Mate, you are doing nothing but exposing your own bias and fanaticism of Cristiano Ronaldo. It is actually you who talks about, values only things Ronaldo is good at at the expense of reason, consistency and objectivity. You are catering your whole belief system regarding football to fit Ronaldo's qualities and then going around projecting and accusing others of doing that.. You have no appreciation of football. Ronaldo actually doesn't excell at shots on target. He excells at domineering his teams and teammates into giving him as much freedom and shoting chances as possible. The actual reason he has as many shots on target as he has is due to his unparalleled shot volume. He is by far the most chance-expensive attacker in modern football averaging more than 8 shots per game at some points while the second on the list is not even above 6. When looking at shots on target percantage, Ronaldo is damn average if not bellow average. Ronaldo is a phenomenal footballer but he is a self-obsessed egomaniac who makes teammates around him worse. This is the truth. ... The main reason why shots on target should barely be rated in this kind of table is because the ultimate upside of shots on target, which is scoring a goal, is already included in the table by non-penalty goals. Including shots on target as well as goals is double counting. Even the 0.1 is quite generous because shoting on target is not an objective in football, it doesn't require much skill to find the target and therefore is easy to stat padd. Anyone with functioning legs can recieve a pass 35 meters away from goal and make 10 weak shots per game that finds the target but possess no threat whatsoever. It is not a metric to evaluating anything by.
You are so superior and intelligent. Always insulting the people you disagree with, and writing in the most condescending fashion. All the while you make a thousand grammatical and spelling errors. Buddy, Ronaldo won 5 CLs, and reached 5 finals. This man does not make his teammates worse
As expected, you begin your response with an ad-hominem fallacy accusing me of bias/fanaticism instead of addressing the argument. Ironically you show bias in your negative characterization of Ronaldo. Oh the hypocrisy. Correlation does not imply causality. His high volume of shots is not only due to "domineering" his team. This is the famous false cause fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc). In fact, most of your essays are full of logical fallacies. Now you deliberately cherrypick an stat (8 shots) while ignoring his goalscoring record to support your biased point. See the contradiction. You admit that Ronaldo is a phenomenal footballer but uses this cherrypicked stat to downplay his actual achievements. A player consistently producing shots on target is likely to contribute more to the game's objectives (i.e. scoring goals). Dismissing it by saying that they should "barely be rated" contradicts the very idea of what makes a player "phenomenal". See the contradiction here. You state that shots on target aren't a valuable metric because goals are already counted but shot accuracy can directly correlate with goalscoring ability and dismissing it outright contradicts the underlying logic. Also, your argument that "shots on target are easy to statpad" also is contradictory given the importance of accuracy on elite football. As if "anyone with functioning legs" could achieve this ignoring completely the complexity of positioning, technique and decision making involved in making shots on target in high level football. You're oversimplificating a nuanced part of the game to an absurd conclusion which again is another logical fallacy. "It doesn't require much skill to find the target"? For the sake of goodness. Let's just ignore how much tactical awareness, technical ability and skill it takes to even get a shot on target against world-class defenses. Stop trivializing it. You're using an extreme example to dismiss the metric. Your conclusion that "Ronaldo's shots on target percentage are average/below average" are based on your premise that Ronaldo's shot volume makes him chance expensive. That is, your conclusion is embedded in the premise without proper evidence to support it. Guess what? Another logical fallacy. Without empirical evidence to support your claims, they are nothing
Shots on target is pointless when you have non-penalty goals as a measure.. I mean if something it value wild shots and inneficiency.
