man of the match—though personally I think Messi was the man of the match). Total: 3 open-play goals, zero penalty kicks, out of 20 games.

    According to you, Lampard should've scored at least 5 open-play goals, instead he scored 4 open-play goals, and Iniesta scored 3 open-play goals (playing in a system that is not designed to maximize Iniesta's goal count). Iniesta is a 1 goal in 10 games player, yet he is just one goal behind Lampard—why is Iniesta only one goal behind, when Lampard is supposed to be two times and then some better than Iniesta in that department?

    And at league level, Lampard also has demonstrable difficulties scoring open-play goals against Manchester United, Arsenal, and Liverpool. Why?

    I do have a lot of data to substantiate my point. It is flawed data in the end, but it could only ever hope to be flawed—the fact that you do not seem to grasp that the premise of the thread, whether you agree or disagree with it, cannot be objectively calculated by "the data" that you seem to think supports your opinion, speaks volumes about your apparent lack of understanding for the things (i.e. abilities) that statistical data cannot measure without necessarily making a big assumption one way or the other.

    Wrong again. I arbitrarily defined the top tier clubs on the basis of both their results and their players. Whilst it is somewhat reasonable to define said 'arbitrary' selection as cherry picking, it would nonetheless be objectively absurd to define it as "possibly the worst example of cherry picking that I have ever seen." There's absolutely nothing THAT outrageous about arbitrarily defining something as easily measurable as the top tier clubs of any era: whilst there's a small margin on which to disagree on, most people will tend to agree on who the top tier clubs were in any era. I again, do not understand your pedantic childish attitude: nothing I've stated so far could possibly excuse such childish behavior.

    Straw man, again. (Very much seems to be your strong suit, mate.) I never claimed to have "the data" at any point in this thread. The very fact that you think that such a thing as "the data" exists to prove or measure that you are correct, is the reason why your very first contribution to this thread was a statistical straw man against the premise of the thread, because you in no uncertain terms want to use plain statistics and "play pattern" excuses in order to define the premise of this thread as nonsense, but then again, the premise of this thread is not remotely statistical enough to validate your opinion as common sense—the fact that you obviously fail to grasp such a self-explanatory fact, and the fact that you actually believe that I have either implied or stated that I possess "the data" (which I have not done), heavily implies that your motives in this thread are not honest nor genuine. Your intention to quickly depict me as a person with no knowledge of statistics, as a person with "paper thin knowledge on statistics" and what is the basis for such aggressive defamation? Your supreme understanding of statistics? Your supreme understanding of the premise of the thread? No, the entire basis for your aggressive and insulting tone, is "the data" that you apparently have but have so far failed to explain in any consistent manner.

    Bottom line: I have never claimed to possess "the data" that dispels all the non-truths. It was dishonest and it was offensive and it was rude of you, to begin your argument by deliberately and dishonestly insulting my opinion on the basis of a blatant deliberate straw man. Nobody intelligent will fail to see what you've done here.

    So far I have not definitely stated that I got enough data to prove the point. Another straw man of yours. But what I did stated, is that the majority of the data that I have analyzed, does overwhelmingly points towards the same exact conclusion: players like Lampard do not score 'extra goals' in any consistently meaningful sense. Lampard could score 14 goals, or 22 goals, and it will very rarely be reflected in terms of the club's actual standing i.e. in terms of the club's actual points.

    You have so far provided insults and straw mans and pseudo-data, but you haven't provided a robust nor a consistent argument to refute what you obviously think is nonsense. Again: this very much appears to be your strong suit when you disagree with people—straw mans, insults, and then playing dumb when you get called out for your known passive-aggressive act.

    Why does the "pattern of play" totally evaporates in the difficult games against opponents who do not get defeated by margins of 2 to 3 goals?

    My conclusions are absolutely not based on cherry picking. That is your straw man. My conclusions are based on precisely the opposite of cherry picking, that is, the fact that the majority of the results that I have analyzed so far, the vast majority of them tend to end with victories of 1 to 3 goal margins, regardless of whether or not Lampard scores the 1-0 goal, the 2-0 goal, the 2-2 goal, the 3-2 goal, or the 4-2 goal, or no goal at all. That's not a cherry picked conclusion, that's in fact what the majority of the data (that I have so far analyzed) hints at.

    You mean "egregiously manipulated numbers" like Bayern Munich 2004-05 being proof that Lampard could score 4 goals against a German Manchester City? Or the several other straw man arguments that I already thoroughly debunked? What exactly is it that justifies your nasty aggressive pedantic behavior in this thread?

