[tomaldinho1]

Sorry, I have missed something here: Are you suggesting that the reason Man City bought Haaland, and he was / is the most clinical centre-forward, by some way, in the Premiership, is due to 'data' ? Pep bought him because of 'data'?

Are you seriously saying that? You need data to see that guys quality, then that's on you. I certainly have seen no need to see that for Halaand and can see that he is awesome. I have no idea how many touches he has, how many chances etc... because I can see that he is clinical, efficient and consistent.

The data is the same as what you are watching though? It's not like the data is wrong, it's just factual, the part that can be wrong is your interpretation of what you're seeing. At the upper end of the spectrum I don't think you deserve a medal for being able to see Haaland, Mbappe, Casemiro etc. are top players but when it comes to finding players for a specific system and you can't just go and buy the best 1 or 2 players in that position in the world then stats become invaluable.

Lewis Dunk has completed the second most passes in the Premier League, and I have asked, what does that actually mean? That he is a ball-playing centre-half (he isn't..), that Brighton knck the ball around at the back a lot? You telling me Lewis Dunk is a better passer than our Martinez for example? Because according to 'data', this would suggest so.

If you presented me with the data a PL club would have (overhit pass%, pass accuracy in a variety of scenarios and at different differences, progressive passes, stats from both feet etc.) I could make a solid argument who the better passer was. I would assume it is Martinez because I don't think Dunk is a particularly progressive passer but I wouldn't count how many passes they make a game and conclude that made someone better than the other...I'm not sure anyone in their right mind would.

Nothing you have stated either responds to or further pursuades me that 'data' is the critical component when choosing a player, or identifying a player. At no stage did I say data shouldn't be used. But you can pick a player without reliance on data, yes, I still feel you can.

Unless you think you have an eye for a player means knowing Mbappe, Haaland, KBD, Saka etc. are good I would think this is considerably naïve. No PL club will be buying any player without masses of data, even with these elite players clubs will still be analysing their areas of weakness before sanctioning millions of pounds of spending.

Data should be used to compliment ability, not conclude any judgement about a player. And note, this trail is as a result of showing that according to 'data' Antony has better figures (whatever that means..) than Mahrez and Kulusevski.

He doesn't and I didn't say he did...no need to make things up.

Mahrez? 4G, 3A in 15 games is marginally better but in a team that score goals for fun. Kulusevski who everyone raves about has played more games than Antony and has 2G, 5A.

And that concludes what exactly? Because I know who the better players are. I don't need data to see that.

I can't tell if you're so stubborn you've just doubled down on a ridiculous point or you don't understand. Have responded to the quite long and incoherent post above. Data is, to put it very simply, exactly what you are seeing when you watch a player but without the bias or faults that come with the 'eye' test. Many of us like to think we know football, many of us have played at a high level or coached or been involved in the game as a career but none of us can be as consistently accurate at assessing a player as data is. It still has ways to go but it's already dominant at every PL club for scouting. We can see which players look silky on the ball or have a great pass on them but no human is able to compile and retain the sheer amount of data that now exists in scouting, it's also not why we watch a football game. The level of detail is vastly deeper than 'which player passed the ball the most' for goodness sakes.

 

[Oly Francis]

I can't tell if you're so stubborn you've just doubled down on a ridiculous point or you don't understand. Have responded to the quite long and incoherent post above. Data is, to put it very simply, exactly what you are seeing when you watch a player but without the bias or faults that come with the 'eye' test. Many of us like to think we know football, many of us have played at a high level or coached or been involved in the game as a career but none of us can be as consistently accurate at assessing a player as data is. It still has ways to go but it's already dominant at every PL club for scouting. We can see which players look silky on the ball or have a great pass on them but no human is able to compile and retain the sheer amount of data that now exists in scouting, it's also not why we watch a football game. The level of detail is vastly deeper than 'which player passed the ball the most' for goodness sakes.

The eye test is as important as data in scouting. They work together, data helps you have a more thorough analysis but no decent scout will mainly base his analysis on data. Data only isn't a reliable tool to assess a player.

 

[Red in STL]

Yes. Their ability on the ball isn't the reason they played like 5 games this season.

No but according to your stats they'd make ideal CDM's

 

[Borys]

No but according to your stats they'd make ideal CDM's

So you read the whole discussion and that's your conclusion?

OK

 

[Red in STL]

So you read the whole discussion and that's your conclusion?

