I think we must not forget that many great players and managers have opposed that view, and that list includes Arrigo Sacchi, Pep Guardiola, Johan Cruyff, Diego Maradona (2 players who many would call superior to platini!), Nils Liedholm, Alessandro Del Piero, Fransesco Totti, Zinedine Zidane, etc
Why having to choose between one or another metric? They speak of different things. Overarching point of mine is selective criticism of gc%, which is completely unjustified. Of course you are going to take the value with a grain of salt and interprate it, as we do for everything else. Rejection of it under the premise it is categorically nonsense therefore it doesnt have to be considered at all. This is his agenda. He is coming at gc% as a stat overall, rather than a specific interpretation of a certain memver about a certain player. Arguing against Maradona's gc% as a single case, using shortcomings of gc% to make a point, is absolutely fine. But it is flipped over, rejecting utility of gc% as a stat while using Maradona or anyone else as an argument. That is completely different agenda. Also G/A is forgiven a lot more simply because of familiarity and inertia. Isaias is used to pitfalls of G/A so when they are mentioned it feels like common sense to use it in this context and not this context. It feels like duuuh moment. Of course you are not going to say Puskas is twice the player as Van Basten... Yet this is exactly what is not forgiven to gc%. Like, of course, you are going to consider absolute output of a player and his team, and what kind of teammates he has. He refuses to give any benefit of a doubt to gc% or room for interpretation that is normal for any other familiar metric. Gc% needs to be perfect and spit out the truth, while other metrics are a fact within certain context. Different standards applied. And at the end of the day Trachta is completely transparent about goal totals and breakdowns per contribution categories and everything else. It is unjustified attack on gc%.
Yes. Gc% is blind to roles. This means that gc% does not say anything abiut how much of team's attacks go through a certain player. This is obviously important aspect of scorinf highly in gc% metric. Although role is not what you are describing exactly, it is the same thing. You have to consider how much of team's play is going through a certain played. Nobody would blindly compare a fullback with a striker directly with gc% and claim superiority of the striker unless they were ill-intended to make a point agaisnt gc%. Analogously, for the same reason, you can not blindly compare players that are decades apart or even two players in the same role but different systems of today. The problem is always blindly comparing things and having standard of no room for interpretation. Two primary things to consider for gc% are: 1. Role (plus system) - how much player is central to the team - on the other extreme tho, saying that someone is central to their team because of high gc%, which isaias is claiming, is wrong as well. Centrality is something embedded in gc%, but not a sole factor that overrides everything. Gc% can not be used to measure and claim centrality within system whatever era. I have showed example of that previously. 2. Quality of teammates - because gc% is always comparing to teammates effort. - gc%, although has stability across teams idnicative of inherent worth, it is unique figure for a player for each team. The same player, with the same central role, will produce different gc% in different teams (not much different tho), but noticably different. Because of various factors. Some already mentioend in this post. The words are not necessarly directed to you. I just share my thoughts as well as they come in a specific post and conversations.
Twice is an exageration but Puskás is on my top 5 players of all times. MvB is out of my top 10. The difference between them is huge for me If you had stopped here I would have agreed 100% That assumption is exactly the issue. When you normalize Messi’s 2012 by Barcelona’s team goals, you treat him as if he’s riding context, when in reality he is the context. Same with Cristiano’s Champions League run in 2017 (10 goals in the KOs). Madrid’s “attacking strength” didn’t randomly exist, it was him. Stability doesn’t mean accuracy. Penalty conversion rates are stable too, but that doesn’t make them the best lens on open-play ability. gc% might be less volatile, but it’s less volatile partly because it erases outlier seasons. The very seasons that tell us who’s capable of stretching the limits of the sport. Messi 2012 or Ronaldo 2014-15 shouldn’t be “normalized down” into looking merely “stable.”
Correct, but my point was way more restricted and direct: I refuted the claim that g+a is to be discarded since it would value Puskas two times MVB, something that we know can't be true, while gc% is the golden reference since gives similar output for Baggio and Puskas (despite still very different g+a), and we do know they must be of similar greatness since they have both been first magnitude stars in their respective eras. In turn I postulated that gc% is in my opinion possibly going to give you numbers for, say, Barbas at Lecce in late 80s(basically random example) a little bit closer to those of Baggio than those of Gullit at Milan.
