The (to be) best players of 2020s

What about my statements is utnrue and unreliable? What framework is missing in my words?

None of what I said is speculation. It is observation.

Speculation: "the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence"

Observation: "a statement based on something one has seen, heard, or noticed"

Speculation would be if I said Pedri would have had higher xA creation than Kimmoch if he played for Bayern instead of Kimmich, but I havent done that. I made statements based on observation.

You can disagree with my observations. But I also can say grass is green and you can disagree with that. Sure, if you want to do that..

Tell me exactly how one measures and proves grass is green with numbers? You can't. Many things are unquantifiable, yet would that make the statement that grass is green nonsensical and "speculation"? Or is stating that grass is green has some truth and validity to it even if it can not be proven with numbers?

The empahsis that everything ought to and needs to be "proven" through measurement is very naive perspective. Person who thinks that data tells you who is better simply doesnt understand measurement and statistics. Numbers are numbers and they say nothing about whonis better. Arguments and conclusions always boil down to value judgement and interpretation of a person and to do so you need observations.

You cant work your way around observations. Observations are building blocks of perception and frameworks (and therefore arguments and evaluation) so to suggest that somehow making observations is a radical flaw in an argument is completely the opposite of how thinking actually works.

If you disagree, you can disagree with observations I made, but not act as if making observations is some flawed methodology when discussing comparisons.

Funny how you call it "observable" trends. Observable implies observer and it's an observer who gives meaning to any data. You think numbers have meaning and that you are simply reading hardcore, objective numbers without any interpretation, but the truth is that you are giving meaning to those numbers. You are not aware that every single time you are the one throwing all of your assumptions and observations on the hardcore data and making them "trend."

In reality, numbers never prove anything and discussion can not be grounded in numbers and objectivity. Data can only be used in one way: to make observations. And then we are back at square one..

You say this is the core disagreement and yet just repeat what I've said earlier in different words.

As I said, Kimmich is better at ball distribution, offering tactical and positional stability, etc. Since Kroos retired, I think Kimmich is the best player at what he does - in a Kimmich role.

On the top of Pedri not being as good in that role, he also doesnt spend his enitre time doing that, so it would be normal for Pedri to lag behind in statistical markers typical for Kimmich's role. Having that saod, Pedri is one of the best in the world in this role as well, just not at the level of Kimmich.

I dont agree on ball progression (this is a complex concept that doesnt mean passing forward as many times as possible) and with the notion of versatility. Kimmich is not a remarkably versatile player. He can basically play in 4 positions (CM, DM, LB, RB) and when he does, he always offers the same qualities. His quality and style doesnt change, he simply does the same thing but operates in sloghtly different areas on the pitch. That is not versatility in a way that many others, including Pedri can offer.

I will answer the rest later

 

Let me blitz through this.

It is not "importance" of observation. Observations is the primary phenomenon. Stats are extrapolation of observation. Numbers, statistics, math do not exist in reality, hey are human invetions, extrapolation of observations. Math is not something that exists in an objective reality and then we have discovered it, it is a human invention. Statistics come from observing patterns in reality and codifiyng it. Observation is always at the core of it. This is improtant because it shows that you can never ground reality in statistics, you can only use statistics to describe observed patterns. It is always the case. The idea that you can ground a claim in statistics in a way you avoid subject and observations is false because statistics itself is grounded in observation. Observation is the primary phenomenon. There is nothing else. Everything is build upon observations.

Observations are not a method, it is the only method. The only difference is that statistics are so detached from its original (simple) observations upon which they are built that it feels like it is different to it. You are just not seeing the breadcrumbs that lead to statistics. It is based on the same things, observing patterns and it is expressed through language of mathematics. As any language it has rules that are made up. But language is not reality. Everything is based on observations so no going around it, and it is certainly not a method.

So it is not a problem with observations jsut that you dont understand it how I made the observation about the higher ceiling of imapct and you dont trust me, ou dotn trust my observations. And you shouldnt, ou should trust only your osbervations.. hoe i made this claim is simple. It is a "complex" that is based on simpelr ones. I will plow through them at the expense of clarity:

Observation 1:

Not every part of the pitch has the same level of threat. If a player is a right fulbback and he makes a perfect dribble 70 meters from the oppositions goal, threat of the dribble is not high. If the same dribble is performed 20 meters of the goal, just outside penalty box, technically the same dribble will produce higher threat (have higher impact) just based on positioning. So it can be visualized as a (fluid, ever-changing) map of level of threat.

