Scoring is the scarcest skill that fulfills football's primary objective. Therefore, the scorer holds more intrinsic value than the assister. Using a 1.0/0.5 weight is a logical reflection of that hierarchical value
It is done for the sake of discussion. Like deciding which player had the best technique, the best dribbling skills, and so on. It focus on a particular (set of) skill. Which is not a new theme introduce by myself but it is what Trachta ha been doing for years actually. Also, goal contribution does not equal win contribution, but the two figures of merit are of course quite correlated.
It is not logical. Apply this method to random football greats and you will see results that make no sense.
I don't see what you are implying. If you consider my view just as silly, then don't waste time reading and commenting.
Absolutely illogical to go with a 0.5 point for an opta assist..it gives Just Fontaine about 3 times as much value as a Copa in wc 1958.
The players' numbers are failing the method. Disliking the ranking of a great is an emotional reaction, whereas the statistical method is an objective calculation. Therefore, the results make perfect sense within the parameters of efficiency, people just don't like what the data reveals
Wonder where would greats such as Zidane,Figo,Xavi, Iniesta,KDB, Ozil, De Maria, Raymond Copa and some others stand compared to other elites with their assists having value of 0.5 each.they simply won't stand anywhere near the elite group.that is why it is completely bereft of logic.
Forger about the elites, they dont stand a chance against Vardy. Would you rather have in your attack Zidane or Vardy? Anyone can create any method with any arbitrary parameters and weightings or "logic", it doesnt make methods valid or sensical. It is about underyling premises, assumptions and interpretability. The method is a complete nonsense. As I said, the method doesnt solve any of the issues previously rised against gc%, yet the same squad of people who criticized gc% so heavily, are here yet again, endorsing the new method that is even worse than gc% in categories that they complained about. Now, we are not getting the full essays about how the new method is this or that. The standards have drastically shifted all of a sudden. "We are just discussing it" is a huge cope out, because already by now, for anyone who is intellectually honest and geniune in their intetions to properly compare players, would have completely discarded the method on the basis of what has been put forth against it.
Even for stronger teams, that might be more conditional than one imagines. It might be because being methodical (and not frantically looking for spaces in behind), versus lesser teams during the course of the season represents a lot of their fixture. If the opposing team concedes control of the pitch, and tries to stay compact as possible, the lack of space for exploitation, of course increases the importance of what players do with the ball. Even then, it would be the combination of overloads created through movement and the slick arrangement of the sequences with the ball, that usually opens up the defense. Versus teams with more parity in strength, I think the dynamic often changes. It all depends on how the two teams position themselves on the pitch. That's what I think, anyways. Goal-scorers with great movement such as Jamie Vardy historically did well versus high-line set-ups used by Pep Guardiola. There is a clear correlation between his movement, and success versus proven teams, yet none of this would be registered by the usual share of sequence involvements. Why is it a heinous crime to gloss-over any major contributions given by playmakers, when for other roles, such statistical play-downs are done every other day? Statistics should be used for all kinds of measurements, not just to further elaborate on-the-ball genius, and nothing else.
Toney 2023 epl season: 20 goals, 4 assists. Brentford 58 goals. = 38% Ronaldo 2007 epl: 17 goals, 8 assists. United 83 goals = 25% The new method @Isaías Silva Serafim you like that?
