James Rodriguez, is it possible? 124 Non-PK Goals and 167 assists according Transfermartkt in ~396 90s, an average of 0.735 npkg/a per 90 while his teams scored in the rate of 2.125 = 34.6% Goal Contibution. Data is a bit flawed and incomplete but can give you an idea.
Actually, his contribution is not low if you consider the way he played. I would say that he was a very unique player in his style. He played all over the field, almost as a defender most of the time, organized the team from below to the rival goal. So it is understandable that he did not participate in all the team's goals. Cruyff is a similar case, he used to contribut a lot defensively.
I know. Precisely my comparison was with Cruyff who was a player with the same qualities as Di Stéfano. Cruyff has a much higher assist percentage, but Di Stéfano has a higher goal percentage. I was asking you why according to the method of assists/(GF - G), Cristiano has a higher % of assists than Di Stéfano. I was surprised! However, I think that no metric is 100% perfect.
I think if I do the research for his time in Real Madrid again, I'll probably find a couple more assists. But, yes is interesting that it seems that Di Stéfano gave priority to scoring his own goal rather than assists a lot. I can imagine him playing most of the game in his own half, and going up in certain moments with the main objective of scoring, and then go back again. I think he contributed much more in the defense of the team that Cruyff
I've been compiling some data from Santillana's first seasons. Here's what I have so far: 1970-71 season: *36 games, forgot to add 1971-72 season: I'll upload his following seasons later on.
The likelihood is he was also the 3rd or even 4th player in the sequence leading up to a goal Assists are a good measure of creativity for a traditional/archetypal centre forward Unless you are playing with donkeys you will have a healthy number of assists if you create enough chances That being said assists aren't the best measure of creativity for players in other positions For reference Bayern 2021 created 24 chances vs PSG in a single match yet only scored 2 goals Kimmich created 10 goalscoring opportunities but had only 1 assist You take another creative player mesut ozil https://www.whoscored.com/Matches/1...d-Premier-League-2016-2017-Arsenal-Sunderland https://www.whoscored.com/Matches/4...mpions-League-2010-2011-Real-Madrid-Tottenham 24 goalscoring chances created=2 assists Final ball assists aren't worth as much as goals They are also not the best indicator for the creativity of a player other then a striker The people who voted for KDB as the best player in the premier league this season know that mo salah has almost twice as many assists(13 vs 7) as him https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top/players/goal_assist They know that but they dont care and why should they? Assists are only as good as the player who converts them into goals 1475432522645483529 is not a valid tweet id The attacking contribution of a player isn't measured in the way you are proposing Goals are one thing The most important part of the attacking sequence that leads to points won,championships conquered and legacies built Assists are a completely different thing If you want to make it scientific you should make a chart for goals the manner in which they were scored and the importance of them(ie game tying or match winning) In those newspaper articles im sure there will be even a basic description of the goal itself and at what moment it was scored And i propose a completely separate chart for final ball,secondary and even tertiary assists Then and only then we'll have a rough idea of a players importance to the team while they are in possession Someone like Cruyff who is very respected here said something interesting ”When you play a match, it is statistically proven that players actually have the ball 3 minutes on average … So, the most important thing is: what do you do during those 87 minutes when you do not have the ball. That is what determines whether you’re a good player or not. If that is the case then this exercise of goal contribution charts merged with assists Deducting types of goals you dont like and including/excluding assists that fit your subjective criteria are worth less then im even suggesting
I mean, measure "playmaking" seems something very difficult today, imagine if we could do that with historic players. Of course with better data is possible to do a much better "analysis", but is impossible to know secondary or tertiary assists for historic players like Pelé, Puskás or Di Stéfano, sadly those are almost never mentioned in match reports. Is difficult to find that even for modern players. We can say assists are a very rough stat that represent more or less the "playmaking" of a player? or at least the influence of the passes the player made in the goals of his teammates. Is not perfect but is the only thing we have. Something I could say is that goals and assists ar more "connected" than it seems, because usually when player score more his assists decrease, and vice versa, when a player assist more, score less. Which means that "goalscorers" or "playmakers" are more a decision rather than a skill itself. And this is interesting because players that decide to have more a playmaker rol have it more difficult to have a high influence in the team's goals, because not all goals could possible be assisted.
