I think there are past instances like Coutinho being quite high in terms of his usage rate (sequence ending actions such as failed passes, failed dribbles, and shot attempts as a ratio to the team's totality of sequence ending actions), and it suggested his need to monopolize a team's resources, to both unlock his own individual potential, and at the same time, perhaps set the team's ceiling to his own ceiling of individual capacity. And more importantly, as his career has shown, an inability to fit into other less nurturing team settings, where the amount of individual freedoms and allocation of resources may not be so easy to solve. If we have the opportunity to look into Diego Maradona's statistics for all his sequence ending actions (successful and unsucessful) in terms of shot-attempts, failed dribble attempts, key passes, assists, failed passes, and cases of disposessions unrelated to previously mentioned actions, and roughly calculate his usage rate, and see if it was disproportionately large compared to others from his era, there may be an argument that he required a difficult-to-attain levels of monopolization in terms of riskier actions with the ball that may end the sequence. A usage rate in isolation, without contemporary examples as control, may be less useful. His large amount of shots-taken for the 1986/1987 Serie A, as well as being the number one source of lost possession, amongst Argentine international players, as noted by Sofascore, for the 1982, 1986, and 1990 World Cup, does sort of suggest he might have been a high usage rate player.
No, because we don't have access to the full model and its intricacies, so we can't anticipate and understand its shortcomings. There is a value in transparent step by step calculation process, because it allows you to estimate uncertainty and observe limits of the process. For example, limits of GC%. Regarding Sofascore, they don't use formulas with weighted variables to come up with a rating, but machine learning. Also they use more and/or different data than the one displayed for customer-experience. For example, I am positive they don't actual use BCC and BCM as such in evaluating players, but xG, xA and similar, more refined models (when accessible). The thing is that nobody is forcing anyone to pick only one model and sticking to it. The point is not to determine which is the single best model on average for evaluating players and then outsource their entire judgement to it. This is not the point of models nor how they should be percieved or used. The ideal world looks more like having multiple valid models (algorithms, calculations) each tailored / optimized for a specific type of quick or detailed analysis, and keeping judgement above any one model. Because if you choose the Sofascore model as the reference point, then you are choosing things it does well, but also things it doesn't do so well. You either accept it in full or you don't, because you don't have full access to its internal processes. You lose flexibility and insight that way. There is value in GC% and similar calculations despite obviously being narrow or biased. You can at least account for it, unlike with the Sofascore model.
Continuing from the topic of the extra-focus on the resource demand, and wastefulness of goal-scoring players, and whether playmakers can be as resource demanding in their own realm and capacity, I wanted to check the sequence-ending actions of Diego Maradona, compared to his peers during the 1986 World Cup. As in, did he partake in potentially risky, sequence-ending actions such as progressive passes, take-ons, control over the ball in an area associated with a high risk of disposssession, and shots more than the other creative players in the tournament (chosen randomly for their name-value, and decently high key passes ranking)? Even if he had the individual merit to back-up the resource-demand, it could be an inspection into his desired requirement amounts, and whether it could be freely given across all teams and various scenarios without harm to synchrony. I will use the following equation to calculate all the sequence-ending actions (successful or otherwise) from the 1986 World Cup, as tallied by Sofascore. It shall serve as my short-hand for usage rate, because calculating the numbers for the teams, would be too time consuming. [ Shots-attempted + Key passes + Assists + Possession Lost (all sorts of lost possession due to inaccurate passes, poor touches, dispossessions, and unsuccessful tackles) / (total playtime)] x 90 Squawka Comparison Matrix: Compare Football Team and Player Stats | Squawka Select players ranked by their sequence-ending actions per 90 minutes 1. Diego Maradona: 30.57 sequence-ending actions per 90 minutes 2. Michel: 23.9 sequence-ending actions per 90 minutes 3. Michel Platini: 23.41 sequence-ending actions per 90 minutes 4. Glen Hoddle: 22.4 sequence-ending actions per 90 minutes 5. Alain Giresse: 21.39 sequence-ending actions per 90 minutes 6. Careca: 18.38 sequence-ending actions per 90 minutes 7. Michael Laudrup: 18.15 sequence-ending actions per 90 minutes 8. Lothar Matthaus: 15.89 sequence-ending actions per 90 minutes 9. Socrates: 14.59 sequence-ending actions per 90 minutes 10. Enzo Scifo: 13.76 sequence-ending actions per 90 minutes I don't know if this is an accurate representation of their usual levels of demand, but I do not have their club statistics at the ready, and will probably never get it.
