Goal contribution of the best players

So one could say it is factually incorrect, no?

 

No

How did you not see it ?

 

The three sources introduced here, whilst being extremely varied in ease of access to data, do seem to somewhat converge in value, for one overlapping data-set for topic of discussion, namely the expected goal values for the 2014/2015 La Liga non-penalty goals scored by Cristiano Ronaldo.

1) Driblab: 28.5 expected goals



2) Understat: 30.39 expected goals



3) ESPN (once we assume there is a labelling error): I would assume somewhere around 29? expected goals



The ESPN graphic does seem to be the most sloppy in terms of visual representation, with 14 grey dots representing the 14 season's worth of data-sets for the expected goals, but somehow having 12 red dots for the actual goal values, with missing dots for what seems to be the 2009/2010 season, and 2012/2013 season.

I can even introduce other players into the mix like Romulo, to establish that the values are not that far apart from one another according to these independent reportings.





There does seem to be a consistent trend of Driblab tending to understate the expected goal values of the actual goals scored, by a rather minor, but consistently present margin.

I think if we consider the scarcity of expected goal values for older seasons such as 2007/2008, this is at least a good starting-off point for discussing which domestic season represents Cristiano Ronaldo's ability to out-perform his expected goal value the best.

Fotmob seems to suggest the 2012/2013 season, but that takes into account goals for all competitions, and the weirdly confusing figure from ESPN seems to suggest that the expected goal value for his 28 non-penalty for the 2012/2013 La Liga season, seems to be about 25, so from domestic fixtures only, I do think the 2007/2008 EPL season might be a fine candidate.

 

Okay. So it is factually correct image.

I was wrong

 

2008 and 2015 are his best goalscoring league campaigns overall when considering xG overperformance, consistency and volume.

Be careful when calculating xG overperformance percantage.

Player who scores 3 goals in whole season out of 1 xG has 300% overperformance, yet it is not the same as player who scores 30 goals out of 10 xG (also 300%). Volume matters and the rate of overperformance is not something that can be assumed to continue/scale.

 

Fascinating stuff.

I think it would be better to scale blue bars based on fixed values rather than relative to each other. It would give a better feel for their profiles as players.

Ronaldo shot 333 shots more from 30+ meters range. Wouldnt expect that.

 

I think it shows several things:

1. Messi doesnt possess an x factor from super long range.

2. Messi plays principally right, like a consistent machine. He has uncanny ability to generate shots for himself and all time great finishing ability (predominantly with his left foot).

3. Ronaldo is an all time great at finding himself in chances with wide range of shoting arsenal.

4. Ronaldo has an erradic nature to his style where he prematurely shots. Also, he does it because of his relative lack of ability to self generate shots from closer range.

 

lmao he's by far the player with the most xG from his own era. He's far ahead real poachers like Lewandowski who plays on machines of chance creation like Bayern so he's doing something others can't to take far more easy shots than anyone else. It's because of his off the ball movement

 

That is not true. He is elite. An all time great goalscorer. His biggest qualities are longevity and performance in big games, which is where he separates himself from likes of Lewandowski and co.

In terms of pure ability to find himself in goalscoring chances, he doesnt significantly separate himself from other elite goalscorers of generation.

If there was one player who did show disproportionately high goal instinct in this regard, it would be Haaland.

Also, that claim about Ronaldo would contradict all other statements like being a long range specialist or overall a complete goalscorer who can generate chances for himself via off the ball movement or dribble.

He simply wasnt scoring enough goals for all of that to be true simultaniously. He would have to been scoring 80 goals a season for a significant period of time for all claims to be true at the same time. He wasnt.

 

You also have to understand that Ronaldo high volume of shots from 10 meters and closer range significantly comes from his aerial threat.

Primary reason he is able to generate so many shots from this range is because of his aerial abilities, which are possibly the best ever in the game. If you substract shots he generated from aerial situations from the total count in the tables, he likely is inferior at "finding himself" in close range shot opportunities than Messi himself. Let alone someone like Haaland whose entire game revolves around finding himself in the right place at the right time.

