Topic: Darwin Núñez (Darwin Gabriel Núñez Ribeiro)

[JackWard33]

@ capt Reina … last season he scored in the league against Arsenal, United and Newcastle … Dilks has posted about the CL … you’re trying to make a point by cherry picking.

Youre also trying to do something really hard by trying to tease out individual performances vs team / opposition effects
Obv forwards get more chances against weaker teams and will score more goals vs weaker teams over time

[-Willo-]

If we sold him we'd be stupid. If we sold him for 75% of what we bought him for we'd be the biggest mugs in European football.

Well that depends on if you rate him I guess, you clearly do, I don't.

[Draex]

@ capt Reina … last season he scored in the league against Arsenal, United and Newcastle … Dilks has posted about the CL … you’re trying to make a point by cherry picking.

Youre also trying to do something really hard by trying to tease out individual performances vs team / opposition effects
Obv forwards get more chances against weaker teams and will score more goals vs weaker teams over time

It's about consistency isn't it, Salah for example always turned up against the big teams, not one season then not the next, every season.

This isn't a Nunez specific problem, we've been poor against the top 6 this season so we need more players consistently playing their best against them.

[Mr Dilkington]

Well that depends on if you rate him I guess, you clearly do, I don't.

if you don't rate someone with more open play goals and assists on a per minute basis than everyone bar 9 players in Europe's top 5 leagues then that's your perogative.

So say you're our sporting director. You desperately hope someone pays 50M for him and luckily for you they do. Now who do you go and buy to replace him and how much would you spend?

[jepovic]

Superior at everything else? He doesn't have good link-up or passing so I'm trying to figure out if chaos is something to be superior at.

"If" those went in. But they haven't, they're misses. And bear in mind he has taken 43 more shots in the league.

Yet he has 8 assists to Isak's 1

[-Willo-]

if you don't rate someone with more open play goals and assists on a per minute basis than everyone bar 9 players in Europe's top 5 leagues then that's your perogative.

So say you're our sporting director. You desperately hope someone pays 50M for him and luckily for you they do. Now who do you go and buy to replace him and how much would you spend?

If he doesn't score in our next game he is a 1 in 3 striker, fluff it up with assists all you like, he was bought to put the ball in the back of the net and he isn't very good at it, this all comes from us being perfect for his play style too, it's all personal opinion of course but if he went to Inter tomorrow I don't think he gets more G/A than Marcus Thuram for example.

In terms of who I'd buy? It would have to be Isak, especially if Newcastle do need to sell. But it's not like theres a small list of players who could outdo the work Nunez has done at LFC over the last 2 years, he's hardly ripped it up.

[Cpt_Reina]

Obv forwards get more chances against weaker teams and will score more goals vs weaker teams over time

Glad we agree.

I'm guessing we also agree then that a statistic of goals per minute that doesn't take this in to account is kind of only providing some of the context of how/when/where those goals per minute are being scored?

I'll agree with you that Darwin is very very good at scoring against a certain standard of team. A bottom half of the PL, Europa League level of team his goals per 90 vs those is great.

I don't however subscribe to the opinion that his mins per goals ratio can be applied across all standard of teams. Not the top 6 in the PL, not even the top 10. Which in my opinion limits his effectiveness and drops him down from being at the very top end of goalscorers in to a rung below.

He's done well in the CL though to be fair to him.

[smicer07]

People always think opposition strikers are better than the ones we have. Then they join us and prove to be shit.

[elkun]

The way people are talking about his assists u would u have think his passing level is like Messi or even Salah.

Passing the ball to player A and then player A dribbling the ball past 5 other players is also considered an assist. I would really love a video of his asisst this season.

My question is define what u think is an assist.

I'm not saying he's very bad. He will probably have his good moments here and there. But I don't think he has that level/talent to be able to play for the absolute top. He is a good player for a sub-top club (like Benfica) and not for the absolute top club that wants to win prizes on constant base just like ours.

[Mr Dilkington]

If he doesn't score in our next game he is a 1 in 3 striker, fluff it up with assists all you like, he was bought to put the ball in the back of the net and he isn't very good at it, this all comes from us being perfect for his play style too, it's all personal opinion of course but if he went to Inter tomorrow I don't think he gets more G/A than Marcus Thuram for example.

