I don't really have that big a grudge for countries with more reach, using that leverage to spin their own narratives. Patriotism sells. Appealing to the right demographics matters for the scene overall. That cash-flow is what makes football viable as a business. I just think this is a niche enough of a website that attempts to go beyond the mainstream narratives that makes the most profits worldwide. Trying to find interesting things that the media heavily misses out on. If I wanted appeal to authority, or just spin my own agenda to the maximum number of people, I'd be somewhere else. We are here to learn, debate, and explore interesting ideas regarding football, or at least that's why I'm here, not because I have some weird hard-on for mathematics that my brain gets half-fried after two sentences of reading. I really don't know much about Denzel Dumfries but he does seem to be a really good physical specimen, that might provide extra avenues of attack through his volume of sprints, whilst also providing some aerial prowess. The type that tend to get appreciated less unless they truly excel above and beyond, and will get way less recognition than an equally flawed player (from a pragmatic approach) with superior aesthetic visuals with the ball at their feet. Below is a game from the 2022 World Cup where he topped the charts for his national team, in terms of peak speed, number of high-speed sprints, and distance covered whilst in high-speed. I do not like the idea that the rest of the players are merely pawns to properly activate the most talented players (and therefore always the best) with the ball at their feet. Some of these on-the-ball players are duds that suck all resources dry, ball-hog to no productive end, whilst getting all the tactical freedoms and being absolved of basic footballing responsibilties. I want the duds to be treated as duds, not misunderstood geniuses with the ball all the time. Maybe this take on the Plus-Minus model might recognize that with more work, and I wanted to see if it had some promise already from the get-go. Maybe Timothy Castagne would have been a better selection, but I'm basically thinking of these profiles of players with less spotlight that might have things of value to offer that is not properly recognized by the media or the WhoScored algorithms. This is a competitive realm, and I think many players don't get recognized properly for their contributions to the team. I'm hoping, and think that the model that has been discussed may help with that in the future, although ease of use is certainly not its strength as of now. I am really struggling to find a proper method of comparing players across time, due to the constant shifting nature of the formula, and the constantly changing values of the estimated peak ratings, partly from the constant modifications in the overall data that in turn changes the values that gets pumped-out, and partly due to the decay factor that seems to be utilized.
You are the one mentioning Messi every single post and keep bringing him up.. Please, add me to your ignore list if you truly feel like I am avoiding discussion.
Pelé used to say, "there is no best player in the world because players play in different positions." Perhaps it is impossible to have a fair criterion that takes into account the different roles and functions of each player. Whoscored or sofascore do try to adjust their rating according to the player's position. Obviously, it's clear that aiming for absolute objectivity and perfection will always be impossible in statistics. However, I do believe that players who carry more weight within the team are more valuable. These ratings do not favor players with a style similar to Messi’s, but rather they benefit the more "influential" players, those who have a greater presence within their teams, who take on more responsibility, and ultimately, who play more. The greatest players in history played this way: Pelé, Maradona, Cruyff, Di Stéfano, Zico. They didn’t have "Messi's style"; they had the style of those who truly know how to play football. Interestingly, these players were the ones who generated the most shots, key passes, dribbles, and passes within their teams. And if whoscored could rate them, they would be at the top of the list. If Haaland perfectly fulfills his role and gives you a goal per game, but all he does is stay in the penalty area to push the ball in, you could create a rating that values him as fulfilling his role 100%. And it would be unfair to expect Haaland to generate a large number of passes and dribbles; this is obvious. But at the same time, it is unfair to say that Haaland is a "great football player" if that’s all he does. Should we only measure their effectiveness in the specific role they are assigned, or also their overall ability as complete football players? It’s truly a dilemma. But as I said, I tend to think that a footballer's overall ability, that is, how complete he is, is the essence of what it means to be a great football player.