OK

Stats have little to no context to any given situation, you don't need stats to tell you that a CB needs to be able to tackle, or a CM needs to be able to pass a ball, watching games for decades gave me that conclusion

 

[OrcaFat]

Stats have little to no context to any given situation, you don't need stats to tell you that a CB needs to be able to tackle, or a CM needs to be able to pass a ball, watching games for decades gave me that conclusion

I sympathise with this view. All the old guys, Paisley, Clough/Taylor, even SAF probably never looked at much (or any) data. They signed good players by word of mouth and scouting.

In the modern era, the stats and data can save the scouts some legwork but there’s no substitute for someone with a good eye seeing a player in the flesh.

I don’t know how sophisticated all this data is but I’ve never seen a stat that tells you if a player positions himself intelligently, or makes intelligent runs. I dare say a few other very important aspects of player ability are not adequately reflected in data.

If I have to choose between the eye test and the data I would go for the eye but it has to be someone with good judgment.

 

[Jeffthered]

I can't tell if you're so stubborn you've just doubled down on a ridiculous point or you don't understand. Have responded to the quite long and incoherent post above. Data is, to put it very simply, exactly what you are seeing when you watch a player but without the bias or faults that come with the 'eye' test. Many of us like to think we know football, many of us have played at a high level or coached or been involved in the game as a career but none of us can be as consistently accurate at assessing a player as data is. It still has ways to go but it's already dominant at every PL club for scouting. We can see which players look silky on the ball or have a great pass on them but no human is able to compile and retain the sheer amount of data that now exists in scouting, it's also not why we watch a football game. The level of detail is vastly deeper than 'which player passed the ball the most' for goodness sakes.

OK. You've missed my point. I have used Lewis Dunks stats as an example of the over-reliance on data, because him passing the ball, more than anyone except Rodri, tells you what exactly?

Nothing.

 

[tomaldinho1]

The eye test is as important as data in scouting. They work together, data helps you have a more thorough analysis but no decent scout will mainly base his analysis on data. Data only isn't a reliable tool to assess a player.

It’s not anymore - I’m sure there are some guys out there who can spot talent young but, even if you had the best judgement possible, clubs won’t be taking punts on players these days without having data to comb over. I’m talking about the elite level FYI, this doesn’t really apply in lower leagues I’d assume. Data is the only reliable tool in my opinion but it’s not the only tool, scouts still have value but that value is changing and evolving

OK. You've missed my point. I have used Lewis Dunks stats as an example of the over-reliance on data, because him passing the ball, more than anyone except Rodri, tells you what exactly?

Nothing.

No…it tells me Dunk has passed the ball the 2nd highest amount of times. What more should that stat tell you?

If you take a single basic stat in isolation you won’t get much from it. I think you already know this though and are just being difficult.

 

[Oly Francis]

It’s not anymore - I’m sure there are some guys out there who can spot talent young but, even if you had the best judgement possible, clubs won’t be taking punts on players these days without having data to comb over. I’m talking about the elite level FYI, this doesn’t really apply in lower leagues I’d assume. Data is the only reliable tool in my opinion but it’s not the only tool, scouts still have value but that value is changing and evolving

Sorry but that's BS.
1st because many players are recruited at an age or in a country that doesn't allow you to have access to very accurate data. One of my client is a football agent, he took me to a couple of games (in France) with him to look at a couple of prospects. Small stadiums, U17 games, nothing fancy at all. We surprisingly (for me at least) met scouts working for various clubs throughout Europe, including Chelsea, Arsenal and Brighton. They weren't here for data, they wanted to see the players.

2nd because we've seen many players recruited for a top price despite even basic data saying they weren't worth what the club paid for. Darwin Nunez is a prime exemple, any data showed he was overperforming last season, and yet Liverpool paid a top fee for him. A couple of players were recruited for a high price after the world cup, is it because of data? Obviously not, it didn't change drastically in 7 world cup games (or less). It's because they caught the eyes of clubs during a competition.

Data is often use to find an hidden gem that you wouldn't supervise otherwise, or to find a player at a cheap price because you can see in the stats that he's underperforming (this being undervalued on the market). It also allows you to narrow down a list of profiles without having a huge scouting team. But eventually, the eye test is almost always what confirms the decison.

