It's difficult without game footage. On Footballia for example the only full game for Sivori at Juventus is this one (I haven't watched this particular one in full myself), played after Boniperti was no longer playing, and with a declined John Charles placed at centre back Juventus FC vs. Real Madrid 1961-1962 | Footballia Stivanello seems to be described as a winger here though (but I don't know whether Transfermarkt put him in the wrong place for that game you put the formation for, or whether for that game it was the correct positioning), which is the same as Stacchini on this DBS Calcio page (it shows SP i.e second striker/seconda punta but in the 4-3-3 system on DBS Calcio the front 3 is ACD/C/SP, and the inside left or left attacking midfielder, or outright attacking midfielder the ACS - the 4-3-3 template is used as the best fit for the older-era WM-type system I suppose) Giorgio Stivanello - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Pes Miti del Calcio - View topic - Gino STACCHINI 1959-1965 I'm not truly sure whether Colombo would be best seen as midfielder or defender, but I suppose he'd generally either be a defensive 'wing half' (midfielder holding back to support the 'centre half'/centre back) or a second centre back: Pes Miti del Calcio - View topic - Umberto COLOMBO 1957-1960 Perhaps @Kroos46 might be able to explain exactly what is meant by Boniperti's 'half winger' expression (looking at the original text in Italian also, not the English translation), but I wonder whether half 'wing-half' (midfielder role in WM) is meant more than half winger/wing forward as we would think (but I'm not sure). Trying to write Juventus's system numerically, from 1957/58 for example (and potentially following seasons with Boniperti still there), if considering Colombo as one of the true wing halves at least (perhaps equivalent to Zakarias in the 1950s Hungarian line-ups, where Bozsik played as the more attacking wing half and Zakarias almost like an extra defender), I would think it could be 3-2-3-2 (with Boniperti roughly equivalent positionally to Hidegkuti in Hungary's line-up in the middle of the 3 behind the front players, but playing a bit different, and Sivori kind of akin to Puskas though also with a difffernt style and emphasis, but with Charles more like a true CF than Kocsis who was in essence the inside right still in Hungary's line-up) or 3-2-1-4 even if putting the wingers right up alongside Charles. Alternatively perhaps 3-2-2-3 (WM) in essence/default shape but with Boniperti more of a constructing/foraging (so both creating and getting through some defensive work) player and Sivori more of a supplementary forward in a role where he is free to cause chaos in effect (or 3-2-4-1 if putting the wingers deeper than Charles).... Perhaps Kopa in France's 1958 team would be playing a similar role to Boniperti, but maybe Boniperti implies his role involved more working out of possession on the defensive side etc (or it's implied on his PES stats page for example) - Sivori could be seen as equivalent to Piantoni in that case I suppose. I guess you saw it but this was the quote from John Charles on that page I had linked anyway, which emphasises Boniperti's role/value as well as anything maybe: Charles said: "The loss of Boniperti, from a technical standpoint, had fundamentally damaged the team, having lost the brain, the pillar of the midfield, the man who directs and coordinates the work of his teammates, the indispensable man for a team that wants to play modern football at a national and international level." EDIT - Re: River Plate, I guess Labruna functioned somewhat like a true striker in effect, but with him nominally placed as inside left, perhaps (I'm speculating) it was less ideal for Sivori to be placed as inside right (even though we know various left footed players thrive cutting in from the right side). Overall I would think it can be that his partnership with Charles was a big help, but also that he matured and ultimately peaked in effectiveness during his time at Juventus (though clearly being valued a lot by the end of his River Plate time, considering the transfer fee and the plaudits as a key part of Argentina's team which ended up as Copa America champions, even IIRC his goal contribution % in that Copa America itself probably wasn't particularly high actually....).
