Topic: Darwin Núñez (Darwin Gabriel Núñez Ribeiro)

[Stockholm Syndrome]

I know some people have a habit of underrating opposition players but labelling Haaland - someone who won player of the year awards in two of the top four leagues before he turned 23 - as incredibly mediocre must be a new benchmark. Son has been excellent for near enough his entire career, Havertz is a false nine rather than a striker.

I think it is a poorly worded way to say he doesn't add much away from his goals, which is fine it isn't his game and the team doesn't need him to because they are the best at creating chances. They just need him to be in the right place for those chances and put some away

Inzaghi was also world class, but he was a poacher. Same with Haaland. He isn't more than a goal machine and he doesn't have to be to be effective and world class

[LallanaInPyjamas]

That's the point that's been made. Players tend to average out to their XG because finishing as a stat is negligible and down to variance. What is more important is getting in the right place at the right time. Solanke has been doing that and now it is paying off. Watkins has improved it and now he is scoring more.

The act of finishing is hitting the ball in the right direction, and most professional footballers can do that at this level. Whether it goes in or not is sometimes not what you can control (miss hit, goalie saves, bounces off the bar).

You have good XG you'll have more chances, eventually it starts paying off, and you end up scoring about what you were expected to.

Solanke himself is proof of that - it was always good, now he is scoring.

It's more important to regularly be in the right place at the right time

I don't disagree with much of this, and it's why I'd far rather have Nunez playing for us than 2006 Robbie Fowler, for example, even though God was a better finisher even at that stage of his career.

That doesn't mean Nunez's finishing *can't* improve beyond simple variance and luck. I mean, take the word at its face value. He literally isn't finishing the majority of the time. He is simply shooting. That needs to change and I believe it will to some extent over time.

[SerbianScouser]

Isak scored 17 league goals opposed to Darwin's 11 but he's a level below Darwin's production.

This is all getting real silly now.

[Mr Dilkington]

Isak scored 17 league goals opposed to Darwin's 11 but he's a level below Darwin's production.

This is all getting real silly now.

Yes but not for the reason you think.

[Sheer Magnetism]

I think it is a poorly worded way to say he doesn't add much away from his goals, which is fine it isn't his game and the team doesn't need him to because they are the best at creating chances. They just need him to be in the right place for those chances and put some away

Inzaghi was also world class, but he was a poacher. Same with Haaland. He isn't more than a goal machine and he doesn't have to be to be effective and world class

Haaland actually has more assists in the league than Nunez (13 to 11) the last two seasons. He was in the top 10 in the division last season in fact. Would this be a sign he's actually a more creative player than people give him credit for, or that assists aren't in and of themselves a measure of creativity?

Because I'm struggling to see how a goal or assist every 71 minutes over two seasons isn't world class. Particularly in a context where 115 minutes is classed as elite. I'm not Darwin's biggest fan but I don't think he's shit and I can see why people like him. I just hate when the discussion is framed in terms of hypothetical achievements, dubious stats or contexts which don't stand up to even minor scrutiny.

[elkun]

I know some people have a habit of underrating opposition players but labelling Haaland - someone who won player of the year awards in two of the top four leagues before he turned 23 - as incredibly mediocre must be a new benchmark. Son has been excellent for near enough his entire career, Havertz is a false nine rather than a striker.

Son is very good and of course there is nothing to criticize about him. I'm talking more about the general list. We can replace Havertz with Jesus and it still remains a mediocre list in my opinion.

Haaland's problem is and you notice that at City. If he doesn't score goals then he has no added value to City's game. In fact he only makes the game worse for City. He is a fantastic goalscorer, the only question is whether he is really that special, yes or no. If I compare him to other strikers in the past and their qualities, then absolutely no.

So I think that nowadays we are simply short of very good strikers.

[killer-heels]

Son is very good and of course there is nothing to criticize about him. I'm talking more about the general list. We can replace Havertz with Jesus and it still remains a mediocre list in my opinion.

Haaland's problem is and you notice that at City. If he doesn't score goals then he has no added value to City's game. In fact he only makes the game worse for City. He is a fantastic goalscorer, the only question is whether he is really that special, yes or no. If I compare him to other strikers in the past and their qualities, then absolutely no.

So I think that nowadays we are simply short of very good strikers.

Disagree, think there are lots of good strikers.