Overall impact of a player is a positive change in game states he produces either by creating threat and opennings or capitalizing on it (palymaking and goalscoring)

This dynamoc can be osberved in many ways. One way is observinf how teams actually defend their goal. The point of defending is to neutralize threat and impact of the opposition. And if you osberve how teams defend. How they strategize around it, organize, what they are trying to prevent, you will see a clear pattern. All teams ever are defending the most vulnerable areas on the pitch (vulenrability is threat from the other point of view). The most vilenrable area on the pitch is a central area close to the goal. If you observe defensive formations you will see they are congested, narrow and formed AROUND the msot vulnerable area, which is the middle of the defensive formation.

Teams do not defend flanks because flanks do not have the same level of threat. They defend centrally because it is understood and known and unquestionably the msot threatening arwa on the pitch.

And if you have a perfect player who cna perfectly shot, pass, dribble, defend, etc. Where would he play in an attacking system? He would paly in the most threatening area, where he cna impact the game the msot, because you want the best player who cna do everythinf to be positioned in the area that yields the highest potential impact. And this area is not right fulblack because that is not that threatening. It is not a striker even tho it is the closest to the goal because striker will be often isolated from the action and cnat utilize his passing abilities for example.

The msot imapctful position (a role) is the one that has the hoghest level of threat and potential impact. That is the AM/second striker position. It is the same area that every team tries to defend with their life. Because in this position player is close enoigh to the goal so he can utilize his goalscoring abilities but also close enough to the ball that he can be involved in build and creation. It is the sweatspot for impact - the most threatening position and role.

This is why the best players are typically playing in this area. This is why they historically got #10 on their shirt and ehy #10 is given to the best palyers and is hold at the hoghest regard.

The comment about the higher ceiling of impact is a simpel observation on the true dynamics of football that is intuitively understood for alnost the entire history of footvall. It has always been like that and it will remain like this for the rest of time. It is grounded in a fundamental pattern and logic.

Observation 2 is that Pedri offers more qualities and abilities (agreed by you) to operate in this area so naturally it follows that he has the higher ceiling of impact because he offers qualities that can make imaoct in the sweatspot area.

You can dispute that and i predict you will do that just now as a response to this, but that again boils down to observation. Yoi can deny it and we cna go on not to agree, but i dont think it is that close really between Pedri and Kimmich regarding this.

Also, note again, I am not saying Pedri has had the higher impact this season, I am saying that based on qualities he offers on the pitch he has higher ceiling of impact. It is really not a big claim. It is really simple once yiu see patterns i am describing.

........

 

Chatgpt writing the same thing for clarity:

Simplified and Clarified Version
Observation is not just important; it is the fundamental basis of everything. Statistics, math, and numbers are merely tools we use to describe and interpret observations—they are human inventions, not objective realities. Math is not something we discovered in the world; it is a language we created to express observed patterns. Statistics originate from observing patterns and quantifying them. Thus, you cannot ground reality solely in statistics because statistics themselves are grounded in observations.

Observation is the primary phenomenon. There is nothing more foundational. Everything we consider "data" or "evidence" is derived from observing reality. The illusion that statistics can independently substantiate reality without reference to observations is false. Statistics are not separate from observation—they are just an abstract representation of it.

Now, let me explain my argument about the "higher ceiling of impact" using a straightforward breakdown of my observations:

Observation 1: The Threat Map on the Pitch

• Not all areas of the pitch hold the same level of threat.
  
  
• A perfect dribble by a right fullback 70 meters from the goal is less threatening than the same dribble performed just outside the penalty box.
  
  
• Thus, the pitch can be visualized as a dynamic map of threat levels, with certain areas being inherently more dangerous than others.
  

Impact in Football:

• A player's overall impact is determined by their ability to change game states positively—either by creating threats (playmaking) or converting them (goalscoring).
  
  
• Defensive formations reflect this dynamic. Teams concentrate their defensive efforts in the central areas near the goal, as these are the most vulnerable and threatening zones.
  
  
• Flanks are less defended because they pose less immediate threat.
  

Optimal Position for Maximum Impact:

• If a player is exceptionally skilled in all aspects (shooting, passing, dribbling, defending), where would you position him in an attacking system?
  
  
• The most impactful position is not at right fullback or as a lone striker. It is the advanced midfield/second striker position, close enough to the goal to score and also central enough to participate in playmaking.
  
  
• Historically, this is why the best players wear the number 10 and play in this area—it is the "sweet spot" for maximizing impact.
  

Observation 2: Pedri vs. Kimmich

• Pedri possesses a broader range of qualities and abilities that are more suited to operating in this "sweet spot" area, where the potential for impact is highest.
  
  
• Therefore, it follows that Pedri has a higher ceiling of impact than Kimmich, not necessarily based on past performances but based on his skill set relative to the most impactful area on the pitch.
  

