Topic: Darwin Núñez (Darwin Gabriel Núñez Ribeiro)

[Cpt_Reina]

It's a good question. There's a reason that wage bill correlates so strongly to success.

I think the effect of coaching is largely overrated, though the truly elite ones like Guardiola and Klopp of course make a difference.

In general though I think there's a huge cohort of managers in the middle that are largely interchangeable and all will achieve or fail based on the talent at their disposal.

It matters until it doesn't. Not very scientific of you Dilks.

But you were right when you said we were too far apart to really add any value to continuing the conversation.

I can't get on board with an way of thinking that states things like coaching, instruction, tactical approach or any other litany of environmental factors can't and don't have a more than a negligible affect on player output.

Cart before the horse stuff for me.

[PaleBlueDot]

Is it? What we see is only a small part of the picture. We spot patterns where there are none, or miss valuable things all the time. Its subject to biases, irrationality and flawed memory. In any scientific endeavour, eye-witness testimony is always considered the worst form of evidence.

Numbers cut through that. If what is being measured can be measured effectively, and is the right measure, it is infinitely preferable to one's eyes.

I don't know what Suarez's numbers were when he missed a boat load of chances initially here like Nunez but I can clearly see shot technique and decision making was a world apart between their first awful seasons. That's something you can see with your eyes.

[RyanBabel19]

I've learned more about the nature of finishing ability.

Okay that’s completely fair.

Added to this I think many probably get a little peeved with being talked down to as well. I get it a bit more when people are slating our player, it’s bound to get backs up, but a simple difference of opinion on a forum without any outlandish statements seems to draw this sense of superiority and like people need to be made out to be dumb if they don’t agree or have a different viewpoint. No one actually goes into detail about the complexities of these statistics with examples of strikers (most relevant in this thread) the relevant statistics and how it translates. There’s sooooo much to go into in my opinion for these statistics, individual players, the stage of their career etc but it’s never really covered much, which to me begs the question, do people actually know how all of this stuff affects fluctuations in numbers or is the only parts that are known and undestood being repeated because the more detailed stuff used to educate and broaden fans knowledge isn’t actually known widely.

Not aimed at you specifically but not agreeing with things doesn’t mean they’re being ignored or people are stupid. A difference of opinion on some things is natural and you’ve basically cleared up yourself that an opinion completely shot down on here within the last few days was one you bought into yourself a couple of seasons back, you learned more so why cant other people? I’m sure if someone commented on the piece you wrote slating your knowledge of the subject acting as if you were dumb it wouldn’t have gone down great, a lot of the time fans simply want to learn and have curiosity to the other ways of thinking about different things in the game, it’s part of why PoP was so popular on here. What’s worse it goes into other threads for some reason, pretty childish

There’s many simple examples of changes that could be posted to further emphasise things but I dont see them (granted I haven’t read every single post). On the subject of Nunez for example, his numbers for goals and assists have improved from this season to last, so what has changed? Is he simply getting into more good positions? Is he getting off shots from better positions than last season? Statistically speaking, what has improved from his side to elevate the numbers?

As another example, how does it work with players entering or exiting their peaks? Who profiles as the top 2 in the world for these high value shots that are talked about so much. Messi was mentioned as the only one to be classed as ‘clinical’ iirc so how have Kane and Son made it onto your list but not that posters if you’re both going simply by numbers? Is it open to interpretation or are there hard fast rules?

[Sheer Magnetism]

Because over his career he basically scores the amount of goals he's meant to?

Knight, you and CowboyKangaroo have repeatedly claimed this but I'm yet to see anyone actually post any evidence. What are his career stats season by season?

[amir87]

But you were right when you said we were too far apart to really add any value to continuing the conversation.

It's just variance.

[Cpt_Reina]

Okay that’s completely fair.

Added to this I think many probably get a little peeved with being talked down to as well. I get it a bit more when people are slating our player, it’s bound to get backs up, but a simple difference of opinion on a forum without any outlandish statements seems to draw this sense of superiority and like people need to be made out to be dumb if they don’t agree or have a different viewpoint. No one actually goes into detail about the complexities of these statistics with examples of strikers (most relevant in this thread) the relevant statistics and how it translates. There’s sooooo much to go into in my opinion for these statistics, individual players, the stage of their career etc but it’s never really covered much, which to me begs the question, do people actually know how all of this stuff affects fluctuations in numbers or is the only parts that are known and undestood being repeated because the more detailed stuff used to educate and broaden fans knowledge isn’t actually known widely.