In terms of who I'd buy? It would have to be Isak, especially if Newcastle do need to sell. But it's not like theres a small list of players who could outdo the work Nunez has done at LFC over the last 2 years, he's hardly ripped it up.

Right so you'd sell Nunez for 50-60M and buy Isak for say 100M (that's what it would take, possibly more).

So you're spending upwards of 40 million extra to get a player with 0.71 goals and assists and selling the lad with 0.91.

Thuram is very good. 0.8 goals and assists per90. Not as good as Núñez of course but Inter did well to get him on a free.

[Mr Dilkington]

The way people are talking about his assists u would u have think his passing level is like Messi or even Salah.

Passing the ball to player A and then player A dribbling the ball past 5 other players is also considered an assist. I would really love a video of his asisst this season.

My question is define what u think is an assist.

I'm not saying he's very bad. He will probably have his good moments here and there. But I don't think he has that level/talent to be able to play for the absolute top. He is a good player for a sub-top club (like Benfica) and not for the absolute top club that wants to win prizes on constant base just like ours.

That's why we use xA mate. He's at 0.27xA this season compared to the much more complete Isak who is sitting on 0.05.

[Knight]

Glad we agree.

I'm guessing we also agree then that a statistic of goals per minute that doesn't take this in to account is kind of only providing some of the context of how/when/where those goals per minute are being scored?

I'll agree with you that Darwin is very very good at scoring against a certain standard of team. A bottom half of the PL, Europa League level of team his goals per 90 vs those is great.

I don't however subscribe to the opinion that his mins per goals ratio can be applied across all standard of teams. Not the top 6 in the PL, not even the top 10. Which in my opinion limits his effectiveness and drops him down from being at the very top end of goalscorers in to a rung below.

He's done well in the CL though to be fair to him.

You should have started and finished your post with the last sentence because it rather defeats the argument you just made.

[JackWard33]

Glad we agree.

I'm guessing we also agree then that a statistic of goals per minute that doesn't take this in to account is kind of only providing some of the context of how/when/where those goals per minute are being scored?

I'll agree with you that Darwin is very very good at scoring against a certain standard of team. A bottom half of the PL, Europa League level of team his goals per 90 vs those is great.

I don't however subscribe to the opinion that his mins per goals ratio can be applied across all standard of teams. Not the top 6 in the PL, not even the top 10. Which in my opinion limits his effectiveness and drops him down from being at the very top end of goalscorers in to a rung below.

He's done well in the CL though to be fair to him.

To be clear I don’t agree there’s anything different about Darwin, peculiar to him over any other good forward, so I don’t agree with your conclusions about him here
Theres no reason that his production is different in kind to any other forwards production

[Stockholm Syndrome]

Is Isak now the beacon call to say this is who you should have instead because he has just come out as a name the last few days.

Before that it was Toney

Before that it was "Should have got Jesus"

People who don't think he is good enough seem to just pluck a name from thin air and say "Yeah he'll be better we should sign him"

[Cpt_Reina]

You should have started and finished your post with the last sentence because it rather makes a mockery of everything else you've said.

Depends which tier you put the likes of Rangers and a historically poor Ajax team I guess.

I'm not arguing Darwin can't score and will never score against a top calibre team. He has, he can, he will do again.

I'm arguing on the side of whether he can do it consistently enough to be our main focal point of goals (which is his role, he's not Bobby and Salah's insane productivity is about to leave him and us).

I don't think stats such as goals per 90 are this beacon of truth they're presented as that's all. I'm arguing on the side of greater analytics, more depth, further numbers, increased data. Not less. Just not the broad strokes which are being used as of today.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

This is Watkins' first season out of the four in the Premier League that he has slightly (and only slightly) overperformed his goals against xG ratio. He slightly underperformed in the previous 3 seasons; again, only slightly. There is no evidence that he has 'improved' his finishing at all.

Errr.... contradiction alert.... he's overperforming his xG now, but he never used to, but his finishing hasn't improved? Are you going to use the data and trust it or not?

I don't think his finishing was ever bad fwiw but just from watching him, it's clearly gone up a level, so I'm glad the data you have provided agrees.

[bornandbRED]

Masturbating to statsref is great but it makes football convo so, so mundane.

Viewing footy through the prism of stats, variances, trends and using that as a primary method of analysis is just.. shite and goes a long way to sterilising the reason we all watch the game.

