In-depth analysis of Lionel Messi's historical 2012/13 la liga campaign

Ronaldo attempts and scores goals of wider variety of techniques and styles than Messi. That is true. But there are two overarching points I strongly disagree with you, Isaias, and will never agree with you till the end of time:

1. Merely having a wider variety of goals implies that the player is a better goalscorer or is doing it somehow "better" than a player with less variety of goals, but an equal amount of goals.
2. That "repetitive" or similar patterns are inherently less valuable than unpredictable or different patterns.

1. You are mixing two fundamentally different types of analysis:

The first type of analysis is top-down, where we analyze players' output and value that they produced, without considering how they produced what they produced, and then we compare them.

The second type of analysis is bottom-up, where we breakdown certain domain, like goalscoring, into discrete, primitive skills and then evaluate players on each skill and reason upwards towards an emergent conclusion.

Another way to look at it, we can analyze:

1. WHAT players produce.
2. HOW they produce it.

The WHAT players produce is the basis upon which players are compared. The better player is the one who produces more value. Comparisons of the kind that we are mostly interested in the forum are also hypothetical ones. Who is a better player is a question that aims to answer who would overall produce more value on the pitch in hypothetical scenarios that we agree upon are meaningful set of circumstances. For example, who is overall a better goalscorer is a question about which player, if we respectively put both of them in meaningful, hypothetical scenarios, would be more likely to score more goals. If we put them in Leicester 2016 squad, who would score more goals? If we put them in Atletico Madrid 2014, who would score more goals? And so on.

Roughly speaking, a better goalscorer is therefore a player who would score more goals in meaningful set of circumstances.

The HOW players produce value is an analysis of ways, methods and mechanisms by which they do. In the pure HOW analysis, there is no better or worse way to generate value. It is a primarily descriptive analysis and agnostic to WHAT players produced.

This means, if we assume two players have exactly the same context and circumstances (this controls for cofounding variables that might influence scoring goals) and both score 50 goals in 50 games, they are equally good goalscorers regardless of how they achieved the goal tally.

The player A might score 50 goals using right foot, left foot, header, free kicks, etc., and the player B might score 50 goals all with right foot from open play and the same distance, they are still equally good goalscorers in this example. Because HOW they scored goals is irrelevant to HOW MUCH goals they scored.

If player A has more mechanisms to score goals that is something that is going to serve him well as an individual, because it will come in handy when he is on the pitch, BUT he doesn't get extra points for doing it a specific way compared to player B. Football is not gymnastics or ski jumping where you get extra points for style and technique. It doesn't care about that. Football only cares about whether you produce results or don't. Do you score or not. So in this example, player A and player B are dead equal.

I know you understand this and I know what your response will be to this. You will say that mechanisms matter because it means that player A can more easily transfer his goalscoring ability to much wider set of real-world circumstances than player B, therefore he is better for doing it with more variety. This is also something @Letmepost is obsessed with and tries to argue.

But what is wrong with this reasoning is that it is A BIG ASSUMPTION regarding transferability of a certain type of goalscoring. It is completely unearned assumption that is smuggled in into evaluation, because "it is just true." That is a mistake. What letmepost is trying to do is conceptualize and numerize normal/average/typical real-world circumstances and extrapolate how some player would perform in such circumstances via real data performance. This is a backwards, circular intellectual exercise.

I don't know if you see an irony behind it. Theorizing about typical real-world circumstances from already real-world data.

To connect it back to the example of player A and player B, their 50-goal tally has already happened in the real-world circumstances, so adding the assumption that player A's 50-goal tally is worth more than player B's tally due to a greater variety of goals, because it means player A would score more in real-world circumstances is circular reasoning.

Real-world scenario, within which 50-goal talies happened, is already the perfect example of a real-world scenario. So there is no need to theorize about transferability of skills to real-world scenarios, because their goalscoring performance already happened in real world.

In short, if player A's wide repertoire of goalscoring skills was truly the part that gave him the edge over player B and made him better goalscorer, player A wouldn't score the same amount of goals (50) as player B, he would score more than 50 goals.

Real world is the ultimate judge and both scored 50 goals while all of the context was equal for both, therefore they are equally good goalscorers in this example irrelevant of HOW they did it.

2. In the same light, "repetitiveness" is not really a good or bad quality. What matters is that it works and produces results.

To keep it short, because this is already too long, I completely disagree with your assessment that Barcelona and Messi are repetitive. This is your opinion and a way to undermine Messi's abilities and skills. "He scored a lot of goals, but they are all formulaic so they don't count or are not worth as much as "unpredictable" goals."

