Without checking my votes on that thread i believe that I ‘voted’ for him to be on podium in 2016 and 2018 and as the winner in 2017. I have Ronaldo with 5 ballon dors 2016 is substituted with 2007 2007 2008 2013 2014 2017
Your first paragraph is just a fallacious argument of the appeal to the majority. It doesn't address to the point made. Your second paragraph says the real level of the player is the stat who doesn't vary with context but nearly all stats vary with context (xG, shots, key passes, crosses, through balls, etc...). By your logic all those stats are useless cause it doesn't actually captures the level of the player but only the context he were inserted in. But in fact, a stat who stays the same on completely different contexts is only too blunt to capture the reality. What you're saying is equivalent to say a broken thermometer is better than a working one because the broken always shows 20°C. Stability isn't accuracy. GC% is showing teammates independent scoring. If Maradona had a higher GC% than Messi that's not because Maradona were better, it's because Maradona's teammates scored less independently.
Gullit is an all-time Europan Cup (now CL) legend. Nobody remembers of the two Maradona's EC campaigns.
No, those are completely different things. A player with a lower G/A can be better than a player with higher G/A depending on context. That doesn't automatically agrees that a player with 75% GC is better than one with 65%. One thing isn't linked to the other. What I'm arguing is that you need to consider context with G/A but still G/A is a player individual contribution on converting or creating chances. GC% has nothing to do with the player but with his teammates. It depends 100% to how much goals a player's teammates will score without his involvement. The GC% doesn't solve the problem of context vs G/A. It only shows share of goals
Very good, but Puskás surpasses Cristiano in GC% and G/Ap90 at Real Madrid, and that’s despite being a much older player. I don’t have pre-assist data for Puskás, but I know he had many. Overall, Puskás is one of the players with the highest GC%, and throughout his entire career he even continues to surpass Cristiano.
Ferenc puskas scored more goals in Champions League finals(7) than Diego Maradona has appearances in the champions league and Copa libertadores combined(6) —————————— Most goals scored in football (soccer) European Cup/UEFA Champions League Finals by a player | Guinness World Records Diego Maradona - Detailed stats | Transfermarkt Maradona Leaves Libertadores Legacy Despite Never Featuring —————————- Ferenc puskas scored more non penalty goals in champions league finals(6 goals) than Diego Maradona scored in all the games he played in the Copa America,Copa libertadores,Champions League and UEFA Cup combined(5 goals) Ferenc Puskas only played in 3 finals scoring 2 non penalty goals per game Diego Maradona played in 37 matches in all those competitions scoring 0.13 non penalty goals per game His goal per game ratio in CL finals (2) is over 15 times higher than Maradona’s across all the games he played those competitions (0.13).
Let me add. The reason why GC% varies less for Messi than GA is because GC% is normalized against teammates' performance (which what dividing with team goals actually is - normalizing based on team goals). It turns out that team's goal total is a very good indicator of team's overall attacking strength, because this is empirically proven by lower variance. If the hypothesis wasn't true, it would not yield stable results. It makes theoretical sense, but actual results didn't have to confirm the hypothesis. The fact they do, confirms the hypothesis. This can, btw, be statistically quanitified: the amount of variance in player's goal contribution that is explained by team goals total. Assumptions behind the hypothesis are following: 1. Player's ability to contribute with stats stays the same across different contexts (aka teams they play for). - this is essentially true (for large sample sizes as values converge to their true value), but it doesnt account for role changes and few other nuances. So it is a pretty solid assumption, but not absolute truth. 2. Goal contribution of team, that is independent of the player in question (goals in which the player wasn't involved aka independent teammates' contribution performance), is a reliable measure of team's strength - this is the part that makes it hypothesis. It cna be rationalized logically why that would be the case, but it can be also theorized as not valid assumption (what Isaias is essentially trying to say it is the case). The first assumption I think nobody disagrees with. It says that player is basically equally competent in all contexts and rather external factors change. Player is the same player in all teams. Messi is Messi palying for Eibar or Barcelona. The second assumption is in question. Can team's attacking strength be approximated by teammates' performance / overall attacking performance? That is the hypothesis. And since empirically there is a strong indication that it is very stable across contexts, it follows that the answer to the question is yes. There is a meaningful variance that is neutralized by normalizing agaisnt team goals. Again, the empirical stability of gc% favors gc%, because of the first assumption: that player is player no matter team. We intuitively all agree that player's actual performance and ability shouldn't be much different in different contexts. So the fact gc% is more stable tells us that we are approaching more inherent ability of a player. If we rationalized that player's inherent ability is something very unstable in of itself, increase of stability in gc% would be a proof that gc% is wrong. However, to argue that player's inherent ability is something very unstable and basically random, would yield much bigger problems in evaluation of players than just gc%. Every kind of evaluation then falls apart and it means no metric ever could measure player's ability because ability itself is unstable - it would mean there is nothing szable and concrete in players to measure at all no matter what emtric is used. That would be a completely different conversation. So we can safely assume that there is soemthing concrete and stable in palyer's ability that can be measured. And by that logic, more stability in gc% would be a proof of getting closer to that ability. This does not mean that gc% doesnt introduce noise, or that it doesnt have its pit falls and blind side. Rather than going around the bushes aroudn pitfalls, we can explicitly clal them out. Everything that gc% does not account for. Also these things can be accoutned for within more sophsiticated gc% approaches that account for roles and stuff by introducing xGC% and similar. Well known methods that are used in other metrics already.
