He isn't necessarily a superior finisher, but rather more conservative in his approach. A left-footed player naturally maintains a higher conversion rate by strictly favoring his dominant foot inside the box, this selectivity creates a limiting dependency. Because he lacks the versatility to score with his right foot, his head, or from long range, his output is entirely contingent on his team’s ability to provide high-quality service. Ultimately, the most elite finisher is not the one with the highest percentage on cherry-picked chances, but the one who possesses a diverse toolkit and the clinical range to manufacture goals from any situation. Efficiency in a clinical sense should be measured by output per opportunity rather than just goals per shot. A player who only shoots when a goal is nearly certain will naturally boast a padded conversion rate, but they are often less efficient for the team overall because they pass up half chances that a more versatile striker would have converted. A truly efficient scorer maximizes the team's total output by utilizing a wider shot profile scoring the difficult headers or weak foot strikes that the conservative player never even attempts
Your analysis doesn't really disprove my point at all. You are conflating statistical padding with genuine finishing efficiency. You’ve put together a detailed mathematical case about conversion rates and xG overperformance, but you’re missing the bigger picture: finishing efficiency isn’t just goals per shot, it’s about the range of tools a player uses to maximize a team’s scoring options. Focusing narrowly on ratios ignores how goals are actually manufactured in real games. Also, I think it is quite silly to try to use Messi’s higher conversion rate as proof of superior finishing. Messi has a higher conversion rate precisely because he is more conservative with his shot selection. He largely avoids low-probability attempts (long-range shots with his weak foot, contested headers, desperate efforts from bad angles) which naturally inflates his “efficiency” numbers. Ronaldo, meanwhile, takes on the burden of shooting from anywhere: with his head, his left foot, from outside the box, under pressure. This is a HUGE help to a team, because it means they can still score when the defense has successfully closed off the ideal zones. Messi’s reliance on his left foot and close-range placement makes him far more dependent on his team creating very specific, high-xG chances. Ronaldo does not have that limitation. And probably most importantly, your data does not encompass a HUGE amount of what actually defines a clinical finisher. In your formulas, efficiency exists in a vacuum where every shot is treated as interchangeable, but the reality is that a complete finisher must convert “half-chances” that barely register as good opportunities at all. For instance, a difficult header from a floated cross might carry low xG, but Ronaldo’s ability to score those consistently creates an entire scoring avenue that Messi simply does not possess. By heavily favoring his dominant foot and high-probability zones, Messi is essentially cherry-picking his shot profile. He does one thing better (maintaining a high percentage on specific types of chances) but Ronaldo is the better finisher because he has a wider range of tools to manufacture goals out of nothing. And that is what actually defines finishing efficiency in a competitive environment: the ability to turn bad resources into goals through sheer technical versatility, something Ronaldo does far more often than Messi.
yes like Gerd Muller at Euro-Cup 1972 Final 4 Shots Attempts 4 Shots on Target ratio % 100 % accuracy % i'll say more ++++ from this .. Gerd Muller didn't have several super big chances to score goals per 90 minutes played . His accuracy was insane. Always Between a super range of 50% up to 100% accuracy % at Shots on Target Ratio % for example Diego Maradona at His maximum Peak in World Cup 1986 and whole career range 47 % Shots on Target Ratio % accuracy % Ronaldinho Gaucho at His maximum Peak in Barcelona between 40 % until 49 % Shots on Target Ratio % accuracy % 50% at Shots on Target Ratio % for Gerd Muller it was on bad days or at more or less days for Gerd to Diego and Ronaldinho .. It was the best. And this represents the best matches of their careers. this Range between 40 % until 49 % accuracy % in Shots on Target !
I was watching Fatawu's plays I noticed that the current soccer Foot- ball sticks to the grass in a very smooth, pleasant and softer way. ... .. In the Van Basten video The ball keeps bouncing non-stop. The ball bounces more than a highly wet and slippery bar of soap hahaha in the shower very very poor quality lawn field .... ,.. Since the current ball is lighter, it naturally curves more. Great for trying shoots from range always .