 

[Borys]

Stats have little to no context to any given situation, you don't need stats to tell you that a CB needs to be able to tackle, or a CM needs to be able to pass a ball, watching games for decades gave me that conclusion

Agreed

 

[Bondi77]

Sorry but that's BS.
1st because many players are recruited at an age or in a country that doesn't allow you to have access to very accurate data. One of my client is a football agent, he took me to a couple of games (in France) with him to look at a couple of prospects. Small stadiums, U17 games, nothing fancy at all. We surprisingly (for me at least) met scouts working for various clubs throughout Europe, including Chelsea, Arsenal and Brighton. They weren't here for data, they wanted to see the players.

2nd because we've seen many players recruited for a top price despite even basic data saying they weren't worth what the club paid for. Darwin Nunez is a prime exemple, any data showed he was overperforming last season, and yet Liverpool paid a top fee for him. A couple of players were recruited for a high price after the world cup, is it because of data? Obviously not, it didn't change drastically in 7 world cup games (or less). It's because they caught the eyes of clubs during a competition.

Data is often use to find an hidden gem that you wouldn't supervise otherwise, or to find a player at a cheap price because you can see in the stats that he's underperforming (this being undervalued on the market). It also allows you to narrow down a list of profiles without having a huge scouting team. But eventually, the eye test is almost always what confirms the decison.

Makes good sense.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Sorry but that's BS.
1st because many players are recruited at an age or in a country that doesn't allow you to have access to very accurate data. One of my client is a football agent, he took me to a couple of games (in France) with him to look at a couple of prospects. Small stadiums, U17 games, nothing fancy at all. We surprisingly (for me at least) met scouts working for various clubs throughout Europe, including Chelsea, Arsenal and Brighton. They weren't here for data, they wanted to see the players.

2nd because we've seen many players recruited for a top price despite even basic data saying they weren't worth what the club paid for. Darwin Nunez is a prime exemple, any data showed he was overperforming last season, and yet Liverpool paid a top fee for him. A couple of players were recruited for a high price after the world cup, is it because of data? Obviously not, it didn't change drastically in 7 world cup games (or less). It's because they caught the eyes of clubs during a competition.

Data is often use to find an hidden gem that you wouldn't supervise otherwise, or to find a player at a cheap price because you can see in the stats that he's underperforming (this being undervalued on the market). It also allows you to narrow down a list of profiles without having a huge scouting team. But eventually, the eye test is almost always what confirms the decison.

You’ve written a big reply but it doesn’t really say much. 1st para why would you be surprised, that’s their job? They might be there because of data anyway or, more likely, they’re watching teams where there isn’t enough data on them.

2nd para this just doesn’t really make sense. Nunez was signed because of the player Pool think he can develop into, we know Pool created a data heavy scouting team so it would be a bit silly to think they didn’t heavily lean into that when signing Nunez in conjunction with scouting him.

3rd para that isn’t what it’s value is at all. The second part is right but it’s not about finding unknowns it’s about trying to define, in extreme accuracy, known players. Basically profiling players to a previously impossible level. If City want to replace Cancelo for example they have an in-depth statistical profile of everything he is good at and where he is weak, they can then find players who are similar (which I don’t think scouts could do as quickly and accurately hence why I said your second part is correct) but, and this is where the value is currently, they can also tweak the parameters. Pep might say I actually don’t need this person to be as good at x and y but they need to be much better at z, suddenly this becomes almost impossible for a human scout or even team of scouts to accurately assess because it requires years worth of data.

I realise this is the Antony thread so message me or we can move to some kind of data thread.

 

[TwoSheds]

No, this is how everyone watches football, because you can't take in everything that's happening on a football pitch with 1 pair of eyes. You don't notice how, for example, the full back tracks the winger when the ball is on the other side of the pitch. No-one does, because your eye is drawn to the ball.

No one watches a game objectively, we all have things we notice more or less. The eye cannot take in everything that happens on a football pitch over 90 minutes, and so we use data and statistical analysis to understand better.

This is not my interpretation of how people watch football, it is fact based on how our eyes work.

No one interprets data objectively either. The stuff hitting your eye becomes data when it reaches your brain. The stuff in your stats sheet becomes data when it hits your brain. This is where they meet and your brain has to try to interpret them. Neither one nor the other is definitive and they should ideally be complementary if you can fight your natural biases, but at the end of the day you are always going to make a subjective judgement about what you've seen, whether it's stats or football.

It's a silly argument really, stick to silly arguments about whether a player is good at football or not, not whether somebody who doesn't use data to judge that is a fool or not.