I think that to increase the value of goalscorers, goals could be divided into three categories: header goals, goals from outside the box, and then goals scored inside the box but without headers and without penalties. In this case, Cristiano would be a 10 for header goals, Messi a 10 for goals from outside the box (including free kicks), and Haaland would be a 10 for goals scored inside the box. Shots on target removed
There can be benefits to high volume if you have a player that can manage to convert a low probability shot and if those shots are not lowering the probability of better chances. Given the high scoring volume in la Liga and CL - I would say in that context CR7 was phenomenal
I personally think there is a stark difference between the most complete attacking player with the ball at his feet, and the actual most complete attacking player. I will assume Trachta10 was attempting improve the WhoScored algorithm in terms of finding the most complete attacking player, not a measurement of a certain stylistic flavour, as an homage to players of this mold like Lionel Messi and Neymar. Continuing my point about the previously mentioned his algorithm noticeably favouring nimble take-on artists, much more than physically imposing target-strikers, who both open up avenues in the attacking third via differing manners. There could be adjustments to try and quantify their overall outputs, and become less susceptible to stylistic favouritism. Most obviously, I personally believe the element of aerial-duels won should be added, if we are discussing the topic of complete attackers. Especially if we wish to do any sort of justice for the more traditional target strikers being put up against playmaking dribblers. If ignored entirely, there comes a point where even a mediocre dribbler any of half-decent capacity comes out on top over a capable traditional target-striker. To address the issue more poignantly, I'll use three players I feel are more one-dimensional than the more well-rounded list of players addressed before who sort of mask the issue due to their individual completeness. I purposefully left out players such as Adama Traore who would ruin all the pre-existing ratios responsible for the individual scores, due to being even more of an outlier in terms of successful dribbles per 90 minutes in WhoScored-database matches, even more so than Lionel Messi. All of the players mentioned below fall within the parameters set by the original list (as in, there is nobody who broke the limits set by the likes of Haaland, Cristiano Ronaldo, Iniesta, De Bruyne, Messi, and Bellingham). 1) Olivier Giroud: 6.95 career average rating on WhoScored 2) Adnan Januzaj: 6.75 career average rating on WhoScored 3) Bryan Gil: 6.53 career average rating on WhoScored This is not a measurement of who I appreciate the most as on-the-ball talents, or who I would prefer to watch on YouTube, just purely who I think would benefit the team more if my money was on the line. Their WhoScored career average rating was 6.95, 6.75, and 6.53 respectively, so from the WhoScored data-set alone, the WhoScored algorithm favours Olivier Giroud slightly more. These three players put through the Trachta10 algorithm comes out with the following scores (I only rounded up the numbers at the last possible moment in the calculations): 1) Olivier Giroud: 3.47 points He is only rated as a mediocre non-penalty goal threat, and penalized very heavily for his lack of dribbles and pass volume. None of his merits as a physical and aerial presence upfront is valued by this methodology. 2) Adnan Januzaj: 4.19 points As a creative wide player, he ranked higher than Giroud for four of the aspects of play measured (rated lower for non-penalty goals and shots on target). 3) Bryan Gil: 3.88 points A mobile and technical winger, who I consider mediocre due to his lack of productivity and physicality, by the virtue of his playstyle ranked higher than Olivier Giroud. This was what I meant by the algorithm being even more blatantly biased against target strikers than the WhoScored algorithm, which I feel is already tilted in favour of the on-the-ball magicians in general.
Looks like I was too late with the suggestions, but here are some unpolished thoughts for the new algorithm. 1) I think the new equation with the added element of headed goals allows a fuller evaluation of those who can play the role of target-strikers. However, I think aerial duels won in general should be added also. There are players who add another dimension to the attack via not just scoring, but setting up plays with your back-to-the-goal via aerial superiority. Olivier Giroud made a career out of such traits. As an example, Romario scored a lot of headed goals, but I feel it was more based on elusive movement rather than back-to-goal strength and set-up play via aerial superiority. There should be a separation of those who could score with their head, and those who added an aerial dimension to their play like Marco van Basten. 2) I don't think types of goals should be weighted to such extents. I personlly would the variety of methods should be rewarded by the absolute goal count, not separately, for aesthetic purposes. If a player scores more beautiful goals, but lacks the overall output, he should not be rewarded in a pragmatic quantification process in my opinion. An example is Mohamed Salah being punished for lacking outside of the box goals compared to Heung-Min Son, despite being more of a goal-threat overall. 3) It is extremely difficult to properly rate a player who does most of his actions with the ball, like James Rodriguez, and a more off-the-ball centric player like Thomas Muller. It is something that WhoScored struggles heavily with also, in my opinion. I personally have no answers for this, other than maybe the quantification of amount of goals scored by the team, with and without the player in question. I think FBREF tracks this statistic, but I am yet unsure how to make proper usage out of it.
"The argument" It is a pretty straight-forward conversation. I stand by everything i've said here. You responded to me and now purposefully ignoring the context of my words, which is Trachta's table attempt.
That’s the thing—everyone has different priorities. Personally, I also prefer volume, which is why I advocate for Ronaldo as the best. However, I can see the arguments for Messi being valid as well, since he was a more complete player.
Yes, I've already gone into more detail on this subject before so there was no need to write everything I You know very well that for you and some other forum users, everything that Cristiano is better than Messi doesn't matter. While everything that Messi is better than Cristiano for you is the most important aspects of the game. "I'm going to focus on a small part of the text because I'm not prepared to deal with the text as a whole right now." When you stop using logical fallacies and start using empirical evidence and logical reasoning to support your claims then we can have a healthy discussion. Edit: come on mate, "Ronaldo make his teams worse", "anyone with functioning legs can do it", etc...
Unlike you, I went into an in-depth comparison of Cristiano and Messi highlighting both strengths and weaknesses of each many times before and you actually repped those posts. On the other hand, you are incapable of praising Messi in any way, shape or form taking every opportunity to belittle him on every thread. I can not engage in side discussions with someone who selectively reads and interprets my words and has no intention of expanding conversation.. For example: I have never said that. Everybody can scroll up and see what I actually said.. That doesnt even make sense. Ronaldo would have to be a net negative player for that to be the case. The contrary is the truth. Cristiano is a phenomenal, one of the greatest players ever who makes his teams muuuch better. My actual words are: See this word teammates? That is quite a different word than "teams." And you want me to engage with this argumentation. "Arguing with fools is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway." You are arguing foolishly. You see me as your nemesis, a Messi fan, and have a need to "win" to cover up your insecurities regarding Ronaldo. It is okay with me.. you can think you've made good points and you won.