You are still missing the point. Even using my points method goal = 1 assist = 0.5 pre-assist = 0.25 the metric is not a universal player rating. It measures a player’s share of team end product and not his absolute level as a footballer. You already admitted this yourself So if it is not a player rating what is it? It is a measurement of dependency. In this case all your Toney example proves is that Brentford’s end product was more concentrated through Ivan Toney, while Manchester United’s end product was spread across a much stronger attacking unit. So what exactly is the argument? That Brentford were more ‘dependent’ on Ivan Toney to not qualify for the UEFA Conference League than Manchester United were on Cristiano Ronaldo to win the Premier League? Or how about Norwich City being more ‘dependent’ on Teemu Pukki to be relegated from the premier league than Napoli were on Diego Maradona to win Serie A According to your own preferred method Teemu Pukki 11 goals 3 assists 23 team goals 60.8% direct involvement Teemu Pukki - Stats 2022 | Transfermarkt Diego Maradona 89/90 16 goals 11 assists 50 team goals 54% direct involvement Diego Maradona - Stats 89/90 | Transfermarkt That does not make Toney better. It doesn’t make Pukki better It just means Brentford/Norwich City had fewer elite attacking outlets than Napoli In the way Napoli had fewer elite attacking outlets compared to the 2010s Real Madrid/Barcelona A lower scoring team can naturally produce a higher percentage for its main forward because fewer players are sharing the goals, assists, touches, penalties, tactical responsibility, and attacking actions. That does not mean the player could walk into a higher scoring elite team and preserve the same share, role, volume or end product all the while winning major titles And this raises the more uncomfortable question about the GC% king Diego Maradona The Maradona framing is not as clean as people pretend either. People like to say Maradona had a high GC% at all his clubs be it the elite clubs like Boca Juniors and Barcelona, and also at supposedly weaker sides like Napoli as if that automatically proves the same level of transferable team impact across every environment. But that is not quite accurate. The uncomfortable truth is when Maradona was at the elite clubs he played for his high GC% did not produce major sustained success. That is very different from players he is usually compared to. Pelé at Santos had enormous attacking influence and won major titles. Messi at Barcelona had enormous attacking influence and won major titles. Cristiano Ronaldo at Real Madrid had enormous attacking influence and won major titles. So the issue is not simply whether a player can post a high share of team output. The deeper question is whether that high share actually scales into elite collective success. Because sometimes a high GC% proves genuine dominance. But sometimes it just proves that the attack is being funnelled through one player, creating dependency without necessarily making the team better at the highest level. Using his GC% across every club as a universal proof of superior impact ignores the fact that at his elite clubs that dependency did not translate into the kind of major trophy dominance we see with Pelé, Messi, or Cristiano in elite environments. In fact it was the complete opposite . The elite teams he played for were in fact immediately successful after he left. So a high GC% by itself does not automatically prove superior impact. Sometimes it just proves that the entire attack has been narrowed through one player and that can create dependency without necessarily producing the best collective outcome. So using Toney at Brentford against Ronaldo at 2006/07 United is not a refutation of the method. It is a misuse of it And the absurdity becomes obvious when you apply real world context the 30 year old Ivan Toney has only scored one more non penalty goal than the 41 year old Cristiano Ronaldo in the Saudi Pro League this season GC% or weighted contribution share is strongest when comparing players in similar conditions,same league, same era, similar team level, similar attacking output, similar role and similar tactical centrality and at the peak of their respective careers. I have always maintained this Moving on from this and now directly addressing Pratesh Why should I value Xavi’s creative output (be it his assists or pre assists) on the same level as Cristiano’s match winning output (goals) when Xavi himself clearly doesn’t see them as being equivalent? Xavi Hernández: “I don't consider myself a better player than Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo.” | beIN SPORTS Goodbye
Misconception. Goal contribution is NOT win contribution. Xavi here is going to be belittled in front of Vardy even for assist=1. It is just a skill-based ranking that, if worked out properly, gives you a good assessment of the prowess of a player in the tail end of plays only, much in the same way as when discussing on this forum about the best dribblers ever. Far from characterizing players, even attacking players, at 360 degrees.
The bold bit is an important distinction indeed, comparing to what Hughes and suchlike were recommending. I still think that individual quality and ability to make space appear using it is a significant additional factor though. I recognise that players (especially with speed, and crucially having players with vision and passing ability to feed them) running in behind is an effective method for sure yeah, moreso against teams playing high lines. But I would say that playing a possession-based and creative game doesn't have to be done in combination with a high defensive line necessarily (and it it is then the team playing such a tactic may have a centre back who is quick and alert to such runs - or more than one even - in the past they may also have used a sweeper but that's not applicable to current football). One thing I didn't mention re: the chart you had showed was that passing sequences often end because opponents make interventions, and also because the team in possession makes an unsuccessful pass or dribble (or hurridly kicks the ball upfield randomly under pressure) - so part of the reason better teams have longer passing sequences on average is that they are better at retaining/progressing (it can be done with the aim of creating a chance quite often, not just to keep the ball from the opposition, even if the value of that was overlooked in Hughes' assessments