 

[podurban2]

You’ve written a big reply but it doesn’t really say much. 1st para why would you be surprised, that’s their job? They might be there because of data anyway or, more likely, they’re watching teams where there isn’t enough data on them.

2nd para this just doesn’t really make sense. Nunez was signed because of the player Pool think he can develop into, we know Pool created a data heavy scouting team so it would be a bit silly to think they didn’t heavily lean into that when signing Nunez in conjunction with scouting him.

3rd para that isn’t what it’s value is at all. The second part is right but it’s not about finding unknowns it’s about trying to define, in extreme accuracy, known players. Basically profiling players to a previously impossible level. If City want to replace Cancelo for example they have an in-depth statistical profile of everything he is good at and where he is weak, they can then find players who are similar (which I don’t think scouts could do as quickly and accurately hence why I said your second part is correct) but, and this is where the value is currently, they can also tweak the parameters. Pep might say I actually don’t need this person to be as good at x and y but they need to be much better at z, suddenly this becomes almost impossible for a human scout or even team of scouts to accurately assess because it requires years worth of data.

I realise this is the Antony thread so message me or we can move to some kind of data thread.

That guy is spouting bs. Nunez had good stats in Benfica, number #1 in xG. Also compared to Haaland last season he holds up well.

https://www.squawka.com/en/comparison-matrix/?compare=dlFEPwljiEyUGd74eILI4

Yeah this is the Antony thread but what that poster is saying is just incorrect.

 

[flameinthesun]

Stats have little to no context to any given situation, you don't need stats to tell you that a CB needs to be able to tackle, or a CM needs to be able to pass a ball, watching games for decades gave me that conclusion

There is no black or white position to this point. Stats are an aid to analysis. For example if you look at the stats for how many times on average Rio Ferdinand does a slide tackle per game, it will likely be lower than the majority of defenders in the league at the time. That stat doesn't tell you that Rio is better at staying on his feet than other defenders because this could be down to the defence being attacked less, the defensive line being deeper, better defensive midfielders etc there are multiple reasons why that stat could be low. However if you introduce other data points for example on average how often does Rio get run at per game, how does that compare to the league average, in what positions does he tend to get run at per game etc and pair it with how often he goes to ground etc you can start to build an indicator that hey, maybe Rio Ferdinand is very good at 1 v 1 defending. Those stats would help in identifying potential defenders across a wide data set who are potentially good 1 v 1 defenders. What you then should do is build up the context behind those defenders, what style of football does their team play, are they a top team, bottom half, do they have 2 cdms, 1 cdm, Are the 1 v 1 situations their fault due to bad positioning or the teams fault etc

The problem is too many people just use 1 stat e.g. most tackles and assume the player is a good defender or the opposite and say a player has the worst conversion rate therefore they are not good. When to get a proper picture you need multiple stats and the context of the situation.

 

[GreenFieldsGoldenBarley]

No one interprets data objectively either. The stuff hitting your eye becomes data when it reaches your brain. The stuff in your stats sheet becomes data when it hits your brain. This is where they meet and your brain has to try to interpret them. Neither one nor the other is definitive and they should ideally be complementary if you can fight your natural biases, but at the end of the day you are always going to make a subjective judgement about what you've seen, whether it's stats or football.

It's a silly argument really, stick to silly arguments about whether a player is good at football or not, not whether somebody who doesn't use data to judge that is a fool or not.

I was arguing against someone saying that their eyes are objective judges of all that happens on a football pitch.

 

[Oly Francis]

There is no black or white position to this point. Stats are an aid to analysis. For example if you look at the stats for how many times on average Rio Ferdinand does a slide tackle per game, it will likely be lower than the majority of defenders in the league at the time. That stat doesn't tell you that Rio is better at staying on his feet than other defenders because this could be down to the defence being attacked less, the defensive line being deeper, better defensive midfielders etc there are multiple reasons why that stat could be low. However if you introduce other data points for example on average how often does Rio get run at per game, how does that compare to the league average, in what positions does he tend to get run at per game etc and pair it with how often he goes to ground etc you can start to build an indicator that hey, maybe Rio Ferdinand is very good at 1 v 1 defending. Those stats would help in identifying potential defenders across a wide data set who are potentially good 1 v 1 defenders. What you then should do is build up the context behind those defenders, what style of football does their team play, are they a top team, bottom half, do they have 2 cdms, 1 cdm, Are the 1 v 1 situations their fault due to bad positioning or the teams fault etc

The problem is too many people just use 1 stat e.g. most tackles and assume the player is a good defender or the opposite and say a player has the worst conversion rate therefore they are not good. When to get a proper picture you need multiple stats and the context of the situation.

