That is not true at all. You can use statistics to find out about any player's decision making and positioning.
No. It most certainly isn't. You are still pushing the the claim statistics "tell us little", which is just objectively wrong, period. It's the excuse people always hide behind when what they claim to see doesn't line up with the statistics involved.
I'm afraid That's a nonsense argument based on the assumption that just because you are tall you will always have the aerial advantage over shorter players. In reality it doesn't work that way. That totally ignores factors like jumping power and timing. Let alone if the opponent your are facing will give you the time nor space to even get an aerial advantage, say like Pep's barca at its peak.
This is where you keep getting it wrong. Context isn't subjective. Context is what turns raw data to actual information. If for example someone talks of pass completion rate, .Context is things like length of pass, direction, percentage of passes by length, and direction. Those are not subjective measurements and all of them are contextual.
You are still just getting it wrong. Passing accuracy simply tells you about passing accuracy. Nothing else. Its classic raw dataI.
f you want to know how good the passing is you'd have to break into context such as passing distance, direction, chances created, long balls, through balls, expected assist, dispossessed and misplaced passes percentages, to name just a few to get meaningful information about how good a given player's passing is. None of those things are subjective values.
This is why I keep telling you. Statistics don't lie. Its always the interpreters (people) that do.
You just keep proving my point for me. The problem here is you keep infusing unwarranted assumptions into the data. That is why what ever result you end up with is subjective. I don't. I don't need to know how tall you are or where the ball came from or at what speed to know you can tackle or not. Because you will always face the same different kinds of opponents. Over and over again. Hence what will determine your proficiency at that particular skills are things like your success rate per game time and per attempt.
Rather you keep confusing yourself repeatedly about where you stand.
I'm the champion of context, that is why I trust statistics. You are a champion of subjectivity that is why you imagine context makes analysis of statistical data subjective.
The issue here isn't I don't care about context. It rather than you don't care for it enough that you imagine it synonymous with subjectivity
Do you SERIOUSLY think that data is missing from what has made me make my statement? Or you imagine everyone simply pick out meaningless statistics like passing accuracy to make statements?
The only things that give erroneous vision are biological nearsightedness with no corrective eye wear, poor understanding of context, shallow understanding of the activity being analysed and personal biases. Never statistical data. Never context