Goal contribution of the best players

This might be the best visual representation, of the issue I address.



Where the shot involvement, does usually correlate somewhat to sequence usage (or usage rate, whichever terminology you prefer, it addresses pretty much the same concept).

Where the definition is as follows (roughly speaking)

A) Shot involvement: any action that leads to a shot (shots attempted and creative passes such as assists and key passes)
B) Sequence usage: any action that ends an attacking sequence (shots attempted, creative passs, inaccurate passes, failed dribbles, and dispossessions)

Jamie Vardy, might look like a somewhat resource-heavy player, if we only look at shot involvement. Which is what Trachta10 actually did, and asked for the reason why, when the answer was inherent within his choice of metric. It's a very dishonest behaviour, especially if he knows what he is doing.

In actuality, Jamie Vardy is a low usage rate player, who does not attempt a lot of potentially possession-ending actions such as attempted dribbles and passes. Most of his energy is focused on runs in behind without the ball. His level of resource demand with the ball at his feet are quite low. The same is rarely true for creative playmakers.

There are also players who have very high usage rates, but get involved very little in the shot-taking process. There needs to be an inspection of both, no? Both types of contribution are earned via different levels of team prioritization, and not all playmakers share the same level of efficiency. It just so happens that metrics like xG under-performance and big chances missed are more easily accessed and published.

There is an entire spectrum, and shot-involvement is more an indication of where your priorities lie, than raw indication of your overall resource demand. Which I am sure you agree, which makes Trachta10's line of questioning, which for me has an obvious answer due to his choice of statistical metric, very odd.

 

That is quite a self-fulfilling prophecy: a figure of merit designed exactly so as to back a certain theory.

 

Honestly, Maradona is cited as and among the greats of the Football history

strictly

for the 1986 World Cup
mainly the great performances

and partially for the 1990 World Cup

as Andreas Brehme's goal was not a penalty really

..
Coppa Italia ...1986-1987 season


...
Apart from that, I have no fear in stating:

Zico and Michel Platini were much better on average and much more consistent, round after round than Maradona .


I Mean matchday 1 , matchday 2, matchday 3 , etc,,etc,

Maradona lacked the consistency to keep up with Platini and Zico.

I'll say more ++

Zico, Cruyff, Gullit and Platini

with a World Cup title won

nobody would talk more ++

about Maradona

 

Briegel

impressed me more than Maradona
for consistency


Maradona season

1984-1985 season

One of the greatest farces in history

 

To be honest, if the metric was applied universally to every player that we have detailed data-sets for, I think Diego Maradona ranking above Lionel Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo might be the least of our worries. There may be a trickle down effect that leads to some pretty ridiculous conclusions if we continue along this trend of thought.

There is merit to the metric (for example, I would prefer to have it, even if I heavily disagree with how it is utilized to push narratives), but its overall accuracy and ability to decipher extra nuance out of the players inspected is grossly over-stated by some here. If Trachta10 had the ability to separate his statistical analysis and his own preconceived notions, I think pretty much every issue here would be gone.

 

Ok me singling out Maradona's case was a bit tongue in cheek (in response to his provocation on Zico), but I do believe Tractha's approach strongly and fatally suffers from shortcoming of being completely team-result agnostic. A player who shines at the expenses of his team, or that thrives in a team that is not challenging to the highest level can't be recognized the true greatness. Cause he has not proven himself against other all-timers in the same much higher mission of winning big.

 

I have a curious fact about this:

When France Football Magazine held that voters

for the possible 3 dream -teams

I did everything I could to vote for the legend players against current players like Nazario or Gaucho

...

So

I went
to several internet cafes " Lan-Houses in Brazil "

in that time

So...

switching at new computers, you could always vote more than once hahahahaha Peter Gabriel 1978 ..

but the stranger thing is
that I voted more +++

at that time for Marco Van Basten and Cruyff

than for Ruud Gullit... or Puskas or Gerd Muller

If it were today I would vote more for them: Gullit or Puskas or Gerd Muller enfin

So

you could say
that I, who put Johan Cruyff and Van Basten ... Dream-team 2..... Dream-team 3 .. as center-forwards

was voting against

Ronaldo Nazario, Ronaldinho Gaucho mainly ...current players in general ..

extremely media-savvy darling players


...

But they ended up getting a lot of votes...

Because of the visibility and extreme media attention.

 

I put Rijkaard also ! ahahahaha

 

I put Breitner ! also hahaha

 

It was me against countless younger viewers

who hadn't seen the legendary players play.

 

I messed up with the France Football dream-teams hahahahaha . "!