[elkun]

Haaland actually has more assists in the league than Nunez (13 to 11) the last two seasons. He was in the top 10 in the division last season in fact. Would this be a sign he's actually a more creative player than people give him credit for, or that assists aren't in and of themselves a measure of creativity?

Because I'm struggling to see how a goal or assist every 71 minutes over two seasons isn't world class. Particularly in a context where 115 minutes is classed as elite. I'm not Darwin's biggest fan but I don't think he's shit and I can see why people like him. I just hate when the discussion is framed in terms of hypothetical achievements, dubious stats or contexts which don't stand up to even minor scrutiny.

Let me ask my question differently. I define assist with beautiful passes like De Bruyne or Salah or even Trent can do.

To make it easier. Is Haaland as creative as Salah Jah/No?

What do the statistics for the last two seasons say about this?

[jepovic]

Disagree, think there are lots of good strikers.

I think there are a lot of good strikers, but not a lot of great ones.
Haaland's numbers are hard to ignore, as much as I would like to, but the rest all have their limitations.

But all of this is noise, because I think it's extremely unlikely that LFC will go for a new striker this summer.

The Salah discussion is much more real, because he has one year left on his contract.

[jepovic]

Let me ask my question differently. I define assist with beautiful passes like De Bruyne or Salah or even Trent can do.

To make it easier. Is Haaland as creative as Salah Jah/No?

What do the statistics for the last two seasons say about this?

What does that say about Isak then - no assists at all I guess?

[Cpt_Reina]

It's just a little incredible to me that such basic statistical output is held in such high regard.

You'd be laughed out of a clubs analytics department for attempting to use such broad models as gp90, xG or xA to argue for or against a player.

Analytic endorsing fans online like to present them as if they're an inside track and show the game in ways that most can't perceive but they're close to be antiquated at this point. xG is over a decade old?

Clubs are using models, data and systems developed by Oxbridge educated data scientists. Investing millions, not using free to user data dredged up from whatever website or Twitter feed.

That's the data revolution that football has and is undergoing, it's not fbref or the xG philosophy.

Its like going on brokerage forum and waxing lyrical picking stocks based on just profit and loss. It's worth more than picking them just by 'line goes up' , but not by much, and certainly nothing compared to the trading floor and actual analytics used.

A pinch of salt needs applying whenever they're presented.

[Sheer Magnetism]

Let me ask my question differently. I define assist with beautiful passes like De Bruyne or Salah or even Trent can do.

To make it easier. Is Haaland as creative as Salah Jah/No?

What do the statistics for the last two seasons say about this?

I would say no, and it's the same for Nunez. I don't think getting the last touch in the box or nodding the ball on from a corner is the same as creating a chance.

My point is that I find it silly people are discounting Haaland as a one-dimensional poacher, when in practice his game isn't dissimilar to Nunez's. They're both number nines who create space with their size and speed and who have the ability to score stunners, who don't dribble much and take a lot of shots but who don't get involved much in build up play. The biggest difference is that one scores a lot and the other doesn't. When you look at that profile of player, isn't putting away chances the most important factor?

[Mr Dilkington]

It's just a little incredible to me that such basic statistical output is held in such high regard.

You'd be laughed out of a clubs analytics department for attempting to use such broad models as gp90, xG or xA to argue for or against a player.

Analytic endorsing fans online like to present them as if they're an inside track and show the game in ways that most can't perceive but they're close to be antiquated at this point. xG is over a decade old?

Clubs are using models, data and systems developed by Oxbridge educated data scientists. Investing millions, not using free to user data dredged up from whatever website or Twitter feed.

That's the data revolution that football has and is undergoing, it's not fbref or the xG philosophy.

Its like going on brokerage forum and waxing lyrical picking stocks based on just profit and loss. It's worth more than picking them just by 'line goes up' , but not by much, and certainly nothing compared to the trading floor and actual analytics used.

A pinch of salt needs applying whenever they're presented.

You're the one analysing small samples within large samples and trying to draw conclusions that happen to conveniently suit your opinion on Núñez.

Some people on here are sniping at Jack, Knight, myself and others for using actual goals and assists never mind xG. So quite why we'd mention stuff like OBV, xThreat models or anything of the like I don't know. Also there isn't a lot publicly available on that front but whenever you do see snippets Darwin always seems to come out well as you'd expect.

