If two players receive the same amount of chances then we have no discussion, because obviously the better player is going to score more. The problem of what happens in a real scenario is that the better teams generate greater amount and quality of chances, do you understand that this is tremendously decisive? do you understand that this makes the amount of G/A tremendously relative? And that it is something external to the player himself? If you give Villa 20 chances and you give Cristiano 5, Villa is going to score more, not for being a better finisher but for having more chances. Villa’s goal p90 will be higher without being a better player, do you understand that?
Messi’s GC% at Barcelona is ~60% and at Argentina ~61%. That stability doesn’t prove it’s “less relative”, it proves the opposite. The stat is 100% tied to how much teammates score without him. If Argentina scores fewer independent goals, his GC% automatically rises even if his personal output stays the same. Messi’s G/A p90 is 1.3 at Barcelona vs 1.0 at Argentina. Yes, it’s lower outside Barça, but the difference is modest, not “much bigger” as you claimed. More importantly, G/A measures Messi’s own direct goals and assists, isolating his individual production in both contexts. So GC% barely changing, is because it reflects teammates’ independent scoring. G/A is the stat that actually captures Messi’s personal output across teams. Even in Argentina, he still produces at a world-class rate, showing G/A reflects individual quality, while GC% hides behind team dependency.
Yeah, more chances inflates raw totals but per chance efficiency still captures individual quality. Ronaldo scoring 5/5 is clearly better than Villa scoring 8/20. The number of opportunities doesn't erase the fact that finishing skill os measurable. The fact that G/A is influenced by team quality doesn't make it meaningless. Than only means context matters when comparing across teams. Within the same league or normalized for chances, G/A still isolates player output. If G/A were purely externalz we wouldn't see consistent patterns of Messi, Ronaldo, Lewandowski, etc... That track with their known individual quality. Context affects volume but execution per chance and total contribution remain attributable to the player, not just the team
Yeah. You know, like comparing teammates within the same team, for example... just an idea. If we only had a metric to do so
This part is what is wrong mate, isn't it if you think about it? (you are using an example where GC% is closer than G/A per game rates I think aren't you so that goes against your conclusion/comment). Overall I don't think GC% will vary more, more often, than G/A per 90 mins for players playing similarly well in different contexts (the same player in different teams or different but comparable players in different settings and perhaps eras) although maybe a big dive into that would be helpful (maybe for same players in different teams, as there would be more disagreement between us all on which players were or were not roughly equal overall and/or for end product aspects in terms of quality and efficiency, at peak and/or over a longer period).
All goal contributions of Cristiano Ronaldo in 2006/07 for Manchester United Premier league goals 17 Premier League assists (all types) Assist 1 at 5:26:45 Assist 2 at 5:27:20 Assist 3 at 5:34:15 Assist 4 at 5:36:53 Assist 5 at 5:38:00 Assist 6 at 5:41:00 Assist 7 at 5:42:47 Assist 8 at 5:43:11 Assist 9 at 5:43:30 Assist 10 at 5:44:06 Assist 11 at 5:44:55 Assist 12 at 5:45:13 Assist 13 at 5:46:05 Premier league pre assists(all types) Pre assist 1 at 5:25:05 Pre assist 2 at 5:26:00 Pre assist 3 at 5:23:00 Pre assist 4 at 5:33:53 Pre assist 5 at 5:39:07 Pre assist 6 at 5:47:13 Premier League forced own goal assists and pre assists At 5:24:16 At 5:47:00 —————————- Champions league goals and assists 3 goals 5 assists Season 2006/07 Stats | UEFA Champions League 2006/07 | UEFA.com Champions League pre assists Cristiano Ronaldo Vs AS Roma Away 06-07 By MemeT on Vimeo Pre assist 1 at 3:22 Cristiano Ronaldo Vs AS Roma Home 06-07 (English Commentary) on Vimeo Pre assist 2 at 7:28 Champions League secondary pre assists Cristiano Ronaldo Vs AS Roma Home 06-07 (English Commentary) on Vimeo At 2:10 ———————————— FA cup goals 3 goals Cristiano Ronaldo - Detailed stats | Transfermarkt FA Cup assists Cristiano Ronaldo Vs Reading Home 06-07 [FA Cup] - YouTube At 3:06 FA cup pre assists Cristiano Ronaldo Vs Aston Villa Home - FA Cup (English Commentary) - 06-07 By CrixRonnie - YouTube At 9:06 ————————————- League Cup 0 goals+ 0 assists+0 pre assists in 1 game ——————————— Overall 23 goals 19 assists 9 pre assists 1 secondary pre assist 2 forced own goal assists/pre assists 109 team goals 49.5% goal contribution
All goal contributions Cristiano Ronaldo In 2007/08 for Manchester United 42 goals 7 OPTA assists 2007/2008 Season Goals and Stats - Messi vs Ronaldo —————————- Wide assists Cristiano Ronaldo vs Aston Villa (A) 07-08 FA CUP - YouTube Wide assist 1 at 7:18 Cristiano Ronaldo Vs Derby County Home (English Commentary) - 07-08 By CrixRonnie - YouTube Wide assist 2 at 5:52 ————————————- Forced own goal assist Cristiano Ronaldo Vs Arsenal Away 07-08 1080p (English Commentary) By CrixRonnie - YouTube At 3:15 ——————————— Pre assists Cristiano Ronaldo vs Chelsea 07-08 (N) Final Comunity Shield - YouTube Pre assist 1 at 4:13 Cristiano Ronaldo Vs Sunderland Away (AMAZING FREEKICK) 07-08 - YouTube Pre assist 2 at 2:01 Pre assist 3 at minute 2:25 Man Utd 4 Middlesborough 1 2007/08 FA Premiership - YouTube Pre assist 4 at 1:30 Cristiano Ronaldo vs Dynamo Kiev (A) 07-08 by zBorges - YouTube Pre assist 5 at minute 0:57 Cristiano Ronaldo Vs Dinamo Kiev Home 07-08 on Vimeo Pre assist 6 at 4:13 ————————————- Overall 42 goals 9 assists 6 pre assists 1 forced own goal assist 100 team goals 58% direct involvement