Isaias, you are a good person. I see your heart is in the right place, but when it comes to Ronaldo, you are so biased and in a fantasy land that you are completely out of touch with reality and reason. It is impossible to find a common ground with you or discuss the most basic statements with you. Essentially, every sentence you wrote is cardinally wrong on some level and I disagree with them explicitly and implicitly. It would be too cumbersome to respond to every thread you keep openning up, especially knowing that you wouldn't engage with the substance in good faith; with any rigor and common ground. So we will have to agree to disagree. Our views on football and definitions of words couldn't be further apart. To not leave the conversational points hanging in the air, here is ChatGPT's best thinking model telling you what is wrong with literally every sentence you wrote (bear in mind, it is only refuting logically and semnatically inconsistent claims, not assertions such as "[Messi] lacks versatility to score with his right foot", even tho Messi literally has 100+ right footed goals in his career): ChatGPT (Move your mouse to reveal the content) ChatGPT (open) ChatGPT (close) QUOTE 1 — sentence-by-sentence 1) “He isn't necessarily a superior finisher, but rather more conservative in his approach.” Claim: “Higher conversion doesn’t mean better finishing; it means safer shot selection.” What’s wrong: This is a naked assertion with no evidence. It might be true in some cases, but you can’t just state it as the explanation. It also slides between concepts: “finishing” (ability given a shot) vs “conservative approach” (shot selection). Those are different skills. A player can be both selective and a superior finisher. These aren’t mutually exclusive. Correct version: “Part of the conversion gap could be explained by shot selection; to isolate finishing, compare goals vs expected goals per shot type.” 2) “A left-footed player naturally maintains a higher conversion rate by strictly favoring his dominant foot inside the box, this selectivity creates a limiting dependency.” Claim: Left-footedness → higher conversion because they stick to their strong foot → dependency. What’s wrong: No general rule exists that left-footed players “naturally” have higher conversion. That’s a made-up universal. Even if a player favors the strong foot, that does not automatically raise conversion unless the shots are better chances or the finishing is better. He’s assuming the conclusion. “Selectivity creates dependency” is rhetoric. Dependency on what? Teammates? Positioning? Chance creation? It’s vague on purpose. Correct version: “If a player disproportionately shoots with their stronger foot in high-quality locations, their conversion might be higher, but we should check shot-location + body-part distributions.” 3) “Because he lacks the versatility to score with his right foot, his head, or from long range, his output is entirely contingent on his team’s ability to provide high-quality service.” Claim: No weak foot / headers / long shots → output depends entirely on teammates supplying perfect chances. What’s wrong: “Lacks the versatility” is fact-claiming without proof, and “lacks” is categorical. Real players exist on a spectrum. “Entirely contingent” is an absolute. One counterexample destroys it. It assumes that headers / weak-foot / long-range attempts are inherently “self-generated” and close-range left-foot goals are “team-generated.” That’s nonsense: every goal is a system-product to some degree. Long shots are frequently low xG and low value. Avoiding them can be good decision-making, not dependence. Correct version: “If a player rarely takes certain shot types, the team may have fewer tactical avenues, but overall contribution depends on total goals, chance creation, and opportunity cost.” 4) “Ultimately, the most elite finisher is not the one with the highest percentage on cherry-picked chances, but the one who possesses a diverse toolkit and the clinical range to manufacture goals from any situation.” Claim: Elite finisher = versatility + manufacturing, not conversion% on “cherry-picked” chances. What’s wrong: He’s redefining “finisher” into “shot repertoire.” That’s not what finishing means. “Cherry-picked” is a loaded insult used to pre-discredit selectivity. But selecting better shots is literally part of elite attacking. “Manufacture goals from any situation” is fantasy language. No one scores from “any situation.” It’s unfalsifiable. A “diverse toolkit” can still produce worse outcomes (lower expected value shots, wasted possessions). Correct version: “Elite finishing is consistent conversion above expectation across similar chance types; versatility is a separate attribute that may add tactical options.” 5) “Efficiency in a clinical sense should be measured by output per opportunity rather than just goals per shot.” Claim: Efficiency = output per opportunity (not per shot). What’s wrong: A “shot” is an “opportunity” in this context. This is either meaningless or a stealth redefinition. If he means “per touch” or “per attack involvement,” then he needs to define “opportunity.” He doesn’t. If he means “goals per xG” (i.e., output per expected opportunity), then congrats—he just reinvented the thing he’s arguing against. Correct version: “If by opportunity you mean expected goals, then compare goals vs xG; if you mean possessions or touches, specify the unit.” 6) “A player who only shoots when a goal is nearly certain will naturally boast a padded conversion rate, but they are often less efficient for the team overall because they pass up half chances that a more versatile striker would have converted.” Claim: Selective shooter has inflated conversion, but hurts team by passing up half-chances other guy would score. What’s wrong: “Nearly certain” is exaggeration. If it were “nearly certain,” everyone would shoot. “Padded” again is framing. It treats good selection as cheating. The big error: he assumes the passed-up half-chances would be converted at meaningful rates. If those half-chances are low-xG, converting them occasionally might still be worse than recycling into better chances. He also assumes the selective player is the one “passing up” those chances. In reality, shot availability and decision trees are complex. Correct version: “Selectivity can raise conversion; whether it helps or hurts the team depends on the expected value of the shot vs alternative actions.” 