too I'd say). Yeah, it can be partly stylistic choices, but part of it is just about aptitude with the ball. Not to address just you on this topic LetMePost, but to put it out there for general viewing, I thought (although this isn't a list of those ranked as number 1 players in the world as such - some players were 'not for sale' to potential bidders such as Pele, and it depends also on contract situations etc) that labelling the world record transfer players as primarily scorers or not primarily scorers might be interesting (noting defensive-based players including sweeper types as they would be less relevant....and remembering that for example Frank has stated that he isn't seeing the best ones for goal contribution as being the same as the best ones for overall quality/importance even among attacking-based players or players not significantly valued on defensive side of the game say): List of most expensive association football transfers - Wikipedia Starting from 1928 in the Historical Progression section (it would take longer to assess the earlier players too, but I think 1928 is far enough back for relevance anyway!): David Jack - Not primarily a scorer (1) Bernabe Ferreyra - Primarily a scorer (1) Johnny Morris - Not primarily a scorer (2) Eddie Quigley - Primarily a scorer (2) Trevor Ford - Primarily a scorer (3) Jackie Sewell - Not primarily a scorer (3) Hans Jeppson - Primarily a scorer (4) Juan Schiaffino - Not primarily a scorer (4) Omar Sivori - I would say not primarily a scorer (although quite prolific) (5) Luis Suarez Miramontes - Not primarily a scorer (6) Angelo Sormani - Primarily a scorer (5) Harald Nielsen - Primarily a scorer (6) Pietro Anastasi - I'll say primarily a scorer (7) Johan Cruyff - Not primarily a scorer (7) Giuseppe Savoldi - Probabaly on balance primarily a scorer (8) Paolo Rossi - Primarily a scorer (after moving to centre forward from being a winger, so arguable based on transfer date nevertheless) (9) Diego Maradona x 2 (I think never primarily a scorer as such) (8) (9) Ruud Gullit - Not primarily a scorer (arguably even if just considering attacking side of game too?) (10) Enzo Scifo - Not primarily a scorer (although with good goals totals for young midfielder, and with a youth team history of scoring a lot) (11) Roberto Baggio - Not primarily a scorer (12) Jean-Pierre Papin - Primarily a scorer (10) Gianluca Vialli - Primarily a scorer (11) Gianluigi Lentini - Not primarily a scorer (13) Ronaldo - Primarily a scorer (although not poacher type) (12) Alan Shearer - Primarily a scorer (13) Ronaldo again - Still primarily a scorer (14) Denilson - Not primarily a scorer (14) Christian Vieri - Primarily a scorer (15) Hernan Crespo - Primarily a scorer (16) Luis Figo - Not primarily a scorer (15) Zinedine Zidane - Not primarily a scorer (16) Kaka - Not primarily a scorer/striker (17) Cristiano Ronaldo - Primarily a scorer (17) Gareth Bale - Not primarily a scorer (although it was a significant contributor to value at that point, for the role he played) (18) Paul Pogba - Not primarily a scorer (19) Neymar - Not primarily a scorer (and not highest valued player in terms of scoring alone) (20) So that's pretty even between those predominantly scorers and not I'd say (but slightly more of the latter - all were attacking based players or at least attacking mids, with only Gullit more of an all-rounder but still predominantly used as more of an attacking contributor) No reason really to favour British transfers, but as a secondary exercise I'll just add in extra players from the same period whose fees broke the British transfer record but not the world one: Progression of the British football transfer fee record - Wikipedia Bryn Jones - Not primarily a scorer (inside forward bought as Alex James replacement) Billy Steel - Not primarily a scorer (again inside forward with creative role/abilities, even if assists figures will be unknown of course) Tommy Lawton - Primarily a scorer Len Shackleton - Not primarily a scorer, even though attacking player Eddie Firmani - Primarily a scorer John Charles - Primarily a scorer (when playing in attack) Gerry Hitchens - Primarily a scorer Denis Law - I'll say primarily a scorer, even if it's perhaps arguable given his all-round ability/game (I guess he did have a decent amount more goals than assists anyway though) Martin Chivers - Primarily a scorer I'd say Allan Clarke - Again on balance maybe fair to bracket as primarily a scorer, though not only rated for that Martin Peters - Not primarily a scorer (even if good scoring numbers for midfielder) Alan Ball - Not primarily a scorer David Nish - Defender Alan Hudson - Not primarily a scorer Bob Latchford - Primarly a scorer Kevin Keegan - Not primarily a scorer maybe fits best (and balances off with Clarke in terms of borderline calls this way maybe) David Mills - Primarily a scorer I'd think Trevor Francis - Not primarily a scorer is most reasonable IMO Steve Daley - Not primarily a scorer Andy Gray - Primarily a scorer Bryan Robson - Not primarily a scorer (although all-round midfielder with good scoring, moreso than assisting to be fair I suppose) Ray Wilkins - Not primarily a scorer (deep-lying midfielder with playmaking capabilities) Mark Hughes - Primarily a scorer/striker Ian Rush - Primarily a scorer Chris Waddle - Not primarily a scorer David Platt - Primarily a scorer (though not outright striker) seems fairest call I think Trevor Steven - Not primarily a scorer Paul Gascoigne - Not primarily a scorer Andy Cole - Primarily a scorer Dennis Bergkamp - Not primarily a scorer Stan Collymore - Primarily a scorer (though a bit Brazilian Ronaldo-esque, not poacher) Nicolas Anelka - Primarily a scorer Juan Sebastian Veron - Not primarily a scorer (used as all-round/deep midfielder at times, though not really by United anyway where his primary function was playmaking/assisting) Rio Ferdinand - Defender Andriy Shevchenko - Primarily a scorer Robinho - Not primarily a scorer Philippe Coutinho - Not primarily a scorer Enzo Fernandez - Not primarily a scorer (midfielder, not outright AM as such) Alexander Isak - Primarily a scorer Adding in Jack, Morris, Quigley, Ford, Sewell, Shearer, C.Ronaldo, Bale and Pogba again (also in world transfer record list above) I make it, among non-defenders (including John Charles as centre forward of course), that not primarily scorer group is one ahead I think, but in other words pretty equal (a bit moreso even than with world record list)....