I think this is a good take. I would say that comparing Hungary of the 1950s to Real Madrid of the 2010s the latter clearly had more attacking contribution and emphasis from the right and left backs (particularly Marcelo on the left I suppose - not forgetting Hungary's left back Lantos was a penalty taker, but I mean in open play anyway). On the other hand Hungary had more players in the attack zone generally speaking (5 rather than 3/4) and those players at least, plus often the advancing Bozsik like I said, did combine very well, play with fluidity etc (moreso than some other teams of their time though, with more roaming around I believe, and a more cohesive passing game than most other teams).
My assertion was that based on the research (with a lot of help on your side), that there really isn't solid grounds to assert that the level of tactical shift being much more ground-breaking for the side of Omar Sivori, when Alfredo Di Stefano is the point of comparison. Yet his GC% fluctuates a lot more, why is that? Different speed of personal growth? Didn't Alfredo Di Stefano explode and earn accolades of the highest honour in Europe also, including impressive European Cup performances? What makes Omar Sivori's peak more substantial, if it indeed is just a personal reflection? The supposed enormous changes of being a right-sides inside forward as opposed to being a left-sided inside-forward/second-striker? How come the various minor positional and role adaptations for Alfredo Di Stefano, did not end up causing huge variations in GC%? It does not really add up in a satisfying manner for me. I am not trying to argue that Omar Sivori had precisely the kind of set-up that he found at Juventus, but more like he saw changes of teammates, tactics, and role allocation to levels (just like everyone else) that were not substantially greater than Alfredo Di Stefano, yet his numbers fluctuate more. Why is that? Did he really grow that absurdly rapidly as a player compared to Alfredo Di Stefano, or was his playstyle more delicate to the changes? I am suspecting the latter. It is why I asked Trachta10 for further data such as GC% statistics for teammates, or other metrics that may explain the dynamics involved such as share of possessions lost. Maybe he had less usage rate at River Plate than he had at Juventus, and his heavier reliance on on-the-ball actions meant that it would hurt him more than a hit on usage rate of similar levels would for Alfredo Di Stefano. Di Stefano had amazing levels of movement without the ball, even if we limit the conversation to attacking movements. Maybe Boniperti spent more effort on traffic control and minimizing overlapping roles, than his previous teammates did. Maybe Charles idiosyncratic traits innately brought about dynamic changes on the pitch that maximized Sivori's more select potency. These are all speculations, but I think at least some of them must be true, because the explanations I've listened does not compute for me. I was searching for answers that might make the numbers make more sense to me, but just assuming Omar Sivori had a massive upsurge in personal growth, or that his positional allocation within various teams had huge disparity beyond which Alfredo Di Stefano faced, doesn't really do it for me.
Yes, it's difficult for players from so long ago, but I would think that Di Stefano was doing some of what Boniperti (in his latter years) was doing, while maintaining a high output level (in real terms and contribution wise), and he was playing for a free scoring team, especially after Puskas joined. I would think he was certainly more versatile and adaptable than Sivori, but also that his role did change more from start to end of career (even if technically he could still be referred to as centre forward - the diagram Trachta found did show Puskas lined up as centre forward though in effect, even if to my eye it seems like in essence Puskas was still kind of the inside left but with more of a striker's role than he used to have).
I sort of have this assumption that Alfredo Di Stefano's ability to shape the status of the game, was almost unmatched for a forward player of that era, including Pele, even if Pele was for me much more deadlier of the two. Like if we take a bird's eye view, and sort of move around players around the pitch like pieces on a chessboard, and sort of assess their ability to abuse space and team shapes over the course of the entire 90 minutes. I think he had great understanding of both space and tempo. As long as he is able to exert his influence, maybe it does not really matter if specifically receives the ball in certain zones of the pitch, or has the most access to threading final third passes in certain pockets of space. Whereas Omar Sivori's impact may have been proportional to the system's dovetailing for his on-the-ball talents. I was wondering if there were other statistical metrics available that can support this unfounded claim. Maybe the one major fault I may find with Alfredo Di Stefano, is that he may not be such a special player if he has to concede that level of control over the game, and focus more on specific tasks like torment defenders like George Best, or have the most immaculate technique within the final third of the pitch. I think it might be the reason why he hated Didi so much, because he could not really play the Pele role whilst Didi pulled the strings. Of course, much of this is in the realm of raw conjecture.