[PaleBlueDot]

Right so you'd sell Nunez for 50-60M and buy Isak for say 100M (that's what it would take, possibly more).

So you're spending upwards of 40 million extra to get a player with 0.71 goals and assists and selling the lad with 0.91.

Thuram is very good. 0.8 goals and assists per90. Not as good as Núñez of course but Inter did well to get him on a free.

This is what's wrong with just looking at numbers and not using your eyes.

Actually, I can't say you're wrong this is a game of opinions but the eye test goes a long way in the game we love.

I agree with him. I'd sell Nunez for Isak if we had the chance. I'd only be against it because of the latter's injury record but I'd prefer him as a striker...certainly.

[Stockholm Syndrome]

Errr.... contradiction alert.... he's overperforming his xG now, but he never used to, but his finishing hasn't improved? Are you going to use the data and trust it or not?

I don't think his finishing was ever bad fwiw but just from watching him, it's clearly gone up a level, so I'm glad the data you have provided agrees.

If he underperforms his XG next year would his finishing regressed?

Or would it be the case as most have argued on here that there's sometimes not a lot to actually quantify quality of finish beyond being in the right place at the right time (XG)

The question I would have on Watkins is has his XG improved? Is he getting in the right place more often to score the goals?

[Stockholm Syndrome]

This is what's wrong with just looking at numbers and just using your eyes.

It's why you do both. And if I am looking at numbers and the eye test I am picking Nunez

[Mr Dilkington]

Masturbating to statsref is great but it makes football convo so, so mundane.

Viewing footy through the prism of stats, variances, trends and using that as a primary method of analysis is just.. shite and goes a long way to sterilising the reason we all watch the game.

Yes, we need to stop talking about these overcomplicated stats, such as... goals and assists.

[elkun]

Is Isak now the beacon call to say this is who you should have instead because he has just come out as a name the last few days.

Before that it was Toney

Before that it was "Should have got Jesus"

People who don't think he is good enough seem to just pluck a name from thin air and say "Yeah he'll be better we should sign him"

I think that we currently live in a football world where there is a huge shortage of good quality number 9's. Someone like Haaland who is so incredibly mediocre in his game is nowadays labeled as a world-class player. In older times he would have been an inzaghi.

I think we are not the only ones who are having this problem. Let's look purely at the number 9s of the top 6 clubs in England

City = Haaland
Arsenal = Havertz
Liverpool = Nunez
Chelsea = Jackson?
Tottenham = Son
United = Hojlund

What an incredibly mediocre list that is.

[Mr Dilkington]

This is what's wrong with just looking at numbers and not using your eyes.

Actually, I can't say you're wrong this is a game of opinions but the eye test goes a long way in the game we love.

I agree with him. I'd sell Nunez for Isak if we had the chance. I'd only be against it because of the latter's injury record but I'd prefer him as a striker...certainly.

Did you see Isak's goals against Spurs at the weekend? How often would he get that space playing for Liverpool? Probably never.

[1892tillforever]

Errr.... contradiction alert.... he's overperforming his xG now, but he never used to, but his finishing hasn't improved? Are you going to use the data and trust it or not?

I don't think his finishing was ever bad fwiw but just from watching him, it's clearly gone up a level, so I'm glad the data you have provided agrees.

The difference is small (it could change to his previous levels with a spell of 2-3 games where he finishes poorly), to the point that it wouldn't really be noticeable if you watched all of his games. It's also based on a small sample size of games (less than one full season), so there are no guarantees that he will continue to do it. If he has a poor spell of 2-3 games and goes back under, does that mean he's no longer a good finisher?

[Stockholm Syndrome]

I think that we currently live in a football world where there is a huge shortage of good quality number 9's. Someone like Haaland who is so incredibly mediocre in his game is nowadays labeled as a world-class player. In older times he would have been an inzaghi.

I think we are not the only ones who are having this problem. Let's look purely at the number 9s of the top 6 clubs in England

City = Haaland
Arsenal = Havertz
Liverpool = Nunez
Chelsea = Jackson?
Tottenham = Son
United = Hojlund

What an incredibly mediocre list that is.

I think there's actually quality out there. Openda and Boniface really excite me as players for example.