This is true (it's not meant to measure Xavi's possession-retention, general ball distribution etc), but weighting things towards scorers would be what moves it from a factual stat (contributions - goals/assists - as % of team goals scored) to somewhat a rating-based stat (estimating effect of goal contributions, but arbitrarily, not actually inspecting the goals to see how they happened or on which of them the assister should take a majority of the credit - even though that would become opinion-based to an extent if we were doing that even....). If goals/assists would be weighted it could only be on analysis of how they happened for me to be honest, otherwise players with high share of 'significant' assists will be treated the same as those with more regular assists (that may not have been the main reason for the goal being scored).
Not wanting to incite anybody (though maybe my recent two reps for Carlito: for being amused at Dennis Bergkamp being put in an illustration about 'best English all-time players' and for a Yaya Toure solo goal for Barcelona, can help avoid that), but in my view it would make a calculation that assigns an assist half the value of a goal in contributory terms, for every goal, a bit (or a lot) worthless to be honest. As mentioned, in cumulative terms, the effect on world class players (with great assisting end product) such as Kopa or Figo would be huge (when arguably the fact that more goals are registered than assists already goes against them slightly unfairly - their place in an assist contribution % list would be significant but for goals/assists combined not really, so for their role/position their end product contributions can be worth a lot, but they didn't play a true scoring-focused role, though I accept for sure that that wasn't a great forte they had to be fair also).
Then unfortunately the significance and value of such a huge and long thread is diminished considerably.you can compare only one aspect of the game of even similar or comparable players otherwise.you would not be able to compare Messi and ronaldo. Now according to your assessment Messi and Ronaldo should be considered as comparable scorers in the gc% method.cr7 has been a little bit better in UCL though just as Lionel has been in the WC etc.Now the problem is even Ronaldo fans would agree Messi being superior in other metrics like dribbling,passing, vision, riding challenges, playmaking...I don't think there has ever been a huge gulf between their speed and defensive skills. So the verdict? Invariably Cristiano doesn’t come even miles within Messi.but am i doing it right? No.because Ronaldo fans can always argue that we have to classify plenty more in the goal scoring prowess.he can score with both feet, better at longer range shot, not to mention heading and these classifications would make gc% even lesser significant.i have a problem with that.
I think Messi is a more complete and refined player then CR7 too. And yes, scoring has often been overstated, we all agree, say, Xavi>>>>>Inzaghi.
Thanks for confirmation mate. As implied I wouldn't personally tinker with goal contribution method if not able to properly assess each goal for importance of each player, but anyway you have confirmed how you would like to see things now (on basis that I guess in your perception more assists than finishes are minimal/incidental overall). I guess you are looking at it with a view to crediting end product (in narrow way focusing on final touches). Btw I would agree that a best scorers (or also best finishers) list will look different to an overall best attackers/players list, but I just prefer to keep the goal contribution calculations more factual (and clearly labelled - eg non-penalty goals/assists, all goals/assists/pre-assists/Non-OPTA including penalties etc etc) rather than used as a ranking that credits scorers primarily.