It just seems odd, how people are quick to forgive turnovers and extra moments of indulgence, for playmakers in particular, ignoring their frequent occupation of the most potent pockets of space that they probably did not do all of the leg work, to create, their resource demand for the most threatening scenarios with the ball at their feet, and the kind of risk their teammates have to endure for every turnover that could initiate a deadly sequence from the enemy, but at the same time want to dissect the precise amount of sunk-cost, or lost opportunity, from a bad strike on goal? Aren't they both not free of cost? If it is worth looking into the goal-to-big-chances-missed ratio, what stops people from looking into assists-to-inaccurate passes ratio? Oh, the extra turn-overs are totally worth it for the beautiful assists, but the shots that result in goal aren't aesthetically titilating enough to warrant any level of sunk-cost without criticism? How is Zlatan Ibrahimovic losing one pass after another, and never tracking back, part of his playmaking charm, but Cristiano Ronaldo's big chances missed is somehow irrefutable proof that any random striker can score the number of goals he could, if we randomly assume more shots on their part, and also randomly apply expected goal overperformance, and extrapolate it to no ends? It's like there is no repercussions for failed playmaking attempts at all, and no system demand, no inspection, and this is all discussed with the framework that we want more accuracy, when I see none.
I think there is an element of instinctual high rating of players who do individually, or by helping the collective effort with their inputs and actions), stand out for possession retention. Maybe especially for eye-catching play, but also as a general rule because of contributing to team cohesion and yeah even limiting opposition possession and attacks: Xavi, Zinedine Zidane, Fernando Redondo etc (those names and others in this category for sure aren't free from times they did lose possession a bit easily or wastefully still though). I suppose these are players whose rating exceeds their stats (be it goal contribution %, raw stats or whatever - again though at times their stats do stand out like for Xavi's 08/09 assists tally, Zidane's CL assist rate per game or 'big game goals'....). Like I kind of mentioned re: Liedholm, he was in part highly regarded (even if folklore or himself even for amusement in his coaching days it seems may have tended to exaggerate stories) because of pass accuracy and generally retaining the ball well apparently. I guess it is seen as a trade-off sometimes though, and for example it's being observed/suggested that Florian Wirtz may have tended to be a bit too conservative this season (in effect not trying enough riskier individual actions near the opposition goal).
The ‘assist’ vs Bayern Munich 1988/89 A clown show of defending Another ‘Key pass’ A ‘great’ through ball And a straight red card offence for any player in the world not named Maradona
Yes. Those actions are of a benefit to the team, and take individual quality, that is hard to replace from players more familiar with other roles. I wouldn't expect a playmaker to have the kind of aerial prowess, of a centre-back, and realize that the team would be bombarded with crosses, and conceding multiple headed goals every game, if my entire defensive line, had the aerial dueling capacity of Lionel Messi. Playmakers are the best at some roles, and bad at others. They impact the game in some ways, and are next to irrelevant in other manners. They do capture the most camera time, because they change the status of the game, the most abruptly, out of all the players, when they have the ball at their feet. That is not, the same, as being the most beneficial throughout the entire course of the game, and the season. That should be based on their overall contribution, ideally measured by some sort of plus-minus model, as opposed to actions-with-the-ball tallying with various ratios added. As a spectator, I find playmakers fascinating also. I am sort of different when I try to measure their functional capacity, as a forum member. When a fantastically gifted player, attempts to advance an attacking sequence, via shielding the ball away from intense press, via twisting and turning in highly contested zones, to brute-force a previously unavailable passing angle, or via a ludicrously difficult-to-connect pass that has a high-bar of execution, there are inherent risks involved for these actions. A player who does such things beyond the typical risk-to-reward ratio, should maybe be criticized, just like a forward, who requires way too many shots to convert into respectable goal-scoring figure. Let's just search the term, possession lost, on Statsmuse (because gross-rankings for possessions lost is not available on other sites), for an easy visual representation, of the risks involved. The terminology may not be totally compatible with the ones used by Sofascore, but I'm sure it is some sort of proxy, for the various events caused by the individual that leads to a turnover (inaccurate passes, dispossessions, and unsuccessful dribbles). Now notice Thomas Muller isn't on the list. Because he does not often attempt visually spectacular heat-seeking missile passes with perfect weighting that Kevin De Bruyne is known for. He also does not try overly hopeful progressive passes Bruno Fernandes tends to go for, on the off-chance that it connects. He also does not often try outlandish one-versus-one outplays that Neymar, or Lamine Yamal often goes for. He still has amazing creative productivity. It is shown in his number of possessions-lost, for every assist he makes. Since the data on Statsmuse for most metrics are available since the 2014/2015 season, I can tell you, that