There's other I am not so sure about - Osimhen and Gyorkeres (Osimhen because of just general lack of knowledge and Gyorkeres because this is like a breakout season but he is also MASSIVELY over performing XG which on the back of one season makes me think it is an anomaly - a Lacazette situation at best, a Grant Holt at worst)

[LallanaInPyjamas]

If he underperforms his XG next year would his finishing regressed?

Or would it be the case as most have argued on here that there's sometimes not a lot to actually quantify quality of finish beyond being in the right place at the right time (XG)

The question I would have on Watkins is has his XG improved? Is he getting in the right place more often to score the goals?

Do you think our good old friend Dom Solanke's finishing has improved or is he just getting lucky? His xG has always been high, difference is he is now hitting good numbers because he has improved. To put it down to variance or anything similar is nonsense.

[elkun]

I think there's actually quality out there. Openda and Boniface really excite me as players for example.

There's other I am not so sure about - Osimhen and Gyorkeres (Osimhen because of just general lack of knowledge and Gyorkeres because this is like a breakout season but he is also MASSIVELY over performing XG which on the back of one season makes me think it is an anomaly - a Lacazette situation at best, a Grant Holt at worst)

I don't really know them, but I believe you.

But what I mean by this is that we are not the only top club that has this problem.

[PaleBlueDot]

Did you see Isak's goals against Spurs at the weekend? How often would he get that space playing for Liverpool? Probably never.

https://x.com/eurofootcom/status/1779941877845778856 All Isak's 21 goals this season.

I don't want to link this here because it's the Darwin thread but have a look at that and tell me there isn't a gulf in composure and quality in front of goal between the two strikers. You can't even argue maturity as Darwin is older.

It's not just when there is space like vs Spurs. There are all kinds of chances but pay attention to the elite composure shown here. I can't see Darwin ever getting there. But he can be a different kind of effective striker.

It's why you do both. And if I am looking at numbers and the eye test I am picking Nunez

I think you could do with watching the above too. If you still hold the same opinion after then hats off to you.

[1892tillforever]

If he underperforms his XG next year would his finishing regressed?

Or would it be the case as most have argued on here that there's sometimes not a lot to actually quantify quality of finish beyond being in the right place at the right time (XG)

The question I would have on Watkins is has his XG improved? Is he getting in the right place more often to score the goals?

Watkins has indeed improved his xG this season by a fair amount on his career average. As you say, it shows he is doing more of the right things to be in the best position to score goals.

Do you think our good old friend Dom Solanke's finishing has improved or is he just getting lucky? His xG has always been high, difference is he is now hitting good numbers because he has improved. To put it down to variance or anything similar is nonsense.

I am only going by Understat here, but Solanke's xG this season is double what it was the previous 3 seasons playing for Bournemouth. He is at 0.57xG per 90 compared to 0.29, 0.25 and 0.22 in his lasty 3 seasons. So, like Watkins, he is doing more to be in the right positions to score. He is still underperforming his xG this season though.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

Watkins has indeed improved his xG this season by a fair amount on his career average. As you say, it shows he is doing more of the right things to be in the best position to score goals.

Absolutely. So you rightly recognise that he has improved other areas of his game, no doubt helped by playing in a better functioning team, but not his finishing? Even though he is also outperforming his higher xG levels? Because finishing doesn't exist, right? Wrong.

[1892tillforever]

Absolutely. So you rightly recognise that he has improved other areas of his game, no doubt helped by playing in a better functioning team, but not his finishing? Even though he is also outperforming his higher xG levels? Because finishing doesn't exist, right? Wrong.

If your xG is 10 in 40 games one season and you score 7 goals, then in the following season, your xG is 20 in 40 games, and you score 15 goals, does that mean your finishing has definitely improved?

[LallanaInPyjamas]

I am only going by Understat here, but Solanke's xG this season is double what it was the previous 3 seasons playing for Bournemouth. He is at 0.57xG per 90 compared to 0.29, 0.25 and 0.22 in his lasty 3 seasons. So, like Watkins, he is doing more to be in the right positions to score. He is still underperforming his xG this season though.

He would never have scored that chance against United at the weekend a few years ago. I think he's always a player that will underperfom his xG because he's not a natural finisher and he takes a lot of shots, but his ball striking and confidence in front of goal have clearly massively improved.

