Firstly, I hadn't thought your previous posts to me over-stepped the mark or were directly rude to me or anything like that, don't worry. I could/should have added a sentence recognising the dynamic nature of the game, and that indeed players become obsolete as top performers because of physical limitations that develop (that can affect technical execution too in game situations, if said players start to end games in very fatigued manner - it's true I think that to a certain ('old') age at least top ex-players can keep the ability to put balls into the top corner, control the ball very nicely out of the air etc in a 'back garden' scenario - maybe having had a break they will even seem better in some respects than at point of retirement having rested their legs? - but yeah trying to play again in real football games would be more challenging and limitation-exposing). For sure the 11-a-side game on full pitch is significantly different to Rondo sessions, and space exploitation is a big factor (and quick players can be very effective, not to say slow ones can't in the right role and with the right support and complimentary team-mates). However, I don't think you can look at off ball movements in isolation, but they should be looked at as part of the game dynamics - there are various ways to create openings, and defending players are having to respond to various things including what the player in possession is doing - it's also true that it's easier for defenders to track runs if that's all they have to consider, and that without slick combinations, visionary passing, dribbles taking players out of the game etc, running around to find space would be harder. Defences also have to concentrate on the passing combinations constantly, so when a player takes advantage of that with a run in behind it's not an unconnected action often, even when a pass is not 'out of this world' to find him, if you get what I mean? Yeah, sometimes a long punt can do it randomly, but normally players playing in teams with quality midfields should get better service.
Yeah I can agree with this modification G = 1 A = 0.75 PA = 0.5 But only under strict OPTA style criteria. The categories have to be clean otherwise the metric becomes useless. A goal is a goal. An assist is an assist. A pre assist is a pre assist. If we start crediting random preceding touches, failed passes, ricochets or actions that only become relevant because another player rescues the move afterward then we are no longer measuring goal contribution. We are just handing out vague narrative credit. For example if a player accidentally ricochets the ball off an opponent’s shin, it drops to a teammate and that teammate then produces the actual decisive pass the first player in the sequence did not produce a meaningful goal involvement. He merely touched the ball earlier in a sequence that later became a goal. The same applies to shots. A shot is a shot. If it goes in it is a goal. If it is saved and someone else scores the rebound the scorer deserves the goal but the original shooter has not suddenly produced an assist. He attempted to score. He did not successfully execute a pass to the goalscorer. The goalkeeper parrying the ball into another player’s path does not retroactively transform a failed shot into creative credit. The same applies to failed passes. A failed pass is still a failed pass, regardless of how impressive the action before it was. A player can dribble past five opponents, beat half the team and then misplace the pass. If the ball does not successfully reach the goalscorer or deliberately and meaningfully reach the actual assister then it is not an assist and it is not a pre assist. That does not mean the player had no ‘influence’ on the attack in a loose footballing sense. It means he did not produce a creditable goal contribution under the categories being measured. That distinction is crucial. You can praise the action aesthetically. You can say it helped create pressure. You can say it was dangerous. But you cannot convert every dangerous or preceding action into statistical credit. Otherwise the categories collapse. A failed shot is not an assist. A failed pass is not a pre assist. A random ricochet is not meaningful goal involvement. A touch before the real decisive action is not automatically contribution. If the action being credited did not directly and successfully connect to the goalscorer or the assister in a deliberate and meaningful way then it should not be counted as G/A/PA. Otherwise the metric stops measuring actual goal contribution and becomes nothing more than a subjective story about who looked important before the goal happened.
But @Letmepost you're discussing with a guy (me) who did multiple times go with Henrik Larsson over Zlatan for an all-time theoretical Sweden/Scandanavia (also Preben Elkjaer for lattter) XI or squad, so I guess that illustrates that I don't ignore what you're pointing out or dispute it (with the provisos I just laid out though, signifying that just like creators can't succeed without players taking advantage of their play, neither can goalscorers with pace and/or movement just easily end up in goalscoring situations without the help from their own team, even if not always because of an other-worldly pass when they get released into a scoring position). I already mentioned Gary Lineker too of course. But I don't think player movement should get over-credited in an xG sense, even if I understand your point that it can be under-recognised at times. It doesn't succeed in a vacuum, but in a dynamic situation (and there are also failed attempts, and missed shots by the striker to consider, and sometimes the movement is nothing out of the ordinary but the player still receives the ball because of everything that is happening).
