More players, effectiveness value x3, the score divided into pass, dribble, defense and attack The same score of some players for single world cup
I realized other thing, Messi in WC2014 made 46 dribbles https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/world-cup-comparisons/lionel-messi-2014/ but here it said he made 5.8 dribbles in 7 games, thats 41 dribbles in total, the number is not correct because for get the right total I have to multiply 5.8 by 720 which is the total minutes played by Argentina, then divided by 90, and that give you 46 dribbles in total. In short, I underestimated the numbers, for players whose teams played extra-time, so I have to correct that. More players for single world cup, now Messi14 have 9.31 pts insted of 8.37.
I realized other thing, Messi in WC2014 made 46 dribbles https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/world-cup-comparisons/lionel-messi-2014/ but here it said he made 5.8 dribbles in 7 games, thats 41 dribbles in total, the number is not correct because for get the right total I have to multiply 5.8 by 720 which is the total minutes played by Argentina, then divided by 90, and that give you 46 dribbles in total. In short, I underestimated the numbers, for players whose teams played extra-time, so I have to correct that. More players for single world cup, now Messi14 have 9.31 pts insted of 8.37.
Where did you find this? It is very interesting As I said before, if we only consider the average of 7 games, Cruyff's performance is the best performance in the history of the World Cup, but Maradona has a more valuable performance due to a weaker team and better knockout stage. Do you have Maradona's stats in the 1986 World Cup?
The rating system of Sofascore seems broken for me. It is designed for modern football They give to much value to goals, shots per game, key passes per game, and in a time where teams make a lot of shots per game, the rating will give you really high values.
The best thing to do is to analyse things in context, and see the percentage involvement a player has for his team, and see what direct responsibility the player had in making his team win. For example. The participation in the shots of the team. Maradona in 1986 has 30 shots and 27 key passes out of 101 team shots: 56.44% Cruyff in 1974 has 17 shots and 36 key passes out of 137 team shots: 38.69% Duels won: Maradona has 122 out of 419: 29.12% Cruyff has 77 out of 448: 17.19% Accurate Passes: Maradona has 209 out of 2137: 9.78% Cruyff has 270 out of 2518: 10.72% Then if you see the goals and assists that put the team ahead, this is the direct participation the player has in make his team surpass the opponent. Maradona has 4 vs South Korea vs England vs Belgium vs Germany Cruyff has 2 vs Argentina vs Brazil
With these, you cannot measure the impact of the player,,If you look at his impact on Barcelona's goals, it's not much, but Barcelona was very weak without Cruyff.The most famous example is the 73-74 season and Barcelona, which was very weak without Cruyff Of course, I am not saying that Maradona was better or Cruyff,This was just an example For me, Maradona has a more valuable performance
Giving value to shots per se is IMO wrong to be honest. Why is taking a shot a good thing by default, I don't get it? I don't fully agree with you Trachta on the percentage contribution thing by the way either (although I do think your project is great, and shows us all very interesting data) because it shouldn't detract from a player too much if his team-mates are involved in making chances. What your data might show is that Argentina were a little closer to a one-man team (or one-star team might be a better phrase), although maybe that would be a slightly rash conclusion because other Argentina players were also involved in starting moves, keeping possession etc, and Cruyff can be and was also involved in starting things going from deep etc so his influence won't only be on the final 'chances created' (as many of those as he had). I feel like 'Chances provided' or even 'Potential assists' can even be better descriptions for chances created in some ways (or key passes as Sofascore is listing them as) although it doesn't really matter as long as we know what is meant by it I suppose. I agree that the overall scores can be debatable, because it depends on what value is placed on each thing (as well as the obvious thing that every similar 'action' is valued the same even if not of the same quality, and sometimes for example less dribbles can be better than more as a move develops or a long run with several 'dribbles' can end in loss of control when maybe several of the dribbles happened when the ball was nearly lost too or something, or an accurate pass can still happen after a bad first touch loses the chance for a more progressive pass or whatever, or certain players may play a lot of passes without progressing play especially well at times - so I'm just saying there's not complete context about what is happening, just quantitative data). What is definitely good though, is to have all the data available again (although maybe for group games it's harder to see, and maybe the wider data for each player is hidden and only shown for the whole tournament or individual games where players are in the top 50s...unless I haven't looked fully at everything available?), and I suppose the marks out of 10 do give some sort of guide at least, so extremely high numbers can be indicative of great performances, even though sometimes in blow-out wins where a player scores a few he might get a very high mark by default, and various 10 out of 10 grades are probably not really worth that (which happens with WhoScored too of course).
Cruyff winning the penalty was pretty much a contribution that put his team ahead in the Final too, plus it was the same vs Bulgaria and he pre-assisted the opening goal vs Uruguay too. I wouldn't say that only goals to put teams ahead have value though - goals to put teams two or three goals ahead,or put them level or narrow the deficit by one goal (not that those latter things are relevant here) can also be crucial. Not to discount your analysis about that completely Trachta, but yeah, it's interesting to know, but those aren't the only important goals. I also probably would lean towards Maradona 86 over Cruyff 74 by the way, with similar reasoning to ffff15, but in surely a very close call at least.
Well, about the shots, basically players that score more is because they shot more, so in a rough way we can say that players that create more "shooting actions" give his team more probabilities to score. This is a very rough way to see this but you get the idea. About the idea of analyse the stats using percentages, I am convinced that this is more correct than analyzing the numbers in absolute values, it is not perfect of course, because nothing is perfect when we talk about stats. but, if we see just goals per game, key passes per game, etc, this can be really unfair, especially when we compare across different "eras" but then of course, see the things in percentage can also inflate the values of players that play in weak teams. Maybe yes, or maybe not.. Because, this is a team sport you know.. the performance of any player is strongly dependent on the performance of his teammates. A great player surrounded by very bad players can't create almost anything, even if we see the stats in percentage. So this is very debatable in a team sport like football. Is not a coincidence that the best players of all time, all of them played in super-mega teams.. but It's not like Maradona has played in such a bad team either in this case haha. Then of course people can discuss how good statistics really are at representing reality, and use more advanced stats, and then go more and more deep with the analysis. We could do that, but I don't know if it would get us anywhere, or if this really changes the opinions we already had of some player. In the end it's all very subjective.
Yeah, on the shots point I have to be honest I would still see it as flawed to credit them statistically (it can also be a sign of playing on a stacked team, of being 'selfish', of and end to end game etc, not only about whether a player can make space for shots, dribble himself past players to shoot, take up good positions even though yeah these things can have an effect too...but a low scoring % from shots in general would be more bad than good I'd have thought, yet crediting shots with positive marks goes against this really - if a player takes a shot he is giving up every opportunity to do anything else and then it just depends whether he scores or not - those opportunities can be carrying on dribbling for a better opening, passing to a team-mate in a good scoring position, carrying on the team move with a pass and all these various kinds of things). On the rest, I do understand what you mean though and yeah it's not simple at all haha! I certainly see the value in looking at contributions, but just not as the be all and end all I suppose.