If you accept the fact that Ronaldos goalscoring chances from close range are heavily impacted by his superior aerial game alone, and you give credit to his athleticism for big part of that, then you have to understand that in terms of pure goal-scoring instinct and "goalscoring IQ", he is not some vastly superior player than everyone.

Ronaldo is a tenacious athletic goalscorer with overall elite finishing toolkit.

He is not levitating above the rest of the elite in terms of game intelligence.

 

https://www.messivsronaldo.app/detailed-stats/xg-expected-goals/

This is a graph for league games from 14/15 to 19/20. Ronaldo is by far the player with the most xG. He has 180 xG. If it's just a longevity thing why wouldn't Suarez, Lewandowski, Ibrahimovic or others match his xG even though they were playing for Barça, Bayern, PSG, etc... even though they were playing in weaker leagues and for dominant teams? The only reasonable explanation is that Ronaldo were doing something others couldn't do to get more easier shots. Despite having by far the most xG (20+ than the second best) his xG per shot is lower meaning his extra shots were harder ones. And that is despite the fact that he was no longer the long range scorer he were in his prime before the patelar tendinosis in 2014.

As @lessthanjake said, if a player is getting significantly more tap-ins than anyone else, then he's the primary reason why he takes so much tap-ins, he's doing something others can't

 

Because they dont have Ronaldo's longevity??

Lewandowski is literally 11,55 xG behind the number in the table of the site you linked to.

Then you say Ronaldo is taking a lot of long shots which lowers his xG/shot value. Do you understand the same shots are being counted into the xG total and make up the 11,55 xG gap?

No, Ronaldo doesnt have 11,55 more xG because he is better at tap ins than Lewandowski in the said sample size.

The only possible conclusion to make from the table you linked to, knowing how much Ronaldo generates xG from non-tap in chances relative to someone like Lewandowski, is that he is worse at finding himself in tap in situations than Lewandowski in the said sample.

That is if your metric is total xG.

 

What are you even on about? I am certain you think you are making sense, but you are coming off as a buffoon clinging to useless numbers and pretending you're properly using abstract reasoning to come to your conclusions.

You acknowledge the table shows Ronaldo leading the entire era in total accumulated xG. Then, in a dazzling display of spreadsheet manipulation, you try to deduct his aerial threat and his lower xG/shot value to conclude that he is actually worse at finding himself in tap-in situations than Lewandowski.

Do you even understand how xG works? A player's total xG is the baseline measure of their ultimate capacity to move off the ball, read the game, and get into high value dangerous positions. Without elite off the ball movement and positioning, those opportunities simply do not manifest. To say "if you subtract his aerial threat, he is inferior at finding himself in space" is completely meaningless. Why should we arbitrarily penalize a player for being a highly dimensional versatile all terrain weapon? His athletic aerial dominance is part of his elite game intelligence and positioning. A player needs to be in the right position to end up converting those chances.

Furthermore, your claim that his lower xG/shot means he is worse at positioning is mathematically broken. Ronaldo’s average is dragged down precisely because he takes highly spontaneous difficult attempts from various distances and angles, something pure poachers playing in highly systemic well oiled machine teams like Bayern or Man City rarely even attempt. Yet, despite taking those extra low percentage shots, he still leaves everyone else behind in absolute volume. The 11.55xG gap is because his relentless movement and versatility allow him to accumulate opportunities that other strikers simply cannot generate.

The system of measure you are trying to invent is explicitly designed so that Ronaldo can literally never win in your eyes. When he scores from deep, it’s a subcategory of scoring, when he dominates the box, it's just pure athleticism and not intelligence. It’s a total contradiction. You are taking a metric that explicitly proves his superior chance generation and turning it inside out just to suit your biased narrative. Stop using spreadsheets to blind yourself to real life football reality. numbers don't lie, but your interpretation of them certainly does

 

The close quarters data is extra-challenging to interpret.