I don't know, to me it feels like you're trying to imply that there are complex models being used by the club that may show Darwin isn't actually as good as some of us think he is. But again, as Ian Graham said, a forward who takes good quality shots is the most valuable thing. Everything else is secondary.

And although xG is over a decade old as you say, it still stands up. All of our forward recruitment under Edwards followed the same pattern. Forwards with big shot numbers who were under their xG. Salah, Mane, Firmino and Jota all fall into this category. Núñez was the opposite in that he was way above his xG when we signed him but still the big shot production was there.

And I guarantee you something: whatever complex models Spearman et.al are using, if we sign a forward this summer it'll be someone with high xG and big shot production. That's the basis of everything when buying forwards.

[RyanBabel19]

We would be stupid to sell Nunez and the focus on Isak IMO displays how little our fans pay attention to things sometimes. After years of Agger, Aurelio, Kewell, Thiago etc people are STILL pining for wonderful talents who spend way too much time not on the actual fucking pitch. Isak is very good, but he doesn’t seem available enough when it comes to the duration of the season, what use are any of these stats if you cant use them because they’re injured a lot?

Nunez is class, it remains to be seen if he can sharpen the parts of his game we’re seeing him struggle with enough to be a more consistent player. He profiles brilliantly statistically, slightly less so on the eye test but I think that will improve with time. Personally, I still believe he needs to be more composed in front of goal and become more consistent in his reading of the game, too often we see him snatch at shots, pick the wrong type of finish or choose the wrong method to get past his man but he will naturally improve and I do think he’s on the verge of something special. If he can refine some parts of his game he’ll be outrageously good, but those missed sitters do frustrate at the moment.

You can build a team around the guy and he can become unreal to be honest. I dont think we can completely ignore the big chances missed stat, it matters but I do have faith he’ll improve in that regard as he matures as a player. We were told he couldn’t improve his all round game last season and look at him now, he’ll keep getting better but there’s still too many chances he should be tucking away IMO, he’ll always miss chances… he’s human but there are some he should be finishing with higher regularity

[CowboyKangaroo]

It's just a little incredible to me that such basic statistical output is held in such high regard.

You'd be laughed out of a clubs analytics department for attempting to use such broad models as gp90, xG or xA to argue for or against a player.

Analytic endorsing fans online like to present them as if they're an inside track and show the game in ways that most can't perceive but they're close to be antiquated at this point. xG is over a decade old?

Clubs are using models, data and systems developed by Oxbridge educated data scientists. Investing millions, not using free to user data dredged up from whatever website or Twitter feed.

That's the data revolution that football has and is undergoing, it's not fbref or the xG philosophy.

Its like going on brokerage forum and waxing lyrical picking stocks based on just profit and loss. It's worth more than picking them just by 'line goes up' , but not by much, and certainly nothing compared to the trading floor and actual analytics used.

A pinch of salt needs applying whenever they're presented.

Dunno about laughed out. Our own stats guys are on the record as saying for an attacker the most important thing is high volume of good quality shots (which is what xG measures) and that everything else is secondary. Are there other important stats? Sure. Are the stats we are talking about the most important measures of whether an attacker is elite or not? Abso-fucking-lutely.

[Cpt_Reina]

You're the one analysing small samples within large samples and trying to draw conclusions that happen to conveniently suit your opinion on Núñez.

Some people on here are sniping at Jack, Knight, myself and others for using actual goals and assists never mind xG. So quite why we'd mention stuff like OBV, xThreat models or anything of the like I don't know. Also there isn't a lot publicly available on that front but whenever you do see snippets Darwin always seems to come out well as you'd expect.

I don't know, to me it feels like you're trying to imply that there are complex models being used by the club that may show Darwin isn't actually as good as some of us think he is. But again, as Ian Graham said, a forward who takes good quality shots is the most valuable thing. Everything else is secondary.

And although xG is over a decade old as you say, it still stands up. All of our forward recruitment under Edwards followed the same pattern. Forwards with big shot numbers who were under their xG. Salah, Mane, Firmino and Jota all fall into this category. Núñez was the opposite in that he was way above his xG when we signed him but still the big shot production was there.

And I guarantee you something: whatever complex models Spearman et.al are using, if we sign a forward this summer it'll be someone with high xG and big shot production. That's the basis of everything when buying forwards.