Maybe WhoScored didn't make their algorithm based on Messi's playing style. They just count all with the ball actions of all the players and Messi is the one that best fits their scoring system. But this is a flawed system because it doesn't count actions without the ball and also does not provide context for the computed actions. That's why Modrić is so low rated despite being one of the greatest midfielders of this century. @Letmepost @Sexy Beast as a side note, Modrić benefits from the system plus-minus. I checked from 14/15 to 23/24 and Modrić is the best ranked at +/- p90 between Real Madrid players
Even if it is true (that Luka Modric was more important to team success than appreciated by WhoScored) I do not personally enjoy FBREF's take on the plus-minus model, and think it cannot be applied universally, due to its season-by-season WhoScored-esque end score (setting a strong sample size limit) and how it probably does not use any advanced mathematical models (I am assuming here, I cannot prove it) to account for the circumstantial events overpowering the actual player contributions. Since Luka Modric was born in 1985, he also severely gets punished by the paper's quadratic equations that attempts to account for age, and there seems to be an added layer of extra decay factor (explained as the discount factor) that the author utilizes to punish older results for his lists on the YouTube channel. I tried to account for the bias by checking the estimated peak ratings (which I assumed was free from decay), but it is also influenced by the decay factor, and seems to be quite poorly written mathematically speaking overall (compared to the immediate current ratings at least, again this is speculation due to the lack of reveal of the exact formulas). This means that Luka Modric is not the optimal candidate to check for the workings behind this model. I was thinking more the age-range of somebody like Thiago Alcantara. The players that start to reach the age of 28 or so, around the year 2018, when the YouTube channel starts revealing the top 100 lists. Again, I do not plan to use the algorithm to hyper-analyze the finer details between someone famous like Lionel Messi and Neymar, despite the two being quite similar in profile. I am hopeful that this model that the forum found has future capacity to evaluate the literal thousands of nameless, yet strikingly useful for the team types, that gets regularly fisted over by the WhoScored algorithms over the more noticeable by style, but pragmatically useless players. I hope for universal application. Nothing I found has the capacity to do it thus far, including the most knowledgeable humans regarding football. WhoScored is far from doing it. This is a mere take-off of a premise that maybe can approach doing it in the future. I want to find out without agenda-driven people knowingly aggravating to me no ends. Sorry for the long rant.
I think the disparity in the way of proper mathematical usage when handling a nuanced topic like the plus-minus ratings, was already addressed by an article from the Athletic. The same player, the same specific selction of the rating at a moment in time, and similar statistical concepts, can lead to extremely different results depending on manner of the mathematical approach, and it is why I heavily stressed the level of mathematical integrity and the possibility of improvement in the future. Why do the numbers show that Real Madrid do better without Toni Kroos? - The Athletic (nytimes.com) I don't know exactly which version of Hvattum's formula (I'm assuming more recent models based on the date of the article, and the graph displaying data from 2024), and what sort of decay-factor was used, but Toni Kroos rating peaks around 2018, around the age of 27, as the equation would probably force it in some ways (due to its quadratic equations). A similar take on the plus-minus model according to Goalimpact says that by 2018, and you can see that his ratings dip below the Bundesliga average by age 27 or so, partly due to difficulties separating his contributions from the superlative performances of the teammates around him. That's a stark difference to the ratings worked out by the formulas used by Hvattum. TLDR 1) Use proper mathematical approaches for this concept. Don't try this at home if you suck at maths. 2) Perhaps the papers of Hvattum had a better mathematical take on this concept than those before, I certainly think so. 3) Even if he did not, it does not necessarily mean any attempts to discuss football from this angle is always going to be utterly useless, since the variety of mathematical approaches will be endless in terms of spectrum.