Not aimed at you specifically but not agreeing with things doesn’t mean they’re being ignored or people are stupid. A difference of opinion on some things is natural and you’ve basically cleared up yourself that an opinion completely shot down on here within the last few days was one you bought into yourself a couple of seasons back, you learned more so why cant other people? I’m sure if someone commented on the piece you wrote slating your knowledge of the subject acting as if you were dumb it wouldn’t have gone down great, a lot of the time fans simply want to learn and have curiosity to the other ways of thinking about different things in the game, it’s part of why PoP was so popular on here. What’s worse it goes into other threads for some reason, pretty childish

There's a reason why clubs are employing people with PhDs in data science to look at and interpret this stuff and not just hiring Joe schmo off of twitter with an analytics blog.

The useful data is very complex, very detailed and takes people trained in it their entire professional careers to understand. They're paid handsomely and work full time to be able to do so.

The trickle down analytics we see are a world away from it. It's diluted often to the point of (in my own opinion) being overvalued by general football fans.

[Mr Dilkington]

It matters until it doesn't. Not very scientific of you Dilks.

But you were right when you said we were too far apart to really add any value to continuing the conversation.

I can't get on board with an way of thinking that states things like coaching, instruction, tactical approach or any other litany of environmental factors can't and don't have a more than a negligible affect on player output.

Cart before the horse stuff for me.

Again, I haven't said they don't matter at all, just that they are not as important as we think.

In any case, we are miles off-topic and I don't think this conversation has much if any relevance to Darwin.

[Draex]

Wouldn't be so confident in saying X player is a great finisher. The players I mentioned are but there are only a handful I'd feel confident saying that about.

And in any case I don't think it's that important relative to other things.

I mentioned Osimhen, what do you think of his output?

[Mr Dilkington]

There's a reason why clubs are employing people with PhDs in data science to look at and interpret this stuff and not just hiring Joe schmo off of twitter with an analytics blog.

The useful data is very complex, very detailed and takes people trained in it their entire professional careers to understand. They're paid handsomely and work full time to be able to do so.

The trickle down analytics we see are a world away from it. It's diluted often to the point of (in my own opinion) being overvalued by general football fans.

Like Ian Graham who has PHD in polymer physics at Cambridge?

[RyanBabel19]

There's a reason why clubs are employing people with PhDs in data science to look at and interpret this stuff and not just hiring Joe schmo off of twitter with an analytics blog.

The useful data is very complex, very detailed and takes people trained in it their entire professional careers to understand. They're paid handsomely and work full time to be able to do so.

The trickle down analytics we see are a world away from it. It's diluted often to the point of (in my own opinion) being overvalued by general football fans.

I agree to an extent, but this is why I ask the questions I ask. From my limited experience the data available to the public is a drop in the ocean. Obviously they have their uses but still

[Cpt_Reina]

Like Ian Graham who has PHD in polymer physics at Cambridge?

The fella who makes a lot of money charging clubs for his consultancy on data? Yeah him.

I don't know why they pay him though when FBref is right there and it's free.

[Sonofthewind]

It's a good question. There's a reason that wage bill correlates so strongly to success.

I think the effect of coaching is largely overrated, though the truly elite ones like Guardiola and Klopp of course make a difference.

In general though I think there's a huge cohort of managers in the middle that are largely interchangeable and all will achieve or fail based on the talent at their disposal.

The sheer gall to leave out Steve Bruce. It's slander and I won't stand for it.

[Mr Dilkington]

I mentioned Osimhen, what do you think of his output?

Osimhen is one I like a lot but bit worried about his injury record.

Osimhen is one who always had great shot volume and I think that's one of the things you look for when projecting how good a striker is going to be in the future. In his aged 20-21 season at Lille he had 3.5 shots a game and 0.52 xG - really impressive at that age - for what it's worth he underperformed his xG scoring 0.43 goals.

He underperformed his xG in every competition his first year at Lille and Napoli but since then has outperformed it significantly - though less wildly this season.

Is he just a great finisher now? Possibly, but we can't know for sure. And in any case what we do know is he takes a lot of shots and a lot of high quality shots. That is the most important thing.

In terms of him v Nunez this season, it's:

Osimhen 0.69 xG+xA v Nunez 0.95 xG+xA

Osimhen 0.79 G+A v Nunez 0.91 G+A

[Pistolero]

The fella who makes a lot of money charging clubs for his consultancy on data? Yeah him.

I don't know why they pay him though when FBref is right there and it's free.

 

[Mr Dilkington]

The fella who makes a lot of money charging clubs for his consultancy on data? Yeah him.

I don't know why they pay him though when FBref is right there and it's free.

Exactly. And fair play to him whilst he can get it.