You can take Darwin out of the conversation completely. Maybe our data science dept would show that he's even more elite than the basic models presented here, I don't know.

What I'm saying is, I don't think these statistical models are worth *that much* no matter who the player is. Due to their lack of granularity at the level they're being presented.

Its right to be sceptical about them, it's fairly easy to pick holes in their credibility and the value they add to conversations is being vastly overvalued is what I'm saying.

Not that they're worthless. Overvalued and certainly worth keeping in mind that they're some way away from actual analytics being used to assess footballers in a professional setting due to that lack granularity. That's all.

If they were that useful Ian Grahams consultancy business wouldn't be making much money would it.

[Draex]

I go back to this graph and would ask Jack, Dilk etc. Are Darwins numbers shown here good enough for a title winning side?

[Kashinoda]

After 32 played in 18/19 we also had 72 goals from 481 shots.

We have the same output from 650 shots this season, 169 more.

Stats are weird because of the context, we've been wasteful but are a bulk of those 169 shots down to Nunez' positioning? How do you quantify it.

Interestingly if we were as productive as we were in 18/19 we'd be on 97 goals with 6 to play. Bar 13/14 we never get remotely near those numbers.

[Cpt_Reina]

Dunno about laughed out. Our own stats guys are on the record as saying for an attacker the most important thing is high volume of good quality shots (which is what xG measures) and that everything else is secondary. Are there other important stats? Sure. Are the stats we are talking about the most important measures of whether an attacker is elite or not? Abso-fucking-lutely.

I'm saying that clubs at the cutting edge of player analysis probably aren't using xG or xA in the broad application we're seeing here once it trickles down through various levels of competency, understanding, time, effort and means.

Does it form a part of what they look at? Do they use it to feed other more in depth granular statistical output? Probably!

But if you think anyone in liverpools data dept is just looking at a players xA or xG at its lowest level of detail and putting any stock in it I've got a bridge to sell you.

I don't put *that much* stock in it myself either.

[CowboyKangaroo]

I go back to this graph and would ask Jack, Dilk etc. Are Darwins numbers shown here good enough for a title winning side?

Yeah, because 'big chances' missed isn't an important or even relevant number at all.

[CowboyKangaroo]

I'm saying that clubs at the cutting edge of player analysis probably aren't using xG or xA in the broad application we're seeing here once it trickles down through various levels of competency, understanding, time, effort and means.

Does it form a part of what they look at? Do they use it to feed other more in depth granular statistical output? Probably!

But if you think anyone in liverpools data dept is just looking at a players xA or xG at its lowest level of detail and putting any stock in it I've got a bridge to sell you.

I don't put *that much* stock in it myself either.

They are though. Shot volume and location is what they are looking at, and the most important thing they look at for a forward. That is what xG is. Do they have a more accurate model than us? Almost certainly. Does it measure the same thing - yes, it does. There isn't likely to be much difference between their model and the public model either except at the margins.

In any case, the point is moot, as it is well accepted by all the nerds that finishing ability isn't a very important thing in goal scoring.

[skipper757]

The big chances question comes down to the actual game itself.  Is Darwin just that good at getting into those positions to miss?  A replacement that scores 7 big chances and misses 20 big chances is "better" % conversion wise, but is that any better in terms of goalscoring?  No.

You'd need to find a replacement that can be more productive.  If there's a replacement that can get into positions and create space similarly to Darwin (allowing for a good number of big chances) and convert at higher rates, of course.  But is there?  That's the question for the new manager and sporting director department.

[Knight]

The big chances question comes down to the actual game itself.  Is Darwin just that good at getting into those positions to miss?  A replacement that scores 7 big chances and misses 20 big chances is "better" % conversion wise, but is that any better in terms of goalscoring?  No.

You'd need to find a replacement that can be more productive.  If there's a replacement that can get into positions and create space similarly to Darwin (allowing for a good number of big chances) and convert at higher rates, of course.  But is there?  That's the question for the new manager and sporting director department.

This and people keep saying it, but mostly being ignored. Amidst all the criticism of Nunez, justified or not, around his finishing, it doesn't actually matter if you can't find a forward who's going to score goals and create goals at a better rate than Nunez. And it's really not clear that we can. Maybe we could have the greatest forward in the world on our hands if he improved his finishing/ variance did it's thing (depending on your preference) but he's brilliant even if it doesn't.

