Yes, context matters and not everything can be boiled down to stats. But the inverse is also true. Saying someone have a higher ceiling of impact without a reliable framework to define or measure that ceiling can be just as speculative. When I bring up stats, it's not to blindly worship numbers, it's to ground the discussion in observable trends over time. You said Pedri offers what Kimmich does, just not at the same level, and adds more on top. But I think that's the core disagreement. From what I’ve seen, Kimmich doesn’t just do those things “more,” he does them with more consistency, versatility, and responsibility, especially when it comes to ball progression and tempo control. I don’t deny Pedri’s creativity and verticality, he's more eye-catching and elegant in tight spaces. But that doesn’t inherently mean more impactful. Pedri’s strengths tend to show in phases of play where Barca is already dictating possession. Kimmich thrives in transition, under pressure, or when plugging gaps in an unstable setup. That ability to stabilize and connect under all game states is where I see the difference. The “ceiling” argument also has to grapple with positional role. Pedri is more advanced, more free-roaming, and not tasked with as much defensive structure or build-up duty. So it’s only natural he might look more dynamic. But if Kimmich took that same freedom, how would he look? That's the kind of context I think gets missed. You’re right that we can’t watch 100% of every game — but I do think across seasons and competitions, Kimmich has simply shown more in high-level roles, especially against top opposition. Pedri has massive potential, no doubt, but saying he’s already more impactful or more complete doesn’t hold up for me.
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
I don’t disagree with your broader point about the importance of observation or the limitations of statistics. But let me clarify what I meant and why I pushed back. I’m not saying your method is invalid simply because it’s based on observation. What I’m suggesting is that certain kinds of observational claims like “Pedri has a higher ceiling of impact” do require a framework to be meaningfully evaluated. It’s not that observations are inherently speculative or flawed, but that some observations carry more implicit interpretation than others. When someone says “grass is green,” that’s an observation about a basic sensory property that’s universally shared. But when you say Pedri’s ceiling is higher, that’s not a neutral statement, it reflects your assessment of what kinds of impact matter most, how often they occur, and how they compare to what Kimmich offers. In other words, it’s an evaluative judgment and those always rest on assumptions, whether we acknowledge them or not. That’s why I brought up the idea of a framework. We need to be clear about what kind of impact we’re prioritizing. Is it creative flair? Spatial control? Ability to carry a system under pressure? If we define “ceiling” as “ability to create something unpredictable in the final third,” then yes, Pedri probably has the edge. But if we define it as “ability to consistently stabilize and orchestrate play across all phases,” then Kimmich is clearly ahead. Neither of those definitions is objectively right or wrong but unless we specify what we mean, saying “X has a higher ceiling” doesn’t really move the debate forward. Now, regarding your point on statistical grounding, I’m not saying data gives us final answers. Of course it doesn’t. But it does force us to deal with consistency and scale over time, which is where purely anecdotal impressions can fall short. For example, you say Pedri offers more “presence all over the pitch” than Kimmich, but across multiple seasons, Kimmich regularly covers more distance per game, and has consistently ranked at the top in pressing actions, recoveries, and final-third entries. That doesn’t prove he’s better, but it does challenge the assumption that Pedri is the one with superior work rate or range. That’s where I think we need to be careful not to let style bias become mistaken for superior impact. On the point about versatility, I see your argument, but I’d push back a bit. Yes, Kimmich tends to bring the same qualities regardless of position, but to me, that’s the point. His ability to impose the same high-level influence across different roles (RB, LB, DM, CM) and systems speaks to a kind of functional adaptability. Pedri’s “versatility,” by contrast, is more about fluidity within a certain type of system, mainly high-possession, positional setups. That’s not a knock, but I wouldn’t say it’s clearly more impressive than Kimmich’s capacity to adapt his game to different tactical needs. I don’t disagree that statistics require interpretation, of course they do. But they aren’t just observations in numerical form. They reflect patterns that emerge over many games and scenarios, and they can challenge or support qualitative impressions. If nothing else, they help anchor our interpretations in something repeatable and testable. So when I use stats, I’m not trying to reduce football to math, I’m trying to stay grounded in what actually happens consistently on the pitch, rather than relying too heavily on isolated impressions. To be clear: I respect Pedri a lot and agree he has unique traits Kimmich doesn’t. But if the question is who offers more overall value right now, then unless we overly privilege flair or aesthetic creativity, I still think the answer is Kimmich, because his influence spans more game phases, more tactical scenarios, and more responsibility within the system.
