It isn't. Your goal p90 average does not have to decrease just because you go from playing 500 matches to playing 1000 matches. There is no mathematical rule that says such a thing. Talking about averages is problematic when you're dealing with 3–5 matches, but when we're talking about hundreds of matches, that argument no longer applies. You can say that playing 1000 matches is more impressive or more meritorious, but your average should not necessarily decrease because of it. Per90 Cristiano Non-penalty goals at game 500: 0.497 Cristiano Non-penalty goals at game 1000: 0.671
Scoring open-play goals with your feet accounts for 70–80% of the goals scored in football. It's not as if you're talking about just one category among hundreds. Cristiano is better at free kicks and headers, while in the rest Neymar is just as good or better.
"Maintaining a high outlier efficiency over an expanded dataset requires sustaining identical upper-tail probability distribution performance across an entirely new, independent matrix of variables. Because of multiplicative product probability, surviving double the volume without a drop in efficiency is an exponentially less probable statistical event. In sports analytics, an identical rate over double the volume is a completely different, vastly superior statistical tier—not an equivalent one—because the data has actively survived double the mathematical opportunities for negative variance."" Wrong again. You wanna keep going? You need help looking up the definition of exponentially?
You don’t know that you can just tell an AI to say you’re right? Putting the AI aside, think for a second: an average does not decrease just because the sample size increases; rather, it converges toward a more stable value. ChatGPT "A per-90 or per-game rate is already a normalized measure. It does not become mathematically “worth more” simply because it is sustained over a larger sample. If the rate is identical across two samples, then statistically they represent the same expected value of performance per unit, regardless of volume. The idea of “surviving negative variance” is also misused here. Variance affects the uncertainty of the estimate at smaller samples, but as sample size increases, the estimate becomes more stable—it does not transform the underlying rate into a higher “tier.” It only reduces noise. So the correct interpretation is: Larger sample = more reliable estimate Not larger sample = higher intrinsic per-90 value In short, consistency over time increases confidence in the player’s level, but it does not change the mathematical meaning of the rate itself."
The factoid you have pointed out does not even seem to be particularly flattering for a superlative wing-forward like Neymar, considering: 1) There is a huge gap in productivity in the remaining 30% of the goal-types. It is why no serious football fan claims that 2019/2020 Timo Werner is a more deadly threat in front of goal than any domestic league version of Harry Kane, simply based on "category D" goals. 2) On top of the massive, colossal gap for the ignored goal-types, the more complete goal-scorer is statistically on par even for the selective sampling for goals. Neymar does not need the fake statistical assertion that he can maybe score as many goals as Cristiano Ronaldo. He also does not need superior conversion rates for 0-5m goals over Robert Lewandowski, because none of these revelations are not particularly meaningful, after one establishes the selectivity of the goal-types. It is mere trivia, and you're the one trying to torture a forced narrative out of it. None of this particularly highlights Neymar's true genius on the field. It just makes you look stupid, especially as you explain your reasoning. Move on.
Again, you analyze numbers not treating what you are analyzing as the humans that they are. Your answer would be correct if you were analyzing robots. Not human beings dependent on physiology. Doubling a player's games from 500 to 1000 games would definitively make the number likely to decrease given basic human physiology. It's an absolute assumption. Ask ChatGPT if I'm wrong. This is the problem with thinking spreadsheets are reality. "The career average decreases because the athlete becomes a non-stationary process, meaning their underlying scoring probability declines as aging introduces a downward trend into the larger dataset. A non-stationary process is simply a sequence of data where the statistical rules—such as the average or variance—change over time rather than remaining constant. This shift becomes an absolute certainty because human physiology dictates an unavoidable reduction in aerobic capacity, muscle mass, and recovery speed that forces late-career performance to drop."
If you were right, Neymar would not score the same number of open-play goals without headers as Cristiano. Do you understand that if we consider all goals scored, in all possible situations, in all positions you want, fast plays, counterattacks, whatever you like, Neymar matches Cristiano in goals, right? You just have to remove headed goals and Neymar equals Cristiano in goal average, and in fact he does it while being more efficient and while creating much more play. Even if you wanted to break down this category further and could find situations where Cristiano is better, you would also find many other situations where Neymar is better; otherwise, you wouldn’t be able to explain why they have the same average. Obviously, the conclusion is that if we are talking about scoring goals with the feet, Neymar is not worse, its just as good or better.