[Draex]

Osimhen is one I like a lot but bit worried about his injury record.

Osimhen is one who always had great shot volume and I think that's one of the things you look for when projecting how good a striker is going to be in the future. In his aged 20-21 season at Lille he had 3.5 shots a game and 0.52 xG - really impressive at that age - for what it's worth he underperformed his xG scoring 0.43 goals.

He underperformed his xG in every competition his first year at Lille and Napoli but since then has outperformed it significantly - though less wildly this season.

Is he just a great finisher now? Possibly, but we can't know for sure. And in any case what we do know is he takes a lot of shots and a lot of high quality shots. That is the most important thing.

In terms of him v Nunez this season, it's:

Osimhen 0.69 xG+xA v Nunez 0.95 xG+xA

Osimhen 0.79 G+A v Nunez 0.91 G+A

Thanks, £111mil release clause, so I do get your arguement of selling Nunez (probably at a loss) wouldn't even come close to an "improvement".

Let's hope he smashes in a hattrick tomorrow!

[Sheer Magnetism]

Knight, you and CowboyKangaroo have repeatedly claimed this but I'm yet to see anyone actually post any evidence. What are his career stats season by season?

You know what, never mind. I found them myself: https://fbref.com/en/players/4d77b365/Darwin-Nunez.

Stats for five seasons, four of which he's underperformed xG - three out of the last four seasons significantly. It's a case of one freak season at Benfica before he joined us lifting up the overall stats to something closer to (but not massively close) to average. In other words, this is an ongoing trend.

[mullyred94]

You know what, never mind. I found them myself: https://fbref.com/en/players/4d77b365/Darwin-Nunez.

Stats for five seasons, four of which he's underperformed xG - three out of the last four seasons significantly. It's a case of one freak season at Benfica before he joined us lifting up the overall stats to something closer to (but not massively close) to average. In other words, this is an ongoing trend.

Only .2 against Palace

[Mr Dilkington]

Okay that’s completely fair.

Added to this I think many probably get a little peeved with being talked down to as well. I get it a bit more when people are slating our player, it’s bound to get backs up, but a simple difference of opinion on a forum without any outlandish statements seems to draw this sense of superiority and like people need to be made out to be dumb if they don’t agree or have a different viewpoint. No one actually goes into detail about the complexities of these statistics with examples of strikers (most relevant in this thread) the relevant statistics and how it translates. There’s sooooo much to go into in my opinion for these statistics, individual players, the stage of their career etc but it’s never really covered much, which to me begs the question, do people actually know how all of this stuff affects fluctuations in numbers or is the only parts that are known and undestood being repeated because the more detailed stuff used to educate and broaden fans knowledge isn’t actually known widely.

Not aimed at you specifically but not agreeing with things doesn’t mean they’re being ignored or people are stupid. A difference of opinion on some things is natural and you’ve basically cleared up yourself that an opinion completely shot down on here within the last few days was one you bought into yourself a couple of seasons back, you learned more so why cant other people? I’m sure if someone commented on the piece you wrote slating your knowledge of the subject acting as if you were dumb it wouldn’t have gone down great, a lot of the time fans simply want to learn and have curiosity to the other ways of thinking about different things in the game, it’s part of why PoP was so popular on here. What’s worse it goes into other threads for some reason, pretty childish

There’s many simple examples of changes that could be posted to further emphasise things but I dont see them (granted I haven’t read every single post). On the subject of Nunez for example, his numbers for goals and assists have improved from this season to last, so what has changed? Is he simply getting into more good positions? Is he getting off shots from better positions than last season? Statistically speaking, what has improved from his side to elevate the numbers?

As another example, how does it work with players entering or exiting their peaks? Who profiles as the top 2 in the world for these high value shots that are talked about so much. Messi was mentioned as the only one to be classed as ‘clinical’ iirc so how have Kane and Son made it onto your list but not that posters if you’re both going simply by numbers? Is it open to interpretation or are there hard fast rules?

Firstly I am not particularly smart and there's so much I don't know. There are people far more qualified to speak on this than me - e.g Michael Caley.

I think it's just frustration. When you post things about finishing being noisy and how you need a huge sample to draw conclusions etc. and then people just come in and say 'but look how many chances he's missed this season, that's all you need to know'.

Re: Nunez from last season to this season - the numbers are relatively similar really. His xA is a bit down on last season - likely because he has played fewer minutes left wing this season and the creative burden has been on Mo. However his xG is up a touch which is to be expected given he's playing more minutes as a 9.

Last season he was 0.16 under his xG, this season he's 0.15 under lol.