Stats in "El Clásico" - Real Madrid vs Barcelona Ferenc Puskás 18 games 14 goals 11 assists Goal involvement of 62.5% Alfredo Di Stéfano 30 games 18 goals 6 assists Goal involvement of 38.7% Johan Cruyff 24 games 8 goals 10 assists Goal involvement of 36.7% Diego Maradona 6 games 4 goals 5 assists Goal involvement of 81.8%
I think there is a mistake with Cruyff's table mate - I didn't check everything but line 1 and line 4 are vs Murcia and line 2 vs Oviedo (not Real Madrid) I believe. If everything else is correct, that means his non-penalty goal + assist percentage contribution (out of all goals of his team excluding penalties scored by himself - it'd need further investigation for percentages out of all non-penalty goals of the teams even though like I said before in theory that's better/fairer I think and I guess it's possible in these examples easily enough actually although obviously Di Stefano, while scoring a couple himself did have team-mates scoring penalties too - clearly the ones of Puskas in 1963 at least) would be a bit higher than Di Stefano's I see. EDIT - See correction in below post - I haven't deleted this one but that over-rules the conclusion about goal contribution % - it will need to be re-calculated after a thorough check of which games were vs Real Madrid I think (I suspect it rises by more than I was thinking when I said "a bit higher than Di Stefano's", considering one of those games had a 6-1 result for example, but we'll see....)
Sorry, I didn't look far enough actually (at first glance not realising lines 5 and 6 are still in season 1974/74 too - those games are vs Zaragoza and Oviedo again). Maybe other seasons need checking too (the next one for example certainly). So Cruyff's table probably just needs completely re-doing I think.
Yes you are right. thanks, I'm stupid lol! In the spreadsheet (is not made by me) it says opponent "Real", and I though it was all Real Madrid This happens when you don't check things well Cruyff only played 8 games againts Real Madrid with Barcelona Johan Cruyff 8 games 3 goals 4 assists Goal involvement of 46.7%
No problem - it can happen when in the middle of a big project we try to be as quick as possible with some things, I guess, and sometimes I can do things that might seem 'stupid' myself, so I understand.
I can see that Rothen has already been cited (fails short behind the bar of 100 assists, with not that many full seasons in D1 btw). Also, one player that comes to mind and not the least is Salif Keita. Although it won't be worked out in this thread I'd like to mention him since he assisted a lot of goals as well as he scored a lot. His partner H. Revelli could assist him as well. Keita has 186 games/ 142 goals for Saint-Etienne (1967-1972) and 23/ 12 at Marseille in 1972/73 with two spots for three foreigners (after a difficult transfert with controversies... he lost a bit the thread of his career there imo... he was also doing studies in economics at the same time. Since talking Mbappé, too. It's not rare to see Keita causing the difference one way or another including direct assists when (randomly) picking a game highlights video on the net (from memories, because I have not done that since some time). Both Mbappé and first Keita have been compared to Pelé. I can remember a sentence in France Foot which was like : "If Keita was a Brazilian, he'd be spoken about in the same breath as Pelé". i.e. if he'd play in Brazil there's no reason he would not be considered a crack out there if I understand what is hinted (and perhaps would have more international recognition?).
Yeah, Keita's case is interesting in general I think, in that as you have shown he had IIRC a high number of very high match ratings, although on the other hand perhaps they were inconsistent? So that other players with less high ratings might end with more etoiles or a higher average rating...(also it seems like Skoblar had less maximum ratings, yet took individual awards at the time (top scorer ones and twice in a row Foreign Player of the Year in France - I'd have to check but IIRC maybe you showed that Keita indeed had more maximum 6 out of 6 ratings in those seasons too even....), and of course retrospectively was heralded as the 2nd top choice among foreign Ligue 1 players (albeit Keita was in 4th himself, and it could be a case of 'take with a pinch of salt' because of the retrospective nature and potentially the age of the journalists involved etc) Top 50 foreigners in Ligue 1 / Division 1 | BigSoccer Forum Skoblar seems to have been pretty capable in terms of skills and potentially assisting ability, so he could be a name to consider for goal contribution overall while in French football I guess, but maybe his role was mostly focused on being the scorer by then...and Keita, like to some extent with other African imports Milla and/or Weah later was an all-round attacking asset who would set up sometimes close to as many as he scored (according to your recollections it seems it could be like this)....