Exactly, and if we want to move back to Antony, data had close to no part in his transfer to United. ETH didn't say "i've managed this player but lets take a look at the data". He asked United to spend 100M because he knew what he could do for him. Was he right or wrong I don't know but that's what he thought.

 

[flameinthesun]

Exactly, and if we want to move back to Antony, data had close to no part in his transfer to United. ETH didn't say "i've managed this player but lets take a look at the data". He asked United to spend 100M because he knew what he could do for him. Was he right or wrong I don't know but that's what he thought.

Tbf neither you nor I know whether data had any part in the transfer. I would assume a club like united would have had data on Antony already, how deep and extensive that data is I don't know.

 

[Shane88]

Most useless "trickster" I've ever seen in football.

 

[The United]

I thought he was okay apart from his final passing as usual. I was saying last week that it was great that he wounded up other players as long as he didn't get himself sent off. But yeah.

 

[mu4c_20le]

I'd swap him for Olise. There I said it.

 

[Telsim]

A liability.

 

[abkmufc92]

The only thing he did well was leave the pitch to be replaced.

 

[El Jefe]

I would gladly sell him in the summer for £25m and take the loss.

If he was a player from the academy turning in these performances the hate he would receive would be Mctominay and Lingard levels. I struggle to think of a less threatening player that plays regularly in any top half team.

We have to scrape the barrel to come up with positives in his game. He's a fancy Dirk Kuyt and even that might be giving him too much credit.

 

[Mike Smalling]

After a few steps forward in the last couple of games, this seemed like a step backwards in terms of performance.

 

[Lecland07]

People blaming him for Casemiro in the match thread etc. are being silly.

However, there are concerns around him. He just cannot beat his man when squaring up to them. His defensive contribution are pretty good, though; starting to wonder whether wing back is more his position.

 

[Borys]

I thought he had a really good game.

The trickery though... Well it'll make mohe harm than good.

 

[KirkDuyt]

I would gladly sell him in the summer for £25m and take the loss.

If he was a player from the academy turning in these performances the hate he would receive would be Mctominay and Lingard levels. I struggle to think of a less threatening player that plays regularly in any top half team.

We have to scrape the barrel to come up with positives in his game. He's a fancy Dirk Kuyt and even that might be giving him too much credit.

U wot mate?

 

[the_cliff]

Not his biggest fan but he didn't exactly play badly today, thought he was alright.

 

[Erics_Collar]

80 million.... I'm beginning to suspect money laundering on this one.

 

[#07]

Antony kills counter attacks. The oppositions and ours. He's great getting back to cover, helps the team maintain its shape and always puts in a shift tracking back. However, when we try to spring the trap on the opposition he's practically useless.

 

[Lay]

Rolls the ball pointlessly which allows the defenders to get back. I know its early days but there's very little to hold on to. Can't beat a player, can't cross, not rapid, not a good passer.

 

[100]

Showboating when the game is dead is always a recipe for disaster. Some clogger who has nothing to lose always reacts.

 

[Someone]

His defensive work is great, but he's really not contributing to our attacking play. Feels like we're repeating the same after every game, he needs to pose more of a threat.

I really hope he makes it, but right now he shouldn't be starting.

 

[dannyrhinos89]

I thought he played well.

It's not his fault casemiro had a brainfart amd got himself sent off.

 

[SirScholes]

People blaming him for Casemiro in the match thread etc. are being silly.

However, there are concerns around him. He just cannot beat his man when squaring up to them. His defensive contribution are pretty good, though; starting to wonder whether wing back is more his position.

Casemiro is responsible for his own actions but Antony going on like some Sunday league teenager started the chaos

 

[BerryBerryShrew]

I actually dislike this guy. You need to be world class to get away with the playacting he does, and he is so far from that it isn't funny.

In some ways, he's responsible for Cas getting sent off. If he hadn't been so busy pretending that he had been hurt, Cas wouldn't have felt the need to get involved.

 

[kouroux]

People blaming him for Casemiro in the match thread etc. are being silly.

However, there are concerns around him. He just cannot beat his man when squaring up to them. His defensive contribution are pretty good, though; starting to wonder whether wing back is more his position.

He is the Brazilian Park Ji Sung

 

[ClosetDevil]

He just needs some more time and some confidence.

 

[Godfather]

Very happy with him today.