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.
Agree, observation is essential. But it gains strength when embedded in a causal and comparative framework that explains why the thing observed leads to an outcome we care about, and how consistently that outcome occurs relative to alternatives. When we talk about a player having a "higher ceiling of impact," we need to ask what we mean by "impact." What kind of influence on a football match are we privileging, and why? You're using a concept of spatial centrality and positional danger, essentially arguing that because the central attacking midfield zone tends to generate the highest leverage situations (close to goal, involved in both buildup and finishing), a player equipped to operate effectively there has more potential to influence games. That’s a strong starting point. It appeals to a widely shared football intuition. The most dangerous areas are the most defended ones, and great players operate where the game’s stakes are highest. But it's not enough that Pedri can occupy that area or has the tools to operate there. The causal leap, from possessing tools to producing high impact outcomes, needs more grounding. Can we show that Pedri, when playing in that zone, generates more threat per touch, more value per action, or more goal contributive sequences relative to someone like Kimmich? If not, then the “ceiling” argument becomes speculative in practice, even if it's logically coherent in theory. Just as a Formula 1 car has a higher speed ceiling than a rally car, it only matters if you are on a racetrack, not gravel. So we must ask how often Pedri is in that track environment. And how often does he actually reach that speed? Let’s assume Pedri’s close control, agility in tight spaces, and spatial awareness do make him more dangerous in high pressure central zones than Kimmich. That would plausibly give him a higher ceiling for creating game breaking moments, dribbling past a block, splitting lines, shifting the defense with a sharp turn. But if Kimmich consistently contributes to the rhythm and territorial advancement of his team over 90 minutes, progressing play, covering defensive transitions, and dictating tempo, then we also need to ask how much we should value explosiveness versus consistency in determining impact. Are we judging by peaks or by regularity? Should a midfielder who can occasionally unpick a defense be rated more highly than one who repeatedly sets the platform for those moments to happen? This isn’t just semantics. It is about what we think makes a player more valuable. And that’s where your argument, while insightful, would benefit from making the normative frame explicit. You're leaning on a ceiling based view of value, the idea that potential to change the game dramatically in rare but decisive moments should outweigh more routine forms of control and contribution. Suppose we watched a full season of games from both players and removed their names. Would we be more consistently impressed by the moments where Pedri breaks structure or by the games where Kimmich knits structure together? That question invites us to test our intuitions against evidence without bias, and I think it clarifies where our judgments diverge. To be clear, I don’t think your perspective is wrong. It is rooted in real dynamics of the game and it appeals to an intuitive model of spatial threat. But I do think it becomes stronger when you acknowledge the alternative value system, the one that rates contribution across the full spectrum of a match, not just in its most volatile zones, and explain why your metric, ceiling of impact, should matter more. You are not wrong to say Pedri might offer more if certain conditions align. But what Kimmich offers, he offers more reliably, more frequently, and often more consequentially across the course of a match and season. That difference in causal reliability is what keeps the conversation open and worth continuing.
What’s the perspective? Barcelona conceded 7 goals in a champions league semi final this month? A Celta Vigo player scored a hattrick against Barcelona less than 4 weeks ago? Barcelona have either won or been on the receiving end of 4-3 scorelines three times in the last 4 weeks?