Roles are product of heirarchies and hierarchies are in every aspect of life: in human body, in emotions, in thoughts, in animals, in plants, in social groups, in government, in law and legislation, in education, in acting, in companies, in sports,.. wherever there is a complex, dynamic interplay between multiple entities, there is hierarchy. Football is no different. This is for one simple fact that hierarchies are the only way to organize different entities into a functional unity. Lack of hierarchy is a doomsday scenario. Existance of hierarchies by definition imply that some things are more valuable than others. If a janitor in some company does 100% perfect job, he makes the company slightly better, but if a CEO of the company does merely a good job, it will have a disproportionally good imapct on well-being of the company. This is not to say that the janitor's work is meaningless. The company does depend on him doing a good job, but to say that janitor who does a perfect job is better or more important than CEO who does a good job is fundamentally wrong. The same applies within a football team. Some people might object that and call it unfair, but these people are extremely naive, out of touch with reality and idealogical. As long as there is a freedom to move up and down a hierarchical structure, the structure is good and fair. There shouldn't be an artificially made up criteria to evaluate janitors equally to CEOs. However, this should not stop from appreciating collective effort of all individuals in all roles within an organization nor discourage conversation on how someone would do if they were put in a more influential role. After all, football is a team sport.
In this case, the CEO is the club's president. And the janitor is any outfield or goalkeeper player. In this case there is no role more important than the other (among the players). From roles #1 to #11 they are all equally important. You can't say that #10 is more important than #7 or #9.
Yes, there are major differences. Albeit not as drastic as in the example of janitor and CEO. Central forwards are the most valuable and fullbacks are the least. That is why there are disparities in wages, fame, player of the match rewards and individual accolades. Fullback will never win a ballon d'Or because they are at the bottom of the pecking order. This is nothing controversial. Anyone who has ever made a top 10 list of some sort has accepted this reality.
Take Liverpool for example. Do you think TAA is the least important player on the team? Because for me he is one of the 4 most important along with Alison, VVD and Salah. The same thing Marcelo at Real, Dani Alves at Barça, etc...Last season Grimaldo was one of, if not the most important player at Leverkusen. Do you think Maldini was Milan's least important player in winning the Champions League? I would say that Maldini was more important than Inzaghi for Milan. Lahm were more important for Bayern than Mario Gomes. There is no function more important than another. It depends on how well the function is performed. Your example only applies to non-players. For example: the coach is more important than any player. And the club president is more important than the coach.
As I said, the difference between roles on the football pitch is not as drastic as in the case of janitor and CEO. You actually proved my point by highlighting fullbacks who were absolutely exceptional in their roles and still not having much impact or recognition. Maldini being a more valuable player than a mediocre striker is not due to function of his role and responsibilities, but because he was so individually great that despite operating in inherently less valuable role, he managed to equal if not outperform someone in inherently more valuable role. If you want to make a fair comparison, compare Maldini, who is considered one of the best fullbacks of all time with someone like Ronaldo Nazario, who is considered one of the best strikers of all time.. who is considered better/more valuable at their prime? Ronaldo is often considered amongst top 20 players of all time, while Maldini is not. That is not because Maldini had some major weaknesses in his game and was incapable of performing some part of his responsibilities as a fullback (he was quite complete player), but because he was a fullback and his circle of influence on the pitch was limited by responsibilities of his role. Off the bat, no matter how well Maldini performed as a fullback, he can not compete with the best attackers of all time........ due to his role.
https://www.90min.com/posts/50-greatest-footballers-all-time-ranked https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/ranked-the-100-best-football-players-of-all-time/9 http://xtrahistory.blogspot.com/2013/01/Greatest-Ever.html?m=1 He was ranked 21st all time in the famous end of century vote by world soccer(1999) Garrincha was then in the 20th century supposedly the GOAT winger Whether he was or not is completely irrelevant because you are only talking about perception Look how many points are separating him and maldini Bobby Moore(a defender)2 points behind R9 at his absolute peak(1999) in terms of popularity and on field performances In any case Maldini retired in 2009(and he was a starter for Milan as late as 2009 not a bit part player) He won multiple CL titles in the 2000s,multiple league titles,reached a EURO final etc It was a extremely successful period for him(not as much as the late 80s going into the early to mid 1990s but still) That’s a decade worth of football to move up at least one place Maldini in the 2000s was also in no way inferior to R9 in the 2000s No way
Why do you always have to so ferociously argue against one side point or word/number? You are completely capable of understanding my overarching point.. The idea of top 20 player of all time is meaningless and quite arbitrary. I could have said top 10 of all time and my point would stand. Do the breakdown of players included in top 50 lists per position (forwards, midfielders, defenders, goalkeepers) and tell me again my point doesn't stand. .. I am not saying anything controversial or unknown
Use better examples and stop foaming at the mouth the least you could do is admit that the very best players of all time are represented very well in these all time lists regardless of their function on the pitch there is a GK for gods sake ahead of R9 A goalkeeper do you want there to be 10 goalkeepers ahead of him?