Son is the only player with over 1000 shots that has a better finishing rate compared to xG than Messi (this is from work Michael Caley has done).

In terms of players who take the most high value shots, it's who you'd expect really: Boniface, Nunez, Mbappe, Kane, Openda, Haaland.

From my understanding the best strikers usually start off with high shot volume and as they age the number of shots they take decreases (this happens at different ages for different players depending on a number of factors) but the average shot quality goes up. So they start getting into better positions - likely because their game intelligence increases and their physical ability declines.

[CowboyKangaroo]

You know what, never mind. I found them myself: https://fbref.com/en/players/4d77b365/Darwin-Nunez.

Stats for five seasons, four of which he's underperformed xG - three out of the last four seasons significantly. It's a case of one freak season at Benfica before he joined us lifting up the overall stats to something closer to (but not massively close) to average. In other words, this is an ongoing trend.

Yeah, 0.56 actual goals and 0.62 xG career wise indicates such a consistent issue. If you exclude nearly a quarter of the data at a whim I'm not surprised it says what you want it to.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

Nunez for example profiles amazingly in stats but I dont remember a huge clamour for him OR massive backing off his stats before he came in, now maybe that’s me misremembering or having simply not seen many posts but where was the praise of his level before he donned a Liverpool shirt if it was all so blatantly obvious, especially from a stats point of view, the stats have surely been available for years now? That’s not to say anyone is wrong but it surely should have been more highlighted than it seemed to be

It was actually the complete opposite, which is why I find this whole statistical merry-go round perplexing to say the least. Because he overperformed his xG, and took a lot of shots, most of the data-minded posters on here were strongly against his signing. Whereas someone like myself who was simply watching him live against us, plus his goal reels/highlights of course, was hugely excited about him.

Yet now that he is underperforming his xG, and still taking a lot of shots, the data crew are all in on him, while I'm growing a little tired of his rawness while still having faith that he will come good eventually. It's a weird one - and one of my biggest bug bears with xG, and more specifically how people use it. Those players who outperform it seem to be punished as being on a "hot streak" whereas those who underperform it are continually given slack due to "bad luck" and "variance". You're seeing the same thing in the Jota thread lately.

[Redley]

You know what, never mind. I found them myself: https://fbref.com/en/players/4d77b365/Darwin-Nunez.

Stats for five seasons, four of which he's underperformed xG - three out of the last four seasons significantly. It's a case of one freak season at Benfica before he joined us lifting up the overall stats to something closer to (but not massively close) to average. In other words, this is an ongoing trend.

19/20 Goals 16 XG 17.9
20/21 Goals 6 XG 10
21/22 Goals 26 XG 18.4
22/23 Goals 9 XG 12.1
23/24 Goals 11 XG 15

None of the 'underperformances' strike as particularly significant

[Mr Dilkington]

It was actually the complete opposite, which is why I find this whole statistical merry-go round perplexing to say the least. Because he overperformed his xG, and took a lot of shots, most of the data-minded posters on here were strongly against his signing. Whereas someone like myself who was simply watching him live against us, plus his goal reels/highlights of course, was hugely excited about him.

Yet now that he is underperforming his xG, and still taking a lot of shots, the data crew are all in on him, while I'm growing a little tired of his rawness while still having faith that he will come good eventually. It's a weird one - and one of my biggest bug bears with xG, and more specifically how people use it. Those players who outperform it seem to be punished as being on a "hot streak" whereas those who underperform it are continually given slack due to "bad luck" and "variance".

Can't speak for others but I was into us signing him after looking at the numbers and watching him.

Think the data crew are into him for all the reasons that have been done to death on here already. Most of us think his finishing will revert closer to the mean in time, others don't think it will because he's a bad finisher and that's that. The thing is though, the data crew would still rate him as one of the best forwards in the world even if his finishing stays exactly the same (even though it almost certainly won't).

I don't think there's anything particularly weird about it.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

Can't speak for others but I was into us signing him after looking at the numbers and watching him.

Think the data crew are into him for all the reasons that have been done to death on here already. Most of us think his finishing will revert closer to the mean in time, others don't think it will because he's a bad finisher and that's that. The thing is though, the data crew would still rate him as one of the best forwards in the world even if his finishing stays exactly the same (even though it almost certainly won't).

I don't think there's anything particularly weird about it.

Out of interest, moving away from the rather tired finishing debate, what makes you say this? Because while I love Darwin, it feels like huge hyperbole. I don't watch him and see one of the best forwards in the world - yet. His game is not polished enough to be considered that.