Thomas Muller, Kevin De Bruyne, Neymar, and Lionel Messi all have different ratios. I do not know who is the best, or the worst, but Thomas Muller has a sick ratio, for this specific metric in particular. Thomas Muller: 33.4 possessions lost for every assist made Kevin De Bruyne: 43.7 possessions lost for every assist made Lionel Messi: 46.1 possessions lost for every assist made Neymar: 66.4 possessions lost for every assist made These players are all extraordinary creative players, but one relies much less on riskier plays to create assists, and the ratio shows that. I never saw anyone, in my own language, or here, or any forum I've personally spent time in, discuss this. As if, playmakers are just there to be appreciated, and catered to, and never questioned. I can almost guarantee, if Neymar had such figures that might paint him in a better light than most playmakers, his playstyle would drag this sort of statistic more into the limelight. On the other end of the discussion, almost everyone, since the days of expected goals under/over performance, or big chances missed, knows the usual unreliable goal-converting culprits of Gabriel Jesus, Timo Werner, or Edin Dzeko, as forwards who do not have efficient goal-return for any given number of key passes received. Even moderately poor return forwards like Raheem Sterling gets mocked to no ends. So the intensity with which some plays are dissected, are not applied to others. And Lionel Messi, due to his amazing ability to dribble into his preferred goal-scoring positions and body configuration, instead of leaping into the air into an aerial duel versus a 1.9m tall defender, having amazing expected goal overperformance is somehow set as the standard that must be kept to by all prolific goal-scorers, when he is the ultimate outlier that cannot be matched. A playmaker having high numbers of possessions lost, is understood as being part of the charm, whereas a great goal-scorer must show that he can perform across all stages of competition, various level of teammates, and have the kind of expected goal-overperformance that Lionel Messi has displayed. Only then, can they be labelled as a truly great goal-scorer. Can I try attempting the same level of ludicrous threshold for playmakers also? This statistical marveling, where any player, whether it is a fullback that playmakes like Trent Alexander-Arnold, is statistically benefited from Sofascore-esque metrics over excellent players like Kyle Walker, makes me upset. When forum posters, derive models that are even more statistically biased for playmakers, and use it to back their rather strong opinions, I get petty, and I try to disprove.
I understand your frustrations mate. I guess you followed my line of thinking that retaining possession (while still being incisive) does get valued by fans though anyway. To be honest like I said before I'm personally if I'm honest more a fan of ball-playing than combative play or even 'functional' play I suppose (but would always want a team to be cohesive and that's not just about 'in possession play' of course). I, like others, would always be tempted with a defender who can really play (and in an all-time context they do get highly valued) though at the same time I know that players who are great with blocks and tracking opponents etc (as long as they are at least ok with the ball - 'clearances' that go to the opposition or out of play are also possession losses and sometimes they aren't totally necessary of course) are very valuable, and I do think even from an entertainment perspective that more direct attackers (who can run in behind but also score explosive volleys, crisp half-volleys etc) add to the game a lot also in general. Sometimes a partnership or co-existence of a smooth playmaker type and a direct, physical striker type can be very fruitful of course (eg Rui Costa with Batistuta).
Actually @Letmepost maybe the Mario Kempes XI I dug out today is an example you'd like in terms of placing emphasis on functionality (although building a 'platform' for Zico still) and particularly picking out defenders that he personally found difficult (or horrible!) to play against, as an aside (though it goes back before your time as a fan I know so is less relatable in terms of the names - that's somewhat true for me too to be honest though): https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/interesting-best-xi.325564/page-74#post-43446556 Mario Kempes: Perfect XI | FourFourTwo
I am sort of the opinion that classical playmakers (who are the most purely authentic to their role and task) would not have diminished in number with the flow of time, if they are truly functionally the best by far, as in the best playmaker in the team, must also the most pragmatically the best player in the team every single time, even if they are lacking in other attributes. It does make me sort of a consequentialist, as other posters have pointed out, I guess. Like a hypocrite, I also sort of miss the days when such beauty and the beast combinations were more common. Maybe like Zinedine Zidane and Didier Deschamps. Or Rio Ferdinand and Nemanja Vidic in defense. I could more easily figure out who was good at what, and how they complemented one another. I think those combinations still exist today, but in a less obviously contrasting manners. I just think that the increased physical demands of the game in terms of movement and press, and intensity with which it is done, on top of the numerous added substitutions, makes off-the-ball so much more important than before. I just don't think playmaker adulation is as relevant as before functionally speaking, and I don't think it was as important even in the past, to degrees people sometimes say, but on older era topics, the odds of me talking out of my arse increases exponentially.