 

I'm sure Simeone and others disagree with you. It's Messi who requires the most effort to function. Ronaldo adapted to three teams in three different leagues with completely different coaches and teammates. As I've said before, Ronaldo's extra shots aren't tap-ins. They are half-chances that only he has the ability to convert, and that's why he tries them. Obviously, he will have a lower conversion rate since it's 0.01 xG situations but granted he convert much more than 1% of them

 

In category A though, I generally wouldn't see shots attempted as on par with or equivalent to key passes (not inherently positive - I know it's in category B too, but wasted passes isn't in category A). Shots on target or shots with high post-shot xG perhaps instead in theory? (not only goals). Excellent shots that win corners a chance comes from could be wide 'key involvements' I guess arguably. In reality it also depends what other options the shooter had I think (even if passing on the ball can always result in a team-mate not optimising situation too).

 

Yes, UEFA Player of the Century voting (on UEFA anniversary) was a bit like that, and apparently the FIFA organised Player of the Century vote too.

If my Youtube playlist becomes the new top 100 on here this year you will know I took your tip and visited every internet cafe I could find haha (except in reality you have to give your name when voting, and maybe these days you can do it with private VPNs etc that constantly change internet address anyway I guess):
Smooth’s All Time Top 500 2025

 

hahaha ...


Is funny

that Dr . Socrates had 2 votes to more than Ruud Gullit ..


I honestly don't know why I didn't vote for Gullit.


It was a different version of myself ahahahaha !

 

I guess one way of looking at it would be as a counter or push back against the type of analysis that looks at raw totals of goals scored in calendar years or seasons without considering different contexts though?

The 'truth' is maybe an in between reality if anything? i.e raw stats can be misleading and so can goal contribution % if it's used too literally as a decider between players performance-wise by default.

Btw, when I mentioned my take on categories A and B in my last reply I could have pointed out the positive merits re: the comments on no ready available data for let's say 'xA underperformance' or attempted key pass conversion or whatever (I implied before that your ideas were fair to look at too I suppose though).

 

I could imagine (to take Simeone's theory to extreme) he could be overall more effective/prolific in a team like Wimbledon 1987/88. On the other hand if he was a player that really merited calls of 'best ever' all-round player then wouldn't he be better served trying to create something better for team-mates rather than taking so many low percentage shots, and can this be detrimental in big World Cup games for example?
AI summary on Wimbledon 1987/88 style:
Playing Style (The "Crazy Gang" Tactics)

• Direct & Physical: They favoured long balls, pressing, and challenging opponents physically, a stark contrast to more possession-based teams.
• Defensive Strength: Excellent defensive organization, particularly in front of their penalty area, smothered attacks.
• Team Ethic: Unmatched energy, enthusiasm, and unity, with players like Vinnie Jones, Dennis Wise, and John Fashanu embodying this spirit.
• Set-Piece Prowess: Exploited opponents' aerial weaknesses, scoring the decisive goal in the FA Cup Final from a set-piece header.
• Canny & Effective: Despite the "lump it" image, they were tactically astute, especially in exploiting Liverpool's vulnerability to aerial balls.

 

That is a slightly different topic regarding the value of each actions, rather than the level of resource demand, that should be better reflected by appropriate choices of statistical metrics. Perhaps shot-involvement for goal-centric players, and usage rate for the playmaking kind.

As for your potential concerns over-simplification of resource-demand that is estimated from usage rate, the same can be said for any metric, it certainly beats measuring the resource demand for all types of players via shot-involvement.

I get that playmakers generally have the most agency with the ball at their feet. It still does not change the fact that some playmakers require a lot more resources, just like some goal-scorers require a lot more chances.

If goal-scorers can be judged by their resource demand and relative over-performance with the given opportunities, I am saying the same can be done to playmakers, as opposed to the statistically crude method of applying shot-involvement to all sorts of players, and deciding that Jamie Vardy is the most resource-reliant player of 21/22.

I am not really into breaking down player value by their immediately consequential actions. Those are already done by many others, in a variety of different ways.

That sort of analysis plays heavily into the strengths of a certain profile of a player, combined with various levels of team catering for the individual needs (in terms of tactical freedom, extra opportunities in terms of risky actions that can end sequences, and less defensive responsibilities) of said player. Jamie Vardy is not valuable because he wins certain number of corner-kicks, instead it is perhaps closer to the fact that he constantly probes the enemy defensive shape for weakness, and his ability to punish a high defensive line. Those things cannot really be measured with immediate consequences. It is a 90 minute tug-of-war between Jamie Vardy, and the enemy defensive line, in a dance for the correct movement and positioning. I think his ability to punish a high-line alone makes defenders think twice about venturing out too far, which in turn impacts the team shape and passing angles. It is not about the immediate consequences of his contributions.