[Stockholm Syndrome]

Do you think our good old friend Dom Solanke's finishing has improved or is he just getting lucky? His xG has always been high, difference is he is now hitting good numbers because he has improved. To put it down to variance or anything similar is nonsense.

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

[Sheer Magnetism]

I think that we currently live in a football world where there is a huge shortage of good quality number 9's. Someone like Haaland who is so incredibly mediocre in his game is nowadays labeled as a world-class player. In older times he would have been an inzaghi.

I think we are not the only ones who are having this problem. Let's look purely at the number 9s of the top 6 clubs in England

City = Haaland
Arsenal = Havertz
Liverpool = Nunez
Chelsea = Jackson?
Tottenham = Son
United = Hojlund

What an incredibly mediocre list that is.

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.

[-Willo-]

Is Isak now the beacon call to say this is who you should have instead because he has just come out as a name the last few days.

Before that it was Toney

Before that it was "Should have got Jesus"

People who don't think he is good enough seem to just pluck a name from thin air and say "Yeah he'll be better we should sign him"

Or lots of people in the fan base simply don't think he's good enough and then individuals give their personal opinions on who they'd sign, its not a hivemind.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

If your xG is 10 in 40 games one season and you score 7 goals, then in the following season, your xG is 20 in 40 games, and you score 15 goals, does that mean your finishing has definitely improved?

I don't think you can use xG numbers to definitively prove anything either way to be perfectly honest. It's an interesting but inherently flawed system that people place too much faith in. That 10 xG could be made up from 20 really high chances, while the 20 xG could be made up from 100 much lower chances.

For me xG was designed to indicate a team's general dominance (or lack thereof) of a football match, not an individual's finishing ability across seasons upon seasons of data. It brings something to the discussion but it's not the be all and end all.

[1892tillforever]

I don't think you can use xG numbers to definitively prove anything either way to be perfectly honest. It's an interesting but inherently flawed system that people place too much faith in. That 10 xG could be 20 really high chances, while the 20 xG could be 100 much lower chances.

Oh I agree that we shouldn't be bowing at the alter of xG as such. However, it does provide a good overview of things once there is a large enough sample. For example, you won't find too many forwards who have scored 100+ goals that score 10% higher or lower than xG. There will always be outliers of course; Harry Kane being one.

[Mr Dilkington]

https://x.com/eurofootcom/status/1779941877845778856 All Isak's 21 goals this season.

I don't want to link this here because it's the Darwin thread but have a look at that and tell me there isn't a gulf in composure and quality in front of goal between the two strikers. You can't even argue maturity as Darwin is older.

It's not just when there is space like vs Spurs. There are all kinds of chances but pay attention to the elite composure shown here. I can't see Darwin ever getting there. But he can be a different kind of effective striker.

I think you could do with watching the above too. If you still hold the same opinion after then hats off to you.

I like Isak a lot and agree he has a lot of composure in these kind of situations. His dribble and assist v Everton last season is one of the best individual moments of brilliance I've seen in years.

I think he's one who is a little bit overrated because of his aesthetic appeal. He looks very silky and smooth but his actual production is a level below Darwin.

[Stockholm Syndrome]

Or lots of people in the fan base simply don't think he's good enough and then individuals give their personal opinions on who they'd sign, its not a hivemind.

By why are all these people now saying sign Isak, when he isn't really an option and wasn't discussed at all until a few days ago.

It's like people have made up a solution to their problem without any concept of reality. Just a blunt dumb "THIS MAN INSTEAD. SOLVED"

[Stockholm Syndrome]

https://x.com/eurofootcom/status/1779941877845778856 All Isak's 21 goals this season.

I don't want to link this here because it's the Darwin thread but have a look at that and tell me there isn't a gulf in composure and quality in front of goal between the two strikers. You can't even argue maturity as Darwin is older.

It's not just when there is space like vs Spurs. There are all kinds of chances but pay attention to the elite composure shown here. I can't see Darwin ever getting there. But he can be a different kind of effective striker.

I think you could do with watching the above too. If you still hold the same opinion after then hats off to you.

I mean yeah I do still hold the same opinion.

I don't care about the composure of style of a goal so long as it is a goal. I am also taking into account assists and general play, both of which Darwin is fucking great and important to us

If you want to draw down to numbers then fine, if you want to use the eye test then fine but if you do focus on everything, and Darwin is very good and important to us when it comes to the everything point