Yeah, as an aside (in case you hadn't noticed it yet) I can say that it was kind of surprising to me to discover that Di Stefano did put Didi in this selection of 15 players he made in early 1960: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/p...eir-best-players.2126578/page-7#post-42615366 That said, he probably recognised his qualities, but yeah had an objection to the idea of RM's gameplay being built around the Brazilian I guess anyway, once he'd teamed up with Di Stefano in that team. The friction will have already occured before he wrote that piece (unless somehow the publishing was delayed I suppose): Didi - Detailed stats | Transfermarkt
Something interesting about this is that it seems that the frequency of each variable is lower than the previous one (in probability terms?). In other words, the number of assists is lower than the number of goals, and the number of pre-assists is lower than the number of assists. Why does this happen? In general, you usually see something like: 0.75 goals per 90 0.35 assists per 90 0.15 pre-assists per 90 I suppose one reason is that not every goal has an assist, which is why I became interested in including non-Opta actions, to capture what gets lost there. So the point is that when a player’s role is to generate passes for teammates, their probability of directly participating in team goals decreases. That’s why playmakers tend to have a lower GC%. That’s also why Di Stéfano’s GC% is a bit lower, because he contributes through actions that, probabilistically, don’t always end in a direct shot.
Also, assists and pre-assists tends to be more distributed, if only for they can be lucked into much more likely than goals (but there are other reasons of course). And in any case you have just stated that a goal-scorer makes in general a much more valuable asset than a playmaker. Something that I agree on (of course supposing the playmaker is not a great scorer himself, like in the cases of Platini Zico Messi...), unless the playmaker is able to be a clever assist-man starting from a deep position (like Platini again, Falcao, ...).
Or unless the playmaker is completely opening up the defence and/or laying the ball on a plate for the 'goalscorers' and other players.... Maybe it would be going too far to say I fundamentally disagree that goalscorers can be the most valuable, but I certainly don't think they should be regarded so by default, or on stats alone.
@Letmepost btw (after I had started to wonder if by half-winger Boniperti had meant that sometimes he played as a more modern-style midfield winger - maybe if I had re-read the piece I posted I would have decided otherwise already, although I think he may still have played some games lined up as winger late-ish in his career and not only number 8/inside forward so that's why I started to think that partly I guess, in case it was unrelated to playing as a deeper 'inside forward') it seems like half-winger is the translation for the Mezzala role and this is what AI says about Boniperti playing as half winger (not to necessarily trust it 100% on everything, and as an aside I think as alluded to before saying he had previously been a pure number 9 wouldn't be quite right, at least not for the majority of time): "When Giampiero Boniperti described himself as playing in a "half-winger" (or mezzala in Italian) role, especially during the later stages of his career in the late 1950s, he was referring to a hybrid, deep-lying forward position that combined attacking playmaking with the responsibilities of an advanced midfielder. This role represented his transition from a pure centre-forward (number 9) to a creator who operated behind or alongside superstars like John Charles and Omar Sívori. Here is what that role meant in practice: A "Playmaker with Ideas": In this role, Boniperti operated as a "playmaker with very clear ideas" who "directed the traffic" of the team’s attack, according to teammate Omar Sívori. He was the link between the midfield and the forward line. Intelligent Positioning & Depth: Instead of staying strictly in the penalty area, he dropped deeper to receive the ball, using his technical ability and vision to create space and provide assists. Versatility in Attack: He often operated on the right side of the attack (inside-right or right-winger), using his intelligence to drift across the final third, feeding passes to teammates rather than solely focusing on scoring. "Signore Vittorioso" (Victorious Gentleman): Boniperti’s role in the 1959/60 season exemplified this, where he played as an advanced midfielder/forward, using his reputation and tactical intelligence to dominate matches. In essence, the "half-winger" role for Boniperti meant becoming a "connector" who sacrificed the spotlight of being the top scorer to orchestrate the attack, allowing him to elevate the performance of those around him. " And this is what is said about Mezzala role (that Boniperti suggests he kind of invented/introduced): "A mezzala (Italian for "half-winger") is a specialized central midfielder in a three-man midfield, operating in the half-spaces between the center and the flank. Known for being creative, mobile, and attacking, the mezzala pushes forward to create overloads, often functioning as a modern, advanced box-to-box midfielder. " I know you were primarily interested in Sivori anyway, but I guess this helps explain that he would tend to be the second most advanced central attacker (and given more license to operate in attacking areas and roam around than he may have had as more traditional inside left or right before: not to discount that his contribution % increased in part because of his full development, experience etc of course though too).