We are speaking about Neymar, genius. You are saying his average is the same as Ronaldo, who has double his minutes. So we are talking about what happens if you double Neymar's playing time. Obviously. Sheesh.
Yes. And I also understand that if you just consider goals scored with the feet, and remove penalty-kick goals, 2019/2020 Timo Werner comes out ahead of any domestic league version of Harry Kane. He also managed more assists than Harry Kane during the 2025/2026 Bundesliga season. More dribbles completed also. 2019/2020 Bundesliga Timo Werner 25 "category D" goals 8 assists 58 dribbles completed 2025/2026 Bundesliga Harry Kane 22 "category D" goals (his career best) 5 assists 32 dribbles completed It turns out, when I select metrics tailor-made for wing-forwards as opposed to penalty-area specialists, it makes them look better than they actually are. Wow, what a surprise. So for me, it is not a big deal. This is within reason. It shouldn't have to be this specific to make praise for Neymar if you truly believe in his overall capacity as a goal-scorer.
We conclude that the number of matches by itself is not a factor, and that age would be a factor if you were comparing an older player with a younger one, but since both Cristiano and Neymar are already at an age where they are close to retirement, age is not a factor here either, they are in equal conditions.
Nope, we don't conclude that as the number of matches is a factor as it is magnitudes tougher to maintain the same efficiency over double the games. And doubling the matches would have to account for age as Neymar has played 57k minutes in his entire career, so logically, if you double that, it would have to account for age as he cannot play all those minutes in a single day. You are unable to think in terms of second-order effects. We're done here.
So one would conclude that Timo Werner is equivalent or better in that aspect, and that’s it, while Kane is clearly better in aerial play, what would the problem be? Cristiano is better at scoring headers and free kicks, while Neymar can have just as good goalscoring ability in open play. Obviously, if you asked me who the most complete goalscorer is, or even who is more likely to score more goals, the answer would be Kane or Cristiano. If you asked me who is better at scoring a goal after receiving a pass to the foot inside the box, I could tell you Neymar.
The fact that highlights rarely start with the initiation of the sequence makes the tallying for Ronaldo Nazario even more difficult. I have no idea about the time constraints involved for the sequences that start within their own half (did not know about the starting position requirements, thanks for the heads up). Kylian Mbappe - All 33 Goals for PSG - 18/19 HD - YouTube Kylian Mbappe - All 33 Goals for PSG - 18/19 HD Kylian Mbappe - All 33 Goals for PSG - 18/19 HD Kylian Mbappe - All 33 Goals for PSG - 18/19 HD Kylian Mbappe - All 33 Goals for PSG - 18/19 HD Kylian Mbappe - All 33 Goals for PSG - 18/19 HD Kylian Mbappe - All 33 Goals for PSG - 18/19 HD Kylian Mbappe - All 33 Goals for PSG - 18/19 HD Kylian Mbappe - All 33 Goals - 2018/2019 | HD Kylian Mbappe - All 33 Goals - 2018/2019 | HD These are all the fast-break goals as defined by WhoScored from Kylian Mbappe during the 2018/2019 Ligue 1 season. Some are sort of obvious due to the massive spaces left open by the defense clearly caught on the counter, but others are less obvious without knowing the context of the starting stages of the sequence. I think Kylian Mbappe is one of the deadliest threats during transitions due to his pace, ability to blaze past defenders with the ball at his feet, and cool finishing with his feet. Ronaldo Nazario was deadly also, but I am not sure if he beats this particular tally of ten for a single domestic season, after a brief look at the 1996/1997 highlights.
By itself, it is just trivia. If I then started to insinuate some sort of Timo Werner superiority over Harry Kane in a hypothetical 100 key passes scenario, based on extrapolation from these data-sets, knowing full-well that such a hypothetical never would take place in reality, due to the ridiculous number of caveats required to expand the volumes into a realistic footballing-season-basis, and was known for doing this time and time again, it is an intellectual integrity issue. The sampling of the numbers, and the way in which the statistical conclusions are derived are so retarded, that it hurts to read. Just state your personal opinions based on the eye-test, it would insult me less. I have no problems reading about the on-the-ball magic of Neymar. Reading about the conversion rate efficiency of Neymar and how that relates to his decision making via pre-assists, or whatever it is you try to assert through the statistics makes my blood boil. This is not how it is done, and it only adds confusion to the matter. What's worse, the confidence with which you jump to conclusions, and fight for every single point for the sake of being difficult, makes feedback nearly impossible. There is no intellectual discourse going on here.