Two things:

A) If Messi was formulaic, he would have been a one-trick pony. If he was the one-trick pony, pro defenders would have seen that, adapted and easily defended him. Since Messi scores a lot, this means he is not the one-trick pony nor formulaic. He clearly must be doing something right if he scores as much as he does.

You can outline many reasons for that: Barcelona's system is better than any system, he has specific teammates that nobody else has, he is abusing "cheatcode" patterns in football like one-twos, he has a unique physical build and technique that allows him to do that, etc.

Whatever adjective you use or name as a reason for Messi scoring that many goals in that way, you have to realize that nobody else has done the same, therefore, whatever you explanation is, that is exactly the edge and greatness Messi has over others and why he is better.

Because if that wasn't his edge, then we would see 100s of Messis in the world, yet we see only one Messi who is "repetitive", abusing one-twos, exploits chemistry with Alba, Dani Alves and other players, etc.

In short, you are not giving arguments for why Messi is not as good as people think he is, you are describing exactly the reasons why Messi is better than the rest. Messi makes football look easy and repetitive. This is probably the highest compliment one can ever give to a person in their craft, because football is not easy and repetitive, it is an extremely complex sport. It only appears so when watching Messi because he is an absolute master of his craft that has developed specific skillsets to such an extreme level never seen before.

And the belief that those mechanisms are invalid or worse than other mechanisms is just your opinion. It is a shame, honestly, because you are blinding yourself to the true beauty of football. Football is a beautiful sport precisely because there is no one way to be great, but there are many, many ways to produce value on the pitch. Football is also fair and the ultimate judge, because if something works in theory, it doesn't necessarily work in reality. "Repetitive" patterns clearly work in reality and Messi is the proof of it.

In reality, it is not actually repetitive, you are just saying it to undermine Messi. When you actually analyze Messi's play, you see a vast, complicated reality of what he is doing on the pitch. It is very nuanced and extremely difficult. As you yourself said, "it is just a variation of X." Exactly, variations are the key. It is not the same, it is a variant of what works in principle.

B) Ronaldo is also repetitive. All headers are repetitive and slight variations of each other. All finishing techniques are just slight variations of each other. All off-the-ball movements are just slight variations of each other.

None of them are reinventing their playing style each time they step on the pitch.

 

In the simplified example I gave you in which we control for all other factors, including the quality of opposition, types of defenses, and other concerns of yours, it is not true that player B, who scores 50 goals of the same type will demand much more energy from his team to create that same specific plays, because he did score those 50 goals. If that was true, he wouldn't score 50 goals and the effect of much more energy would be reflected in his lower goal tally. In this example, that is not true or applies.

But I understand what you are trying to say. You are already trying to make a case for uncontrolled, real-world scenarios where such luxury of controlled circumstances it is not plausible. But that is why it is an example, and you have to yield to the fact that it is true in such an idealistic, highly controlled scenario. When you refuse to acknowledge it is true even in such a hypothetical scenario, it means you are either incapable of understanding the point in principle or unwilling to open the can of worms towards honest discussion.

In the example I said, the reason why both players can score 50 goals, be equally good goalscorers and still widely vary in ways that they scored them, is because player A has vareity of ways in which he scores, but player B has one method that is much superior to the same method of player A therefore this gap in ability to score by the method, entirely compensates for lack in player B in other methods, in such a way that they are dead equal in terms of goalscoring capability.

This is true in this controlled example, even if we think of scenarios such as tough, big games or whatnot. Why? Because we controlled for them in the example.

You have to acknowledge that in theory and principle, it is possible for a player B to have only one method of scoring goals that is so exceptional in its nature so that on aggregate, it equals a balanced goalscoring ability of player A.

This is actually an easily proven and obvious statement, so this shouldnt make you so defensive, and you should be able to acknowledge this reality without zero hesitation.

For example, Giroud is an all-around balanced goalscorer, yet he is not a better goalscorer than Messi. How is that possible? Because Messi's avenues of scoring goals are so much better than any one avenue of Giroud's goalscoring ability (even if balanced overall), that it is not even a debate. I can give you 1000 examples with which you would agree 100%.

So that is the first issue with yourself that you need to acknowledge in the discussion.