All goal contributions for Cristiano Ronaldo in 2006/07 and 2007/08 at Manchester United 65 goals 28 assists 15 pre assists 1 secondary pre assist 3 forced own goal assists 209 team goals 53.5% involvement Trophies won 2x premier league 1x champions league Standard of competition European Club Football Elo Rankings European Club Football Elo Rankings
Gullit was bad in serie a 1988-89,,,was bad in World Cup 1990 where West Germany punished them badly. Gullit was bad in serie a 1988-89, he was bad in italia 90, he was worse in euro 2002 and more.
Trachta's mistake is to think that the lack of variation in different contexts makes statistics closer to reality. In fact, a player having the same numbers in completely different contexts just shows how silly this statistic is. GC% is 100% dependent on the amount of goals a player's teammates scores without his involvement. While G/A although needed context isolates a player's individual performance
In 1989 Copa america Uruguay met maradona twice.the first one was won by Argentina 1-0. 1 assist by diego.uruguay won the next one with a brace from Sosa.in fact gullit wasn't that good in the Euro 1988 too,scoring once in 5 matches.
He was? ——————————- Was Euro 2002 played in India? You don’t even have the good grace of claiming that you meant World Cup 2002 because Ruud Gullit played his last game for the Netherlands in 1994. Gullit was never the same after his injuries in 1989/90 —————————- ————————— Let’s not open up the can of worms that is Argentina being a way more successful team without Maradona than with him between 1978 and 1994 Or Boca juniors and Argentinos juniors winning the Copa libertadores without him but not with him Or Barcelona winning the La Liga title without him but not with him.
No, you are saying an absurd irrationality and you have a very serious problem understanding mathematical abstractions. The fact that Messi’s GC% is the same in Argentina as in Barcelona shows that GC% is an indicator that "adapts" to the context of the player, the fact that the indicator does not vary shows that it DOES NOT DEPEND on the context. And instead the fact that the player’s G/A varies very considerably depending on which team he is in shows that G/A DEPENDS on the context. Messi’s non-penalty goal p90 in Argentina is 0.505 and in Barcelona it is 0.837, a huge difference. G/A (including pre-a) is 1.191 in Argentina and 1.635 in Barcelona, while GC% is the same. You must be trolling because it cannot be that this is your level of understanding.
In the first place you have three different users telling you that you are wrong and pointing out absurd flaws in your way of thinking. SexyBeast and PDG1978 literally think like me and we probably have minimal or irrelevant differences. You should think that if you have so many people telling you that you are wrong it is because maybe you are wrong. And no genius, because Messi is the same player in Barcelona as in Argentina, that is an absolute truth, the correct indicator would be the one that shows the same number in different contexts. The relative indicator is the one that varies depending on circumstances external to the player. If G/A varies so much it is because it is being dependent on the team, and it is not really showing how good a player is as an individual.
2016-2018 was the era of Ronaldo The same goes for 1979-1981 for Maradona In terms of footballing level, I don't think there has ever been a better player than Maradona in 1980
Do you realize that you are the one who says that a higher G/A is better, and I am the one who says that you have to analyze the "chances" of each player, right? I am the one who says that a player with lower G/A can be better than one with higher G/A because the difference is in the amount of 'chances,' that is, context, that one and the other have, that is GC%. By saying that 'Ronaldo scoring 5/5 is clearly better than Villa scoring 8/20' you are literally proving me right, that a higher raw number is not 'better' but that you have to take into account the context. To say that Ronaldo scoring 5 is better than Villa scoring 8 is like saying that a player with G/A of 0.75 and GC% of 65% is better than a player with G/A of 0.9 and GC% of 50%.
Back then many claimed 20 yo Maradona was already best player in South America or even the world. Personally I would say he was flattered by playing in low level Argentinian championship. At international level, during years 79-81, he took part to three major competitions: Copa America 79, Libertadores, Mundialito 80-81. There his performances were judged as good but not outstanding (this one refers to Mundialito) In AC79 and Libertadores 81 he faced Zico two times and was outperformed by him in both cases. Personally I agree with Carlito that lack of truly significative and probative "stress tests" for young Maradona (79-81) makes his stance as better player of the world too fragile to be sustained.