Yes, absolutely. I share the same the same analysis on everything. As for a possible inconsistency or relative inconsistency of Keita I must check the reports again or continuing/ finishing to do it for the 6 stars ratings thread (I still have 1966, 1967/69 to check, something like that) but a priori I doubt to find the ratings of an inconsistant player : more something like FF saw the opportunity to rate better one of his French teammates at times, all high-profiles in the league and international players (Bereta, Revelli...) and deseverdly for sure, but not while Keita would have been poor, maybe average or even good/ why not very good but not poor... but I'll check. In perception they can have more of the work-rate to add to a good offensive performance too (Bereta being half a winger/ AM half a midfielder or just midfieleder also during a while) and Revelli being a player who can be at 110% of his possibilities, in my perception, although a real good player. That said, I just watched again the highlights of St-Etienne vs Bayern '69 and we can see Keita to defend proposing screens and helping at dispossessing the ball form the Bayern players feet. As per the thread somehow, I think that Keita has way more "recorded" assists than Weah though; different eras. Weah has been top assister once (as a Monaco player) as we saw and even had a high number of assists during his stint at OM. As per Skoblar this is what you explained and although he has a good bunch of great teammates, it is less in quantity and their international status can be less cemented so it will be more about a good share of good ratings for several players rather than having one player standing out (to each his role most of the time, so yeah who stands out, the assisters or the finsiher? In this context, we saw in the 6 stars ratings thread that it is Magnusson with his magical performances who will catch the eye in order to obtain the maximum rating possible on one game (did not find any for Skoblar and yes, sometimes Skoblar can be average or "just" good even if scoring one or even a brace, if not a hat-trick). In a "OM legends" video, it is with much emotion that Skoblar remembers his teammates, who "played for me", him. It's truly moving. Possibly he was not 100% fit when Hannover definitively let him join Marseille too as he was not too willy to do extra physical training anymore, something that he did not like in Germany (where his arrival was already complicated, contract-wise and his track record rather mitigated I guess although not bad with some highs), so this somehow more limited but very effctive role in D1? But his finishing abilities were really exceptional anyway. "Extra-physical training" almost did not exist in France too. But yeah, with his skills, class/ elegance and his decision making in front of the goals (Just Fontaine : "he always chose the right thing to do; right foot, left foot, with the inside or the outside of the boot"... in perfect timing and with incredible precision; maybe it's Justo who added that as well, or the quote is complete?) so his individual awards in the end, in addition to the titles. Historically, OM were more a Cup team and they won two back-to-back league titles with him. And that team which was articulated around him. Like later with Papin and Waddle for Magnusson of course (Waddle being more AM/ W rather than "full classical" winger of course). And yes, Yugoslavia used him as a winger in Chile, as a 20/22 years old player. Very probably his main role in club back then, too. Possibly more or less near the centre of the attack, depending on the years and the evolution of the systems of play, during that time frame, and depending on who were his teammates for both club and country too, for a specific game or a period of time.