This is not a bad little video I guess that includes a Boniperti assist to Sivori (also on the Boniperti video below, along with one by Sivori to him that was part of the 57/58 goals video) and also a Sivori assist to Nicole for the final goal (it may be that Boniperti was wearing 7 and Nicole 8 so Boniperti had drifted from the right wing to play that assist, according to the order of players listed, so then Nicole would be playing as inside right in that game actually, but it would need further checks): Juventus - Genoa 3-1 (06.09.1959) Semifinale, Coppa Italia. This one is a bit longer and is when Boniperti and Sivori were 8 and 10 (but Nicole 9, not Charles that game) and allows you to see moves develop (but the build-up to Sivori's goal, potentially from a through ball, is still missing): Juventus - Napoli 2-0 (12.10.1958) 4a Andata Serie A. Giampiero Boniperti - Unreal Skills & Goals | Juventus
Here's the video for the Coppa Italia Final too, with Boniperti still wearing 7 (I guess - the two pages below might be confusing on that and rsssf seems to get the wrong score....otherwise I might trust it more on basic formation although even in those days I suppose shirt numbers didn't have to necessarily correlate with position) it seems (but playing the pre-assist for Charles' goal, in an inside position, with a different player playing the cross in) - Sivori's goal being somewhere between a 'typical' one by him and the best of his career I suppose! 13/09/1959 - Coppa Italia, final - Inter-Juventus 1-4 - YouTube 1959 Coppa Italia final - Wikipedia Coppa Italia 1958/59 EDIT - For sure Boniperti is wearing 7 - he turns around with the cup at the start of the video!
Yeah that would make an outlier playmaker achieving contribution via assist and p.a. similar to gc% of an elite goalscorer (Maradona being the most obvious example). But in general the most of added value comes from the scorer, and this is reflected in assist contribution being more uniformly distributed among teammates than scoring.
I see what you're saying, and I've not been meaning to pick out your posts to argue with lately (I think the point on Hungary of the 50s was valid to raise in terms of numbers of forward players and team/attack cohesion though). I do think that sometimes an assist will simply be the last pass in a sequence, and sometimes it can even be a slightly mis-hit or mis-placed pass preceding a solo goal for example. But at the same time, pre-assisting can be very valuable as can general playmaking and ball retention, and not every poached goal involves great movement and strikers/scorers can get the 'easy' types of assist themselves (and they play in position/role to most benefit from team build-up play or individual creation of team-mates).
I'm sure I've been over-posting on this thread again lately, but anyway @Frank73 I think what we do agree on is that ideally it's best to watch the footage, and not to take any stat too literally without knowing the context.