[Draex]

Yeah, because 'big chances' missed isn't an important or even relevant number at all.

Ah right, guess losing all those games and getting knocked out of the cup doesn't mater. cheers.

[JasonF]

Ah right, guess losing all those games and getting knocked out of the cup doesn't mater. cheers.

It's only 6 weeks ago people were saying the opposite. A couple of bad results and he's responsible for every loss.

[skipper757]

Ah right, guess losing all those games and getting knocked out of the cup doesn't mater. cheers.

I don't disagree that there could be better out there or that Darwin can improve, but this remark is so flippant.

We scored 3 in our FA Cup defeat at Old Trafford.  Darwin being a better finisher doesn't help there.  What helps is if our defenders don't make Rashford, Antony, and Diallo look like world-beaters.

Darwin's goals at Newcastle were Torres-esque.  The explosiveness and finishing was brilliant.  The guile of movement and flicked header against Forest was also great.

Jota, Jones, Salah, and Endo all missed good chances yesterday.  Diaz missed a 1 on 1 against City.  Trent missed that 5 on 2 against Arsenal.  VVD and Alisson made a all-mighty error at the Emirates.  The refs screwed us over at Spurs.

We have lost 3 league games all season.  Is Darwin somehow responsible for losing all those games and us being eliminated from the cups?

[JackWard33]

I go back to this graph and would ask Jack, Dilk etc. Are Darwins numbers shown here good enough for a title winning side?

It's a matter of very little relevance because even if it did cost us the title (it hasn't) its impossible to control how many "big chances" (whatever the arbitrary measure of that is)  you convert... so there's nothing you could do or put in place to increase your chances of higher big chance conversion next season

[Sheer Magnetism]

Yeah, because 'big chances' missed isn't an important or even relevant number at all.

You don't think it's important for the chances a team creates to be converted to goals? Does it at least become more important in games against better teams where the games are more likely to be tight? Because I don't think many of these big chances involve Nunez tackling a player in midfield and carving out a shot in the area for himself. Is it not reasonable to assume that if he was taking on a lower proportion of shots, more efficient players would be taking more?

The big chances question comes down to the actual game itself.  Is Darwin just that good at getting into those positions to miss?  A replacement that scores 7 big chances and misses 20 big chances is "better" % conversion wise, but is that any better in terms of goalscoring?  No.

Yes, but someone who gets eight from 26 (going from the next lowest rate of productivity in that graph) would. That's the problem. The hypothetical replacement wouldn't need to get into positions at a similar rate or get near Nunez's number of shots in order to score more goals.

Also, Jason F, I count two games this season where he got the winner: Newcastle and Forest.

[mullyred94]

You don't think it's important for the chances a team creates to be converted to goals? Does it at least become more important in games against better teams where the games are more likely to be tight? Because I don't think many of these big chances involve Nunez tackling a player in midfield and carving out a shot in the area for himself. Is it not reasonable to assume that if he was taking on a lower proportion of shots, more efficient players would be taking more?
Yes, but someone who gets eight from 26 (going from the next lowest rate of productivity in that graph) would. That's the problem. The hypothetical replacement wouldn't need to get into positions at a similar rate or get near Nunez's number of shots in order to score more goals.

Also, Jason F, I count two games this season where he got the winner: Newcastle and Forest.

What about scoring to make it 1-0?

[MonsLibpool]

The big chances question comes down to the actual game itself.  Is Darwin just that good at getting into those positions to miss?  A replacement that scores 7 big chances and misses 20 big chances is "better" % conversion wise, but is that any better in terms of goalscoring?  No.

You'd need to find a replacement that can be more productive.  If there's a replacement that can get into positions and create space similarly to Darwin (allowing for a good number of big chances) and convert at higher rates, of course.  But is there?  That's the question for the new manager and sporting director department.

It's the reason why clubs spend big on strikers i.e to improve their efficiency in converting big chances.

Madrid already have Joselu so why do they need Mbappe anyway if the striker does not really control the number of big chances converted? It's why watching the game is as/more important than stats.

Mbappe is more likely to convert those big chances and that's why they are spending so much on him.

[skipper757]

It's why reason why clubs spend big on strikers i.e to improve their efficiency in converting big chances.

Madrid already have Joselu so why do they need Mbappe anyway if the striker does not really control the number of big chances converted? It's why watching the game is as/more important than stats.