As for the overall value a player brings, whether it is actions with the ball, their movement, defensive coverage, or positional awareness, I think a top-down analysis is the best way, but it is extremely hard to find a mathematically sound example of it.

Appreciation of playmakers, and the game-changing value of their plays with the ball at their feet is fine. Statistically incoherent analysis, and blatantly biased choice of metrics trigger me.

 

Fourth Team -Squad

for me from France Football


GK- ZOFF

RB- THURAM
CD- SCIREA
LB - ANDREAS BREHME
REGISTA SU - LUIS SUAREZ MIRAMONTES
MEZZALA - RUUD GULLIT

AM - ZICO
AM- FERENC PUSKAS

WG- SAMUEL ETO'O
CF- GERD MULLER
WG - CF - RIVALDO


BY NAMES ..THERE .. "!

 

You don't have to private message me to stop expressing my opinions on a public forum. If you wish to preserve your "sanity" and avoid backlash, you can start by not interfering in the first place and then you can stop ridiculing opinions of members that disagree with you.


You are actually so wrong on multiple levels that it is hard to keep it clean.


First of all, you made a massive statistical mistake and drawn conclusions from it, and now you keep building narrative around it.


Statistics 101:


You divide variables that are inherently related. If you want to calculate conversion rates for certain types of actions, you divide like for likes:


Goals / shots,


Assists / key passes (it is defined as the last pass that leads to a shot)


Non-opta assist / non-opta key pass,


Pre-assist / pre-assist key pass


Non-opta pre-assist / non-opta pre-assist key pass


What you DON'T do is you divide apples with oranges:


If goal creating actions (GCA) are defined as: assists, non-opta assists, pre-assists, non-opta pre-assists,


Then you dont divide GCA with key passes, you divide:


GCA / key passes + non-opta key passes + pre-assist key passes + non-opta pre-assist key passes


You dont divide:


GCA / key passes.

It is the slippery-slope.


It also includes ONLY successful off the ball movement.


How do we account for strikers who aimlessly lurk around the box with no effect on the game waiting for lucky deflection?


How do we account for all the mistimed runs that create chaos rather than clarity in the final third or penalty box?


That doesn't matter, right?


If player creates a big chance, distribution of credit is 50-50 between passer and reciever, but if pass is misplaced, then the blame is 100% on the side of the passer?


When are off the ball movers ever hold accountable for their performance in your framework of football?


You are only interested in capturing wastage of playmakers, but at what point do we turn a mirror to off the ball movers? Ever?


We all have heard countless times that playmakers are cirticized for having an off performance in terms of passing, but when have you ever heard someone say that Ronaldo had an off game because he wasn't moving well off the ball?


I have never heard anyone ever say that. He can be criticized for missing chances, not for off the ball movement.


Playmakers get a lot of credit for highlight passes, as they should, but they equally get a lot of blame for bad passes, as they should.


A worldview you are suggesting is honestly ridiculous. It is summarized as this:


"Let's equalize credit given between passers and recievers, because passers get all the attention by fans from video footage, but simultaniously, let's blame only passers when things don't go well and leave off the ball movers out of it."


You are not advocating for equality or nuance, you are advocating for immunity of off the ball movers. "They have tremendous amount of positive influence, yet they can do no wrong."


If you honestly believed that Cristiano Ronaldo is making a big difference with his off the ball movement, because it is extremely important aspect of game, then you would also believe that when he is not having as high GC% as some others, that Cristiano is blamed for this.


You can't have a cake and eat it too.


Either off the ball movement matters as much as passing (or close to it), in which case off the ball movement is equally potent skill at generating high GC%, or it doesn't. Then passing is more important skill.


It is absolutely proposterous what you are suggesting (and few other members). Simultaniously arguing for importance of off the ball movement, and lack of responsibility.

This is you directly admitting that passing is more important skill than off the ball movement, because it has much greater opportunity for influence pwr unit of participation. This is literally what you just said.


But it is wrong in practise regardless.


The safest way to guarantee maximum shot participation percantage, for example, if one aimed at that, is by shoting every single time they recieve the ball. In that way participation is guaranteed. By passing ball to others, you lose control over what happens afterwards, and participation in shots is not guaranteed. The only way passing is going to lead to shot participation is if the pass itself is a good pass and increases a chance of a shot happening.