Some of the rage may come from reading other posts. Sorry if the aggression is undue. 1. The probablistic odds of receiving the ball under dangerous circumstances ending as a goal versus the odds of a forceful creation of a dangerous circumstance after receiving the ball What separates a real football game from other ball games such as futsal, rondo sessions and indoor 5-aside minigame? Sequences exist within those realms also. It must be further emphasis on space and the constant contest for the occupation of the correct spaces. A game probably has around 100 sequence attempts per team, and maybe one or two successful sequences that end up as goals, out all of those attempts. It is a very low probabilistic outcome. Out of those 100 sequences, do you not think some of them contained brilliant pieces of skill, footwork, and perfectly weighted passes that could not have been pulled off any cleaner? Yet most of them end up as dead-ends. What is the single biggest decisive factor that turns merely an aesthetically pleasing connection of passes reminiscent of a really well constructed rondo session, into a deadly game-changing sequence? Reception of the ball in the correct spaces. Not how beautifully strung together the sequence was for the initial ten passes. A rondo session can have magical touches and well weighted passes. The true magic of football (for me) comes from where the ball goes in response to a chasm caused by movement, and how the spaces are abused in a certain teams favour, not how fluid a random rondo-esque passing session happens to be in a useless spot, that only serves as audition for a ball-playing centre-back to be picked up later by Pep Guardiola. The sum total of tactically and technically brilliant plays deeper down the pitch are ultimately useless, without a player successfully catching the enemy team out of position, and capitalizing on that poor coverage of the spaces, through a final finishing blow. The odds of an on-the-ball mastery alone creating that amount of gulf in positional advantage, is just way too low in comparison. A good positional catch, with a mediocre pass, is often better than a beautifully struck pass to a player in a doomed area of the pitch. According to one model based on FBREF data, the single largest factor that turns the tides on GCA (goal creating-action) value, is progressive reception. And is it even up for debate? Proper movement into the correct spaces, with the right timing, creates distance from defenders, extra-time for composure, and lowers the level of execution of the final pass. It would be harder to argue that a heat-seeking missile of a pass somehow magically makes the defender go away, and teleports the ball and the teammate into a magical one-versus-one scenario. Yes, the final delivery matters also, but the single biggest deciding factor in judging the fate of 99% of all sequences, is the movement of the goal-scorer. It is why Edinson Cavani converts so many promising sequences into a successful goal-scoring sequence, despite being an underwhelming finisher of the ball. A player can have twice the quality of his first touch and expected goal overperformance, but he still may come short in terms of goal-scoring, if his movements are stupid and inefficient, and always requires Dennis Bergkamp first touch and Lionel Messi dribble just to get into a position to shoot (no matter how technically impressive those showings may be simply to reach the same game state). And yes, stupid movement exists even within top flight football, if we were to set the standard as pieces moving on a chess-board from a bird's eye view. 2. Value of goal-scorers Goal-scorers playing the most pivotal role in deciding the fate of a sequence, is somehow being forgotten entirely for the sake of proper measurement of their sequence involvement. The probabilstic odds of each step of an attacking sequence being equal, seems very low. The odds of a pure goal-scorer having the necessary amount of touches to be involved in the initial steps in sequences like Joshua Kimmich also seems very low. It is a double-whammy, where not only is the most valuable work of the goal-scorer being entirely dismissed, the few on-the-ball contributions he has is set against an ocean of touches from players who play deeper. So when a striker does everything in his power to maximize the value of every progressive pass with an intelligent run, the credit should entirely go to the dude who strikes the pass? Despite the difficulty of trying to out-maneuver defenders who are tasked with tracking you all game, and are outnumbering you by massive margins in neutral scenarios, unless you force a situation via movement that expends your stamina? The job of a goal-scorer, for me, is not to join in as much as possible for a sequence and drop-deep, only to ruin the field coverage and proceed to bastardize the game into 100% pass success, 10m by 10m rondo session, that has zero direction, zero purpose other than not losing the ball. The job of a goal-scorer is to decide the fate of a sequence, whether he gets credit for a sequence involvement or not. Whether that is not having overlapping channels of movement with a teammate that makes it easier for defenders, or running full pelt to the bitter end even if there is only 1% chance of a pass from a teammate through on-goal, so that the defender chasing after him has one extra passing-angle coverage to worry about. For that effort, it doesn't seem that illogical to say that a goal-scorer usually decides the fate of a sequence, because the sheer quality of play on-the-ball usually does not change its fate. Some of the most technically brilliant pieces of skills to ever grace the planet, were in servitude of a dead-end sequence. Of course you'll have clips that defy my arguments, and yes there are magicians with the ball who does the unthinkable. But as a general rule of thumb, on-the-ball execution alone has severe pragmatic limitations, and comparing the technical difficulty of a throughball to a tap-in, to decide a player's overall pragmatic value, is something that makes me want to tear my hair out.