Do you understand why I am saying this? Because if you are unwilling to say that under no circumstances does a less versatile goalscorer can be claimed to be a better goalscorer than an all-around decent goalscorer, then there is nothing to talk about here. We can call it a day. You are essentially saying that Messi is not a better goalscorer than Giroud. Is that true Isaias?

We have to clear this up. Once we do, we can proceed with other arguments of yours.

 

Okay. So let go a bit more concrete.

You are essentially making a case for robustness of goalscoring abilities via having multiple avenues to score goals so player can, on demand, shuffle through various methods of scoring and utilize whichever one will work in that moment.

I agree with this in principle. This is a true variable to consider amongst many others. It should be considered when evaluating how good a certain player is as a goalscorer. And if Ronaldo showed a massive superiority in scoring on demand compared to Messi due to having a wide range of methods of scoring, this would be a significant factor to consider when comparing them as goalscorers.

However, this is just a hypothesis of yours atm. The extent and effect to which this is true is speculative atm.

If that was a correct reasoning and true causal relationship that predominantly explains their differences as goalscorers, then this will somehow leave a solid and strong footprint on their goalscoring data.

So what would your hypothesis imply?

It would imply:

A) That player with a wide range of methods of scoring is having a more uniformed and consistent goal distribution across matches, type of and quality of opposition.

Do you agree?

B) In scenarios that you highlight as representitive and evidence of the difference, Ronaldo is scoring types of goals Messi doesn't, otherwise the wide range of methods of scoring is not the explanation of the difference.

Do you agree with this? Do you follow? Would you add something to this?

 

I dont know what to tell you Isaias. You are making a hand-waving and weak argument for the case. From a factual standpoint to making very broad generalizations from very dubious and questionable assumptions.

Firstly, you name elimination ties for Messi in ucl: Inter 2010, Chelsea 2012, Atletico 2014 and 2016, Juventus 2017, and then at the end say Ronaldo won and scored against the same teams?

Ronaldo did not play Inter and Chelsea from the list. He played against other three.

Against Atletico in 2014 scored basically pointless penalty for 4-1 towards the end of the extra time. He didn't win penalty. So no open play goal for him in 120 minutes of the opponent Messi got eliminated by. LET ALONE, scoring some kind of goal that Messi's reportoire is apparently missing.

Remember, you argument is that Messi is not scoring in these games because of a lack of diversity in his scoring methods, so only makes sense that it follows that Ronaldo is scoring the exact type of goals in those games Messi can't, which makes up the difference, and makes up the "success" in ucl. If Ronaldo is scoring in those games type of goals that Messi scores as well because he has it in his repertoire, then the whole case is very dubious.

Atletico 2016. Ronaldo didnt score in 2016 for 120 minutes. Had arguably worse performance than Messi in both games.

The only time Ronaldo actually scored goals against an opponent in ucl that Messi got eliminated by and didn't score against is Juventus 2017.

BUT EVEN THEN, the two goals Ronaldo scored in 2017 ucl final are:

1. Pre-assisted goal from "Messi range" for 1-0.

Literally the typical Messi goal that he scored 100 times in his career so it makes no sense to use that goal as an evidence of Ronaldo's diversity being the edge in this case.

Btw, the shot by Ronaldo was heavily deflected by Chiellini's foot to the bottom left corner. Without the deflection, the shot goes straight into Buffon. So it is not even an example of clean Ronaldo big game brilliance. He had many better showings than that in big games where there is no doubt it was his individual skill and brilliance that scored goal.

2nd goal was near post run finished by Ronaldo's right foot.

Again, what are we talking about? Messi scored that goal many times and many times in big moments.

Exhibit A


0:53

Again where is the edge Ronaldo has over Messi in big games due to diverse scoring methods?

From literally the sample size you selected to be the most representative argument of your case, there is ZERO evidence of that actually being the case.

If you want to argue against the deflection in the first goal of Ronaldo against Juve 2017 is nit picking, then you have to acknowledge that Messi does have right foot goals from difficult angles in ucl big games.

Exhibit B:



THe delfected right foot finish. That is literally a tough angle right foot finish. I am sure you wouldnt want to discredit half of Ronaldo's goals in ucl final 2017, so you have to acknowledge this goal as being the type of goal you claim he can't score.

What about this one? Literally the toughest angle possible with right foot.

Exhibit C



Through the legs of no other than COURTOIS. For example, Ronaldo never scored such ridiculous angle shot with left foot in his career. @carlito86 can prove me otherwise?

Then we already spoke about the header against United in 2009 ucl final.

I mean, what is even your argument at this point?