7) “A truly efficient scorer maximizes the team's total output by utilizing a wider shot profile scoring the difficult headers or weak foot strikes that the conservative player never even attempts” Claim: Efficiency = taking wider shot profile, scoring harder chances others don’t attempt. What’s wrong: This is the central delusion: wider shot profile ≠ higher efficiency. A wider profile often means more low-quality shots. That can reduce team output. “Never even attempts” is absolute again and usually false. If someone genuinely has an edge on headers/weak-foot, it should show up as overperformance in those categories (not as a motivational speech). Correct version: “A scorer adds value if they convert certain chance types above expectation, expanding tactical options without lowering total expected output.” QUOTE 2 — sentence-by-sentence 1) “Your analysis doesn't really disprove my point at all.” Claim: “You didn’t refute me.” What’s wrong: This is purely rhetorical. He doesn’t engage with what was said yet. Often used to reset the frame after losing on specifics. Correct version: “Which part doesn’t address my claim? Here’s the missing link: X.” 2) “You are conflating statistical padding with genuine finishing efficiency.” Claim: Conversion/xG outperformance = padding, not “real” finishing. What’s wrong: “Statistical padding” is a moral accusation, not an analytic term. If “padding” means “better shot selection,” that’s not cheating; it’s value creation. He’s smuggling the conclusion: that the numbers are illegitimate by nature. Correct version: “Shot selection and finishing are separate; to isolate finishing, control for chance quality.” 3) “You’ve put together a detailed mathematical case about conversion rates and xG overperformance, but you’re missing the bigger picture: finishing efficiency isn’t just goals per shot, it’s about the range of tools a player uses to maximize a team’s scoring options.” Claim: Math misses reality; efficiency = toolkit range. What’s wrong: Again: redefinition. He keeps redefining “efficiency” to mean “variety.” xG overperformance is literally designed to capture “how well you convert chances given their difficulty.” “Range of tools” is not efficiency; it’s shot diversity. You can “maximize scoring options” and still score fewer goals. Options are not outcomes. Correct version: “Toolkit diversity expands the set of available attempts; efficiency is whether those attempts increase goal output relative to their expected value.” 4) “Focusing narrowly on ratios ignores how goals are actually manufactured in real games.” Claim: Ratios aren’t real football. What’s wrong: Ratios don’t “ignore” reality; they summarize parts of it. If he believes the ratio is misleading, he must specify what variable is omitted and how it changes the result. “Manufactured in real games” is poetic vagueness used to dismiss measurement. Correct version: “Ratios need context: shot types, locations, game states, and opportunity cost.” 5) “Also, I think it is quite silly to try to use Messi’s higher conversion rate as proof of superior finishing.” Claim: Using conversion to infer finishing is silly. What’s wrong: Conversion rate alone can be misleading—fine. But calling it “silly” is just social framing. The proper critique is “conversion rate must be adjusted for shot difficulty,” not “conversion is irrelevant.” Correct version: “Conversion rate is confounded by shot quality; use goals vs xG (or xGOT) instead.” 6) “Messi has a higher conversion rate precisely because he is more conservative with his shot selection.” Claim: The entire gap is due to shot selection. What’s wrong: “Precisely because” is unjustified certainty. It’s testable: if true, then after controlling for shot quality, the gap disappears. He doesn’t test it. Also ignores possibility: Messi might genuinely be a better finisher and more selective. Correct version: “Some of the conversion gap could come from shot selection; isolate with shot-quality controls.” 7) “He largely avoids low-probability attempts (long-range shots with his weak foot, contested headers, desperate efforts from bad angles) which naturally inflates his “efficiency” numbers.” Claim: Avoiding low-probability attempts inflates efficiency. What’s wrong: Avoiding low-value shots is how you improve team efficiency. He implies you’re supposed to take bad shots for honor points. The phrase “efficiency numbers” is doing massive work without definition. It also assumes those low-probability attempts are required rather than suboptimal choices. Correct version: “Avoiding low-probability shots increases conversion; whether that’s beneficial depends on what the alternative play would have produced.” 8) “Ronaldo, meanwhile, takes on the burden of shooting from anywhere: with his head, his left foot, from outside the box, under pressure.” Claim: Ronaldo heroically shoots from everywhere to help the team. What’s wrong: “Burden” implies it’s necessarily good. It might be inefficient volume. Shooting “from anywhere” can be a weakness (poor shot discipline) or a strength (if it produces net goals). You must show outcomes. Listing body parts is not proof of value. Correct version: “Ronaldo’s shot profile is broader; the question is whether those additional attempts add goals above what the team would otherwise create.” 