And I'd say there's plenty weird about data making plenty of people sceptical about signing a player because they have overperformed...yet hugely supportive when they have underperformed. Just like data making you think Isak - 60 shots, 17 goals - is a sizable downgrade on Nunez - 100+ shots, 11 goals.

[CowboyKangaroo]

19/20 Goals 16 XG 17.9
20/21 Goals 6 XG 10
21/22 Goals 26 XG 18.4
22/23 Goals 9 XG 12.1
23/24 Goals 11 XG 15

None of the 'underperformances' strike as particularly significant

That's also just looking at the league - it becomes even more anodyne data wise when you include other competitions that we have data for

[Mr Dilkington]

Out of interest, moving away from the rather tired finishing debate, what makes you say this? Because while I love Darwin, it feels like huge hyperbole. I don't watch him and see one of the best forwards in the world - yet. His game is not polished enough to be considered that.

Basically the older I get the less I care about forwards who are polished or 'complete' relative to production. For example, someone might argue that Solanke is more complete than Darwin (I wouldn't agree to that but for arguments sake..).

I would just return to the second order effects thing Ian Graham talks about. I simply don't care that much how good a forward's first touch is, or how good their hold up play is, if they don't also have the elite level shot production to back it up.

It's like the Haaland argument from Keane (and before anyone says it, I am not saying Nunez is better than Haaland). Keane recently said his general game is that of a League 2 player, and although that was clearly provocative and hyperbolic on his part, there is this idea that Haaland's all round game is deficient and that he is only a great goalscorer. My argument is the all round game part is almost completely irrelevant relative to the shots/goals he puts up.

[JasonF]

Only .2 against Palace

That can't be right. I've heard on good authority it was an absolute sitter.

[RyanBabel19]

Firstly I am not particularly smart and there's so much I don't know. There are people far more qualified to speak on this than me - e.g Michael Caley.

I think it's just frustration. When you post things about finishing being noisy and how you need a huge sample to draw conclusions etc. and then people just come in and say 'but look how many chances he's missed this season, that's all you need to know'.

Re: Nunez from last season to this season - the numbers are relatively similar really. His xA is a bit down on last season - likely because he has played fewer minutes left wing this season and the creative burden has been on Mo. However his xG is up a touch which is to be expected given he's playing more minutes as a 9.

Last season he was 0.16 under his xG, this season he's 0.15 under lol.

Son is the only player with over 1000 shots that has a better finishing rate compared to xG than Messi (this is from work Michael Caley has done).

In terms of players who take the most high value shots, it's who you'd expect really: Boniface, Nunez, Mbappe, Kane, Openda, Haaland.

From my understanding the best strikers usually start off with high shot volume and as they age the number of shots they take decreases (this happens at different ages for different players depending on a number of factors) but the average shot quality goes up. So they start getting into better positions - likely because their game intelligence increases and their physical ability declines.

Frustration is one thing but some of the agree with me or I will come to the conclusion you’re a moron is a bit much to be honest. Like I said you not all that long ago were naming strikers in a manner not too dissimilar to stuff that’s gone down in flames in here.

The chances thing is understandable, take yourself back to having not yet learned more about all of these stats, would you not have been slightly closer to the group of people bemoaning missed chances than you are now? Add to that my previous argument, not one of you for all the posturing and dismissing posters has really gone into any proper significant explanation to create a further understanding of this stuff. Personally, i’m not against it but it’s very simple to put across your point in my opinion, the questions i’m raising highlight a lot of it more. A lot of it to me at least comes across as talking down to anyone who hasn’t focused on the same things as a few of you. Curiosity shouldn’t really be met with contempt, especially when it seems the main issue is people not instantly agreeing.

Thanks for posting the numbers on Nunez, I will look further into this as i’m interested in learning more about xG, I have to admit, some of it makes little to no sense to me in terms of what you say and what the numbers say. I remember asking about some of the chances in one of our games earlier in the season and hearing a more clear cut chance was of higher xG than a cross played too far behind our forward, some of it doesn’t make sense completely IMO but that’s another issue.

It’s funny because to me, that is the very definition if a clinical player.

The last bit to me again just aligns with what a number of us have been saying but maybe i’m misunderstanding. Young forward takes a high volume if shots, age and experience added with coaching teaches him to refine his game and improve upon his shot selection etc he scores more as a result of this.

I have so many questions to be honest because surely some of this stuff fluctuates with a number of things across a players career.

[Coolie High]

Basically the older I get the less I care about forwards who are polished or 'complete' relative to production. For example, someone might argue that Solanke is more complete than Darwin (I wouldn't agree to that but for arguments sake..).

I would just return to the second order effects thing Ian Graham talks about. I simply don't care that much how good a forward's first touch is, or how good their hold up play is, if they don't also have the elite level shot production to back it up.