He didn't score because of highly congested areas in big games? You mean penalty box and around it as in where 90% goals are scored in general including big ucl games and including all goals by Ronaldo you alluded to with elimination ties?

I do agree it is not a coincedence that Ronaldo scored the most ucl KO goals and has 5 ucls. But it is not due to reasons you are presenting at all.

 

You can contirbute as well.

 

Many things to say here. I can't respond to everyone at once, so I will go chronologically off the cuff.

Yes. There are two ways that having more methods of scoring goals in your toolkit can have a positive impact on your goal tally or team's winning chances:

1. Directly - by adding goals to a goal tally from more types of situations.
2. indirectly - by creating a perceived threat of a dangerous, legitimate action that opens up time and space to perform other actions more easily.

I agree.

At best, it gave him a marginal advantage over Messi in few very specific knock-out matches in a way that is an insignificant difference in the grand scheme of things, because there is nothing about it that is insurmountable by other means of scoring and performing, like shoting 10% better with your strong foot, or be 10% more match fit so you carry 10% more energy and concentration at the end of the 82nd minute shot sequence, etc.

At most, it may directly explain the difference of a few goals in their entire ucl KO stage careers, not all of it, nor most of it, nor a good portion of it. A few.

There are a ton of other variables that have a much more obvious and direct effect on goal tallies that have nothing to do with methods of scoring. For example, roles within a team, or a capacity to perform under pressure in high-stakes games.

It would be MUCH easier for Ronaldo fans to argue that Ronaldo is simply mentally much better than Messi at dealing with nerves, so he scores more in big games. As simple as that. If that is true and explains most of the difference, then the whole "more methods of scoring" argument is irrelevant.

But this is not what is being said here. It is important to be precise here. The argument is that Ronaldo scored more goals than Messi due to generally having more methods of scoring goals. The argument is about a direct causal relationship between having more methods of scoring goals and the goal tally difference between Ronaldo and Messi in the ucl KO stages. This is a much narrower argument.

Also it is blatantly false. I don't know where does your "hunch" come from regarding that (I mean, I know), but if indeed having more methods of scoring is a primary factor that in any significant way explains the difference, then we would see this causal relationship be expressed across the board in all sorts of sample sizes, no matter how you slice data and facts. That is, of course, not what is being observed.

Obvious examples:

1. If it were true, Ronaldo would demonstrate roughly the same superiority in other competitions, like WC. He doesn't, so we can automatically downgrade the argument from a category of "major contributing factor to the difference" to "at best a marginal explanation of a few specific instances".

2. Ronaldo pre-Real Madrid had already had "more methods of scoring" than any version of Messi, yet the difference was non-existent, but also negative. That further confirms what kind of marginal differences we are talking about.

Ironically, the version of Ronaldo that actually grew the difference in goal tallies between himself and Messi is the one that performed in the most limited goalscoring role thus far in his career. It is also not really ironic, because precisely that fact shows you the true dynamics that are going on behind the scenes that are worth talking about.

Also, this argument poses zero necessity to bring Messi into the equation. Just by analyzing Ronaldo's career itself, the argument doesn't hold up to observed factual reality. As I just mentioned, Ronaldo's role and shot selection has massively evolved over the years, and the assumption about having more methods of scoring yielding more goals doesn't hold up.

I don't know if you would agree, but Ronaldo in Real Madrid from 2010 to 2013 demonstrated a wider range of scoring methods than Ronaldo from 2014-2018 (especially when considering narratives about 2014 injury and how he had to change his style), yet the latter trumps the former's ucl KO stage goal tally by quite a margin. Messi is an irrelevant variable to introduce to the analysis and undeniably shows massive holes in the assumption and reasoning.

EDIT: Also, it is not possible to prove this, because it is not true in the sense it is implied here, and there are many more variables that influence goal tallies that have a much bigger role in all of it, so trying to quantify small swings from a marginal variable in such a complex soup of much more dominant variables, is statistically impossible and a futile endeavour.

 

Did he outscore any version of Messi?

 

For example, did 2007-09 Ronaldo (an all-around, "more methods of scoring" goalscorer) outscore the 2010-12 version of Messi (a limited, left foot spamming goalscorer)?

 

Please wait. I haven't finished responding to letmepost. After him, it is you chronologically.