9) “This is a HUGE help to a team, because it means they can still score when the defense has successfully closed off the ideal zones.” Claim: Low-quality shots are valuable when ideal zones are blocked. What’s wrong: “Closed off ideal zones” doesn’t mean “shoot anyway.” Sometimes the correct play is recycle possession, switch play, draw pressure, etc. He assumes forced shots are a net positive. That’s exactly what needs proving. Correct version: “In some situations, low-xG attempts are the best available option; but their value depends on whether alternatives were worse.” 10) “Messi’s reliance on his left foot and close-range placement makes him far more dependent on his team creating very specific, high-xG chances.” Claim: Messi depends on teammates for specific high-xG chances. What’s wrong: Every attacker relies on team structure. Dependence isn’t an argument unless you compare how much. He implies “high-xG chances” are given by the team, not created by movement, dribbling, positioning, manipulation, timing. Also: being great at converting high-xG chances is not a flaw. It’s the main job. Correct version: “Different players create/finish different chance types; quantify self-creation vs assisted creation.” 11) “Ronaldo does not have that limitation.” Claim: Ronaldo is not limited; Messi is. What’s wrong: Absolutist, empty assertion. Every player has constraints: touch patterns, preferred angles, phases, zones, decision tendencies. “Limitation” is again a value-laden word standing in for analysis. Correct version: “Ronaldo is less specialized in body-part/zone usage; whether that’s better depends on efficiency and opportunity cost.” 12) “And probably most importantly, your data does not encompass a HUGE amount of what actually defines a clinical finisher.” Claim: Stats don’t capture real finishing. What’s wrong: This is the classic escape hatch: “the numbers don’t include what matters.” Then he should name the variables and propose measurement. Modern metrics exist precisely to separate chance quality from finishing (xG, xGOT, shot models). He’s hand-waving. Correct version: “Your metric misses X and Y aspects; here’s how to incorporate them and why it changes the result.” 13) “In your formulas, efficiency exists in a vacuum where every shot is treated as interchangeable, but the reality is that a complete finisher must convert “half-chances” that barely register as good opportunities at all.” Claim: The model treats shots as equal; real finishing is half-chances. What’s wrong: xG is literally designed so shots are not interchangeable. That’s the entire point. “Half-chances barely register” is false: they register as low xG. If someone converts low xG chances unusually well, that is exactly what overperformance measures. Correct version: “A good finisher overperforms expectation across chance tiers; we can compare overperformance on low-xG shots specifically.” 14) “For instance, a difficult header from a floated cross might carry low xG, but Ronaldo’s ability to score those consistently creates an entire scoring avenue that Messi simply does not possess.” Claim: Ronaldo consistently scores low-xG headers; Messi can’t. What’s wrong: “Consistently” is a quant claim with no support. “Creates an entire scoring avenue” is a storytelling phrase. Even if headers are an added avenue, you must show the net goal value added vs wasted attempts. He also asserts Messi “does not possess” it—absolute, usually wrong. Correct version: “If Ronaldo’s heading conversion is above expectation relative to xG for headers, that’s a real edge; quantify it.” 15) “By heavily favoring his dominant foot and high-probability zones, Messi is essentially cherry-picking his shot profile.” Claim: Messi chooses good shots therefore it’s illegitimate. What’s wrong: “Cherry-picking” is a moral smear against optimal decision-making. If a player can repeatedly access high-probability zones, that’s a skill (movement, reading, dribbling, timing). The whole point is to get good shots. Correct version: “Messi has a more efficient shot diet; we should judge whether the overall team output is higher with that profile.” 16) “He does one thing better (maintaining a high percentage on specific types of chances) but Ronaldo is the better finisher because he has a wider range of tools to manufacture goals out of nothing.” Claim: Messi is narrow; Ronaldo is better because versatility. What’s wrong: Again, redefining “better finisher” as “more varied.” “Manufacture goals out of nothing” is metaphysics. Nothing in football is “out of nothing.” Finishing is about conversion given chance quality, not about the romance of difficulty. Correct version: “Messi’s advantage may be precision on his preferred patterns; Ronaldo’s may be breadth. Compare total value added above expectation.” 17) “And that is what actually defines finishing efficiency in a competitive environment: the ability to turn bad resources into goals through sheer technical versatility, something Ronaldo does far more often than Messi.” Claim: True efficiency = converting bad chances via versatility; Ronaldo does it more. What’s wrong: He’s inventing a definition: “efficiency = turning bad resources into goals.” That’s not efficiency, that’s low-xG finishing (a subset). It’s measurable: “far more often” must show up as overperformance on low-xG attempts. He doesn’t show it. Also, even if someone is better at low-xG attempts, that doesn’t mean the team should take more of them. Correct version: “If Ronaldo adds more value on low-xG chance types, measure goals minus xG on those types; then evaluate trade-off with shot selection.” The meta verdict (why it’s “almost every sentence wrong”) His post is structurally broken because it’s built on three non-negotiable mistakes: He treats versatility as proof of superiority Instead of asking whether it increases total goals. He labels optimal selection as “padding” Which is just cope against the idea that intelligence and discipline are advantages. He escapes falsifiability with romantic language (“manufacture”, “burden”, “half-chances”) So he never has to prove anything.
