Ok, no worries, and I appreciate the effort to explain your thoughts and observations there. I think the word fluid in my own post wasn't intended to be in relation to Di Stefano, but to good/effective/entertaining step-over play in general. Matthews is a player that seems to grow on the viewer when he's watched a bit more extensively I think, because of his constant success in bamboozling defenders. For me Di Stefano seems to have a generally very sure first touch and feel for the ball, in 'basic' terms (and he has the capability to shoot with good accuracy combined with some power and being able to get his shots off pretty quickly), but yeah although there could be some doubt which version of Di Stefano is being talked about by them maybe those quotes by some of those older Argentinians do make some sense (calling his touch good but not extraordinary etc like you showed in the posts you quoted).
The thing is, I would imagine a player that relies mostly on his on-the-ball brilliance to leave behind a greater legacy in his domestic leagues as a younger player. I am not sure about Alfredo Di Stefano's younger years, but I was under the impression that the South American club legacy he left behind was perhaps lesser than other legends than Jose Moreno or Aldolfo Padernera. Wasn't Di Stefano like already 27 years old when he joined Real Madrid? I would assume a godlike on-the-ball player would have left behind a sufficient legacy to tower above most by the age of 27 already, assuming his on-the-ball goes hand in hand with his status as a top ten player of all time (even by the most conservative estimates for most). I singled out his ability to juke defenders mid-motion with a change of direction, but perhaps there could be other on-the-ball attributes he lacked compared to others. Even if there were functional elements that he shined like shooting and first touch, is he really the greatest on-the-ball wizards of the black-and-white footage era? Maybe Ferenc Puskas picked out progressive passes better in the final third. Maybe Raymond Kopa was more fluid in controlling the ball during motion. Players known for their superlative on-the-ball do not need to restrict the attributes discussed just to overcome their contemporary peers in the on-the-ball debate. I just think there is more to a player than his ability to create threat via dribble and having an eye for a pass whilst in possession of the ball. If I'm an avid Alfredo Di Stefano admirer, having him be limited to this discussion would infuriate me. If GC% has variable levels of reflection of a player, depending on their type, I would first try to notice a trend in the repeated types best reflected by the metric. I am suggesting that Alfredo Di Stefano is not the best represented by the metric, the step-over debate actually means very little to me in terms of his overall functional capacity.
Yeah, he doesn't tend to top the polls about the best players of the Argentinian league, but on the other hand he came to greater prominence in Colombia maybe and ultimately after his spell in Spain at least some Argentinians then put him as best ever such as Scopelli (on this thread generally his views are discussed: perhaps this one translated by msioux does fit what you are getting at here also though) https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/p...eir-best-players.2126578/page-2#post-41574849 Or this https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/a...r-match-reports.1994303/page-17#post-41861835 What you say about Puskas and Kopa makes sense I think, and perhaps similar things could be said about 'skill advantages' of Pedernera himself, maybe also Hidegkuti or Schiaffino for example I guess?
Ferenc Puskás 1960 Games: 39 Goals: 50 (5 PK, 3 FK, 3 hdr) Assists: 22 (Opta) Assists: 3 (Non-Opta) Pre-Assists: 2 (Opta) Pre-Assists: 4 (Non-Opta) G+A* p90: 2.077 Team Contribution 81/131: 61.8% Clutch Contribution 30/47: 63.8% Pelé 1960 vs Puskás 1960
The confusion only arises if someone is insisting that the said GC% analysis is claiming the ultimate power ranking amongst players. What GC% is actually measuring is player's contribution in terms of goals, assists and pre-assists specifically. Contribution on the football pitch extends beyond these three parameters. ADS specifically, has a reputation as a total footballer, an extremely vertical box to box player who contributes across all phases of the game, and this is the very thing that is a cornerstone of his case as one of the greatest ever. An analysis that only considers contribution in the final phase of an attack, will never do him justice, because it doesn't show his defensive output for example. Even midfielders like Kroos, Xavi, Redondo, Scholes, etc., will never be fully captured by assists and pre-assists, as their roles extend beyond these two parameters, like ball retention, risk aversion, build-up and progression. So there is absolutely nothing weird if ADS, who is involved in all phases of the game, slightly lags behind Puskas in GC%, whose role specifically revolves around providing these decisive touches, If anything, the fact that ADS is very close to Puskas in terms of goals, assists and pre-assists contribution in this specific sample size, while we know how involved ADS was in other segments of the game, it suggests the opposite: that ADS was overall better and more important player to that Real Madrid side. Puskas would have to significantly outperform ADS in GC% to counteract the lack of contribution in other segments of the game, which ADS had in abundance (allegedely). So