It's like the Haaland argument from Keane (and before anyone says it, I am not saying Nunez is better than Haaland). Keane recently said his general game is that of a League 2 player, and although that was clearly provocative and hyperbolic on his part, there is this idea that Haaland's all round game is deficient and that he is only a great goalscorer. My argument is the all round game part is almost completely irrelevant relative to the shots/goals he puts up.

No one would argue with this though, Haaland is such an extremely good goalscorer that the other parts of his game becomes insignificant, to a certain point and level. If you're comparing him to other elite strikers like Lewandowski, Benzema, and Kane or how he can be marked out in big games against athletic cbs who he can't outpace or bully, on a personal level his lack of all round game will probably be the thing that holds him back from winning B'allon dors and being as revered as other aformentioned players who are lesser goalscorers but better all round players.

Also i don't think Ian Grahams point is a particularly alarming one, like they're number 9's since infancy number 9's have been judged on how good  of a goalscorer they were before anything else, so i don't think that suggestion is one that would have much critique.

Saying that first touch and hold up play will always be important to differentiate, a good player and a great one, theres a limit to a footballer if he doesn't have certain intangibles no matter how many shots he gets off. The truly great players of our era have combined both, you wouldn't have many people complaining  about Kane Benzema or Lewandowskis first touch and hold up play, and these are the standard bearers of that position over the last 10 years.

[RyanBabel19]

Can't speak for others but I was into us signing him after looking at the numbers and watching him.

Think the data crew are into him for all the reasons that have been done to death on here already. Most of us think his finishing will revert closer to the mean in time, others don't think it will because he's a bad finisher and that's that. The thing is though, the data crew would still rate him as one of the best forwards in the world even if his finishing stays exactly the same (even though it almost certainly won't).

I don't think there's anything particularly weird about it.

Out of interest, and I ask this simply to understand further, why?

I dont for a second believe his finishing wouldn’t improve as i’m certain it will BUT how many chances have we created as a side this season? Realistically how much more COULD we create (within actual realistic metrics)? Say we have another 4 years of Nunez, he scores at his current rate for the next 4 years, that would be 6 years total at Liverpool, what does his output look like?

[CowboyKangaroo]

Also Sheer Magnetism, FWIW, since we last spoke about this in December Nunez has scored 10 goals from an xG of 10.2... which is more or less what everyone who knew what they were talking about predicted at the time. Averaging to a mean doesn't mean that if you've underperformed in the past you'll definitely over-perform in the future. It just means that over a large enough sample the numbers will trend towards the mean.

[Mr Dilkington]

No one would argue with this though, Haaland is such an extremely good goalscorer that the other parts of his game becomes insignificant, to a certain point and level. If you're comparing him to other elite strikers like Lewandowski, Benzema, and Kane or how he can be marked out in big games against athletic cbs who he can't outpace or bully, on a personal level his lack of all round game will probably be the thing that holds him back from winning B'allon dors and being as revered as other aformentioned players who are lesser goalscorers but better all round players.

Also i don't think Ian Grahams point is a particularly alarming one, like they're number 9's since infancy number 9's have been judged on how good  of a goalscorer they were before anything else, so i don't think that suggestion is one that would have much critique.

Saying that first touch and hold up play will always be important to differentiate, a good player and a great one, theres a limit to a footballer if he doesn't have certain intangibles no matter how many shots he gets off. The truly great players of our era have combined both, you wouldn't have many people complaining  about Kane Benzema or Lewandowskis first touch and hold up play, and these are the standard bearers of that position over the last 10 years.

Agree with all of that and FWIW I think Haaland, Kane, Benzema and Lewandowski are all better than Nunez - for the reasons you have outlined.

[RyanBabel19]

It was actually the complete opposite, which is why I find this whole statistical merry-go round perplexing to say the least. Because he overperformed his xG, and took a lot of shots, most of the data-minded posters on here were strongly against his signing. Whereas someone like myself who was simply watching him live against us, plus his goal reels/highlights of course, was hugely excited about him.

Yet now that he is underperforming his xG, and still taking a lot of shots, the data crew are all in on him, while I'm growing a little tired of his rawness while still having faith that he will come good eventually. It's a weird one - and one of my biggest bug bears with xG, and more specifically how people use it. Those players who outperform it seem to be punished as being on a "hot streak" whereas those who underperform it are continually given slack due to "bad luck" and "variance". You're seeing the same thing in the Jota thread lately.