......... .. .... Once here on this Forum I tried to propose and create a completely fair system Criteria adding whole defensive actions + midfield actions + offensive actions == Total Points == in the whole Matches including even winning the second ball for the Team Headers Won % Defending Set-pieces defensive covers etc., etc., including all defensive work. Following these criteria... fair... Ferenc Puskas vs England 1953... Puskas vs Yugoslavia 1952 Puskas vs Italy 1953... Puskas, yes... was twice as better than Van Basten...on the field But... Puskas... of Real Madrid years ... no... Puskas has better offensive metrics.... easily ...yes but in play-making in general and whole defensive actions... no... definitely...no But Puskas... of the Hungarian national team side ... 1948-1956 ..and Honved...1948-1957 yes... many Brazilian players and brazilian Headcoaches from the 1950s... who played against him... Said he was phenomenal in his prime...yes no doubts about it Incredible dribbles... Passing skills % surgical precision accuracy % in Long-range balls... Killer balls... Crossing... Plays one-twos at speed... Potential kick repertoires beyond this planet... Shoots from Distance and Long Shots Marking Tackling Heading Accuracy % Headers Won % aggression Bravery composure decisions work-Rate determination Leadership Stamina agility Physical strength Body-Balance Tactical Awareness % as well ..
Fair system for me is whole defensive actions + whole midfield actions + whole offensive actions == Total Points == ...... better performances in general . "!
Yeah, the context. Do you realize that no matter the strength of the team, it's not normal to score 10 goals in 5 matches vs Neuer, Buffon and Oblak (and the defensive system who followed them)? Edit: If it were just a matter of team, Messi would certainly have scored 10 goals in the last 5 Champions League games 10/11 since this is for many the best team in history and I highly doubt that you will defend that Real 16/17 were better than Barça 10/11. We're talking about 2 equally efficient goalscorers and 2 strong teams although the later had a better team. Also I doubt you'll defend that Shaktar, Real Madrid and ManUtd had Better defences than Bayern, Atleti and Juve
Let us say that to me it would be a strong hint at method not being trustable and likely not worthy of the big data collection effort. Surely it would be in my opinion quite a strong denial of the claim the method is "advertised" by, that is the method is robust and accurate since it gives similar numbers, and the highest ones, for the player that we "did know" in the back of our mind had to be the greatest.
hahahaha ! yes good terms . ..... .. But the system favors Zico a lot, since Zico was a team player completely at Flamengo years mainly and captain for Flamengo ...... and a greater header.
... ZICO Vs Guarani (1982) // Hat-trick do GALINHO - YouTube on this game and at video there ..Shows ....me ... 2 - Tackles won % 3- Clearances 2- Headers Won % 6- defensive covers 3 - Goals .. at Least ..there . ! against GUarani .... Away-game ... ..in the semi-Finals .. !
Was Miller a total footballer in your opinion (Bergomi surely was not! ) I remember at Torino he was reputed technically superbe but way too inconsistent. I remember Torino Milan 2 2, two for Miller, two for Van Basten. Miller's were much finer.
So when Gyokeres last season has 63 G/A in 49 games playing for Sporting, do you also say G/A is not trustable as a method? Or do you say soemthing else? Like, oh he played for Sporting in a lower quality league? Why not doing the same for gc% in the case of Barbas at Lecce? Why not?
It was Barbas vs Gullit that I imagined as a possible, realistic objection to the method, not Barbas alone. In any case as I have already said here several times, I am not that much interested in analytics. So I recognize I am maybe overlooking the method's virtues. Let me conclude saying I will keep track of Trachta's efforts to see whether or not I'll end up finding his method convincing.
.......... ... .. CR7 x CRAQUES de todas as gerações Six people doing a total disservice to the World football... Showing how Brazilians are highly envious, bad and use the tactic of not using concrete and sincere arguments based in Real Facts ...... They only use fantasy and magic as answers and If if if if if if if if ... how much hate against C. Ronaldo........... .... .. how much contradiction
the only brazilian better than C. Ronaldo was Edson Arantes Pelé ... ... honestly ...talking to you ..
Muller played much better in Clubs ... mainly São Paulo 1991- until Palmeiras 1996 ... later Cruzeiro ...played very well as well ... ...... for example .... Muller .... in 1993 ... it is neck to neck with Roberto Baggio ...Asprilla ....George Weah ...Palhinha ....Romário ...Bebeto ...Gullit ...Cantona ...Bergkamp ..Mauro Silva ... Zola ..Andy-Moller... Mancini ..Vialli ..Dino Baggio... Julio Cesar ... is balanced on my view to be the best player in the World ... in 1992-1993 .... and 1993 until december . "!
Muller in brazilian National Team side ...the performances were really pretty bad in general . but .. in clubs ... He was Genius at all . "!
I don’t see why Puskás should be at a disadvantage compared to Baggio, for example, just because Puskás’s teams scored more goals. If you flip a coin, the chances of heads or tails are 50%, if you flip that coin 100 times, the chances of heads or tails are still 50%. But I do think a determining factor could be that there is some competition between players, in teams with higher level players it is more difficult for an individual to stand out. Another factor is that the modern game could be more 'collective,' leveling out the players. The problem is that measuring something like that seems impossible, and since it can’t be measured numerically, I don’t see how an adjustment could be made.