Mbappe is more likely to convert those big chances and that's why they are spending so much on him.

Yes, but we will have to spend big then.  So that's up to the new staff if they think a replacement would make us better.  Or to stick with Nunez.

[Knight]

It's the reason why clubs spend big on strikers i.e to improve their efficiency in converting big chances.

Madrid already have Joselu so why do they need Mbappe anyway if the striker does not really control the number of big chances converted? It's why watching the game is as/more important than stats.

Mbappe is more likely to convert those big chances and that's why they are spending so much on him.

How many times does this need to be said? It’s much more important that a player can be good enough to get high value shots than it is how ‘good’ he is at finishing them, which is mostly variance. The reason Mbappe is so good is mostly how many high value shots he gets.

[Draex]

I don't disagree that there could be better out there or that Darwin can improve, but this remark is so flippant.

We scored 3 in our FA Cup defeat at Old Trafford.  Darwin being a better finisher doesn't help there.  What helps is if our defenders don't make Rashford, Antony, and Diallo look like world-beaters.

Darwin's goals at Newcastle were Torres-esque.  The explosiveness and finishing was brilliant.  The guile of movement and flicked header against Forest was also great.

Jota, Jones, Salah, and Endo all missed good chances yesterday.  Diaz missed a 1 on 1 against City.  Trent missed that 5 on 2 against Arsenal.  VVD and Alisson made a all-mighty error at the Emirates.  The refs screwed us over at Spurs.

We have lost 3 league games all season.  Is Darwin somehow responsible for losing all those games and us being eliminated from the cups?

Interesting you say my statement is flippant yet ignore the one I was responding to "Yeah, because 'big chances' missed isn't an important or even relevant number at all.".

The FA Cup defeat is such a bad example, they scored 2 goals in the last 10 minutes in extra time against an injury ravaged team already pushing fatigue, you completely ignore the fact that if our forwards would have put away just one (note all our fowards not just Darwin) chance and got it to 2-0 we'd have had an easy win. Against Utd this season we've had 90ish shots and not beaten them, that to me is something we better improve because being more clinical would have meant we're still in the cup and more points in the league.

Btw I've consistently said it's all our forwards missing chances, but it's Darwin who is doing it on a massive scale.

[skipper757]

Interesting you say my statement is flippant yet ignore the one I was responding to "Yeah, because 'big chances' missed isn't an important or even relevant number at all.".

The FA Cup defeat is such a bad example, they scored 2 goals in the last 10 minutes in extra time against an injury ravaged team already pushing fatigue, you completely ignore the fact that if our forwards would have put away just one (note all our fowards not just Darwin) chance and got it to 2-0 we'd have had an easy win. Against Utd this season we've had 90ish shots and not beaten them, that to me is something we better improve because being more clinical would have meant we're still in the cup and more points in the league.

Btw I've consistently said it's all our forwards missing chances, but it's Darwin who is doing it on a massive scale.

We'd got it to 2-0 when we were 2-1 up?  We scored twice to take the lead in the cup, did we not?   Antony, Rashford, and Diallo look liked world-beaters.  We'd be in the cup if we conceded only 2 or 3 (if we win the shootout) at Old Trafford.  So where were these Darwin big chances missed that cost us the FA Cup?  Please provide evidence.

Yes, we should've done better against United, correct, and you say, it's down to everyone.

But at the crucial moments in the league, what do you think of the following?  Fairly certain we'd be top if these events didn't happen.

Diaz missed a 1 on 1 against City.  Trent missed that 5 on 2 against Arsenal.  VVD and Alisson made a all-mighty error at the Emirates.  The refs screwed us over at Spurs.

How did all these big chances missed from Darwin cost us in these games?

[CowboyKangaroo]

Ah right, guess losing all those games and getting knocked out of the cup doesn't mater. cheers.

Losing games matters. The stat doesn't help you work out how good a player is, or how likely they are to score goals in the future though (other than there being a positive correlation between players who miss lots of chances and being prolific - for obvious reasons). There is only a small you can do recruitment wise to bring that number down and practically nothing that would be worth doing.

[CowboyKangaroo]

It's the reason why clubs spend big on strikers i.e to improve their efficiency in converting big chances.

Madrid already have Joselu so why do they need Mbappe anyway if the striker does not really control the number of big chances converted? It's why watching the game is as/more important than stats.