Not only are the data-sets unfamiliar and difficult to cross-reference, there is the issue of variables surrounding player tendencies. Especially given the vast spectrum of shot-selectivity of the players mentioned.

If a superior conversion rate at close quarters is influenced heavily by shot-profile, I personally would prefer to set a minimal threshold, to counter-act limited goal-scorers who benefit purely by their level of selectivity.

For example, Kylian Mbappe (a player known for atrocious aerial ability for a prolific forward) has conversion rate of 86% within the distance of 5m. Something tells me that figure might fall drastically if he partook in as many aerial shots as someone like Robert Lewandowski, who has a conversion rate of 63% within a distance of 5m.

Even for long distances, I am not sure if powerful shots taken outside the box should be grouped alongside freekicks. Harry Kane would be an example of a horrible freekick taker from outside the box, who is an oddly terrific shot-taker during open play from the same distance and angle.

These extra-steps, and greater number of candidates inspected, would make it easier to make sense of these numbers. A player like Arjen Robben might be an interesting addition, to see how shot-selectivity may play a role, and deeper inspection into what happens to the numbers once a player starts to partake in a lot of aerial shots. Because a lot of the players inspected are more well-known for being selective with their shot-profiles, rather than being complete threats.

 

No it is not.

XG total includes all shots that are generated by any means including solo efforts, not just off the ball movement.



So if you claim that Ronaldo has an elite individual capacity on the ball to generate chances for himself and score or is a long range specialist, you have to account that when looking at raw total xG or total goal values. It means a big share of his xG and goals comes from these avenues meaning that less of it is left for it to be explained by off the ball movement and tap-ins abilities.

You cant have your cake or eat it too.

Since you are saying he is superior at tap ins than all other elite goalscorers of his generation, and that xG and goal totals are evidence of that, you are imadvertly claiming that the said totals are predominantly due to his off the ball, tap in qualities. You are essentially calling him tapinnaldo.

There is no enough margin in xg or goal totals for Ronaldo for all claims to be simultaniously true:

1. Superior off the ball movement to everyone
2. Superior goal instinct
3. Extreme professionalist with elite mentality.
4. Longevity.
5. Solo specialist.
6. Long range specialist.

Etc.

Frenkenstein monster.

 

You are trapped in a massive hilarious logical fallacy. You are treating a player's tactical profile like a video game character creator where you only have 100 skill points to distribute, and if you put points into long shots, you have to take them away from off the ball movement. That is a completely broken zero sum way to look at data.

Total xG is an open ended aggregate. When Ronaldo takes a low probability shot from 30 yards out, or creates a shot out of nothing on the wing, that action adds a very small fractional value (e.g., 0.01 xG) to his total. It does not magically erase or cannibalize his ability to make a brilliant blind side run into the 6 yard box five minutes later to score a 0.60 xG tap in.

By having the tactical versatility to score in all of these ways, he expands the total boundary of what is possible. He doesn't have to choose between being a solo specialist or an off the ball mover, his relentless physical and mental output allows him to do both at a volume other strikers cannot match.

Your tapinnaldo trap completely backfires because you don't understand how the low xG/shot average works. Strikers like Lewandowski or Haaland play in highly rigid systemic well oiled machines. They rarely take low percentage speculative shots from distance because their systems dictate that they wait in the box for high value cutbacks. This keeps their average xG per shot high, but limits their absolute volume to the efficiency of the team's creation machine.

Ronaldo, on the other hand, breaks the machine. He hunts for space in the box at an elite level, but also has the individual gravity and audacity to take difficult low percentage shots from anywhere. Those extra difficult shots are exactly what pull his average xG per shot down, yet his total absolute xG still comfortably sits higher than everyone else's.

It is simply what a complete historical anomaly looks like. He has a higher total xG because he finds more ways to threaten the goal than anyone else in modern football history. Stop trying to nerf real world greatness because your broken math can't comprehend a player being elite at more than one thing at the same time.

 

@PDG1978