    Alternatively, you could drop your passive-aggressive act, and actually make an argument that (1) doesn't fall flat on its face and (2) isn't so needlessly rude.
     
    el-torero repped this.
  24. leadleader

    leadleader Member+

    Aug 19, 2009
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    #24 leadleader, Mar 21, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2017
    I dislike the needlessly rude and insulting tone that Comme used in his attempt (and contempt) to shot down my conclusions, but I will nonetheless take on board some of the criticism: I'm correcting a few minor mistakes on Lampard's post (that I didn't noticed the first time around), and in the process, I'm also going to edit the Lampard data so as to include also a more generous metric, one that counts games won by margins of no more than just one goal (even after taking away all of Lampard's goals) as games where Lampard directly and/or indirectly contributed with "points goals." Points goals of course being goals that could be directly and/or indirectly credited for a gain in points.

    EDIT:

    [​IMG]


    Frank Lampard 2005/2006 (John Terry)
    Home vs. West Bromwich Albion / 1-0 / 4-0 / 4-0 win
    Home vs. Aston Villa / 1-1 / 2-1 *PK* / 2-1 win
    Away vs. Liverpool / 1-0 *PK* / 4-1 win
    Home vs. Bolton / 2-1 / 3-1 / 5-1 win
    Away vs. Everton / 1-1 / 1-1 draw
    Home vs. Blackburn Rovers / 2-0 *PK* / 3-2 / 4-2 win
    Away vs. Portsmouth / 2-0 *PK* / 2-0 win
    (Home vs. Middlesbrough / 1-0 / 1-0 win)
    (Home vs. Wigan Athletic / 1-0 / 1-0 win)

    Home vs. Fulham / 2-0 / 3-2 win
    Away vs. West Ham / 1-0 / 3-1 win
    Home vs. Portsmouth / 1-0 / 2-0 win
    (Home vs. West Ham / 3-1 / 4-1 win)
    Away vs. Bolton / 2-0 / 2-0 win
    (Away vs. Bolton / 1-0 / 2-0 win)
    Home vs. Everton / 1-0 / 3-0 win
    Total: 13 goals / 9 open-play / 4 penalty kicks

    Using the first metric (note: I think this is the more accurate metric out of the 3 metrics to be discussed): of his open-play goals, one could be indirectly credited for 3 points (one win), one could be directly credited as having produced 3 points (one win), and another one could be directly credited for one point (a draw): a total of 7 points (two wins and one draw) could be credited to Lampard's open-play goals. In comparison, John Terry scored two goals that could be directly credited for 6 points (two wins), that is, just one point less than Lampard's goal scoring exploits. Discarding Lampard's other 13 goals—both from open-play and from the PK spot—Chelsea produces the same exact amount of points.

    Using the generous second metric (note: I think this is obviously the worst metric out of the 3 to be discussed): of his open-play goals, six could be directly and/or indirectly credited for 18 points (six wins), and one could be directly credited for 1 point (one draw): a total of 19 points (six wins and one draw) could be credited to Lampard's open-play goals. (This metric is obviously overly generous as the results prove, because no midfielder will ever score that many valuable goals, ever. Lampard was not THAT valuable to the team, in fact, not even close to that value.) In comparison, John Terry scored goals that could be directly and/or indirectly credited as having produced 9 points (three wins), that's half of Frank Lampard's inflated value is. Discarding Lampard's other 6 goals—both from open-play and from the PK spot—Chelsea produces the same exact amount of points.

    And I'm going to also use a third metric: this third metric defines games won by margins of no more than just one goal (even after taking away all of Lampard's goals) as games where Lampard directly and/or indirectly contributed with "points goals." (Same as the second metric.) But unlike the second metric (paragraph above), this third metric assumes that 50% of the added (inflated) value does not exists because it assumes that 100% of the time the other players not named Lampard would not have scored a single goal—which is extremely unreasonable to believe, because that never happens, in any team. This third metric defines that 2 out of his 4 second metric "points goals" should be discarded on the reasonable assumption that other Chelsea players would have scored goals at least 50% of the time. Which leaves Lampard with a total of 13 points (four wins and one draw) that could be credited to his open-play goals. Compared to John Terry's 9 points (three wins).