your explicit dislike for the metric and explanation you provide for it, is of your own making. It would be equivalent of comparing David Silva and Vardy solely in terms of goals scored, and then voicing your dislike for "goals scored" metric, as you feel it doesn't quite capture value that David Silva is bringing to the table. But the metric never claimed to all-encompassing in the first place. The issue is not with the goals scored metric, nor GC%, they are factual information. The issue entirely lies on a person who interprets data and is drawing definitive conclusions from them, as if data "speaks for itself." Data never speaks for itself, people pretend to speak for data. What is happening here, regarding GC% in this thread, is an attack on credibility of the metric from several people (with different motives) to the point that it can be categorically judged as flawed and irrelevant so that results of GC% don't have to be further acknowledged and discussed. Because, if GC% is categorically deemed as wrong, useless and noisy, then specific results from it don't have to be seriously acknowledged. But if you actually, properly interpret data, bearing in mind underlying causal relationships that produce the data, all percieved confusions, such as Puskas being better than ADS, clear out. The said standard of proper interpretation is given by default to all other metrics such as goals scored, chances created, xThreat, etc. The double standards for GC%, meaning that GC% somehow must yield a perfect power ranking with no further context or interpretation, is a purposeful attack on GC% to destroy its credibility. And expressed feelings of "dislike" or "confusion" or "inconsistency" are combative, tactical manipulations to achieve the goal of the attack (to destroy credibility of GC%). I will say it again, there is absolutely nothing particularly stupid, sketchy or flawed about GC%. It is an interesting, statistically-common twist (using relative relationships) on factual data about goals, assists, pre-assists, that uncovers some hidden underlying patterns and ignores other way of contribution and impact.... just like every statistical metric ever. There is nothing to "dislike" about GC% or facts.
The question you might ask yourself is why? Why does Cruyff, the person who has lead revolutionary movement on how football should be played on and off the ball as a player and as a manager respectively, and is considered to be the father of modern football, still decided to be the "on-ball merchant"? If he deeply knows how important off the ball movement is and was so far ahead of his time, why did he still value possession over the ball so much? More than YOU personally would expect and imagine? Why?
Ferenc Puskás 1961 Games: 42 Goals: 45 (8 PK, 2 FK, 6 hdr) Assists: 19 (Opta) Assists: 9 (Non-Opta) Pre-Assists: 4 (Opta) G+A* p90: 1.840 Team Contribution 77/123: 62.6% Clutch Contribution 28/44: 63.6% Pelé 60-61 vs Puskás 60-61
Not at all. He were playing the Hungarian league and there were no EC. The fairest would be Pelé 62 vs Puskás 60
This would be his GC% in that period; his pre-assists are estimated based on what he recorded in the 60–61 period
First of all, visuals are misleading because they only show peaks so differences are massively exaggerated. Common trick amongst polticians and many other. For example. Both of these graphs are the exactly same. The only difference is that one shows full "bars" / total values, the other shows only peaks of the bar making it seem much more variable than it truly is. It is a scaling trick. Direct manipulation and narrative control. Another example: Another example: Secondly, in the same transfer window Real Madrid bought: 1. Kaka 2. Benzema 3. Xabi Alonso 4. Granero 5. Arbeloa 6. Albiol 7. Adan And then in the winter transfer window Diarra. In subsequent season they bought: 2010: 1. Di Maria 2. Ozil 3. Khedira 4. Carvalho 5. Canales 6. Pedro Leon 7. Juanfran 8. ... 2011: 1. Coentrao 2. Varane 3. Nuri Sahin 4. .. 2012: 1. Modrić 2. Essien 3. ... 2013: 1. Bale 2. Isco 3. Carvajal 4. Casemiro 5. Illaramendi 6. ... And so on and so on. Change of managers, other personnel, etc. To isolate Ronaldo as a sole cause of changes in goals scored from a misleading graph scales, is poor analysis. Then, their goal total is clearly on a downard trend even during Ronaldo's later stages in Real Madrid, which is not an ignorable pattern. Team/core that has peaked few seasons earlier and won everything, is scoring less and less, then loses their primary goalscorer who was central to the way they play and they dont replace him with the same profile of a player. The same team loses a manager in Zidane and change him with Lopategui who completely changed their system of play. If Ronaldo had such a direct causal influence on goal totals, the same trend would be seen in United and Juventus - before, during and after his periods at those clubs. The opposite is true. For example, Juventus started scoring less when Ronaldo joined them. Furthermore, Real won 2 la ligas in the said period. One of them is 2017 season where Ronaldo missed 9 games (out of 38, 23,7%) of which Real won all 9. 9 seasons before Ronaldo joined Real, Real won 4 out of 9 la ligas. 2 out 9 during Ronaldo era. 3 out of 7 since Ronaldo left. It is all about what you focus on and how you slice the data to emphasis angle that suits a narrative and hidding that which contradicts it. Having all of that said, obviously Ronaldo had a massive positive influence on goalscoring for Real, as he is a fantastic, all time great attacker.
