Thanks for those stats. But what does your post imply? He's a bit average and overrated? Nothing special?
I think he's a very good crosser of the ball. Maybe not precise enough yet, he's new to the team and the league. perhaps not in his best form righ tnow. But I sense quality in his crossing. He's very good going forward.
I think Mendy's potentially the best fullback around but he is without question one of the most wasteful crossers around. In terms of crossing he's on par with someone like Aaron Cresswell. They both pump in a lot of balls from all angles and sometimes they're pitch-perfect, sometimes they're awful, often they miss. That's not that big a deal because crossing isn't actually very important in a fullback - just look at Marcelo. Generally speaking the best fullbacks aren't the best crossers. Mendy has a lot of other qualities that make him a real handful.
It's not just this season either. Last season he attempted over 200 crosses, less than 20% of them ended up with a team-mate and just 2.5% of them ended up in an assist. In terms of accuracy he's pretty bad, but that's simply because he employs a high-risk strategy. He's much more likely to hit it into the side netting or knock it into the stands than a much more conserative crosser, like Blind, but when he gets it right it can be lethal.
I'd say the overall point is that people are a lot more forgiving of the missed attempts by a high-risk crosser and have an inflated view of their abilities as a result. For most people hitting someone's shins is a much greater sin than than skying it out of play, simply because we've been conditioned to believe that putting it from deep with lots of pace and curl is better than putting it in low from the byline. There's not a whole lot of evidence proving that it is actually any better, in any way, but it intuitively feels right.
This is exactly why stats alone should not be considered to judge players, a good cross does not always reach the expected target, that does not stop it from being a good cross
Sure. In the same way a good shot can just scrape the post, or a good through ball can just miss its intended target. In isolated incidents it makes sense to describe that as unlucky or a good effort or whatever. If that forms a consistent pattern then the word "good" becomes a strange description. It's only crossing where people do this. Passing, dribbling, shooting...if people attempt them a lot and produce very little of substance at the end of it they're called wasteful.
If a cross doesn't actually go to a team-mate then the only possible benefit of it is a poor clearance leading to the attack starting all over again. It might not be solely the crosser's fault that the player missed it, he might've spotted a more dangerous area to put it in and the forward didn't read his intentions, or the defender might've just made a great last-ditch tackle, but it still points to a shared misreading of the situation.
If a creative passer is consistently failing to find his runner then people question his vision, his understanding of his team-mates and his execution. People don't do that when it comes to crossing. Unless they're complaining about their own players, that is. Then missing the target becomes an emotional thing and people pick up on it. The rest of the time it's just dismissed. Then when numbers are provided to illustrate these moments that are freely dismissed, people just ignore them because they don't fit with their perceptions. It's weird.
The situation doesn't get wasted though. Often the defence scrambles the ball clear resulting in corner/throw or recycled possession which keeps the pressure on and can eventually give a goal.
In other words, it's often as useful as just passing the ball back in-field or having an aimless punt from range. Yet for some reason both of those things are seen as wasting an opportunity, while people are much more forgiving of misplaced crosses. I'd argue that doesn't make much sense if you give it any real thought.