The problem with stats / charts is the complete lack of context.
Which is why everybody in analytics know that their job is to identify players for scouting, or apply context to reports from scouts in terms of an overall picture. e.g. if a player scores a hatrick in the 3 games the scout sees, is a a 100+ goals a season player? Nobody, ever, has suggested stats are used in isolation, or videos. However for some strange reason, the opinion of one person of a small sample size of games which has no verifiability whatsoever is frequently recommended as the best data.
16.47259 dribbles per game. So what? If you habitually run into dead ends and give the ball away, that's a minus point, not a plus. Not saying that AOC does that, just pointing out the inherent weakness in the "data".
But then we can look at video (provided and further can be sources) to see what areas he makes his dribbles in. We can also see how often per game he is dispossed of the ball (provided in radar) which shows AoC both completes an elite number of dribbles in his position and rarely gives it away compared to all players in his position for which there is data. This suggests he is a very high proficiency dribbler rather than the player you described. But again, nobody makes those judgements on stats, it's a scouting note to be verified.
Digger's wizardry against Brazil was still only one dribble , and that miss by Geoff Thomas would have got him a couple of nice coloured segments on a radar graph, but the daft c*nt still couldn't hit a barn door with a banjo.
Actually it would be counted as 1 successful dribble for every player he beats. However we also never use 1 stat in isolation either because it's an incomplete picture. Things like 'packing' is used. This is how many opposition players are eliminated with a dribble, pass, or off the ball run. Then there is xg chain. This is to give a value to each action based on how much it attributes to a goal scoring chance. So touching the ball to Coutinho would have maybe 0,001. Coutinho carrying the ball 40 yards, beating 3 players and playing a throughball between CB and FB into the box for an overlapping runner Moreno would have 0,350. Moreno cutting the ball back to someone Firmino on the edge of the box unmarked would be valued at say 0,12. Firmino shoots and scored. Each action if given a value based on how much each player contributd to the goal. Or any meaningful attack. This then gives a picture of how much a players actions impact on the attacking play of their team.
Also, there's no adjustment for the colleagues players play with. Saw the stick that Barclay got earlier in the thread, but its comparing apples with eggs.
If you play Everton, Barclay is just about the only one with any passing ability. So opponents can concentrate on him, and hence affect his stats disproportionately - there's mention of this actually being done by us with respect to cutting off the supply to Lukaku.
Not true. That would be tactical naive to concentrate on one player because then you are just creating overloads elsewhere on the pitch. Even the worst premier league midfielders would take advantage of overloads if you just give them up. Tell me tactically how that works? Give me an example of one game what that happened with Barkley. And this is the problem with using "my eyes" as your source of all information. People are the worst in terms seeing, interpreting, recording, storing and recalling information. I can provide you with plenty of sources on why they are unreliable if you wish?
If you are at Arsenal, however, the team carries a much more widespread and potent attacking threat [well, usually ] and so individual players should find themselves with a bit more time and room than if you are a one man midfield, and so their individual stats should benefit as a result.
There is more assumptions here than I even know where to begin. Do teams play the same tactics against Everton and Arsenal? Have you seen those teams give more space and time to Arsenal? Examples of when? Did Jeffers stats improve when he moved from Everton to Arsenal? How about Rodwell when he moved to Man City? How about Downing when he moved to Liverpool? I can go on. But once again your statement doesn't stand up to the smallest amount of scrutiny. Underlying numbers for all those players had big red warning flags.
There's also the factor that playing next to better players should mean you receive the ball in better areas, for instance in a one on one against their weakest defender, and so be more able to affect the game and improve stats as a result.
Stats aren't used to compare every player to Messi. They have predictive modelling attached too. What does a highly creative mid table player look like? Also xgchain as I showed above will show you players who are highly involved in their teams, or are the crucial players in their sides attacks and yet don't have high end product due to the weakness of the team.
Also, have a look at Mane's contribution to Salah's goal against Arsenal last week. Ran the length of the pitch at top speed, just to block off 2 defenders from being able to make a challenge on the man going through. It was intelligent, insightful and industrious football. And no stats system in the world would have given him a single credit point for it.
He would be credited with distance run and sprints at the moment. Outside of public availability though, they were (and possibly now have at elite club level) mapping that shows the involvement of all players in relation to a goal. I demonstrated elsewhere this transfer window Ronaldo's involvement for James' equaliser against Real Madrid. The data shows him moving from near post to far post, taking Pique with him. James attacks that space and scores an easy goal. Now if they have the data for that, can map that out in a sort of football manager 2d pitch and can apply an xg chain value to it, you now have that number you are searching for. As this isn't publicly available I don't have it. Clubs do have the data though and it's safe to assume if they can make a demonstration with it, they can use it because if not, doing a demonstrating is stupid as it shows competitors something you are building to give you an advantage. Therefore I assume they are doing demonstrations knowing elite clubs have the same data and aware most if not all are working on or have the same analytics working on it.