    Frank Lampard 2006/2007 (Ricardo Carvalho)
    Home vs. Manchester City / 2-0 / 3-0 win
    Away vs. Blackburn Rovers / 1-0 *PK* / 2-0 win
    (Home vs. Charlton Athletic / 2-1 / 2-1 win)
    Away vs. Fulham / 1-0 *PK* / 2-0 / 2-0 win
    Away vs. Sheffield United / 1-0 / 2-0 win
    (Away vs. Manchester United / 1-1 / 1-1 draw)
    Away vs. Bolton / 2-2 / 3-2 win
    Away vs. Wigan Athletic / 1-0 / 3-2 win
    Home vs. Wigan Athletic / 1-0 / 4-0 win
    Home vs. Blackburn Rovers / 2-0 / 3-0 win
    Away vs. Charlton Athletic / 1-0 / 1-0 win
    Away vs. Manchester City / 1-0 *PK* / 1-0 win
    (Home vs. Tottenham / 1-0 / 1-0 win)
    Total: 16 goals / 13 open-play / 3 penalty kicks

    Using the first metric: of his open-play goals, two could be indirectly credited for 6 points (two wins), and one could be directly credited for 3 points (one win): a total of 9 points (three wins) could be credited to Lampard's open-play goals. In comparison, Ricardo Carvalho scored 3 goals, and his goals could be directly credited as having produced 7 points (two wins and one draw, the draw was against Manchester United, at Old Trafford). Discarding Lampard's other 13 goals—both from open-play and from the PK spot—Chelsea produces 3 points less if we assume that the Penalty Kick that Lampard scored, is not scored by some other player.

    Using the second metric: of his open-play goals, five could be directly and/or indirectly credited for 15 points (five wins): a total of 15 points (five wins) could be credited to Lampard's open-play goals. In comparison, Ricardo Carvalho scored goals that could be directly and/or indirectly credited as having produced 7 points (two wins and one draw), that's less than half of Lampard's inflated value.

    Using the third metric: of his open-play goals, four could be directly and/or indirectly credited for 12 points (four wins): a total of 12 points (four wins) could be credited to Lampard's open play goals. Compared to Carvalho's 7 points (two wins and one draw).


    Frank Lampard 2007/2008 (Michael Essien)
    (Home vs. Birmingham / 3-2 / 3-2 win)
    Away vs. Reading / 1-1 / 2-1 win
    Away vs. Liverpool / 1-1 *PK / 1-1 draw
    Home vs. Portsmouth / 1-0 / 1-0 win
    (Home vs. Manchester City / 1-0 / 6-0 win)
    Away vs. Wigan Athletic / 1-0 / 2-0 win
    Away vs. Sunderland / 2-0 *PK* / 2-0 win
    Home vs. West Ham / 1-0 *PK* / 4-0 win
    (Home vs. Newcastle / 1-0 / 2-1 win)
    Home vs. Derby County / 1-0 *PK* / 3-0 / 5-0 / 6-0 / 6-1 win
    (Away vs. Tottenham / 2-1 / 4-4 draw)
    (Home vs. Wigan Athletic / 1-0 / 1-1 draw)
    (Away vs. Everton / 1-0 / 1-0 win)

    Total: 10 goals / 6 open-play / 4 penalty kicks

    Using the first metric: of his open-play goals, one could be directly credited for 3 points (one win), and one was indirectly responsible for 3 points (one win): a total of 6 points (two wins) could be credited to Lampard's open-play goals. In comparison, Michael Essien scored 6 goals, and his goals could be directly and/or indirectly credited for 11 points (three wins and two draws). Discarding Lampard's other 8 goals—both from open-play and from the PK spot—Chelsea produces one point less if we assume that the Penalty Kick that Lampard scored, is not scored by some other player.

    Using the second metric: of his open-play goals, three could be directly and/or indirectly credited for 9 points (three wins): a total of 9 points (three wins) could be credited to Lampard's open-play goals. In comparison, Michael Essien open-play goals could be directly and/or indirectly credited for 11 points (three wins and two draws). Lampard's inflated stats are still inferior to the stats of a defensive midfielder, which more or less explains where I stand in this argument.

    Using the third metric: the result in this case is the same as in the second metric, or the same as in the first metric.