Please, conscisely and clearly write exactly what is unreasonable about words I've said. I would be curious to see what about my words is illogical.
Your arguments are always full of logical fallacies (i.e. ad hominem, straw man, overgeneralization, oversimplification, circular reasoning, false dichotomy, false cause, cherry-picking, etc... Spare me of explain them, either you already know or you can just Google them), ironies and general weaknesses (lack of empirical evidence to support your claims). I'll wait for you to address to the post I made previously: and then I'll answer this one: And this also:
I am not going to respond to 100 side-points you bring up to deflect from my original statements because I will not take time to write an essay just for someone to selectively read and misinterpret it in whichever way it fits them in a moment... just like i clearly demonstrated you did in the last post about ronaldo making his teammates worse. However, if you come around and write it conscisely and clearly, I am open to explaining my reasoning further. Preferably one by one because it is easier to handle.
A friend is counting the clutch goals and assists of Messi and Cristiano and the team's clutch goal contribution. A crazy fact is that in the first 1000 matches, Messi has more clutch goals than Cristiano.
@SayWhatIWant I saw you talking about whether SofaScore would compensate 5 dribbles being worth more than a goal. I don't know if this is the case with Sofascore but apparently it is the case with SexyBeast. 5 dribbles=3.5 1 non penalty goal=1
@Sexy Beast if we're excluding the shots on target because the npg are already being counted, then let's exclude the key pass and count only opta assists
This is not how you should take into account the things, think again. It is a scale. I mean identifying key events in a match and combining that with positive results in a result is a difficult task. Below is what appears to be an attempt to classify the correlation between the two: https://imgur.com/opiFnMJ Table 11 is also interesting. https://www.researchgate.net/public...atings_and_event-level_performance_statistics
This is quite an interesting approach that I might prefer over the methodology behind than WhoScored algorithms, which I mostly appreciate for the open-source data, rather than the points allocated from the data. Assuming that the plus-minus model approximates a player's contribution to the team's success, would you personally agree with the paper's ranking of the players based on their performances from 2009 to 2017, and to which degree? I purposefully ignored the Enhanced Plus-Minus model since it does seem like a model purposefully built to praise the forwards and creative midfielders only, with a necessary fail-safe of minimum requirement of minutes played due to how weird the list gets au-naturel, unlike the more sturdy regular model that doesn't require such heavy tweaking and extra-requirements for a satisfying list. All the players for the Regular Plus-Minus model had a minimum of 3,263 minutes of sample size (for the top 20 players at least), with most surpassing 10,000 minutes played, so I do not think the sample bias is huge here. 1) For example, I sort of like how the model appreciates Thomas Muller more than the conventional WhoScored, or Sofascore models seems to, but at the same time I'm not sure if I'm okay with him being number one. He is under-appreciated in terms of effectiveness, in my opinion, but he seems way too highly rated here. 2) I also love how the regular model includes a wide mix of roles and positions, as opposed to the forwards and creative midfielders that often dominate the WhoScored algorithms. This is the direction that I personally want statistical analysis to venture into, as opposed to calculating who is the most effective at replicating the mesmerizing playstyle of Diego Maradona. We already have the eye-test for that. The Enhanced Plus-Minus model with its minutes played requirements, and extra-hard focus on playmakers seems a forceful misrepresentation of who actually helps the team win, in my opinion. The enhanced model is literally rigged in a manner that makes it impossible for a goal-keeper to break into the top 20, no matter how godlike he is, unless he literally does all the goal-keeping duties as well as the field-player duties simultaneously. Advanced statistics should help fix spectator percepton bias errors, not help enforce it. 3) I'm sort of surprised with N'Golo Kante's omission since I personally thought he would be appreciated more by the regular plus-minus models. 4) Cristiano Ronaldo's omission seems very surprising to me also, although he does make an appearance in the Enhanced Plus-Minus model, but as I mentioned before, it is a list specifically catered towards forwards, and creative midfielders. 5) Plus-minus models, and its usefulness, limitations, and statistical significance can maybe be explained better by fans of other sports who use this model more than football. Very interesting article overall, at least for me.
That is actually, finally a good point.. i suggested values off the top of my head. I havent wrote a masters on it. You are free to suggest your own weights
Where do you see opta assists in the table. And it is not quite the same scenario. Key passes have standalone value. And some sources count key passes as passes that lead to a shot but not a goal so it would be literally the opposite of opta assits - everything else but assists
I looked in the glossary of fbref, SofaScore and WhoScored and in all 3 what I found was basically "assisted shots". None of them made this separation. Furthermore, the "shot on target" can have a 0.99 xGoT and the goalkeeper can still defend it. I think it would be reasonable to only count opta assists instead of also counting key passes since we are only counting non penalty goals and not shots on target. Or we could count both key passes and shots on target to get a more nuanced and overall picture