I can't even call it bad-faith arguing. He literally doesn't seem able to understand certain things. Guy literally thinks there is no difference maintaining efficiency over 57k minutes vs 107k minutes. Not even that he thinks there is maybe some difference but not really. He actually equates the two as comparable. Usually when people use the word retarded it's a pejorative but no joke, hand to God, he might actually be definitionally mentally retarded. Intellectual disability I think is the politically correct term now.
There are injury-ridden players with ridiculous ability such as Arjen Robben, who might have good per 90 statistics for a particular profile of goals also. For me, it is a trivial matter when profiling for the type of players who can constantly deliver massive number of goals for their respective clubs for many seasons. Arjen Robben is a master of his particular craft, not a weekly goal-source regardless of form or fitness. If the matter is can a player run at a packed defense and score, in a practice environment or otherwise, Arjen Robben would be my pick over Harry Kane every single time. The retardation starts when I start assuming 100 such scenarios will occur for both players across the course of a real footballing season, and start to make judgement calls off that retarded assumption. I think general availability and versatility in goal-scoring range may be more important factors, than raw per 90 minutes efficiency for select profile of goal-scoring, when it comes to deciding whether a player has high probability of having numerous club seasons with over 50 goals. Neymar fails on both fronts. The statistics, the extrapolations based off the statistics, and reality does not align. If the aim was not to highlight goal-scoring capacity, but player potency with the ball at the feet, with goals merely associated as an after-thought, I guess it might allude to who would score more in a 5-aside mini-game.
Cristiano Ronaldo’s total career goals 973 goals Cristiano Ronaldo’s total career goals without penalties 790 goals Cristiano Ronaldo’s total career goals without penalties and headers 633 goals Cristiano Ronaldo’s total career goals without penalties,headers and freekicks 568 goals Cristiano Ronaldo’s total career goals without penalties,headers,freekicks and goals from outside the box 496 goals Neymar Jr’s total career goals 456 goals Cristiano Ronaldo at Real Madrid 450 goals Cristiano at Real Madrid without penalties 371 goals Neymar’s total career goals without penalties 363 goals Cristiano’s total goals in La Liga 311 goals Neymar’s total goals in La Liga and Ligue 1 150 goals Cristiano’s total goals in the champions league 140 goals Cristiano’s total goals in the champions league without penalties 121 goals Neymar Jr’s total goals in La Liga and Ligue 1 without penalties 119 goals Cristiano Ronaldo in the Champions League KO stages 67 goals Cristiano Ronaldo in the Champions league KO stages without penalties 60 goals Neymar in the champions league 43 goals Even his chief propagandist can’t save him from drowning The best he can do for this maniac is to pretend he’s sitting on the fence LMAOOO
That dude said Portugal's Euro 2016 team is Portugal's greatest squad ever. He should never be listened to again.
You are saying that the player who has aerial ability is better and therefore will score more goals, seriously? Did you know that Messi and Mbappé, despite not having aerial ability, have a better goal per90 average than Cristiano Ronaldo? Again, you could tell me that in a complete real world scenario, some of the chances received would be aerial situations and that, because of that, Cristiano would tend to score more than Neymar. I agree with that, but that is a probability advantage. It does not imply that one player is better; otherwise, you always fall into the same fallacy: "the player who scores headers is better," and that's the entire analysis. Basically, you are saying that Neymar could not score more goals under any circumstances, that he has a fixed number that cannot change and is determined by some intrinsic and immutable ability, and that he plays where he plays because everything is predetermined. Don't you realize that this is obviously an error? Football is full of situations where a player changes his position and automatically increases his goal output, while at the same time reducing his involvement in playmaking. Put a younger Neymar closer to goal in a team built around him, and he would score like Mbappé or Messi, or close to it.