There are two things I want to generally address in the thread about the equation: G = S * (xG/S) * (G/xG) 1. Shot diversity is embedded in the equation. This equation tells you how to score as much goals as possible, aka, how to be the best goalscorer. It is by increasing each of three key parameters. (Disclaimer: it is isolating goalscoring as a separate aspect of the game and treats players as purely goalscorers in this case for the sake of simplicity, meaning it judges them entirely on the goalscoring dimension of the game. There are many other valuable things player can and has to do in balance to being the best possible goalscorer, so this section speaks only to individual goalscoring in isolation, rather than being the most valuable asset to team in general.) Optimal strategy is to shot as much as possible (high S rises G count = shot volume) without heavily comprmising quality of chances (relatively high xG/S rises G count = intelligent shot selection) that you finish in profficient manner (high G/xG rises G count = efficient finishing). The best goalscorers in the world have relatively or sufficiently high values for each of three variables, which produces high goal count. Problem is that artificially trying to rise any one variable comes at the cost of other to. So if you look at this equation and think I should just shot as much as possible and I will score the most amount of goals possible, you would be wrong, because usually forcing shots (higher S) leads to decrease in chance quality (xG/S) or makes you perform types of finishes you might not be really proficient at (G/xG). If you were trying to artificially increase average chance quality of your shots, the stat padding way would be by not shoting low quality chances (increase average of chance quality), but then what happens is that you are decreasing you shot count, so again you will not score as much total amount of goals as possible. Being overly selective just to look nice on conversion stats, does not lead to big total goal count. The trick and actual skill is to do all the three things simultaniously: have volume of shots, be selective and proficient at finishing them. This also means that the best shot selection profile will be different for each player considering their technical finishing skills. It's player's job to tailor their shoting profile that aligns with their finishing strenghts. It is player's job to capitalize on their inherent finishing abilities as much as possible. Shot diversity comes into picture with "S" and "xG/S". If you are really on paper capable of proficiency in many types of finishes (high G/xG for all sorts of types of finishes), then this will allow you to generate huge amount of shots (high S) without sacrificing your efficeincy (G/xG). Shot diversity or versatility is embedded in the equation by making it easier for a player to generate high S without compromising other variables. So it is a part of the equation, a fundamental part. What Isaias is saying wrong is that Ronaldo has this capacity to finish diverse type of shots at a proficient level (better than others). If this was true for Ronaldo, and Ronaldo wasn't just spamming high shot volume, then Ronaldo would have high G/xG overall, aka overperofmrance of xG: Ronaldo is not an outlier in this regard, so the idea that Ronaldo is somehow much better than anyone else in all types of finishes is not true. He often finishes half chances at an average, expected rate (per xG models), and the only difference between him and other strikers, is that Ronaldo is shoting them much, much often, so he ends up with bigger total count of such goals and youtube reels. Behind the scene, what is actually happening is that Ronaldo attempts all of these shots at an unprecedented level in modern football, which is resource-demanding. Just look back few posts ago where I analyzed Ronaldo's 2012 season compared to Messi's 2013 and Lewa's 2021 for the first 100 shots. Ronaldo's startegy is shot volume. He is not about efficiency (G/xG) or shot selection (maximizing xG/S), he is about making a shot count so high (extremely high S) so that he scores eventually regardless. If you keep shoting, eventually you will score. It is his whole motto. Persistancy. 2. "Messi is cherry picking shots" Shot selection is a skill. The whole point of playing football and being the best possible asset for your team is to put odds in your favor as much as possible all the time. The whole point is to align decisions and selectivity so that you natural strenghts and finishing abilities on paper are accentuated and lead to the most impact. Cherry picking therefore is simply good decision making. Something that Messi si much better at than Ronaldo in goalscoring or overall. It stems from Messi's all time great Game Sense, which allows him to always manipulate odds of the games in his favor. He intentionally and intelligently creates shoting opportunities for himself that he knows are his biggest strength. That is simply sensical way of playing football. Playing along side your strengths, rather than weaknesses. If Messi was truly overly-selective in shoting in a way that hurts his goalscoring abilities or teams, Messi would have modest shot count. This is simply not true. Messi, although doesn't shot as much as Ronaldo (nobody does), is often a player with the second most or amongst the most shots in the game. So Messi is clearly not shy or overly-selective. Also, if this was true for Messi, he would simply not score a lot of goals. Being overly-selective means low shot count (low S deacreses G total). Isaias is confusing Messi with likes of Robben or players of that type that are worse. Messi being limited regarding shot diversity, if it was a real problem, would be reflected in the amount of goals he scores and shot count. Obviously not the case. Everything is embedded in the fomula and also it is not "my formula". I am sharing what is already known for some time. None of this is my "mathematics".