I'd bet that in a load of the games that Gerrard carried us single handedly, his stats would be inferior to those of Lampard, playing in an all conquering Chelsea team, with much more able footballing colleagues. But I still know who I rate as the better player.
Make up data that you assume exists. Then argue against it. Brilliant approach to a debate. Doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny though because, as with literally everything else you have said, you have provided literally nothing at all for others to test or verify. You entire body of evidence is "what I saw once".
And finally, unless two players are playing in exactly the same position, in exactly the same type of tactical system, then any attempt to compare them based on stats is doomed to failure, because of the inherent differences in the way they are required to operate.
Not true either. You can compare the actions they take and compare them to the same actions others take. Shot maps for forwards. It shows you their shot selection. Whether they are running hot or cold. This can allow you to avoid a forward who just had a very purple season and is likely a one season wonder. Or show you a player who usually scores well who had a dip yet his underlying numbers remained high. Or a goalkeepers who save a high ratio of difficult shots.
So in my humble opinion, it doesn't necessarily make you a better player, just because some nerd at OPTA happens to colour in a bit more of a dartboard for one player than another.
Clearly showing absolutely no knowledge of how it works yet has an opinion on it.
I've got not axe to grind with AOC, nor am I a fan of Barclay, but its dangerous to place too much faith in this sort of stuff.
Which nobody who works in analytics does in isolation, as explained at the start.
I much prefer to rely on my own view of a game at the time i watch it, rather than form an opinion later, based on stats and graphs.
Interesting experiment. Put your own view under the same level of scrutiny. Explain why your own view of a game is superior. For example - how many games do you watch per week. How many times have you see AoC play? And Barkley? And every other attacking midfielder in the league? And in the top 5 leagues? How do they compare? How good is your eyesight? Have you ever been distracted in your life? How good is your memory? Ever been sure you saw something but hadn't. Ever confused two players on the pitch? Do you have a favourite player? Any players you don't like? Do you believe your judgement could be affected by any biases? Ever misplaced something like your keys? Etc etc. If you want to put forward yourself as a source rather than all available data and video that exists on players then you need to stand up to scrutiny better than data for every game played and video of the players in those games.
Hmm I thought player x was shite and did fuck all, but now I see that he carried the ball 17.625 times, and dribbled it 14.2% more than the mean standard deviation of Mourinho's knob, I realise I must be wrong, and he is, in fact, the new Messi.
#strawman
Don't mean to be facetious
Yes you do
or denigrate the detailed OP
Yes you do
but this stats and graphs lark just isn't for me. Would be really interested to see how players of old would have fared under this type of analysis.
This whole earth is round lark just isn't for me. iPhones will never catch on. Big screen, no keypad.
All new ideas are initially rejected. It's just the way the world is. As a race, we love the concept of creativity and extol the virtues of being creative, but the way we’re wired precludes us from fully embracing new ideas. Once we make an opinion on something, we don't like it to be challenged. It's stressful for us. So anything that could possible attack those opinions is routinely dismissed out of hand. The entire footballing world is increasingly using analytics in more and more ways every day. So either your list of concerns have never been thought of by any person in football, they have and have been dismissed as confused ramblings of someone who doesn't understand how analytics works among other things, or you are are wrong. But it HAS to be one of those 3 options. Because all clubs would not be pumping millions into it and allowing it to drive all their major footballing decisions if they had no value.
As for AOC, £35m odd for an attacker who doesn't score is utter madness, but that's the market we are in. I'm generally underwhelmed, as I rate him as an average player, but I trust Klopp's judgement more than my own, and I'd love nothing more that see the lad blossom and succeed.
Finally we get to the crux of your whole argument. Quite simply, this information doesn't agree with my own formed opinion. I cannot possibly be wrong. Therefore the information is wrong.
Scientists set out to prove their theories wrong. To use anything and everything to prove what they believe to be true to be wrong. They challenge others to do so also. This is because a theory or opinion is only as strong as it is verifiable. If you have literally no evidence whatsoever to support something you state to believe to be true, then it doesn't hold much weight with anybody else as an argument. Of course there are expert opinion - However you haven't demonstrated any higher level of knowledge of the subject area than a lay person. Plus an expert opinion is one in which the expert keeps their own personal feelings out of their conclusions. They look at the facts as they see them, and draw a conclusion based only on those facts. They also tend not to create strawmen, exaggerate or talk at length about Mourinho's cock.
You seem to be taking the exact opposite approach of avoiding testing your opinion at all. Rejecting anything that contradicts your already held opinion and providing nothing whatsoever to support said opinion.
I have said it before but this is literally the exact approach flat earthers take in their approach to the debate of whether the earth is round or not. Dismiss anything that suggests it's round, insist they have never seen the curve with their own eyes, provide nothing of substance themselves. Show no real understanding of what they are dismissing yet feel somehow qualified to do so. Best of all, fail to understand how accurate predictions can be made based on a system that they claim to be bullshit.