Thanks for posting this, it’s exactly why I mentioned it and although i’m not putting it nearly as eloquently my main thought was ‘if it’s all so obvious why weren’t you all screaming how amazing a signing it was’

[Mr Dilkington]

Out of interest, and I ask this simply to understand further, why?

I dont for a second believe his finishing wouldn’t improve as i’m certain it will BUT how many chances have we created as a side this season? Realistically how much more COULD we create (within actual realistic metrics)? Say we have another 4 years of Nunez, he scores at his current rate for the next 4 years, that would be 6 years total at Liverpool, what does his output look like?

Because he's in the top 10 for open play goals and asissts this season whilst massively underperforming his xG. There's honestly not much else to say.

Need more context for the second part. If he continues scoring 10-15 league goals a season for us for the next 4 years I would be disappointed with that - relative to my expectation for him today.

But maybe his xG numbers drop off a cliff and his 0.5 goals come from 0.5xG rather than 0.70.

I think human nature makes it difficult to accept watching someone miss so much.

I think many fans would rather a striker who scored say 15 goals from 12xG and 4 big chances missed Vs a striker who scored 17 goals from 21xG and 15 big chances missed.

[RyanBabel19]

Because he's in the top 10 for open play goals and asissts this season whilst massively underperforming his xG. There's honestly not much else to say.

Need more context for the second part. If he continues scoring 10-15 league goals a season for us for the next 4 years I would be disappointed with that - relative to my expectation for him today.

But maybe his xG numbers drop off a cliff and his 0.5 goals come from 0.5xG rather than 0.70.

I think human nature makes it difficult to accept watching someone miss so much.

I think many fans would rather a striker who scored say 15 goals from 12xG and 4 big chances missed Vs a striker who scored 17 goals from 21xG and 15 big chances missed.

What I mean is, by that thinking his xG would need a sharp uptake in order for him to score a lot more were his finishing to remain the same. The 10-15 goals part sums up what I meant really. Again I expect him to keep improving but for arguments sake were his finishing to remain the same nothing else could feasibly decline, the assists need to remain high and he needs to either maintain or exceed his current xG to balance things out, a lower or the same xG and the same finishing would mean less or the same amount of goals. Added to that the level of competition for european football improves because it’s CL not Europa so you need to maintain a high xG against better sides to maintain the goal tally in at least one other competition. Lastly each season is different, he’s in that position this season but what’s to say next year is the same?

[Mr Dilkington]

Frustration is one thing but some of the agree with me or I will come to the conclusion you’re a moron is a bit much to be honest. Like I said you not all that long ago were naming strikers in a manner not too dissimilar to stuff that’s gone down in flames in here.

The chances thing is understandable, take yourself back to having not yet learned more about all of these stats, would you not have been slightly closer to the group of people bemoaning missed chances than you are now? Add to that my previous argument, not one of you for all the posturing and dismissing posters has really gone into any proper significant explanation to create a further understanding of this stuff. Personally, i’m not against it but it’s very simple to put across your point in my opinion, the questions i’m raising highlight a lot of it more. A lot of it to me at least comes across as talking down to anyone who hasn’t focused on the same things as a few of you. Curiosity shouldn’t really be met with contempt, especially when it seems the main issue is people not instantly agreeing.

Thanks for posting the numbers on Nunez, I will look further into this as i’m interested in learning more about xG, I have to admit, some of it makes little to no sense to me in terms of what you say and what the numbers say. I remember asking about some of the chances in one of our games earlier in the season and hearing a more clear cut chance was of higher xG than a cross played too far behind our forward, some of it doesn’t make sense completely IMO but that’s another issue.

It’s funny because to me, that is the very definition if a clinical player.

The last bit to me again just aligns with what a number of us have been saying but maybe i’m misunderstanding. Young forward takes a high volume if shots, age and experience added with coaching teaches him to refine his game and improve upon his shot selection etc he scores more as a result of this.

I have so many questions to be honest because surely some of this stuff fluctuates with a number of things across a players career.

I haven't called anyone a moron. If people put constructive and reasoned arguments to me I will happily engage, if people resort to just claiming people who like underlying numbers don't use their eyes etc. of course I'm going to get frustrated and annoyed.

I read the bit about Messi, Son and Kane and my initial instinct was - that's quite certain - and though I still believe all of them to be great finishers, that doesn't mean they can't fall victim to variance like anyone else. As I said a couple of days ago, Messi was massively under his xG in his first season at PSG. Doesn't mean he's a bad finisher, he just didn't get the bounces.

Re: not providing a significant explanation, as I said before, I can only try my best and articulate what I do understand about analytics. The contempt stuff works both ways by the way. And I'm not sure I'd charactise some of the posts in here as showing curiosity!