    Frank Lampard 2008/2009 (Belletti)
    Home vs. Portsmouth / 3-0 *PK* / 4-0 win
    (Home vs. Tottenham / 1-0 / 1-1 draw)
    Away vs. Manchester City / 2-1 / 3-1 win
    Away vs. Middlesbrough / 4-0 / 5-0 win
    Away vs. Hull City / 1-0 / 3-0 win
    Home vs. Sunderland / 4-0 / 5-0 win
    Home vs. West Bromwich / 2-0 / 2-0 win
    Away vs. Fulham / 1-1 / 2-1 *FK* / 2-2 draw
    Home vs. Stoke City / 2-1 / 2-1 win
    (Home vs. Stoke City / 1-1 / 2-1 win)
    Home vs. Wigan Athletic / 2-1 / 2-1 win
    Away vs. Newcastle / 1-0 / 2-0 win
    Home vs. Bolton / 3-0 *PK* / 4-3 win
    Total: 12 goals / 9 open-play / 2 penalty kicks / 1 free kick

    Using the first metric: of his open-play goals, one could be indirectly credited for one point (one draw), two could be directly credited for 6 points (two wins): a total of 7 points (two wins and one draw) could be credited to Lampard's open-play goals. In comparison, Belletti scored 2 goals, and his goals directly and/or indirectly credited for 4 points (one win and one draw). Discarding Lampard's other 9 goals—both from open-play and from the PK spot—Chelsea produces one point less assuming that another player not named Lampard does not score from the free kick spot.

    Using the second metric: of his open-play goals, five could be directly and/or indirectly credited for 15 points (five wins): a total of 15 points (five wins) could be credited to Lampard's open-play goals.

    Using the third metric: of his open-play goals, four could be directly and/or indirectly credited for 12 points (four wins): a total of 12 points (four wins) could be credited to Lampard's open play goals.


    Frank Lampard 2009/2010 (John Terry)
    Away vs. Sunderland / 1-2 *PK* / 3-1 win
    Home vs. Blackburn Rovers / 2-0 / 4-0 *PK* / 5-0 win
    Away vs. Bolton / 1-0 *PK* / 4-0 win
    (Home vs. Manchester United / 1-0 / 1-0 win)
    Home vs. Portsmouth / 2-1 / 2-1 win
    Away vs. West Ham / 1-1 *PK* / 1-1 draw
    Home vs. Sunderland / 4-0 / 7-1 / 7-2 win
    Home vs. Birmingham City / 2-0 / 3-0 / 3-0 win
    (Away vs. Burnley / 1-2 / 1-2 win)
    Home vs. Manchester City / 1-0 / 2-4 *PK* / 2-4 defeat
    Away vs. Portsmouth / 5-0 / 5-0 win
    Home vs. Aston Villa / 1-0 / 2-1 *PK* / 4-1 *PK* / 7-1 / 7-1 win
    Home vs. Stoke City / 3-0 *PK* / 5-0 / 7-0 win
    Away vs. Liverpool / 2-0 / 2-0 win
    Home vs. Wigan Athletic / 2-0 *PK* / 8-0 win
    Total: 22 goals / 13 open-play / 9 penalty kicks

    Using the first metric: of his open-play goals, one could be directly credited for 3 points (one win): a total of 3 points (one win) could be credited to his open-play goals. In comparison, John Terry scored 2 goals, and his goals could be directly credited for 6 points (two wins). Discarding Lampard's other 21 goals—both from open-play and from the PK spot—Chelsea produces the same exact amount of points.

    Using the second metric: of his open-play goals, three could be directly and/or indirectly credited for 9 points (three wins): a total of 9 points (three wins) could be credited to Lampard's open-play goals. Compared to John Terry's 6 points (two wins).

    Using the third metric: of his open-play goals, two could be directly and/or indirectly credited for 6 points (two wins): a total of 6 points (two wins) could be credited to Lampard's open play goals. The same exact amount as Terry's 6 points (two wins), which again explains where it is that I stand in this argument.

    Lampard scored 16 goals: Chelsea won the league with 91 points.
    Lampard scored 15 goals: Chelsea finished in 3rd place, with 75 points.
    Lampard scored 22 goals: Chelsea won the league with 86 points.
    Lampard scored 11 goals: Chelsea finished in 2nd place, with 83 points.
    Lampard scored 10 goals: Chelsea finished in 2nd place, with 85 points.
    Lampard scored 13 goals: Chelsea won the league with 95 points.

    In addition to the lack of consistency regarding the total amount of open-play goals as associated to the amount of open-play goals that actually directly and/or indirectly contributed towards points gained, there also seems to be (a complementary) little to no consistency regarding the total amount of goals that Lampard scores as associated to Chelsea's actual league standing. Frank Lampard could score 11 goals or 22 goals, and the difference in points is 83 points (11 goals) vs. 86 points (22 goals); 95 points (13 goals) vs. 86 points (22 goals); etc.