 

Evenly matched opponents? Makes sense in general, but it depends on what it is being compared to. To league football? I think this can be safely granted as true across the board without some objective analysis, because a few weak opponents inevitably lower the average. However, this doesn't imply that all KO matches are evenly matched, there are no stylistic mismatches, or good or bad fortune with which team you draw. On average, it is true, but in real samples, it is not given. This is already an oversimplification and shaky ground to start analysis, because merely analyzing KO stages doesn't control for match-ups and variability of other factors. These factors are still inherently embedded in data. So, you are statistically achieving very little by focusing only on KO stages. The problem is that you think you are leveling a playing field for players by doing that, and getting a CLEAN slice of reality, but you are not. This already compromises any further reasoning down the line.

More constrictive open play? This is where things start becoming extremely vague, and this trend continues worse down the post.

What does that even mean exactly?

Sure, it makes sense that players in big games tend to have less time and space on the ball on average, but which type of open play goals and chances suffer the most? Which ones suffer the least? Name them precisely. By how much? By which MECHANISMS? You have to propose mechanisms as well. Mechanisms are what tie together gameplay and events on the pitch with outcomes that are measured, like goals. It is not enough to make strong inferences from weak correlations. When someone is writing a scientific article, for example, they are not merely analyzing data and inferring conclusions, they are proposing mechanisms, breaking things down into smaller components within a broader causal, mechanistic chain, then test each step independently.

I know you call that and think it is your intuition that tells you that, but that is no intuition. It is the same part in all of us that thinks we can predict the future because we just see it and others don't, but it is almost always dead wrong. You are reading too much into specific broad patterns, which is a normal human tendency. We are pattern-seeking creatures by default, which makes us great in some cases, but also delusional in others. Confirmation bias is also a pattern-seeking behavior. The problem is that patterns, by mere statistical probability, accidentally emerge all the time without underlying mechanisms to justify it. This is especially true in complex, dynamic fields such as football. Football is bound to produce many statistical artifacts that simply have no grounding in the cause-and-effect reality. It is very easy to fall prey to this human tendency to seek patterns, and it takes a disciplined thinking mind to stop for a minute and to actually "think about it". You have to question your assumptions and be honest with yourself.

And I understand that my words won't be welcomed by you here, but I can already 100% tell that that is exactly what is going on here. With what I've already outlined in my previous posts, it should be very clear how the concept of "having more methods of scoring" has little to no influence on how many goals players actually score. It has a marginal influence at best, and since this is clear, it means it is that much more difficult to statistically isolate it and measure it.

Higher emphasis on set-pieces? So, the difference between Messi and Ronaldo is explained by Ronaldo scoring set-piece goals that Messi can't score? Does Ronaldo really have that many set-piece goals in the ucl KO stages to explain the difference? You are ignoring more obvious factors that explain players' performances in KO stages, because they are "boring" to you or "mainstream" in your opinion, so you are hoping you are onto something big. Sadly, you are not. You are overintellectualizing things that are very simple.

The most dubious claim of all is the goal-threat argument, which exemplifies everything that is wrong with this argument presented here.

Threat is a real element of playing football. I absolutely agree, but it is extremely important to understand what the threat actually is and how it works in actual match situations on the pitch.

It is not some magical aura that makes a player do things easier. It has a tangible, visible consequence on the pitch in the form of defenders' reactions, and elite players constantly leverage it to accomplish stuff.

If an opposition perceives a player as a dribbling threat, the defender adjusts a way he defends against the attacker by dropping deeper, orienting his body properly, and controlling the distance between them. This opens up time and space for the attacker to pass the ball or shot. If an opposition perceives a player as a passing threat, he adjusts his defense by cutting passing lines behind him or aims to pressure the attacker right away, and so on.

When an attacker is dangerous in specific ways, and is perceived as such by an oppposition, this directly influences how the attacker is defended.

An important thing to clarify here is that a threat is not a constantly present factor on the pitch. What does that mean? It means that you can have the same attacker and the same defender, but you change their circumstances, and there is zero threat. The great dribbler in a 1-on-1 situation at the edge of the penalty box is a dangerous scenario, but the same player in a 1-on-1 situation in his own penalty box is not dangerous at all.

So there are a few different concepts to threat that need to be separated:

1. Individual ability,
2. Perception of that ability,
3. Context in which that ability actually is dangerous.

Because if you encounter a bear on the streets, you will feel very threatened by it, but if you encounter the same bear in the context of ZOOs, you will feel zero threat.

This is the mechanism by which threat changes things on the pitch. So now we don't have to wonder and keep things vague.