[Mr Dilkington]

What I mean is, by that thinking his xG would need a sharp uptake in order for him to score a lot more were his finishing to remain the same. The 10-15 goals part sums up what I meant really. Again I expect him to keep improving but for arguments sake were his finishing to remain the same nothing else could feasibly decline, the assists need to remain high and he needs to either maintain or exceed his current xG to balance things out, a lower or the same xG and the same finishing would mean less or the same amount of goals. Added to that the level of competition for european football improves because it’s CL not Europa so you need to maintain a high xG against better sides to maintain the goal tally in at least one other competition. Lastly each season is different, he’s in that position this season but what’s to say next year is the same?

It's arguable that the PL is equivalent or better than the Champions League nowadays. Plus he was at 1.13xG in the CL last season anyway.

[RyanBabel19]

I haven't called anyone a moron. If people put constructive and reasoned arguments to me I will happily engage, if people resort to just claiming people who like underlying numbers don't use their eyes etc. of course I'm going to get frustrated and annoyed.

I read the bit about Messi, Son and Kane and my initial instinct was - that's quite certain - and though I still believe all of them to be great finishers, that doesn't mean they can't fall victim to variance like anyone else. As I said a couple of days ago, Messi was massively under his xG in his first season at PSG. Doesn't mean he's a bad finisher, he just didn't get the bounces.

Re: not providing a significant explanation, as I said before, I can only try my best and articulate what I do understand about analytics. The contempt stuff works both ways by the way. And I'm not sure I'd charactise some of the posts in here as showing curiosity!

Not specifically just you, i’m more referring to the general feeling of discussing this with the 2 sides of posters, in fairness you’ve had a reasonable conversation which is all i’m asking for to be honest, Nunez is an interesting character and discussions about him are among the most interesting on here. Some posts are also not what i’m referring to, obviously if people are being rude or dismissive then by all means, but if you go back and read through the 2 sides posts in the discussion you’ll see what I mean. 

On my part I think in some ways i’ve blended some of the posts, I feel like although you are approaching this from a stats point of view I can see more logic in your posts as you use some of the same language/terms I used and was basically told weren’t a thing so in that way I may have mistakenly mixed your thought process up with that of things like great finishers basically not being a thing. Apologies and I agree wholeheartedly that those named are great finishers, it’s exactly what I meant when I named some of our ex players and off the back of that the general feeling they will score in those big moments for us, not a case of thinking they’re infallable or dont miss… just that they’re great finishers (which I still maintain is a thing).

That’s fair and I can respect that, I may not always agree with the delivery and tone but explanation of someones thought process is at least educational and adds to discussions rather than mere dismissal (again not aimed at you just a general observation). I’d agree and just to be clear I wasn’t saying everyones been respectful and curious, but it did feel a little like anyone who disagreed was being shot down a little

[Kop Kings]

I haven't called anyone a moron. If people put constructive and reasoned arguments to me I will happily engage, if people resort to just claiming people who like underlying numbers don't use their eyes etc. of course I'm going to get frustrated and annoyed.

I read the bit about Messi, Son and Kane and my initial instinct was - that's quite certain - and though I still believe all of them to be great finishers, that doesn't mean they can't fall victim to variance like anyone else. As I said a couple of days ago, Messi was massively under his xG in his first season at PSG. Doesn't mean he's a bad finisher, he just didn't get the bounces.

Re: not providing a significant explanation, as I said before, I can only try my best and articulate what I do understand about analytics. The contempt stuff works both ways by the way. And I'm not sure I'd charactise some of the posts in here as showing curiosity!

You've been arsey and smug with a lot of people who have simply disagreed with you, so I don't think what you're saying is completely true.

He's missed the most big chances across the top 5 leagues and has been prone to lapses in judgement/general composure since day one, and as a result people are starting to doubt whether he is ever going to be elite (I 100% agree he is a good player). It's as simple as that really.

No need to get angry, no need to be smug, let's just wait to see how things unfold in the coming months. I certainly hope you end up being right!

[Mr Dilkington]

You've been arsey and smug with a lot of people who have simply disagreed with you, so I don't think what you're saying is completely true.

He's missed the most big chances across the top 5 leagues and has been prone to lapses in judgement/general composure since day one, and as a result people are starting to doubt whether he is ever going to be elite (I 100% agree he is a good player). It's as simple as that really.

No need to get angry, no need to be smug, let's just wait to see how things unfold in the coming months. I certainly hope you end up being right!

And yet with all of those missed chances, still one of the best players in the world in terms of goals and assists. Not bad.

And yep, let's wait and see how things play out from here.