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:
Mbappé surpassed Zamorano and is the player with the most goals in a debuting season for Real Madrid with 38 goals across all competitions. Today he surpassed Lewandowski in the pichichi run with a hat trick against almost champions Barcelona. He is only two goals away from winning the golden boot against Salah and Gyokeres. He already equalled Benzema 21/22 with 27 goals at laliga and have 3 mores games to play.
Sure. I’ll focus on just two core points. First, your concept of “higher ceiling of impact” is reasonable, but it rests on a value judgment that needs to be made explicit. You’re privileging potential peak influence in high-leverage zones of the pitch (like central attacking areas), but you're not addressing whether that potential is consistently realized or how often the player is even operating there. Kimmich’s role may have lower individual peaks, but it delivers constant, systemic value—tempo control, defensive balance, progression. So it’s not that your observation is “wrong,” but that it's framed around one interpretation of “impact,” while ignoring an alternative and equally valid one: consistent control versus occasional disruption. Second, your epistemology overcorrects. It’s true that all stats are derived from observation, but it doesn’t follow that raw observation is equally reliable or sufficient. Measurement exists to counteract human bias and pattern misrecognition. So when you say “trust only your own observations,” that’s a method that tends to amplify subjectivity rather than discipline it. The reason we use data isn’t because it tells the whole truth—it never does—but because it forces us to ask: is this pattern I'm seeing actually repeatable and meaningful, or am I just projecting? So I’d summarize it like this: your argument misses that “impact” can be conceptualized more than one way, and your method undervalues how structure and repeatability (both on the pitch and in thinking) help us test our perceptions.
Most Goals+Assists Before Turning 18 Pelé: 95+31=(126) Maradona: 43+23=(66) Yamal: 27+35=(62) Ronaldo: 51+10=(61)
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
Okay so how do you explain Kimmich having the same number of defensive actions, more passes completed overall (which indicates being more involved in build up) while also having a better xA, key passes, etc... which are stats of someone who plays in a more dangerous area and is related more to direct chance creation? I see no logical reason to believe Pedri is having more impact on team results (increasing the chance of his team scoring more and concede less). Whats more, their position on the pitch isnt that different Pedri: Kimmich: Both operates mostly in the 3/4 of the pich but kimmich operates a little more on the 2/4 and helps more on the build up. You would expect Pedri creating more since he is more focused on this than kimmich but Kimmich still creates more than Pedri (xA, key passes, etc...) so Kimmich is just the superior player
Michael Olise vs Lamine Yamal p90 (league + CL) ✅ 51.1 (80.8) | passes (%) | 34.6 (74.6) ❌ ✅ 12.13 | prog carries + prog passes | 10.81 ❌ ✅ 3.00 | key passes | 1.81 ❌ ✅ 0.48 | xA | 0.33 ❌ ✅ 0.41 | npg | 0.29 ❌ ✅ 1.27 | possession lost | 1.64 ❌ ✅ 2.18 | tckl + int + clr | 1.88 ❌ Olise does more to help his team keep possession in midfield. He does more to advance the ball into an attacking position. And once the ball is in an attacking position, he does more to set his teammates up. Meanwhile, he scores more than Yamal does. And, throughout all that, he does not lose the ball more. Lastly, when his team does lose the ball, he is slightly better at retrieving it. I cannot possibly see an argument here in favor of Yamal.
Michael Olise vs Bayer Leverkusen (2nd in Bundesliga) 5 matches, 0goals, 1 assist whoscored average rating 6.55 (7.56 in all competions) Michael Olise vs Inter 2 matches, 0 goals, 0 assist whoscored average rating 6.86 (7.56 in all competions) Conclusion: Olise hasn't been able to shine more in the big games. But he's a player with a lot of potential.
This is cherrypicking. Bayern scored 9 goals on those 7 games. Just take 7 games in which barça scored 9 goals (be it against strong or weak opposition) and see how much Yamal's rating drops. Also that's a so low sample size that it's misleading. The most important is what the players actually did through all season long week in week out