Man, stop asking chatgpt to look for fallacies in the texts, I didn’t say you’re wrong because everyone says you’re wrong, I said you should consider that the fact that several users tell you you’re wrong is probably because what you’re saying doesn’t make sense Try to think, if a player has 0.75 G/Ap90 with certain teammates, and then the same player has 1.5 G/A with other teammates, the player is the same but what changed were his teammates. G/A doesn’t isolate anything, GC% is the one that comes closer to isolating a true value. With your logic we fall back into the same stupidity as always, that Puskás is twice as good as Van Basten, or that almost all players from the 50s-60s are better than all players from the 80s-90s. With my logic, the players from the 50s-60s are equivalent to those from the 80s-90s. Do you realize my reasoning is superior by simple logical inference? What you say about (xG, shots, key passes, crosses, through balls, etc.) is literally the same as talking about G/A. You have to understand the context of each stat and read it with some brains, otherwise they don’t make sense. Although for the case of xG already implicitly has to be read in relation to the goals scored, so it’s a stat that requires considering the context.
This is completely new to me "Ruud Gullit is a great player in every way. He has all the necessary skills. He's not afraid to do things with the ball and seems to be enjoying every moment. In my opinion, this is what makes him a better player than Maradona. They both have the key quality we find in all the best players: balance. It's impossible to take him off the ball. It was the same for Pelé, Beckenbauer, and Cruijff." George Best
I agree with this "A player with a lower G/A can be better than a player with higher G/A depending on context. That doesn't automatically agrees that a player with 75% GC is better than one with 65%." But, GC% is what the player does in relation to his teammates, and the G/A is also what the player does relation to his teammates.
Romario humiliated Diego Maradona in the 1989 Copa America And he scored 1 goal + 1 assist in the same match Final score Brazil 2 - 0 Argentina Brazil - Argentina, 12.07.1989 - Copa América - Match sheet | Transfermarkt —————————- And before pratesh attempts to shit on Romario
I didn't ask chatgpt lol I've already studied the logical fallacies before like ad hominem, ad populum, ad absurdum, post proc ergo propter hoc, etc... What you said is just as populum. When I make a point and you say "but most people agree with me so I'm right and you're wrong" you're not addressing to the point I made. I could say Carlito and Frank disagree with you so you're wrong. But I wouldn't be answering your argument, that's why I don't use it. I already said on my previous post that G/A depends on context but still that captures a player's individual output (i.e. his goals and assists). GC% isn't closer to reality because it have few variation. That's a false cause fallacy. The conclusion doesn't follow logically from the premise. GC% is share of team total gols. In other words, it captures teammates independent output. The lower the number of teammates independent scoring the higher the GC% will be. Yeah we can't say raw G/A especially in different contexts proves player A were "twice as good" as player B. We need to compare relative to the player's of their own era. But that isn't what GC% does. It just shows teammates' independent output. Your reasoning isn't superior because your stat barely changes. Again, that's a false cause fallacy. Yeah, all stats needs context but the stats I mentioned are literally direct actions of the player himself. Goals, assists, key passes, shots, dribbles, etc... GC% is how many goals a player's teammates scored without his involvement relative to his own goals.
False equivalence. GC% is team goals share. G/A is player output. The former is based on how many independent goals his teammates scored. The later is based on individual output even if the team he plays for can affect this
@5:58 Doctor Socrates did not know that 1980 Maradona was the best player ever and thus treated him quite as a random player
Please let us not get into what people have seen Maradona, after three days of partying: "I was abducted by aliens" - AS USA UFO sightings in India - Wikipedia
Yeah..it is far easier playing for a star studded legendary team.diego didn't have such luxury. Easy one.bring better logic to me pls.
Yeah but the rivals they defeated were star studded too. Contrarily to the Spartak Moskva that knocked out Napoli. So in any case you recognize that Maradona could not actually win big single handedly as many worshippers of him do claim. To succeed, he needed to be backed either by strongest team, as in WC86, or strongest criminal organization, as in serie A 1989-90. (I hope you are not offended by a bit of sarcasm...though I see you did not appreciate the irony concerning Maradona vs Socrates)