I took it as the following: John Charles: Standard forward Omar Sivori: Hybrid winger/forward Giampiero Boniperti: Hybrid midfielder/winger Since GC% is a representation of what players do with the ball at their feet, I think if we imagined zones of operation, maybe Omar Sivori might be on the left-sided area of zone 14? And maybe Boniperti operated deeper? Maybe Boniperti had a greater proportional of pre-assists compared to Omar Sivori, in terms of ratios, at least. The players with the highest ratio of pre-assists as their contribution such as Kimmich or Pedri always seems to be midfielders by nature. So if we assume from the above figure that Doku is a proper left-winger, maybe Salah is a hybrid winger/forward cutting in from the right, and Odegaard is a hybrid midfielder/winger who likes that pockets of space on the right, maybe similar zones of operation with the ball can be imagined for the likes of Boniperti and Sivori. Pure strikers are not that well represented by expected threat (since it is progressive actions with the ball), so let us ignore the penalty box "threat creators". Try finding videos of the same player making multiple pre-assists or dribbles made inside the 6 yard box. It might be next to impossible. There is a certain hard-ceiling depending on where you operate with the ball, and how much of the ball you see. I think there is a sweet-spot for GC% somewhere around zone 14, where you have the most freedom to accumulate pre-assists, assists, and goals. Especially if you are able to dribble, because it allows you to end the sequence freely at any angle or distance. Omar Sivori's huge fluctuations in terms of GC%, for me, isn't the case of a less developed player suddenly sky-rocketting above any available version of Alfredo Di Stefano, for me there was significant amount of dovetailing aided by perhaps cerebral traffic-control from the likes of Boniperti, or an abnormal increase in certain spaces and zones due to the presence of a huge physical threat. I think favoured zones of operation (with the ball) being available for various historical players, would help a lot also. Especially in numerical terms of added expected threat by zone.
- Yes, feasible Sivori at Juve was in that zone 14 sweet spot a lot (but hard to really be sure of course). - Attacking mid/forward perhaps more fitting than winger/forward I'd think (inside forwards of those days were similar to number 10s and/or inverted wing players in a wingerless system nowadays - they had the outside forwards/wingers on their outside of course). - For Boniperti in that period perhaps all of central mid/AM/winger (when playing as number 8 less so winger, but still somewhat perhaps going by what's been said) - I'd guess the zones with the names of Fernandes, Doku (the inside one with 0.106 xT), Maddison, Salah, Odegaard, Palmer (possibly in that order approximately) for Sivori's frequent zones of operation with the ball, not to say not deeper at times.
Goal contribution % at the age Puskás was between 1960 and 1962 32 years, 9 months, and 9 days 35 years, 8 months, and 29 days Games played: Messi: 161 C.Ronaldo: 144 Puskás: 124 Pelé: 90 Cruyff: 74 Zico: 44 Maradona: 36
It absolutely can make sense the varying nature of ADS' and Sivori's GC% once you think about the three vairables that determine GC%: 1. The player's role. 2. The player's performance. 3. Teammate's performance independent of the player. Just an example without using real numbers. Let's say ADS has a role in Real Madrid that is more forward minded in 1956/57 (AM / second striker). Let's say that his role at that moment has expected GC% (xGC%), based on location and involvement in actions that lead to goals, assists and pre-assist, value of 50%. So absed on role he should have 50 xGC% (variable #1) Let's say his performance that season in that role was very good, but not brilliant so that in of itself adds like +3% to expected number (variable #2). Let's say independent performance of his teammates was decent as well, which rised team's goal tally and subsequently lowered ADS' GC% by like -1%. So the final value for ADS' GC% that season is: GC% = 50 + 3 - 1 = 52 % Then the next summer, for 1957/58 season Real signs Puskas, which results in a major shift in ADS' position and role in the team. He stops being so much involved in actions that lead to goals, assists, pre-assists, and he starts contributing more from deep with actions that add value in diffirent ways. Let's say the shift in the role resulted in -10 xGC%, so 40 xGC% overall (variable #1). Then let's say that he had a better season than the previous one regarding xGC%, like +8% (variable #2) Then let's say that this season, his teammate's independent of him weren't finishing chances as well as they did previously, so goal tally wadnt as high, so his relative contribution actually rised by another +3% (variable #3). The final output if GC% thag we see displayed is following: GC% = 40 + 8 + 3 = 51 % So on the surface ADS' GC% hasnt changed by much. From 52% in 1957 to 51% in 1958, but when actually understanding underlying mechanism by which the final output was produced, we see that indeed many things have changed. It looks the same, but it is not the same. Itthe similar GC% doesnt contradict ADS' observed change of role, or his "best period of his career" or anything of that manner. It doesnt evoke styles, an "x-factor" or anything of that nature. Nothing is missed. It is possible for: 1. Many things to drastically shift in terms of role and performances, and still produce basically the same GC% value for a player. 2. Slight changes in terms of roles and performances, produce seemingly large GC% difference (in the case slight changes all compound into one direction. Few percent here, few percent there and you get a major change).