If all roles were equally valuable, they would be equally represented in such lists, ballon dors, player of the match/tournament awards, match ratings, etc.
will be ???? I saw so many many whole matches Beckenbauer and Gerd Muller between 1966 until 1977 .. the own Beckenbauer speaks ..that Gerd Muller was the most important Player of the German Football . !
Throughball Assists per90 In Whoscored database Through Ball: A pass splitting the defence for a team mate to run on to. Out of Box goals Per90 In Whoscored database
So why do you think Beckenbauer is often put in top 10 players of all times and not Gerd Müller? And why do you think Beckenbauer were ranked higher than Gerd Müller in all the 3 UCL titles (74, 75 and 76), the euro (72) and the world cup (74) in the Ballon d'Or rankings? Obviously the perception of the media was that Beckenbauer were more important for those campaigns than Gerd Müller. Edit: kicker ratings at Bundesliga on those seasons: https://www.kicker.de/bundesliga/topspieler/1971-72 https://www.kicker.de/bundesliga/topspieler/1973-74 https://www.kicker.de/bundesliga/topspieler/1974-75 https://www.kicker.de/bundesliga/topspieler/1975-76 Beckenbauer always in first place while Gerd Müller always out of top 10
Let's go ! let's shoot the works right now ! ... ... of course that Franz Beckenbauer..was technically much more ++++ brilliant, elegant and much more+++ technically complete too.."ambi-dextrous quality " and more++ complete also in general.. mentally, physically, tactically, “skills and talent”, technically But in effectiveness, in objectivity not for sure either. ....Gerd Muller was a monster in Born Decision-making Power ... .. Decisions for sure is one of the most important Attributes in Professional Football .. Professional Football ... is not FreeStyle Championship 2 .. are different Sports with a Football Ball ..! Gerd Muller higher positive things on the him Profile : Attacking ===== 97 or 99 BodyBalance ===== 83 or 86 Strenght ==== 85 or 87 Short Acceleration ==== 85 Response ======= 99 Short Dribbles ==== 83 Pass deeper with BackHeel ===== 86 PLays one-twos or Short Pass in speed ==== 88 or 90 ... Long Range Pass with left foot like inthe final against Leeds in 1975 ,... 1 Pre-Assist ... he makes too much Plays one-Twos .. with FRanz Beckenbauer great combinations ,,between them or .. with Netzer... Shot Accuracy ==== 97 or 98 Shot Power ---===== 85 or 86 Shot Technique ===== 95 or 96 Heading Accuracy ===== 88 or 92 .. Jumping Reach ...====== 85 or 86 Classical Technique ===== 82 or 83 Aggression ====== 98 or 99 Condition ... ==== 88 Consistency ===== 92 or 93 Weak Foot frequency ==== 80 Weak Foot accuracy ===== 86 First Shots moments mentality ==== 90 or 92 Team worker Player ===== 86 or 88 Concentration ==== 90 ... per 96 minutes ... Short Anticipating pretty good always ===== 90 Behaviour in Big matches ... or in Big Finals Enjoys in Big matches 1, 10 % average and accuracy in big finals .. ! for example Ronaldinho Gaucho in big finals .. is only 0, 48 % the behaviour , accuracy and average in 27 matches til 30 matches finals in career .. Trembles in Big matches at Average ... ! like Dennis Bergkamp .. Michael Laudrup ....Roberto Baggio ...Thierry Henry ...etc .. etc .etc .. DECISION MAKING POWER ... YOU CAN'T LEARN THAT , YOU EITHER HAVE IT OR YOU DON'T HAVE IT .. ! AND STRONGER PERSONALITY ARE NOT FOR SALE ..ON THE SQUARE ! The Own Beckenbauer says there sometimes !