Mbappe is more likely to convert those big chances and that's why they are spending so much on him.

No they don't. They spend big to get players who are in the position to take a lot of high quality shots. Big chance conversion is barely a factor (mostly because it is a nonsense stat in terms of evaluating a player).

Mbappe is a slightly above average finisher in his career. He is valuable because of his brilliant  high-quality shot volume, not because of his a bit above average finishing ability. Mbappe will be in position to take more good shots than Joselu. That's why he is much, much better.

[Mr Dilkington]

In a one season sample:

If player A takes 4.5 shots a game and averages 0.7 non-penalty xG per game but scores 0.55 goals and misses a lot of 'big chances' and player B takes 3.5 shots a game and averages 0.45xG per game but scores 0.6 goals and doesn't miss many big chances, which player would you buy if you were a sporting director?

Let's assume they are the same age, playing in the same league/team and they are of roughly equivalent talent in other areas (i.e. passing, dribbling, crossing etc.)

[Draex]

We'd got it to 2-0 when we were 2-1 up?  We scored twice to take the lead in the cup, did we not?   Antony, Rashford, and Diallo look liked world-beaters.  We'd be in the cup if we conceded only 2 or 3 (if we win the shootout) at Old Trafford.  So where were these Darwin big chances missed that cost us the FA Cup?  Please provide evidence.

Yes, we should've done better against United, correct, and you say, it's down to everyone.

But at the crucial moments in the league, what do you think of the following?  Fairly certain we'd be top if these events didn't happen.

Diaz missed a 1 on 1 against City.  Trent missed that 5 on 2 against Arsenal.  VVD and Alisson made a all-mighty error at the Emirates.  The refs screwed us over at Spurs.

How did all these big chances missed from Darwin cost us in these games?

Sorry we were 1-0 down, then we got it to 2-1 then missed a bucket full of chances. I never said Nunez missed the big chances in the FA Cup, I said the team did. I said Nunez over the season has missed the most chances by a significant margin hence why he's being discussed.

The chance against Atalanta at 0-0 where he should have rounded the keeper is a good example for Nunez.

Interesting you say the Trent 5 v 2, it was a poor pass from Salah which made his chance harder than it should have been. You also missed Nunez's miss against Utd but again that wasn't the easiest chance due to poor passes in the counter.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1779947344240521502

Lots of examples, as a team we need to be far better.

[CowboyKangaroo]

In a one season sample:

If player A takes 4.5 shots a game and averages 0.7 non-penalty xG per game but scores 0.55 goals and misses a lot of 'big chances' and player B takes 3.5 shots a game and averages 0.45xG per game but scores 0.6 goals and doesn't miss many big chances, which player would you buy if you were a sporting director?

Let's assume they are the same age, playing in the same league/team and they are of roughly equivalent talent in other areas (i.e. passing, dribbling, crossing etc.)

Spoiler: any sporting director who picks the one who misses fewer big chances is a poor sporting director.

[Wool]

‘Variance’ is just a nice way of distilling all the other things people are talking about (shot selection, composure, decision making) and removing all player agency in these situations. There’s a good example of it just this season where Michael Owen (he was good at scoring goals like) was critical of Nunez after the Brentford game because even though Nunez scored he felt the shot selection (lobbing the keeper) was an insane choice of shot. Fast forward a few weeks and Nunez tries the same thing against Atalanta and fluffs his lines. Variance ennit, he scored one and missed one. But it ignores the question of whether it was even the right shot selection to begin with, or could he have rounded the keeper etc? All those other factors that come into play but we’re sat here pretending don’t.

Owen quote:
That finish from Darwin Nunez yesterday was insane. I can’t stop watching it. And I can’t begin to explain how difficult a skill that is. Moving at pace, the ball running away from you, being inside the box with no room for error. Incredible. BUT, it is also further proof that if he is to get closer to becoming the great player many people think he can be, he has to adapt his way of thinking. I mean, to even consider that finish is madness. It’s a 1 in 10, 2 in 10 finish at best. Learning to slot, dink or go round the GK is a far more productive way to score and will increase his chances to 4 or 5 in 10, thus massively increasing his end return. I’m really not trying to rain on his parade as that goal was pure class. But I’d rather see it when Liverpool are 3-0 up, not at 0-0😂