GC% measures a player’s contribution relative to the team’s total goals, so it naturally adjusts to the team’s scoring output. Messi’s similar GC% (~60% at Barcelona, ~61% at Argentina) reflects lower independent goalscoring by Argentina teammates, not a lack of context dependency. So GC% isn't contextindependent. G/A p90 on the other hand directly measures Messi’s personal output (goals and assists). The difference (1.635 at Barcelona vs. 1.191 at Argentina) is notable but not “huge” (27% lower), showing Messi’s individual quality remains elite across contexts. GC% is inherently tied to team performance (dependent on teammates’ goals), while G/A isolates individual production. Messi’s consistent world-class G/A across teams proves his individual quality, whereas GC%’s stability reflects team dynamics, not Messi’s performance. You're misinterpreting the metrics
Ronaldo’s performances in the Champions League between 2016–2018 certainly put him among the world’s elite, but they alone didn’t make him the best player in the world. League football matters too and during that period stretches where he could claim even second best in La Liga were rare. Messi, Neymar, and at times Suárez outperformed him over longer periods. What forced Ronaldo into the “best in the world” conversation during 2016-2018 was the Champions League which is undeniably the highest standard of club football but it is not the only arena that defines greatness. And for those who judge solely by GC%, Ronaldo’s contributions to Portugal’s Euro 2016 win alone rank among the most significant for any international trophy ever 66.6% direct goal contribution without penalties on a very low scoring team Even so it wouldn’t be fair to call his Euro 2016 performance otherworldly even though his GC% definitely suggests that it was. That is yet another limitation that proves that GC% on its own is hardly a meaningful metric when it comes to gauging a player’s level. As for Maradona in 1980, he didn’t play a single game in the World Cup, Copa América, Copa Libertadores, European Cup,Europe’s top five leagues, or any continental competition. No player alive today would be considered world class let alone the best ever if they hadn’t performed let alone played in any of those arenas. Greatness is forged against the highest levels of competition and I will never budge from this.
Good for Maradona that Gullit was never as good as he used to be after injury in 89. Otherwise Diego would have had to collect 5 or 6 pears per match.
For what it's worth (I think it's pretty fair and balanced) here is an AI answer to whether GC% is better than goal/assist tallies more often, and for different eras (btw I think when it's stated GC% is less good comparing between eras with different scoring patterns it doesn't mean in comparison to G/A tallies, because those would be affected even more definitively I'd say, but compared to using GC% to compare players in similar eras and situations....which I agree with as for example I do think Puskas's raw goals/assists tally will be inflated by his era but on the other hand I think his GC% will be a bit unrealistically underwhelming because of the mutiple other significant goal contributors in his teams and the generally higher goals tallies probably): "Goal contribution percentage is often a better comparator than raw stats, especially when comparing players between teams with different goal-scoring outputs, and can be useful for identifying players who are disproportionately influential within their team's scoring. However, it has limitations, as it doesn't capture a player's full impact on the game and can be less useful when comparing eras with significant differences in total goals scored. Why Goal Contribution Percentage is Often Better Contextualizes Output: It provides context by showing a player's involvement in relation to their team's total goals, which is more insightful than raw numbers alone. Identifies Key Playmakers: Players who have a high percentage of goal contributions are often those who "carry" their team, meaning they are central to their team's overall offensive success. Compares Players in Different Teams: It's more effective than raw goals and assists for comparing players from strong goal-scoring teams versus those from weaker goal-scoring teams. Limitations of Raw Goals and Assists Context-Dependent: A player might have a high number of goals and assists but still be less impactful than someone with fewer, but higher-percentage, contributions in a less potent offense. False Sense of Completeness: Raw numbers can give a false sense of completeness by ignoring other vital aspects of a player's contribution, such as buildup play, space creation, or defensive actions. Limitations of Goal Contribution Percentage Ignores Era Differences: Using it to compare players across different eras can be misleading, as overall team goal tallies have varied significantly throughout football history. Raw numbers become less predictive in this context. Doesn't Capture Full Skillset: A player can have a huge impact on their team's success without directly scoring or assisting, and a percentage of goal contributions won't reflect their contribution in these other areas. Best Practices Combine with Other Stats: For a comprehensive assessment, goal contribution percentage should be used alongside other metrics, such as goals and assists per 90 minutes, to understand a player's overall value. Consider the Bigger Picture: Analyze a player's contributions within the context of their team's overall performance and the historical trends of the sport to get the most accurate understanding of their true impact."
Ronaldo has been recognized as the best player in the world every 3 years by Big Soccer users Do you have any comments? https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/b...igsoccer-users.2119696/page-108#post-42955812 . Regarding Maradona, I agree that he did not play at a high level, but in terms of football, I have seen many say that Maradona played the best possible football Maradona's best scoring year was also in that year Maradona later did the same in the 1986 World Cup