So we can analyze this goal by Ronaldo against Juventus in the 2017 ucl final once again:



The question is: Does Ronaldo's ability to score goals in many ways play a role in scoring this one?

The threat of scoring headers?

Zero. This is not a situation where Ronaldo's heading ability is threatening the opposition, because it is not possible to utilize it as a skill. Defenders are not changing the way they are marking Ronaldo in this situation because they know "he has many methods of scoring". Ronaldo's heading ability would not explain why he would score this goal and not Messi.

The threat of bicycle kicks?

Zero.

The threat of a half volley with a weak foot?

Zero.

The threat of a backheel shot?

Zero.

The threat of a stepover left foot shot?

Zero.

You name it. It is zero. These things actually play zero role in scoring this goal, because defenders are not changing the way they defend him due to Ronaldo possessing some mystical goalscoring abilities.

Also, most of Ronaldo's extra tools in a goalscoring toolkit are not threat-inducing. For example, bicycle kicks. Ronaldo can score bicycle kicks, but these goals are so out of the blue, that they don't cross defenders' minds and influence their behavior. A defender will never think to himself: "Oh, a potential cross is coming for Ronaldo's bicycle kick so I have to mark him more closely." This never happens, because defenders don't account for bicycle kicks.

So, okay, Ronaldo can score bicycle kicks? Cool, he scores them sometimes, but this skill of his doesn't magically induce goal-threat across the board that makes it easier for him to score in KO stages. Most peripheral methods of scoring are like this. The only legitimate method of scoring that Ronaldo has, that Messi doesn't have, and is making things easier for Ronaldo via a threat-mechanism, is heading.

And regarding the goal example, it is much more likely that Ronaldo managed to get himself in this situation to score NOT because he is a bigger goal-threat in this situation than Messi, but literally the opposite. Because Messi is a bigger threat in such situations, he is marked more tightly and has a more difficult time finding a separation.

Or are people now going to argue that Ronaldo is a bigger threat than Messi from that range?

This whole premise that Ronaldo has more or most methods of scoring, so he is magically a bigger goal-threat in KO stages, and because of it scores more, is very dubious.

It seems true only when you reduce an 11 vs 11 team sport into an analysis of 1 individual, 1 parameter, and selective, weak correlations with vague definitions.

What is actually a safe claim to make is that Messi is a player who is the most sophisticatedly marked in the entire history of football. No player in history has had to come up against a kind of coordinated defense tailored for them that a prime Messi did.

The idea that Messi lacks some kind of mystical goal-threat in KO stages due to constrictive open play, and that is why he didn't score in this or that game, is completely backwards.

 

Messi doesn't score goals because his team has more possession of the ball. Every player scores more goals when they have more time and space on the ball, including Messi. Messi himself scores more goals in transitions relative to going against set defenses. Going against a set defense while in possession is not a singular method of scoring that Messi excels at, and where most of his goals come from. It is quite the opposite. Messi adds another dimension to his game compared to other players, because he is capable of scoring in such scenarios.

Possession is a different battlefield that exists at the level of teams. Why Barcelona and similar teams cared about possession is not to help Messi or specific players give them their optimal goalscoring opportunities, but to control the ball and dictate where a game happens. The optimal scenario for Messi is not forcing him to play against a prepared defense, but to do this:



Obviously, he would prefer less defenders in front of him than more.

Also, if you have possession of the ball, the other team doesn't, which means they can't attack you. It is very much a defensive strategy as much as offensive. It is a specific philosophy of playing football.

You are mixing apples and oranges.

This is very much the essence of what I was saying earlier about drawing conclusions from correlations without understanding mechanisms on the pitch, and checking your conclusions against reality.

Most of Messi's goals came in games where his team had more possession, therefore it must be true that possession is a prerequisite for him to score.

Exactly this kind of analysis is mixing causation and correlation, which is why I told you to dig deeper, define terms clearly, propose mechanisms, and check your ideas against common sense and reality. These things happen exactly when you are reading too much into statistical artifacts and playing a statistician. Your ideas start being detached from reality, because a few cherry-picked numbers show "a pattern."

"If one mentions that Arjen Robben scored more knock-out goals than more well-rounded strikers with a diverse goal-scoring toolkit, it does not necessarily mean cutting inside and shooting with your left foot only, is the best way to maximize your goal count in knock-out rounds."

This is a false premise. KO rounds are not an entity that favors or disfavors a particular way of scoring in a way that we have to "figure out" what works in KO rounds. It is an aggregate of sample size you choose.