Now, show me where I isolated Ronaldo as the sole cause for Real Madrid's drop in goals scored. On the contrary, I explicitly said: 'But somehow Ronaldo has nothing to do with it and Real Madrid were just too good.' You accuse me of being extremist, but what you're doing here is taking one extreme (which I’m ridiculing) and pushing it to the other (claiming I said Ronaldo is the sole reason for Real Madrid's increase or decrease in goals, which I didn't).
Mate, if you are using rhetorical, sarcastic or any kind of figure of speech, you dont get to nitpick choice of words of others in the same manner when they respond to you. What you literally said would be directed towards people who claim that Ronaldo had literally nothing to do with rise of goal totals or that Ronaldo literally had no influence of any kind. Since this stance is in principle unreasonable and nobody has ever seriously claimed that on the forum or anywhere, the only reasonable interpretation of your words is that you are using rhetorical phrasing to assert a bigger point. You are also on the record saying that Real was a great team, but Ronaldo made them a dynasty, and that without Ronaldo they wouldn't be the dynasty. This is the same as saying that Ronaldo was an essential cause to their success, and in this context, was essential to scoring such high goal totals - that without him, they wouldnt score the same amount of goals and the 9 year peak on the graph would be basically similar to tallies of before and after Ronaldo. My phrasing of "sole cause" is an absolute phrasing, a rhetorical speech as a response to your own rhetorics. Nit a literal claim. I dont have problems with using rhetorics or figure of speech in discussions, as they are essential components to ways in which humans communicate and use language. If friend asks you: "Will X happen?" You respond: "100%. Guaranteed bro, trust me. 100%" This does not mean you are literally 100% sure it will happen. Nothing is 100%, but use of it is a way of communicating and putting emphasis on likelihood of it happening. It is a casual way of communicating certainty, not philosophical statement on probability. I am fine with casual communication and clearly you are fine with it as well because you use it constantly as much as I do, but then shifting discussion from casual statements into philosophically rigorous semantics is completely (rhetoric) dishonest. This is just one of symptoms of extremism and bias: deflection, strawman, elusiveness. Implying conclusions without ever commiting to assumptions and logical reasoning that leads to the conclusion. This is something it would be good for you perosnally to reflect within yourself. It doesnt serve you in life. These things hurt YOU and make your life more difficult and painful, not others. This is not a "gotcha" moment, you are trying to frame it as. It is debating in bad faith that further exposes your own bias in all of it.
Clearly, a player increase how much his team scores, your problem is that you never understand the magnitude of that influence. Let’s say Cristiano’s Real Madrid scores 2.7 goals per game, It’s not like just because Cristiano generates 1.5 G/A, Real Madrid would only score 1.2 gpg without him, without Cristiano that average might be 2.4–2.5 or so, because he would be replaced by another elite forward who would do almost the same. And in any case, if a player were really that responsible for increasing his team’s goals, it would be reflected in an extremely high GC%, so there’s no contradiction there. The point is also to consider the broader 'macro' context beyond just the player’s influence. For example, Pelé’s Santos scored about 3.5 goals per game, but if you put that same Pelé in Serie A in the 80s, he would never make his team score that many. You could take a team that usually scores 1.2 goals per game and Pelé might raise it to 1.8–1.9 goals per game, which would be just as impressive as having a 1960s team scoring 3.5 per game Also, this is the total goal average for La Liga, nearly 1,000 goals per season, if you remove Cristiano’s goals, the graph would still look the same, and you’d still see a higher average in that period. It’s a period where, coincidentally, more goals were being scored in general, there are many external factors.
Pele being an outlier among outliers, that is a very strong result for Cristiano. I mean, being as decisive as greatest players in the world in an era when tactical aspect of the game was much less developed and the recognized leaders tended to monopolize the game much more. Provided of course that this "vanilla" gc% method gives one a clear and undistorted picture, something that I have already expressed my many doubts about.
Could that be seen from the opposite way too in the sense that in those days there would be more forward players on the pitch (if we counted Ozil as in effect more a forward for example this would not be so much the case I suppose though) to share goalscoring/teeing up goal chances among, and that in 60&61, as a generalisation, Di Stefano would help Puskas's raw totals probably, but also somewhat hold back his GC%, by being on the same team (and in the earlier RM teams if Di Stefano was operating as a total player then he was involved in deeper phases of play, both defensively and constructively and not always in moves that ended in goals even if the work would still be valuable - but like I've said before/on other threads it's hard to properly assess Di Stefano of those times without enough footage I think)?
I dont think this is necessarly true. Their involvement might have been more primitive (in tactical sense), but bigger quantitatively? Not necessarly. I dont think there is a strong reason to assume that.
I think there is a clear downside in one player being overly-invovled in team dynamics even in more primitive tactical set ups. Type of involvement is different, but there is still a pressure for top teams at the time to strike the right balance rather than laying all eggs in one basket so to speak.