Examplenof the second case. Frist season, player A has a role with 45 xGC%. He underperforms a bit (-1%) and his teammates overperform independent of him (-3%). The final GC% value: GC% = 45 - 1 - 3 = 41 % The next season, his roles moves closer to sweatspot so his xGC% is 48%. He performs better that season (+3%), amd his teammates actually underperform that season independent of him (+1%). The final value: GC% = 48 + 3 + 1 = 52% Slight changes at each level produced 11% swing in GC% value. And this is relatively limited change. Much more drastic swings can happen from season to season for a player in terms of role and performances. It is all normal.
If anyone finds it interesting, here’s a thread with advanced stats on Alfredo Di Stéfano—10 matches available. Detailed Stats of the Great 🇦🇷Alfredo Di Stefano in all his available matches:Thread 🧵 🏟️Played 90 min in all of them pic.twitter.com/vh11FVgN3X— Ghimar Statistics🇸🇾 (@Ghimarstats) August 11, 2024 Something noteworthy is that the first match is from 1958, when he was already 32 years old, and he has one game with 13 dribbles and another with 6. In the following years, his average drops to about 2 dribbles per game. Di Stéfano probably dribbled a lot when he was younger, as much as Cruyff, Pelé, or Maradona, but unfortunately we don’t have enough footage to know for sure, and that can distort our perspective. I mean, imagine if the only film archive you had of Messi were just a couple of matches when he was already over 32 years old, your image of him as a player would be very distorted. I also have some documents suggesting that Puskás in his youth may have been a player who dribbled a lot. What happens is that the criteria are very different from today’s, but he was still one of the players who dribbled the most, about three times as much as Sándor Kocsis, for example, and a similar number to Raymond Kopa, who is recognized as a great dribbler.
Puskás dribbled like Kopa in1955 Probably 5+ Opta dribbles per game Overall Stats:🏟️Played 5 (419 min)⚽️Goals 1 (0.21)🅰️Assists 5 (1.07)🔫SOT 1 (0.21)🔑Key Passes 19 (4.08)🎁BCC 5 (1.07)🤰Progressive Carries 50 (10.74)🥶Successful Dribbles 20 (4.30)⏩️Long Balls 8 (1.72)🤕Fouled 12 (2.58)🚫Interceptions 13 (2.79)⛔️Tackles 6 (1.29)— Ghimar Statistics🇸🇾 (@Ghimarstats) August 12, 2024
On the more specific topic of dribbling, from the footage available (even for a player not quite in his athletic prime), I found myself being more impressed by Di Stefano's ball-carrying in open spaces with tempo, rather than being impressed by his intricate changes in direction and deft touches in tighter spaces. He is fast even for an old man, but directional changes does not seem to be his forte. For deft touches and smooth transitions after a change in direction, I was more impressed with his teammate Raymond Kopa. I am not quite sure raw dribble counts alone, in select games, is enough to sort of roughly place these players in the same category, especially to explain away dribbles in areas associated with high assist opportunities. Even if we take a look at Lionel Messi over the age of 30, it is easy to see his more centralized zones of operation, just outside of the box, and he still had no problem having high assist counts. These dribbles do not take place in the same zones as somebody like Jeremy Doku. He would be somebody more associated with terrorizing the fullbacks. So for Alfredo Di Stefano, I would take pause before likening him to somebody who seems to flourish in zone 14 like Pele, or a tormentor of fullbacks like Garrincha. Even if their dribble numbers roughly match for select cases. Where did these dribbles take place, and which actions they these dribbles precede? Did Alfredo Di Stefano dribble with the intent to speed up transitions? Or did he contort defensive shapes to open-up passing angles?