I checked the 1968-1969 Keita' season ratings for instance (Revelli PoY and Magnusson best foreigner, Lemerre Etoile d'Or) Quickly, without adding much details but still some : 5 - 3 0-0 away - 5 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 5 (0-1 to Lyon) - 4 - 3 - 3 (0-0 away) - 3 (1-0, goal Bosquier 2') - 4 - 5 - 3 (2-0 win based on the defense according to each player's ratings : Bereta 1 off-side recorded goal, 3 too, Revelli 1 goal, 4) - 6 - 3 - 4 - 3 (0-3 in Nantes) - 5 - 5 - did not play - 4 - 4 (2-1 at Lyon, 1 goal) - 5 - 6 - 4 - 4 (0-1 away) - 5 - 4 - 5 - 3 (0-2 in Bordeaux, Revelli 2) - 3 (1-1 to Monaco, goal Jacquet, Revelli 4) - 3 I did not really checked Revelli at the same time or not constantly, nor Magnusson, but we can't really see a drought, except for the last 3 games of the season (18 clubs/ 34 day games; one delayed game is missing; a 2-0 win over Ajaccio into which he played, goals by Revelli and Bereta)
An interesting stat about fouls won Copa América 1959 Brazil received 173 fouls in 6 games. Pelé in 524 minutes played received 98 fouls, and only made 18. The 56.6% of the total of the team. 16.8 fouls won per 90 minutes. For some context, the highest in a World Cup is 53 fouls received from Maradona in 1986 Argentina received 149 fouls in 7 games Maradona in 630 minutes played received 53 fouls, and made only 10. The 35.6% of the total of the team. 7.57 fouls won per 90 minutes Lionel Messi in 2014, 2.34 fouls won per 90, and the 15.52% of the team Neymar in 2018, 5.20 fouls won per 90, and the 36.11% of the team
I had to say "so far" for Skoblar, the 6 stars, in the previous answer... because I've just found one this very minute (1 so far in 1966-67 after 25 games)
Johan Cruyff was a visionary and obviously a highly intelligent man, but at the end of the day, he still was a product of his time, he still was a human like the rest of us, and I think his quote there demonstrates that he still had some clear limitations. What do you do those 87 minutes when you do not have the ball? Zinedine Zidane and Roman Riquelme, they were both were given time and space on the ball, and not because of what Zidane and Riquelme were doing the 87 minutes off the ball, but because of what they could do on the ball; their ability on the ball, was the architecture that informed or gave structure to what happened off the ball. A different player with the same ability as Zidane or Riquelme, but without the underrated physical strength and physical durability as Zidane or Riquelme; such a player would not get the same respect, because such a player could be physically 'bullied' into submission. If Zidane and Riquelme defended a lot more, would their impact on the game be definitely better? I don't think that would be the case, in other words, Cruyff's dichotomy of what you do on-the-ball versus what you do off-the-ball, is a thing of the past in my opinion; if you look closer, what a player does off the ball is defined to a great extent by what said player can do on the ball, or vice versa. Well modern football has destroyed the possibility of players like Zidane or Riquelme, because modern football has normalized and weaponized the utility of cynical yellow card resistant rotation tactical fouling, which has made players like Zidane or Riquelme borderline obsolete; at any rate, the modern version of Zidane looks a lot like Luka Modric, who has been an amazing midfielder playmaker in his own right, to be clear. In fact, now that I think of it; Sergio Busquets is an even better argument of Zidane-Riquelme tier ability becoming obsolete in the modern game... Busquets was given more space when he was younger, and not because Busquets did more running, but because fouling Busquets would get you a yellow card, and yellow cards are painful forms of taxation for any team. After the post-2013 normalization of yellow card resistant tactical fouls; Sergio Busquets has the worst defensive record in the history of the Champions League KO Stage... because Busquets is not given as much respect/space, because you can literally foul Busquets out of a game, without the consequence of having to suffer the yellow card penalty. Sergio Busquets' positional play, but slow play, is nowhere near as useful in the modern game as it was between 2010 and 2012, as a result of yellow card resistant fouls. The modern game requires a faster and more dynamic defensive midfielder; Casemiro is a natural for the modern game, where Busquets looks like a classical defensive player trying (without success) to fit in to the modern architecture. At any rate, I think the Zidane generation had already made it sufficiently evident that on-the-ball contribution versus off-the-ball contribution is an outdated philosophy to explain or understand football. Modern football has simplified everything, in the sense that only one tactical system works, and only one archetype midfielder dominates, which is why clubs who accumulate the 'correct' type of players, are playing a lot