Did you even read the post I made detailing the exact teams Barcelona played against without Messi, within the years included in those numbers? 25% of the matches are against teams that aren't even in a top-tier league. There are zero matches against Real Madrid, Atletico Madrid, Valencia, and Seville (probably the 4 biggest traditional powers in La Liga aside from Barcelona, though you could throw in Bilbao too). There's just one match from the CL KO stages. On the other hand, Messi's matches include just one match out of 278 against a team not in a top league. 21% of his matches in that sample were League/CdR/Spanish Super Cup matches against Real Madrid, Atletico, Valencia, or Seville. In addition, over 10% of his matches were in the CL KO stages. He's also typically got a couple matches each season against a hard opponent in the CL group stages (PSG, Milan twice, Benfica), and has also had a couple European Super Cups. Basically, difficult matches make up roughly 35% of the matches Messi plays (40% if you want to count Bilbao as difficult). On the other hand, difficult matches made up 3% of the matches Messi didn't play (8% if you want to count Bilbao as difficult). At the same time, matches against teams not even in a top-tier league make up 0.3% of matches with Messi and 25% of matches without Messi. This isn't close. It's an objectively biased sample. Not only that, but the few hard matches they did play without Messi, they performed badly. They had a match against Bayern Munich, and two matches against Athletic Bilbao. They lost 2 of those 3 matches, and scored only 3 goals while conceding 5. Their next most difficult match was probably an away match to Ajax, and they lost that 1-2. You really don't have a point here.
Ok mate - I might prefer to use gpg rather than average shots maybe - I dunno though as it's easy to get lost in these sorts of thoughts.
Yes, it crossed my mind too, which is why the data I initially gave was about total shots in the tournament, as opposed to shots by their particular teams. Yo were the one that brought up team-specific data as a way to try to overcome the fact that the tournament-wide data didn't support you. Of course, now that the team-specific data doesn't support you either, you say that team-specific data is flawed and you knew it all along.
Yes, games "open up" when a team gets a breakthrough. And Brazil got tons of breakthroughs in 1970, with and without Pelé. Those breakthroughs helped open up the game and make it even easier for Pelé to create chances. All the more reason that the team-specific thing is actually biased in favor of Pelé. His teammates objectively made breakthroughs in matches without him more than Messi's teammates did. In any case, even without taking this into account, Pelé comes out behind. Also, by the way, I just realized that 23 chances in 7 matches is not at all 2.97 chances created a match like you claimed. It's 3.29. So Pelé has been coming in behind an incorrectly low stat for Messi.
Using the tournament's goals per game doesn't really make sense. Part of my point is that players took tons of shots in the 1970 World Cup, leading to tons of "chances created." The tournament didn't have as much higher of a goals per match as it did in shots per match. The inference, of course, is that the shots taken in that tournament were, on average, lower percentage shots (because, in fact, a much lower percent of them were scored). This also means that the "chances created" were, on average, lower percentage chances. If you adjusted down based on goals per game, you would be treating the lower-percentage chances created in 1970 the same as the higher percentage chances created in 2014.
The sample doesn't include Rivellino and Gerson. Also, mathematically speaking, others certainly did create lots of chances. Brazil took lots of shots, so somebody was getting those chances created. Whether it was relatively evenly distributed between the rest of the team, or whether it was concentrated in a few other players doesn't really make a difference. With a few exceptions, a shot = a chance created for someone on the team, so it doesn't make sense to say that the higher shots per game of the Brazilian team didn't translate to more chances created.
Not enough of one to change the conclusion of any of the calculations to be in favor of Pelé. Also, perhaps the 2.97 number @Estel gave was already a per 90 minutes measure, since the per game measure is actually 3.29. So perhaps we have already been taking that into account. EDIT: Oh, maybe that's what you were saying. If so, then yeah, that's probably right. But, of course, it biases the data against Messi to adjust Messi's chances created down based on extra time, but to not do the same for his team's shots when comparing how many total chances were created by each team. So, the team-specific comparison was actually subtly biased against Messi, and he still came out significantly ahead.
Maybe it just shows us the limitations of stats. We can all see all or the majority (or have seen) of Pele and Messi's respective play. Maybe in terms of chances created viewing a compilation video specifically of them would be the best guide - but then we'd surely not all agree who was the best chance creator that way either lol! I think Estel originally said basically "Pele was creating chances and prompting to quite a large extent in the 1970 WC so that helps explain partially his lowering gpg rate, while considering his club team instantly scored more than an extra goal a game when he started playing in the late 1950's" and also "Maybe Pele created quite a lot chances in his goalscoring prime too" (apologies Estel if some of this is not quite right). So maybe Pele's stat has some value when thinking along those lines.
Yes, that's what I meant - that Estel was quoting a per 90 minutes figure. I think that's the basis those stats were calculated on, which makes sense IMO (otherwise having to go to extra time is rewarded with 'free' chance creating time - although surely the players are more focused on the match result of course!).
Yeah, I realized that's what you were saying afterwards. I actually edited in a response to that in the above post before I realized you had made this post. So you can find my response there.
Of course it should be noted that how Pelé played in 1970 is not particularly relevant to the effect he would have had on a team in the late 1950's. Take a look at how he played in the 1958 World Cup. MUCH more of a pure goalscorer. So, if the whole point of this was to make an argument about what happened in the late 1950's, then I think it was a very very flawed point.