I think if we pull the debate away from the two players, and just apply the debate across all players, it becomes pretty obvious that selection of close-quarters chances helps with raising shot-conversion rate. You can search far-and-wide, there probably is not more than ten players with a greater expected goal overperformance figure than Kevin De Bruyne, who is one of the purest ball-strikers I've seen, and as selective as it gets for a goal-scorer. Minimal numbers of acrobatic shots and aerial headers. Just clean, planted strikes with either foot, for the most part. They just happen to be not within close-quarters for the most part. Also somewhat calculated and intentionally selected, due to his position and role elsewhere on the pitch. Kevin De Bruyne's statistics derived from Understat: Non-penalty kick shots attempted: 791 Non-penalty goals: 80 Non-penalty expected goals: 59.60 Non-penalty goal over/under-performance: +20.4 Goal conversion rate: 0.101 Compare this with two players with perhaps some of the worst expected goal underperformance statistics. Gabriel Jesus and Edin Dzeko. Gabriel Jesus' statistics derived from Understat: Non-penalty kick shots attempted: 495 Non-penalty goals: 73 Non-penalty expected goals: 99.01 Non-penalty goal over/under-performance: -26.01 Goal conversion rate: 0.147 Edinburgh Dzeko's statistics derived from Understat: Non-penalty kick shots attempted: 939 Non-penalty goals: 108 Non-penalty expected goals: 140.22 Non-penalty goal over/under-performance: -32.22 Goal conversion rate: 0.115 By virtue of taking substantially more high-probability shots closer to goal, both Edin Dzeko and Gabriel Jesus outperforms Kevin De Bruyne in terms of goal conversion rate. Not that I particularly hate the added metric, I just don't know how this is particularly stressed in a debate about efficient return given the resources. If anything, I would argue that Kevin De Bruyne is much more efficient given his return. Is there even a way for an efficient-return distance shooter like Kevin De Bruyne to outdo a Timo Werner-type close-quarters sloppy-finishers in terms of goal conversion, and the added label of being a poor finisher should he lose-out on this metric? Without taking massive amounts of high-probability shots himself? If Cristiano Ronaldo is at fault for taking too many low-probability shots, I would agree, but using goal-conversion rate as some sort of qualitative statement on his finishing ability? Please.
This debate first needs to establish what it means to be a clinical finisher. I totally think it is statistically possible for a superior finisher to underperform in terms of certain statistical metrics, compared to an inferior finisher who is less adventurous with his shot selection. Think of a dribbler who has low dribble success rate due to his sense of immediate adventure, maybe like a Neymar, as opposed a player who really likes slanted angles of dribble with the intention to probe first for openings, like Eden Hazard. A finisher can be good without being particularly bothered about the selection that leads to the best statistical representation, a dribbler can be good without being particularly perfect with his calculation of risk-and-potential-return. The fact that Lionel Messi can retain his volume, is more of a testament of his ability to repeat his preferred circumstances of scoring, because I can picture some players who can somewhat get close to Lionel Messi, if they were allowed a 1000 repeated practice shots of their preferred angle, configuration of the body, and exact position of the planted foot. It is more of the fact, that no player on the planet managed to move with the ball into such a scenario hundreds of times in real match scenarios. Which again relates back to Lionel Messi's unmatched ability to configurate his body and the ball in the process of reaching those situations. Is that really finishing? I don't know.
And again, this is seen in a lot of players who retain their finishing ability within a practice setting, maybe even more deadly if given all the time in the world, but lose that agility to lose their marker in order to get that extra split second to get into a stable ball-striking body configuration, and consequently see a severe drop in their expected goal-performance statistics. Finding the space and time for a composed finish, can be devastated by a drop in speed or ability lose a marker, more so than similar levels of drop in terms of raw finishing abilities. It simply is not accountable from the metrics discussed thus far.
Great examples I didnt do that tho. I went down this thread by saying that conversion rate is not a diet-coke version of xG performance, but that they correlate, yet consist of fundamentally different information therefore insight about what is going on behind the scenes. As you nicely put here, KDB beats these strikers based on xG performance, yet has lower conversion rate, proving that in fact those two metrics are not the same. Which is why I said that Messi doesn't just beat Ronaldo in xG (argued to be basically the same thing as conversion rate but better), but that on two fronts is Messi overperforming Ronaldo. There is a reason to that. It is selectivity, aka good decision making, that doesn't compromise Messi's shot/goal total (unlike KDB for example) Efficiency is always the same = output/input. Messi is more efficient goalscorer than Ronaldo, which is exactly why Messi has enough margin left to create chances and be involved in other phases of game. Efficiency is key to scoring 50 goals a season and being an elite chance creator and progressor. I am simply explaining why that is the case for Messi and showing mathematics behind it that captures insane level of efficiency of Messi. Foundation to being able to impact game across the board at an elite level. This relates also to the idea that Messi is high usage player moreso than others regarding passing and creation, which is simply impossible. I dont even need data to know this, because you have finite amount of input in game, and even if you dominate a lot of possession for your team, Messi already "spends" substantial amount of his finite input units into goalscoring aspect of playing. So even as a high usage player overall, his "passing" inputs could not possibly be that high to make his creative output inefficient in any kind of statistical analysis. There are creators like Ozil that basically spend their entire time on the pitching focusing on creative output alone that are still typically inferior to Messi's creative output (who does scoring simultaniously). So unless you assume like an insane level of usage rate for Messi, which you already proved it is not such (it is high but not 2 times higher than anyone else), the only possible way Messi's output is more than elite at goalscoring, creating, progression, etc., is if he is insanely efficient across all. It is a logical conclusiom from understansing that each player has finjte amount of inputs. Regarding goalscoring, the efficiency fact is proven (xG, conversion rate, etc..), and all I am saying, that no matter what kind of statistical analysis on passing you do (usage rate or such), Messi will certainly be amongst the most efficient ones. There is no other way that his overwhelming output and imapct across many domains would be possible. But we dont have to talk about Messi. Actually, I dont know what is your point exactly.