It is a collaborate effort for sure, but given the extra off-the-ball constraints faced by goal-scorers including, but not limited to: 1) The existence of the offside trap, a constraint on movement more specific to goal-scorers. 2) The isolated nature of their position. 3) The limited absolute count of their progressive receptions compared to others roles, due to how much close attention they receive from the defenders. The off-the-ball situational disadvantage being erased by the individual athleticism and intelligence of the goal-scorer, must not be a small matter in a debate about due credit for various individuals, based on what is fair and accurate representation of their contribution. Surely there must be some level of appreciation for the amount of barriers one must overcome to have great off-the-ball value, when we discuss credit for all the values added by various players to a success goal from a team. Or at least openly frame the discussion as being very limited in nature, and designed in a manner that dismisses most of the work done by goal-scorers from the get-go. If it indeed is an honest attempt to measure individual say on the goal share, the amount of value great off-the-ball movements brings needs to discussed. Especially becuase it is often the biggest deciding factor in what turns a mere neat sequence, into a deadly one. Yet I have seen posters here expressing their concern over whether goal-scorers are being credited too much for a tap-in, as the expected goal differential value (as in their on-the-ball contribution) is minimal in nature. As if that was all they ever did. Look at the average number of receptions and limitation of space goal-scorers such as Erling Haaland and Harry Kane has, compared to players such as Kevin De Bruyne and Jack Grealish who have so much more volume of final third ball receptions, and time to operate their on-the-ball magic. These are not the same level of effort, most goal-scorers players are receiving the ball in circumstances more fraught with risks and failure, and require more work before reception, merely to escape guaranteed doom. What I am trying to say is that in terms of their off-the-ball movements, goal-scorers operate with very fine margins of error. A split-second head start too early, can trigger the offside rule. It is not the same level of burden. These fine margins plays a large role in the success or failure of an attacking sequence. Romelu Lukaku receives the ball in high threat scenarios, but often with minimal space between himself and defenders. Jeremy Doku receives the ball with more space, and probably more time to work-out his on-the-ball magic, but his starting-off point at the moment of ball-reception has low value, and a lot of work to do moving forwards before reaching that critical point of dangerous value. Both of these things are variables that makes the sequences more likely to end in failure. Erling Haaland's best work is his off-the-ball movement that allows him to receive the ball in circumstances where he has sufficient room to operate, yet is high value in terms of threat to the opponent's goal. On top of that, he rarely mistimes his runs, causing an offside. These are valuable traits that probably allows him to have a very high conversion ratio in terms of turning sequences into successful goals, as opposed to turning sequences, into a successful showcase of his on-the-ball talents. In terms of importance to a goal, these things matter a lot more than most claim, in my opinion. If this is indeed just a strict accounting of all the on-the-ball actions in a successful attacking sequence, then the phrase "fair" should never ever be brought up (a reoccuring phrase that propped in this thread a lot). Because it wasn't a fair evaluation tool to begin with.
I think when it comes to the WhoScored ratings and suchlike @Letmepost that like I was alluding to re: goal contributions too, the 'credit' for those runs happens when the conversion into a goal occurs, even if there isn't a specific breakdown of recognition of the off-the-ball run (and not an analysis about to what extent great movement helped) - because goals automatically gain high value in the algorithms, and those movements (if they are crucial in scoring the goal) register when combined with a successful finish (I know you could say that a dribble is recorded anyway irrespective of what happens next, but on the flip side a key pass is not worth as much as a goal to the 'rating' is it for example?). There is a flip side to ball reception point too - the AMs etc are rarely put clear of the opposing defence (unless they also make an off the ball run - but not in the scenarios you alluded to anyway), so they may have more time to be composed and with a better overview of possibilities, but they also don't have a clear run, or often a clear shot, at goal....(unlike strikers receiving the ball in the penalty area or around the edge of it)
In terms of value added via on-the-ball action, I guess WhoScored overrates goal-scorers, since what was done with the ball in particular may not be all that much. The final act of striking the ball better than its expected goal value, and any progressive actions like dribbles to reach that position, would represent these specific values better. As for the ball reception values, that's the trade-off. It would be unfair to choose a space for greater on-the-ball potential due to ease and space provided, but also have comparable starting off point value. Given sufficient sample-size I think high value ball-reception could be the mark of an excellent off-the-ball quality, combined with the ability to receive the ball under unfavourable circumstances, whether it is overcoming them through intelligence, speed, or aerial ability despite being crowded out. I think a player like Pedri purposefully chooses pockets of space not directly associated with maximum reception value, trading that off with less difficulty in terms of reception, with the final goal of maximizing the time and threat he has with the ball. This sort of ball reception suits his profile as a player, but it also means he is more reliant on doing extra work with the ball from that point onwards. A goal-scorer successfully receiving the ball in high value positions, especially in combination of successfully losing their marker, is a feat in itself. And an event that often turns sequences into goals. It should deserve greater off-the-ball value than a ball artist receiving the ball in zone 14. If receiving the ball in zone 14 by itself guaranteed a goal without much further on-the-ball action, all strikers would cue up to receive the ball there. The fact that it is mostly on-the-ball artists receiving the ball in these zones, not goal-scorers like Erling Haaland should speak of its raw reception value.
Sure, I have always maintaned here -mainly against the Maradona Party, the biggest advocates of goal-contribution "standard" method based on assigning one point for each goal as well as for each non-opta-pre-assist- that one cannot avoid watching the footages to decide when comparing players.