I am not arguing that Pedri has been more impactful this season—only that he has the potential for greater impact based on his ability to operate effectively in the most influential area of the pitch. This is not a radical claim; it is a simple observation grounded in the fundamental dynamics of football.

 

I keep procrastinating with a response because you keep openning many different threads. Could you shorten it to 1 or 2 key ideas? What have I said wrong and/or what have I missed?

 

A bit more than 3 months later, Yamal has topped anything Vinicius and Mbappe has achieved in their career in terms of dribbling stats.

As I said:

 

Football is a game with clear rules and goals so positive impact is easily defined as actions that increases probability of scoring and decrease probability of conceding. This provides a closed, unquestionable framework for what imapct is... notice there is no need to mention roles to define impact..

Then, cumulative impact is a net result of impact of individual actions/plays.

Defined like that, impact is not really open to interpretation in a sense that we need to arbitrary figure out how to value attackers, midfielders or defenders respectively. There is no need for specific frameworks for each. Impact is concrete, tangible and applicable to everyone equally. Everybody has ability to perform all actions, just that they dont because they are performing different roles within team's system.

I understand the need for fairness that some players in certain roles are apparently at disadvantage because they dont have opportunities to score or make direct, concrete actions to influence scoresheet like others. However, that is just the brutal reality of roles. Not all roles are made equal and they inherently have a different level of impact. No matter how good you are as a fullback, you will never be able to compete with the best attackers in the world.

This is pretty clear. Perfectly executed shot from 25 meters in congested area will always have more impact on the game then 20 perfectly executed progressive passes in a row. They are not in the same ballpark of impact.

If we were to plot each type of action on a graph for impact, their relationship would not be linear, it would be exponential where some kinds of actions have disproportionally decisive impact and the rest do not.

This is not to say that less impactful roles have no value to the team. They do have value and are essential from the perspective of a team, but only to the extent to facilitate opportunity for high impact actions. It always comes down to high impact actions. These actions are difference makers.

You can have the best janitors in the world in a company, but if CEO sucks, the company will fail. The opposite is not true. The CEO can compensate for the lack of performance of minor roles because his impact is disproportionaly more significant.

So when talking about ceiling of impact, aka potential impact, it is simply a recognition of this pattern. Notice also that potential imapct doesnt mean actual, cumulative impact. I am not saying Pedri has been more impactful player than Kimmich this season.

Also I am not saying he hasnt. I see you mention consistency of Kimmich a lot as if it is much greater than Pedri's. That is certainly not true. Pedri is no slouch of his own and is very consistent and he regularly performs the same role Kimmich does very well.. the key differemce is that Pedri has additional, high impact offer in his game.

If both Pedri and Kimmich have 100 units of focus each game, Kimmich spends like 95% on build up, distribution, stability and progression, and the rest 5% on other things. Pedri spends ~70% on build up and progression, and the rest on actiosn that have higher impact. Simply based on their respective profile and styles, Pedri engages in higher impact tasks. That is the observation behind the statement of higher ceiling of impact. Put in different words is that if Pedri puts together his perfect performance and Kimmich his, Pedri's performance will be morenimpactful than Kimmich's. For that, it doesnt have to be true that Pedri is more consistent at his roles than Kimmich. It is irrelevant hence the deliberate choice of words regarding ceiling (potential) of impact.

The truth is that Kimmich simply doesnt occupy a role that can produce extreme impact. The fact that Kimmich's Cicrumstances regarding his role do not allow him to be a difference makes is not an excuse. If he could have been exceptional in more decisive roles, he would put in these roles. But he is not therefore his ceiling of impact is limited by that fact.

For example, Bale started as a left fullback and early on showed more potential than that and accordingly was moved into a winger role where he in fact became a difference maker and one of the best in the world.

The idea that the potential impact of more attacking roles is limited by a scarcity of opportunity (meaning even tho attackers have opportunity for high impact actions, these opportunities are so rare that it is irrelevant) is disaproven by the fact that indeed players with the most impact are actually attackers. So it is not the case that there is some kind of scarcity of opportunity and low probability of performing high impact actions that is counter attacked by more abundant nature of low imapct actions. This is one of those self-evident observation that it is not the case. Creating and scoring is not so difdicult that it becomes insiginifcant in comparison to, for example, progressive pass.

Another thing is that value is different than impact. Value is relative and the context dependent. If there is a team that has the whole team set but they only miss a ball distributor to put them over the line, then value of the ball distributor is extremely high. But if team already has Xavi and the whole midfield set, adding Kimmich to the team does not add significant value.

Also it depends on the system and how much responsibility each team puts on certain role Value is different than impact, and both are very fluid, but it is still grounded and restricted in the dynamic, rules and goal of the game. It is not widely open to interpretation and conceptualization in this context.

Will answer the bit avout overcorrection later