I am talking only about shooting. Hazard's shooting and goal output is remarkably poor for an elite attacker. The evidence is that if Ozil plays as a forward (start of last season) he scores at about the same rate as Hazard. The point is not to criticise either player. They do other important stuff. i.e. elite chance creation.
I also agree For example, Ozil already created an extreme amount of chances this season - NONE of which were converted. So what's the point. Why bother? He already created 17 key passes this season NOT ONE OF WHICH WAS SCORED But then Ozil gets blamed for missing one big chance.
You realize you're arguing with someone that is using xG v. G variance as evidence to suggest that Ozil is a poor finisher in response to your argument that Ozil doesn't shoot enough, right? His response to your argument that Ozil's sample of shots is really small is to argue that Ozil underperforms xG. SMH.
Yeah - i can't really be bothered to get into all that because at a fundamental level its pointless Hazard and Ozil will both have good conversion because they are picky about what they take on - not just because they are accurate shooters. A lot of shot quality is driven by positioning as well. There are good reasons why both have lowish volume - Ozil especially because he is playing as a midfielder and thus does not so often get in high xG positions. If we want an example of a bad shooter his name is Ramsey
I'm using g v. xG to argue that Ozil isn't an "elite finisher" which is exactly what jitty said Ozil was.
Methinks that relying too heavily on stats to form your opinion on a player is kind of like the old proverb: You can't see the forest for the trees.
The problem with your argument is that you don't take into account variance, and the sample size for Ozil's shooting is far too small to form an opinion about the quality of his finishing. You simply don't have enough data to form this opinion. You need multiple seasons of data for high-output strikers to accurately gauge whether a player is or isn't a poor finisher. The only player who consistently outperforms xG happens to be named Lionel Messi. This is true for the point Jitty is making as well, but at least Jitty qualifies his point by noting the real issue: Ozil simply doesn't shoot a lot, even in good positions. Why that is, I know not, but dude creates chances like no one else.
That's why I find the 17 key passes figure more interesting for someone who supposedly doesn't care and is on strike. That is a huge amount of chances to fail to convert. And really - why would he stay for that?
We'd need to look up the chances he was passing up and look at what actions he took instead, and analyse whether on average it was bad. We don't have the data for it - but my own impression is when Ozil plays in his standard midfield role, he doesn't get in high xG positions that much. And it's that ability which is the mark of top goal scorers. Ozil never has had that. He doesn't make Ramsey type runs into the box What he can do, e.g vs Watford, in a countering game, is use his pace to get through/beyond the defence.
I don't think Ozil is a good finisher. But let's say he is, it really doesn't factor at all because he doesn't shoot a lot. Being a good finisher that doesn't shoot enough is irrelevant.
I see it in management speak as "not-shit" - i.e, he's efficient if he does shoot. If you want to see what bad looks like - this is it. In his best season - Ramsey has conversion similar to Ozil. Usually it is much much worse. At best this guy needs around 10 shots to score once.
well I wouldn't call Ramsey a good finisher either. I find that a conversation on whether your midfield players are good finishers or not isn't really of much utility to a team struggling in nearly every aspect. Ozil is a good finisher --> he doesn't shoot enough, so it doesn't matter. Do you want him to shoot more at the cost of the other things he does? I'd say no. Ozil is a bad finisher --> he doesn't shoot a lot, so it's not a huge problem. Putting any significant effort into making him shoot more might be counter-productive if you've sacrificing his more vital skills to do so.
The conversation arose because Ozil was heavily blamed for missing the big chance to go 2-0 vs Watford Of course its not mentioned that the team missed every single one of the 17 chances that Ozil has laid on in 401 mins I agree making him shoot more is stupid (see last season). It's just an example of how Ozil is accused of being the problem despite the team around him dishing up woeful shooting.
In the end my opinion is the team is bad and no elite player with eyes in his head will stay unless they just want to take the money and enjoy easy street
I think anyone that follows Arsenal and has knowledge of football will say that we do not have the players to complement Ozil. Our MF base is weak. Ramsey does not have the discipline to sit and manage, nor the skill to build against high pressure. It has now been safely established that Xhaka and Nene are slighly above average players at best. Coq is always injured so I am not even going to bring him up. Unless we have proper #6 and #8 to manage the space behind Ozil, we are no better with him on most days. And when you add Alexis to the volatile mix as essentially a free roaming #11, we are doomed barring gut busting performances from the rest of the team or plain good luck. Arsenal won't spend big to buy the right players and Alexis and Ozil are frankly better off somewhere else. Life will go on.
To add to your defense of Ozil, a nicely taken goal, an assist and 8 more key passes today. We need to appreciate him as long as we have him. If he ends up leaving, I'll follow him with his new team. Hopefully it won't be United.
Thing about Özil is his style of play satisfies the purists & his numbers satisfy the stat nerds. One of a kind footballer, please don't compare him to a ginger.— Ahead of the Curve (@mediocentr0) October 27, 2017