The average of the best 5 performances in the WC for each player according to Sofascore Ratings Diego Maradona: 9.92 Johan Cruyff: 9.30 Lionel Messi: 9.28 Matthäus: 9.20 Klose: 9.16 Eusébio: 9.10 Kempes: 9.08 Téofilo Cubillas: 8.96 Thomas Müller: 8.88
@Sexy Beast I was able to extract shot and goal distance data from Whoscored. This is league-only: Cristiano Ronaldo takes shots from an average distance of 19 meters and scores from 13 meters, while Messi takes shots from 17.8 meters and scores from 13.6 meters on average.
You missed a whole chapter 20 - Harry Kane has become the 18th different player to score 20 Premier League goals from outside the box, with this goal equalling the number of goals from outside the box both Cristiano Ronaldo and Gianfranco Zola scored in the Premier League. Scope. #SHUTOT pic.twitter.com/lH1PLyPwZu— OptaJoe (@OptaJoe) January 17, 2021 Ronaldo did this between 2003-2009 18-24 years old Harry Kane did this between 2011-2021 18 - 28 years And Harry Kane himself is right at the top of this category according to your data 📊Understat Data 2014/15–2023/24🎯Best Long-Range GoalscorersOpen-play goals from outside the box compared to the xG of those shots pic.twitter.com/mO2NxVmbg9— ... (@Trachta10) May 11, 2026 This is what happens when you somehow think Ronaldo’s career started in 2014 or as some others on Twitter think in 2022 Nobody can even touch peak Ronaldo when It comes to scoring from extremely low probability shots ——————— Zlatan Ibrahimovic: A Self-Proclaimed Legend - Stats Perform ————————————- But again you can’t and won’t show your audience this
Some players might have drastically different overperformance rates compared their expected goals, depending on how close they are to their athletic peak, free from injuries. Gareth Bale might be such an example. He was much more prone to scoring fantastical goals from outside the box as a younger man without chronic injury issues. A younger Bale overperformed his shots by 167%. The older version of Bale overperformed his chances by a more modest 103%. According to ESPN, this was the expected goal overperformance for Cristiano Ronaldo throughout his career, with what seems to be drastically different overperformance values after the 2014 World Cup. https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/37583983/making-manchester-madrid-juve-goal-machine His peak season in terms of xG-overperformance seems to be 2007/2008, where he hit 27 non-penalty goals from an expected value of 10. 270% expected goal overperformance across the entire season, is no joke. It might be useful to look into other data-sets that predates Understat expected goal values, if ESPN values seem too good to be true. xG Philosophy states that Lionel Messi's peak overperformance value of 239% has the chance to occur once in every 1.6 million individual player seasons. So these are stratospheric numbers coming from these two players if one explores beyond Understat Data coverage dating back to 2014.
Ronaldo returns to Man Utd: Premier League awaits Cristiano again after City back down ————————————— Cristiano Ronaldo vs. Expected Goals (xG) · Driblab Driblab Joins Inter Miami as an Official Service Provider to Support Sports Analysis and Management Through Advanced Data | Inter Miami CF
I noticed the scores had changed: what adjustemts has Sofascore made to the algorithm do you know (maybe in part they have more detailed scores for older WCs than before? - though scores for recent Wcs changed too didn't they)? I think a similar table for 'single WC' top 5 scores would be interesting too anyway (it's obvious Cruyff 74 and Eusebio 66 would be right up there, but others could be too).
Gabriele Marcotti has apparently published “factually incorrect” information Cristiano Ronaldo's evolution as a player: From making it in Manchester to Madrid and Juve goal machine - ESPN It is also an accusation against Opta and StatsBomb, since the data is 100% sourced from them, as Marcotti explicitly stated at the beginning of the article. —————————- Marcotti also examined the earlier phase of Lionel Messi’s career using the very same data sources. Lionel Messi's evolution as a player: From Ronaldinho's Barcelona understudy to GOAT candidate - ESPN The pure, unadulterated arrogance of some literally knows no bounds.
Champions League Conversion Rate% Inside the Box and Outside the Box Cristiano vs Messi Messi with better conv rate% inside the box and outside the box
But the competition level also matters and should be taken into account. In my humble opinion, 1986 was the poorest agerage-level WC ever seen (by me). Full of legends next to retirement and with the traditionally strongest NTs all undergoing generational changes. And deprived of Gullit and Holland - that would prove the best player in the world and the best european NT in a couple of years- due to a twist of fate.
Yes. Read the image. Did Ronaldo score 38 non penalty goals in 2013/14 season? Look at the red line and dots. Explain the graph and the image in a way that aligns with factual reality. I dont care if he is Jesus Christ, how is this image accurate? The fact that you would even argue with me om this poi
That is poor journalism. If he didnt even check and verify facts of the image he posted, what else did he not check and verify? Something to think about.
The arrogant beast is trying to discredit the graph because the bubble says 38 NPG in 2013/14 but that’s clearly just a labeling/placement issue. The red data point showing 38 non penalty goals is directly aligned with 2014/15, not 2013/14 and Ronaldo did in fact score 38 non penalty goals in La Liga 2014/15. So that doesn’t invalidate the graph. At most it points to a visual labeling mistake and not a problem with the underlying data.