So you want to define a bettter finisher as someone who would on paper, in drilling sessions, be the best performer completely disregarding applicability of these drills onto the real match scenarios? Therr is a different word for that. It is technical proficiency of finishing. It is an aspect of finishing. We can make that distinction in om-paper analysis, but at the end of the day, it is about how well they finish chances. One thing is for sure, Messi clearly has enough technical proficiency and shot diversity to score insane amount if goals without failure. There is no point in seeking theoretical limitations of Messi's finishing repertoire when it is clearly not reflected in his inability to score goals. This is something that would be more suitable in analyzing players like Robben or Hazard. These things are actually counterfactual. Finishing is not just technixal proficiency. There is also a decision making aspect to it. Tricking goalkeeeprs. Timing. Shot location etc. It is not a cross bar challenge for different types of shots. I would call that intangible aspect of finishing caftiness. Opposed to technical proficiency. You need both. Goalscoring is also not just finishing. Finishing is an aspect of goalscoring. It is all in teh equation.
I think there needs to be a general consensus on: A) What measures ability on skill-sets? B) What measures resource demand? C) What measures efficient-return from those relative levels of given opportunities? For example, it is totally possible for a player to be high on resource-demand for playmaking opportunities. I think usage rate can be an approximation of that. I've seen it being high for players with playmaking tendencies, and being really low for players like Jamie Vardy, who ranks very highly in terms of shot-monopoly related statistics like shot-participation. There are different ways of measuring resource demand. For goal-scoring, I think expected goal-over/under-performance is a far better test of a player's finishing ability than goal conversion rate, and in terms of resource demand, maybe share of total team sum of non-penalty expected goals might be better. I personally would never label Erling Haaland as the ultimate resource hog, simply because he monopolizes all the goal-scoring chances within his team. His demands with actions with the ball (due to his limited ability with it), are quite low. If he started lose a ton of possession trying to showcase the dribbling he practiced during training, or tried outlandish passes on the off-chance it helps his playmaking big chances created statistics, I would start to rage more.
@Letmepost for what it's worth I did happen to stumble on this video (at first I noticed the Shevchenko and Baggio 'reactions' just browsing Youtube a bit earlier and then saw what else was on the playlist), and in the video used Van Basten does have some outstanding first touches such as the one she replayed at about 4:26 where the ball comes out of the sky after travelling a long way: Of course it is a better guide to see full games and judge the average touches, but it shows what he could do when he got it just right at least (that maybe could help to understand the perspective I offered before). Since I know that Frank doesn't hugely rate or get inspired by MvB I'll post the Zico reaction he might appreciate too while I'm at it (there is also a Zola one actually, as well as Bergkamp and various others - sometimes it seems like some clips are repeated by the video makers and the Van Basten one for sure has a couple of erroneous Cruyff clips, but they are pretty extensive highlight type videos generally I think, though I was probably aware of the original videos in several cases already - sometimes it's fun to see reactions of youngsters I think including for football/soccer!):
Could you suggest answers to questions you pose rather than keeping them fly in the air? I do have my simple answers/definitions, but you keep asking questions and not accepting any answer that is given.
I mean, I can answer you simply what is the biggest problem I have with what you are saying. It is that you dont consider off the ball movement to have any "input" category. With off the ball movement is only output, what they generate. This is imo no way to define efficiency or to consider resource hogs. Player who is focusing on off the ball movement substantial amount of time on the pitch, is choosing it over other actions that could be more valuable. Haaland looks efficient on the ball only if you consider resource to be a possession. But better question is how much time, waiting, sacrifice, runs is Haaland "inputing" into the game to get the output of his? Possession is not the only resource team have. Attention is a resource. How much attention is player hogging to accomodate his off the ball movement style? I am not saying Haaland is inefficient. Or ronaldo regarding off the ball movement. But you are missing an entire topic of conversation, inputs of off the ball movers, that, if ignored, will always make someone off the ball look more efficient than on the ball. You are only really having one fourth of discussions. On-ball: 1. Output 2. Input Off-ball: 1. Output 2. Input Usage rate is just on-ball input. A fourth. There is much more to discuss than just that.
Starting point is defining in entirety, all types of resources team has - tangible and intangible. Then quantifying these across all categories and measuring output of player relative to their resource-demand. This is basically it, hat you are interested in.
For finishing ability, let's just assume there is the usual breakdown of goal types. A) Open play-goals B) Set pieces goals - Corner-kicks - Free-kicks - Penalty-kicks So let's say the rough breakdown of the kind of expected occurence of goal-chance types across someone's career might be like: 70% goals during open-play (I don't know how to breakdown the open-play goals further in a manner that is universally applicable, maybe I need more time to search) 15% goals from corner-kicks 5% goals from penalty-kicks 2% goals from direct freekick shots 8% goals from non-direct freekicks, throw-ins, and other miscallenous set pieces scenarios Maybe I got the proportions wrong, but let's say around 30% of all goals come from set-pieces scenarios, and maybe like 25% of them are non-penalty kicks related. So if we can somewhat measure players in relation to their threat levels per scenario, and associate a value based on the frequency of those scenario, we can get a generalized finishing ability. Of course, I would imagine a player like Peter Crouch and Lionel Messi to thrive under completely different sets of scenarios, and their ratios might be totally different, but for an all purpose goal-scorer across commonly seen scenarios, I think Cristiano Ronaldo might rank quite high. I haven't yet figured out a way to measure it, but that's the idea. And it relates back to my point about some players being more difficult to cut-off in terms of supply. Cristiano Ronaldo cannot really be choked out solely by lowering team possession, because his threat levels during set pieces scenarios, that might be around 25% even without penalty kicks, is pretty high.