Understood again. I think such central defence partnerships were to some extent even aimed for in days gone by, with the pairing of number 5 (centre back but known as 'centre half' in old-fashioned lingo) and number 6 (originally in hybrid-WM systems ball-playing wing-half) with distinct roles and attributes. More and more it became two outright all-round centre backs, though I guess we can still distinguish between a Saliba and a Gabriel for example (Saliba being more the covering player and classy/smooth like Ferdinand for example).
Good morning Mate. When people compare KDB with Modrić on passing for example they generally say something like: "KDB have less pass accuracy because he attempts riskier passes but that's okay and in fact it's a good thing cause look at his number of assists compared to Modrić so he's a better passer overall". But look at how the speech changes when we compare Ronaldo with Messi: "Ronaldo has poor decision making cause he attempts riskier shot's while Messi has a better shot conversion rate cause he's more conservative finishing approach. Where Ronaldo shoot's Messi prefer to dribble, or pass or play a 1-2 to finish from a more favourable position". Why doesn't anyone say "KDB has poor decision making cause he attempts riskier passes while Modrić has a better pass conversion rate cause he's more conservative passing approach. Where KDB passes Modrić prefer to dribble, or pass side/back or play a 1-2 to pass from a more favourable position" or "Ronaldo have less shooting accuracy because he attempts riskier shots but that's okay and in fact it's a good thing cause look at his number of Goals compared to Messi so he's a better finisher overall"? Both a missed shot and a missed pass will lead to a counter attack opportunity. In fact a shot that doesn't find the back of the net can lead to a rebound or a corner, etc... You can say not every pass is an attempt to assist but you can look at the failed passes of any attacking player and you'll see that most of them are crosses, through balls or passes into the box. Professional players rarely miss a pass of 5 meters before the final third as there's much less pressure than in the final third and that's precisely why Kroos has a higher pass accuracy than KDB statistically speaking
Morning mate. In brief, I think that it is sometimes commented on or observed that De Bruyne loses the ball with pass attempts, or moreso that Modric's ball retention is very good and valuable. Every situation is different I suppose (and normally a player has a few different options available). Generally speaking if playing on a team without a line-breaking striker and against a quick and/or deep defence, or if playing in a game where the opposition has a lot of the ball, maybe De Bruyne could get some criticism if trying lots of ambitious through balls that turned over the ball and set the opposition up for a new attack or period of possession, I guess.
In terms of 'end product' in total (and probably wider contribution to it) I guess Modric is quite far behind De Bruyne in terms of numbers though, while Messi's dribbling, assisting, BCCs, that can occur when he doesn't shoot from far out, as the alternative option, isn't a non-factor to say the least to be fair (I don't suggest he's some kind of perfect player though, and sometimes he himself in World Cups for example, or Copa America 2019, has seemed quite far from that in particular games).
Yeah, he could but he actually doesn't. He is excused for his high risk passes attempt cause he assists a lot. In fact Kroos were criticized for "only passing to side or back" and KDB himself already criticized the statistic pass completion rate. While Messi fans on the other hand criticize Ronaldo for attempting high risk shots and say Messi is a better finisher for his finishing conversion rate. It's double standards on the most pure sense of the word.
If you're talking purely about judging finishing ability (between any players for that matter) then I'd say yes it's not as simple as copying and pasting shot conversion rates anyway. Goals compared to xG might be better, or post-shot xG compared to xG (if that should be considered a better indicator than goals which could be questionable, especially if the model was faulty I guess?...but that second method could take account of great saves better) for a statistical attempt maybe? It could indicate Messi as better talent (with more options to use that he may expect to succeed- I know you can also say he's less likely to score with long shots) or better decision maker or better goalscorer/assister combined and suchlike maybe? But strictly better finisher not necessarily. Alan Shearer was a better striker of the ball from further away from the net than Gary Lineker generally, but better goalscorer is another question, for example.
I have next to no knowledge about these players, other than Zico, and even then it is pretty limited. I'm assuming that you're referencing the restraint from the usual famous names being mooshed into one totally incoherent team, and Kempes being more vocal about how certain players make it more difficult for the opponent to flourish, rather than choosing the types of players that might be more focused on pure self-expression? Given the same sets of resources, I think it is just easier to win a little bit more, than retain the win rate, whilst impressing people with beauty the way the Brazilian team of 1982 perhaps did. Not that cynical or physically intimidating football is always good, but the fixation to impress the audience or live spectators, as a goal in itself that is just as important as the results, may detract from the results. Play expansive if the situation calls for it, play cynical if it seems to raise the chances. Don't let the philosophy of needing to play in a certain manner influence that decision. Of course, this is purely as a thought experiment in what I think best measures pragmatic excellence. I get that football is an entertainment industry, on top of being the measurement of footballing excellence.