    Furthermore, even when Lampard's goal scoring stats are conveniently inflated, Michael Essien produced more point-goals in season 2007-08, and John Terry got fairly close in at least two different seasons. Most of the data that I've analyzed so far points towards the same exact conclusion: high scoring midfielders, their open-play goal scoring ability at the very least, is clearly overrated.
     
    el-torero repped this.
  25. leadleader

    leadleader Member+

    Aug 19, 2009
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    #25 leadleader, Mar 22, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2017
    [​IMG]

    Carlos Valderrama 1990/1991 (Laurent Blanc)
    (Away vs. Cannes / 1-1 *PK* / 1-2 defeat)
    (Home vs. Sochaux / 2-0 *PK* / 2-0 win)
    (Home vs. PSG / 3-0 / 4-0 *PK* / 4-0 win)
    (Away vs. Brest / 1-1 *PK* / 1-1 draw)

    Away vs. Stade Rennes / 1-0 / 2-1 win
    (Away vs. Stade Rennes / 2-1 *PK* / 2-1 win)
    (Away vs. Lyon / 2-3 / 3-3 / 3-3 draw)
    (Home vs. Metz / 3-2 / 4-2 *PK* / 5-2 win)
    (Home vs. Bordeaux / 1-1 *PK* / 2-1 win)

    Home vs. Toulouse / 1-0 / 2-0 win
    (Away vs. Nancy / 1-1 / 1-1 draw)
    (Home vs. Brest / 1-0 *PK* / 1-0 win)
    (Away vs. Toulon / 1-1 / 1-1 draw)

    Total: 2 goals / 2 open-play / zero penalty kicks
    (Total: 14 goals / 6 open-play / 8 penalty kicks)

    Using the first metric: of his open-play goals, one could be indirectly credited for 3 points (one win): a total of 3 points (one win) could be credited to Valderrama's open-play goals. In comparison, Laurent Blanc scored 14 goals, out of which 8 were Penalty Kicks, and in terms of open-play value 4 out of 14 of his goals could be credited for 3 points (3 draws)—using the first metric, Valderrama (2 goals) and Laurent Blanc (14 goals) directly and/or indirectly contributed to 3 points each. Moreover, the 2 open-play goals by Valderrama ranged from difficult to extremely difficult; the 6 open-play goals by Laurent Blanc were either easy tap ins (including at least 2 tap ins against an empty net), and headers assisted by Free Kicks or Corner Kicks.

    Using the second metric: of his open-play goals, all two of his open-play goals could be directly and/or indirectly credited for 6 points (2 wins): a total of 6 points (2 wins) could be credited to Valderrama's open-play goals. Laurent Blanc's open-play numbers remain identical because all his meaningful open-play goals were scored in draws, having contributed to 3 points (3 draws).

    Using the third metric: the result in this case is the same as in the second metric, or the same as in the first metric.

    Another curious data point, is the 8 Penalty Kicks, because a team that scores only 44 goals, getting 8 Penalty Kicks, is arguably rare. For reference, Real Madrid 1991-92 scored 78 goals, but only 5 Penalty Kicks. Real Madrid 1992-93 scored 75 goals, but only 5 Penalty Kicks. Deportivo Coruna 1992-93 scored 67 goals, but only 6 Penalty Kicks. Atletico Madrid 1991-92 scored 67 goals, but only 6 Penalty Kicks. Barcelona 1990-91 scored 74 goals, but only 7 Penalty Kicks. Real Madrid 1990-91 scored 63 goals, but only 7 Penalty Kicks. Real Valladolid 1990-91 scored 38 goals, but only 4 Penalty Kicks. Barcelona 1993-94 scored 91 goals, and 11 Penalty Kicks. Barcelona 1992-93 scored 87 goals, and 11 Penalty Kicks. Montpellier scored 44 goals, but 8 Penalty Kicks—and that could have easily been 10 Penalty Kicks had Montpellier made better use of some of Valderrama's passing. Carlos Valderrama as one of the creative players in the team was instrumental in a significant portion of the 8 Penalty Kicks, and statistically he gets absolutely no credit whatsoever for that. Meanwhile, Laurent Blanc looks inflated as a result of scoring 8 Penalty Kicks and another 3 easy tap ins: again, statistics are not subjective enough to understand the difference between a difficult goal and a tap in against an empty net.
     

Share This Page