To be honest, you would have a much better sense of his average success rate, and execution level of his first touch than myself. I've watched enough to comment, but realize it is nowhere near beyond mere first impressions. I get you don't get to be called the "Swan of Utrecht" without being supremely silky with the ball. The thing is, there are levels to this game. I wouldn't have him at the zenith, but first touch lists can be done much better by people with greater footage review hours. I have some reservations about the level to which his traits are lauded, but I like him functionally (I usually have a gut-feeling for a player function based on the level of frustration I feel). I am not sure if he would be the type I get the most thrilled watching, or the most at awe at his level of first touch, but I would love him as a manager , functionally speaking. That was my honest impression of him.
Ai is good at categorizing. Siggested classification: "When a player is high resource-demanding, it simply means: The team must spend extra to make him effective. And the “extra” always comes from the same small set of team resources. The 4 things a demanding player “gets” from the team 1) Ball The team has to feed him touches. build-up gets routed toward him teammates look for him first possession slows down until he’s involved If he doesn’t get touches, he becomes low impact. 2) Space The team has to create him favorable situations. others run to stretch the pitch for him the shape is designed to give him pockets / isolations teammates become decoys so he gets the advantage He needs the team to manufacture his comfort zone. 3) Cover The team has to do extra work so he can save energy or avoid risk. others press harder others track runners for him others protect the zones he vacates This is the “luxury passenger” tax (sometimes worth it, sometimes not). 4) Permission The team has to tolerate his downsides because of what he might produce. he can lose the ball more than others he has fewer defensive duties he’s allowed to try low-percentage killer actions This is the intangible part: the team gives him freedom + patience. That’s it A high resource-demanding player needs some mix of: Ball + Space + Cover + Permission Everything else is just details. What “demanding” looks like in one sentence A demanding player needs the team to adapt to him. A non-demanding player adapts to the team. The simple test: is he worth his cost? A demanding player is worth it only if he converts those resources into decisive output: goals / assists / shot creation territory gain and control forcing opponent double-teams (creating space for others) If not, he’s just consuming the team’s attack."
For example, this was a sequence usage that was published by OPTA towards the end of the 2022/2023 season (sometime around April). There simply is no way around the fact that Lionel Messi tends to be a high usage rate player. It is built into his style, he attempts a lot of risk-associated plays that decide the fate of an attacking sequence, whether it is trying to outplay a press, dribble past a player, or attempt the kind of pass associated with higher risks of a turnover. It is why high usage rate players, also tend to have high amounts of turnovers caused and possession lost. Because they partake in high-risk actions. It does not mean they are not the best at actions-associated with risk within the team (just like the best goal-scorers who warrant extra allocation of the chances, can still overstep their mark in terms of how much), but it does mean they can cause burden, and it also can mean they can add more burden than they maybe warrant. If a player has maximally high usage rate, but really low plus-minus model metrics, maybe there is something to that. I can almost guarantee, that Kieran Trippier, having a higher usage rate than Kyle Walker, is in large part, the reason why his WhoScored career ratings tends to be better than Kyle Walker's WhoScored ratings, because playmaking actions, even if they fail, are rewarded disproportionately higher, than players who contribute via other manners. I have never felt fear for my winger of choice going up against Kieran Trippier, if anything it was closer to a sense of relief and cautious optimism. The opposite was felt when Kyle Walker was involved, and he for me, gave me a greater sense of dread. However, playmaking actions with the ball are often rewarded in these metrics, even in players who attempt them beyond what is reasonable, and sometimes rated above players who are better all-around at least for me. At some point, it just becomes who is the best playmaker, not who is the best player. Who is the more resource-dependent out of the two players? I would personally say Kieran Trippier. Who gets rewarded by their playmaking attempts out of the two? I would say Kieran Trippier. Who does not get rewarded by playmaker-centric WhoScored or Sofascore algorithms? I would say Kyle Walker. What would happen, if nothing was done to address this issue? Playmaking attempts are rewarded, without being addressed for the amount of resource allocated, which makes players who attempt it maximally, whether it is Pedro Porro, Trent Alexander Arnold, or Kieran Trippier, perhaps get disproportionately large amount of credit, without being exposed for their level of possession lost, or turnovers caused. It's just basic level of curiosity. How can a player only be resource-heavy in terms of shots attempted? It just boggles the mind.