Yeah, for sure, to be honest I am one who is more for an entertaining style (and fair play even too) in my preferences, although generally speaking for example when my club Nottingham Forest historically played in such a way it was also the best time for results (but firstly 'such a way' wasn't necessarily putting 4 number 10s in the team lol, and secondly it could be argued to a slight extent their most successful time was with a bit of a more pragmatic approach eg late 70s compared to late 80s into 90s). I do think generally that most top teams play 'quality football' (not all) though and that quality and results can go hand in hand, and I think exceptional number 10s, skilled centre backs and suchlike can also be big pluses. But I get what you mean that perhaps if throwing style preferences out of the window a coach could optimise his results and mix quality to the necessary extent with caution/toughness/pragmatism. But Mourinho succeeded for a while (maybe such an example) then declined. Same for George Graham. Same for a very limited time for Otto Rehhagel (Greece 2004 - maybe I spell his name wrong here). Anyway yeah re: the Kempes selection it was that he put together a team with hard working players and players difficult to play against (in his own experience) to compliment/support Zico and the attack in theory, and yeah not that many famous names overall, especially in defence (though one of the centre backs was kind of 'infamous' as Butcher of Bilbao!), which I thought in a way you could find refreshing to see given your comments.
I think I pretty much agree with you on the whole. To add further, it will have to get quite abstract and non-football related. If we divide the two philosophies: A) Pragmatism-only B) Multilayered excellence across multiple facets, including aesthetic excellence This will venture somewhat into the tin-foil hat territory, but I believe pragmatism-only approach only works perfectly in theory, because even if it works, people do not want it, and will actively seek to destroy it. Whether it is FIFA immediately changing the rules after Denmark won Euro 92, Arsenal backing Arsene Wenger for decades for a wonderful vision and a dream, whereas Jose Mourinho being held to a tighter standard whilst being questioned constantly for his entertainment value. In a world that only prioritizes wins and loses on the football pitch, I feel Jose Mourinho can be given more time to recuperate from his fluctuations in results, while Arsene Wenger might get released from his clubs faster. So while there is the pragmatic upside, there is a heavy cost, which ironically makes the end-result perhaps not-so pragmatic in the long run, with the external forces at play. Multilayered excellence, is the better business model, creates more fans, creates more sponsorships, and even if the results aren't perfectly optimized in the short-run, the eventual accumulation of the other upsides will eventually overpower everything. Pep Guardiola can spend his billions trying out weird Kevin De Bruyne false nine tactics, and losing in tournaments for years on end to lesser sides like Tottenham, Lyon, and Chelsea. It does not ultimately matter. Fans will have faith. The board will have faith. The ad-revenue will be fine. The surrounding media won't have an existential crisis about whether they are broadcasting football, or anti-football. Of course, there will have to be basic levels of success, but I think most of us prefers great results in style and the most satisfying narrative, over perfect results at the cost of everything else being pure torture.
The easiest way to check would be universal application for all players with available data, and I sort of have the strong suspicion that players such as Jadon Sancho at Dortmund, would have great GC% numbers, and that might say more about their relationship with the team, than how they would perform in a very strong team that might not honour them with the kind of preferential treatment they wish they would get as players. Those are the actual cases of players who suffer a drastic drop once the circumstances are changed. And for me, a great GC% figure is not some certificate of merit that warrants hypothetical extrapolation. That is like taking expected goal overperformance values, and extrapolating it without context, and saying things like, Kevin De Bruyne, given how much he overperforms difficult-to-execute shots outside of the box with both feet, should be able to score 500 tap-ins inside the box, if given the opportunity, because those can be scored by any randomly competent footballer. So he is in essence a hypothetical world-class goal-scorer, who instead chooses the more noble job of a playmaker.
I'm not even getting into who's the best finisher. For me, it's Ronaldo because he finishes with both feet and with his head from any angle or distance, or from crowded corners, etc... My critique is in the hypocrisy of people who absolve "wasteful" passers but blame "wasteful" finishers. The negative result of both is a turnover
I spoke of GC% in old message quoted in the message here above but of course same argument applies to the more general GC+A%.