I'm not the one bringing up larger topics like pre-assists, skills and decision making when discussing the numbers about goals. Did I say goal-machines like Robert Lewandowski are the best at everything? I said larger judgement calls derived off conversion rates or select profile proficiency alone, can make light of the art of maximizing goals if interpreted incorrectly. It is weird to extrapolate based off of heading conversion rate alone and say Kevin De Bruyne's more efficient heading conversion rate displays superior intelligence compared to the wasteful and stupid headed shots of Robert Lewandowski. Neymar does not have the same level of goal-threat as Kylian Mbappe. Kylian Mbappe is a monster in transitional scenarios beyond what Neymar has shown. His reception value would just be higher. Lionel Messi does not need to be compared to Neymar. Neymar does not have the capacity to shoot in between steps with minimal notice like Lionel Messi, and same applies for Eden Hazard. Just because a player can dribble does not mean he can shoot mid-motion to massive volumes like Lionel Messi. The fact that I can picture a scenario where Neymar scores more goals, does not make that scenario probabilistically likely to occur in an alternate reality. The level of optimistic projection, to match Neymar as an overall goal-scoring output to levels of Cristiano Ronaldo, based on conversion rates, select profile goals per 90 minutes, and your eye-test that seems to over-focus on actions after ball reception to the feet, are not sufficient evidence for me personally. I am entitled to my own opinion should the numbers fail to match reality and we fall into the realm of imagination. There is an art to maximizing goal count. Neymar falls short. Make the discussion narrow enough, the discussion no longer becomes about goal productivity. You are mixing on-the-ball proficiency and overall goal output, and just assume any on-the-ball specialists can score freely to ridiculous levels. It is not how football works. You might as well start arguing Neymar can tackle like Wan-Bissaka because the latter is so untalented with the ball.
You have many indications to think that Neymar could have scored more if he played closer to goal. The conversion rate data inside the box encompasses multiple different scoring situations, very varied ones, and the fact that Neymar has very good efficiency inside the box shows that he has sufficiently good ability. Inevitably, you have to conclude something like that. Then, the fact that he has so many assists and pre-assists implies that the main reason Neymar does not receive as many scoring situations is because he is fulfilling playmaking functions, not because he necessarily lacks the ability to put himself in positions to receive the ball near goal. If, for example, Neymar had a low goalscoring average and his assists were also low, I would tell you: well, yes, that's it, he really does have a lack of goalscoring ability, because it would imply that he is trying to put himself in goalscoring situations and cannot do it. However, the fact that his playmaking output is so high shows that it is a positional and role thing and not a lack of ability. So yes, if Neymar had played closer to goal, he would have scored more goals. I don't know how many more, but more. I think it was Guardiola who said that if Baggio played today, he would score 50 goals a year, Baggio, a player without aerial ability.
Didn't you just say you hate numbers based on low-odds circumstances only? If a player requires the optimistic hypothetical tactical set-up of Pep Guardiola, just to explore the possibility of 50 goals, that is not the highest level of praise regarding goal-scoring capacity in particular. That is laying up the ground foundations, for premises that may have feasibility in reality. How high the odds, depends on the level of optimistic imagination. I am not of the opinion that ball-artists are entitled the maximum benefit of the doubt, with the highest level of accommodation not only feasible, but imaginable. Set-pieces has lower dependence on a team's ability to shape the flow of the game, so I have no idea why these types of goals are being dismissed entirely to argue the case that a player can score stupendous amounts across multiple possible scenarios, the selected version (this reality) in which Neymar somehow never found the right set-up across his entire career. Is that bad luck? Or is it just his toolkits making a complementary tactic that maximizes his goal-count to Cristiano Ronaldo levels and assures team success incredibly difficult?
Yes, I guess it would rely on full game videos being available for the questionable goals in terms of the fast break category. Without trying (or without being able to perhaps) to look further into it, I would tend to think Ronaldo's open play goal % (from general build-up, solo goals etc) would be higher and his fast break/counter % lower according to OPTA (especially as 18/19 Mbappe scored just 18 in Ligue 1 and 30 overall, though with less penalty goals - one in Ligue 1 and two in Coupe de France should be reliable on Transfermarkt for such a recent season at a big club I guess anyway).