of Champions League Finals these days. Luka Modric : Champions League Final 2014. Champions League Final 2016. Champions League Final 2017. Champions League Final 2018. World Cup Final 2018. Champions League Final 2022. Toni Kroos : Champions League Final 2013. World Cup Final 2014. Champions League Final 2016. Champions League Final 2017. Champions League Final 2018. Champions League Final 2022. Jurgen Klopp : Champions League Final 2013. Champions League Final 2018. Champions League Final 2019. Champions League Final 2022. Zinedine Zidane : Champions League Final 2016. Champions League Final 2017. Champions League Final 2018. Thomas Tuchel : Champions League Final 2020. Champions League Final 2021. Cristiano Ronaldo [ Without Modric ] : Euro Final 2004. Champions League Final 2008. Euro Final 2016. That level of consistency was virtually impossible at any point pre-2013, for the simple reason that football was a lot more diverse than it currently is; in other words, there were no clubs that were lucky to accumulate the 'correct' type of football players, which made 'consecutive' finals very rare or borderline impossible to see in football. Modern football is a closed-shop monoculture, where the same players, the same tactics, and the same established brand names get to play the finals. I remember in 2007 and 2008, when Riquelme literally was measured to be the player who covered the second most mileage per game, in the Boca Juniors team; a lot of analysts were surprised by the statistic, but if you look closely at how Riquelme was already playing with Villarreal, it was not some giant leap that was required of him to become one of the top 2 mileage players at Boca Juniors. Riquelme looks passive and relaxed off-the-ball, but relaxed mileage is still mileage. Of course, as I had already mentioned; Riquelme would get tactically fouled into extinction by the cynical modern game; modern football lacks structure at the most basic levels. What is a yellow card foul in modern terms?? What was a yellow card in classical terms?? Why does modern football continue to define and understand the yellow card in classical terms that are not compatible, not logical, and not functional within the context of the modern game?? Why does modern football not re-define what a yellow card is, in modern terms, not in classical terms, so that the yellow card can actually proportionally regulate the modern game?? Why do modern football fans continue to make the flawed argument that more yellow cards are used in the modern game than in the classical game, not understanding the irony and the error of the actual density of the yellow cards; that is, the quantity or density of yellow cards that are actually officially used, relative to the number of fouls that in theory should be deserving of a yellow card?? In my opinion, that is the biggest game-breaking error of modern football; the modern game has far inferior yellow card density vs. the classical game... The classical game had a correct and a proportional understanding of what a yellow card foul should be relative to its time; the modern game continues to define the yellow card in classical terms, because said error facilitates the corruption that allows "safe money" for the same names who get to play all those repeat finals; it is essentially a Ponzi scheme at this late stage of the disease. If I understood your argument correctly, I would have to admit that I mostly agree with you here. "Salah was better than Kevin De Bruyne. Salah had X and Y statistics. Far more than KDB." The error that I have with the logic quoted above, is that when you try to extend that line of thinking to its most logical conclusion, then why would you ever not agree with the idea that Filippo Inzaghi offers more value than Xavi Hernandez? After all, Xavi is only 1 midfield player who plays next to another 2 or 3 midfield players, but Inzaghi is the 1 player who has to do the most decisive thing; he scores the actual goals... In other words, you end up inherently putting value around the idea of 1 striker is more important than 1 midfielder, by definition, because the entire midfield (generally consisting of 3 or 4 different players) has to create an entire tactical architecture around the striker in front of them; conversely, the striker in front of the midfielders, does not have to necessarily adapt to the midfielders behind him, because good midfielders should always know how to adapt to the strikers in front of them, etc. It all becomes irrational confirmation-bias, backed by nothing at all; midfielders who do all that 'invisible' hard-work of adapting and making the best out of Cristiano Ronaldo, end up getting underrated, all the while Mr. Champions gets a disproportionate lion's share of the credit. In conclusion, I ask: Is it possible to create an objective metric system to decide who is better between Xavi Hernandez vs. Luka Modric? I don't think such a thing is possible. You are subjectively splitting atoms at that point.