Ah, ok thanks yes I see now. I haven't studied (recently anyway) the chances created stats themselves so that's why I'm not getting into that specific debate so much. I do think Cruyff's chances created date is pretty representative so obviously the stat can reflect a general trend well at times (subject to Cruyff's rate being downgraded lol!). I know I wasn't in full agreement with Bada Bing's definition of various players 'great chances created' to be fair so I wouldn't really be in favour of relying on that analysis, or tbh an adjusted rate per game based on shots either really (but I see why you are going down the avenue you are from your perspective I suppose....depending on exactly what does count as a chance created - whether it's indeed 99% of passes that are followed by a shot...I think some secondary passes are included though IIRC). As long as we also adjust Messi and CR7's goalscoring rate according to their own teams shots perhaps at club level (when comparing to previous generations teams if that is possible)?
Hmm, I feel like (my fault I suppose) I'm being drawn into an argument more than I want to get into one lol - but remember that nutmeg and pass to Garrincha by Pele vs France in 1958 and remember assists he got vs Racing Paris and suchlike and I think we'd have a point in saying "well we don't know that Pele didn't create a lot of chances from early in his career" - thinking also of what he did in the Intercontinental game vs Benfica, how he played vs England in 1964 etc etc. But yeah, it's probably a separate point about him playing specifically deeper and as more of a playmaker and passer in 1970 and around that time.
That's unsubstantiated nonsense and just another vintage latin lie. I merely think that Estel raises good points and the rebuttal isn't entirely fair. Because the team mates Pelé played with or got acquired by Santos are roughly taken into account, as far as possible. I think many of these observations are relevant, as opposed to the squabbling about created chances (although 1970WC was the most open tournament) and complete meaningless designed statistics as 'goal involvement' (Bada Bing should trademark it). The way a team output as a whole goes to another level tells a lot more about the influence and purpose of a player.
Also I remember I posted this to point out a solo goal to you lessthanjake before but I guess it's a good one to get a gauge on Pele's chance creating ability too in his inside forward role (which sometimes would be declared AM, but I think compared to modern players SS is maybe more appropriate in his case for that time in his career): Sometimes playing more as a forward would increase opportunities to provide assists and create chances directly of course. But yeah I don't think he played a withdrawn pure playmaking role early in his career - I agree there (I might tend to say neither did Zico really in terms of function for Flamengo though).
Assists = Passes that the recipient scores Key Passes = Passes that the recipient takes a shot but does not score Chances Created = Assists + Key Passes By definition, chances created include every pass that is followed by a shot. That means that it does not include some shots like free kicks and possibly shots taken by the player who dispossesses someone. But if there was a pass and the recipient of the pass shot the ball, it's a "chance created."
Rep was excluding the above. Frankly, sometimes I am not sure what you and @Pipiolo are fighting about, although in this particular case, I suppose we can point to @Pipiolo for starting the mischief. Thanks for the support.
Also, am I the only one getting a "404 Error" when I try to make posts that are longer than a paragraph? I'm having to split my posts up into multiple posts otherwise they won't send. Perhaps some will be happy that this shall limit how much I can say haha
Of course he got some assists. And of course he made some nice passes. But it would be like looking at Messi in 2014-2015 and acting like he created that many chances back in 2007-2008 or 2008-2009. He got plenty of assists and some of them were pretty nice, but he wasn't the same passer that he is now, nor was he playing the same playmaking role. The same is true of Pelé.
It's an interesting thought. We don't have shot data from previous generations, except for at the World Cup, though. And besides, using shot data to adjust down is much more valid when it comes to adjusting down "chance created" numbers, because of the extremely strong link between number of shots taken and chances created (as in, more every shot is, by definition, a chance created).
Yeah, maybe shots inside area or something might be better I dunno?! But as you say we won't have much data to compare their teams numbers to anyway.
Seems there have been problems generally (I experienced some especially when quoting people and it seems especially if they were using bold type or adjusted font I think - there is a thread about such issues and someone mentions that too).
I actually tend to think that that's often right. But it's not a particularly rigorous way of applying that to just look at raw numbers before and after a player showed up and say he created the whole difference. Santos' goalscoring went up by a lot when Pelé showed up. That is true. But they also went from being by far the best defense in the league to being a bad defense the next year. They gave up 0.75 extra goals per game that season. When you score 1.1 more goals and give up 0.75 extra goals, I think it's fairly clear that the team's tactics have changed to be more attacking. Moreover, when the size of the league changes and you get to absolutely beat up on a couple bottom-feeders you wouldn't otherwise have faced, that increases your goals scored as well (in this case, by a fair bit actually). And, when you add on other great players as well (such as Coutinho in 1958), we can't act like none of the extra scoring is due to those guys. I'm not saying that none of the extra scoring had anything to do with Pelé. I rank him as my #3 player of all time, so obviously I think he would have had an effect. He doesn't need to be the most legendary scorer ever for me to believe that. But looking at the scoring gap between those years and attributing it all to Pelé is too simplistic. Amusingly, @Estel uses this to say that Pelé makes his team's scoring better while Messi's scoring is a product of his team, ignoring the fact that Pelé had a HUGE decline in scoring in 1970 when his team suddenly became only a bit more stacked with NT-level talent than the rest of the league rather than WAYYY more stacked. Certainly indicates his scoring was a product of his team, but @Estel completely ignores that.