Backwards passes do not guarantee shot participation. Bad, misplaced passes do not lead to shots. Pass has to be good enough to end up registered in a shot sequence. That kind of pass is skill. It requires skill. So player who is frequently included in shot sequences through passing, logically follows that they are producing passes of value.

Which is not true the other way around. Bad shot is a shot sequence.

There is always a hard threshold to how good pass has to be to be included in a shot sequence. If someone is included in a lot of shot sequences through passing, it must mean they are doing at least something right. Even if they are inefficient. They must be somewhat effective. Inclusion is not guaranteed. You make it sound like creating chances or assists is only down to amount of possession player has. It is not.

No matter how much usage rate through passing you allow to yourself, myself or someone else on the forum, we wouldn't have a high shot participation rate, because we suck at passing. The opposite is true for shots. Any person can spam shots from 40 meters without scoring a single goal, but increasing shot participation percantage. Shots are possible to statpad without skill, key passes are not possible to statpad without skill.

First you have to look how much player actually did (impact), and then secondly, you look at what it took for them to produce that (efficiency). You judge efficiency as primary and take impact as given with enough usage rate. Not true.

This statement of yours, even at the surface level makes no sense whatsoever. If passing was the best way to statpad gc% then De Bruyne would have high gc% than Haaland, Ozil or Isco more than Cristiano. Xavi and Kroos would dominate gc% statistic all around.

The actually best way to have high gc% is to be great and impactful all around. To score, to pass well, to be involved.

After that it is down to nuance. Was a player involved or self-involved? How good are his teammates? Was it lucky variance? By how much? Etc.

You dont get high gc% without impact. Efficiency can vary.

All of this is quite ironic, because you, person who is relentlessly pursuing any kind of metric to quantify resource-hogging, are dismissing the very attempt by Trachta to quantify efficiency.

By all accounts, you should be the first one on a bandwagon of a statistic he presented in his recent post, because it directly gives insight in the very thing you are trying to quantify.

Your whole premise of resource-hogging is that some players demand so much resources that it has a negative effect on productivity of teammates around him.

I agree with this sentiment. This can be true to some extent for players. Nevertheless, his new metric that compares GC% to shot participation percantage (SP%) is actually on the right track to measure this.

Because it logically follows that a resource-hogging player will have a high SP%, but lower GC%.

If someone hogs resources with negative consequences for a team, firstly, they ensure for themselfs an abundant amount of attempts (which rises their shot participation count), and they lower amount of resources his teammates have to generate shots (which lowers total shot numbers). As a result, a resource-hogging player will have high SP%. And if their GC% is lower than their SP%, it stands to reason that they have an unjustified level of participation in shots.

If two players have 50 GC%.

Player A has 50 GC% with 60 SP% (overall -10%), and player B has 50 GC% with 40 SP% (overall + 10%), player B is more efficient while taking less resources. He is having bigger end product impact (GC) per unit of involvement (SP).

It is return of the investment.

What is NOT possible, that player B is a resource-hog at 40% SP%, because if his team can independently of him generate 60% of shots, then how is he having a detrimental effect on well-being of his team?

That would be the opposite of intention and definition of resource-hog. He is clearly not hogging resources if team generates a lot of shots independently.

So in theory, this statistic should be something you would consider with great attention, because it is right up there in your realm of intent.

The fact that you continue to disagree with it regardless, tells me that you dont really care about quantifying resource-hogging. You just want to disagree with Trachta no matter what he posts and already have preconcieved idea of who should come on top or not.

Like Ronaldo, for example.

Let's make up statistics until Ronaldo comes on top or what? Because he is an epitome of efficiency in your opinion? So if he is not efficient and off the ball movers dont come on top, something must be wrong with statistic? Is that it?

I will repeat again:

Ronaldo is a very resource-demanding player up front. Player who tops all shot statistics in modern era and player who always demands premium positioning in penalty box and constant delivery attempts.

This is not necessarly bad. He is a premium goalscorer. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. It is the truth.

Ronaldo is much less flexible as a player than you believe and you refuse to admit that because it somehow argues for high usage rate players (even tho it has nothing to do with it). In his own way, Ronaldo is creating a kind of resource-demanding gravity that can and does easily turn out of control. That is that on him.

On top of that, you are completely ignoring downsides of off-ball aspect of performance, and made zero effort to consider or try to quantify it, as you constantly trying to do with players on the ball.

Let's turn discussion around, shall we? Let's start measuring negative impacts of off the ball movement. How specific profile of off the ball movement by up front players limits creative possibilities of a team? How Ronaldo's inability to play with his back turned towards goal or tight spaces, reduces team to a transitional, cross-heavy football?

Shall we?