Theoretical Scenario, you're the DoF for Unted and have been asked to put together a midfield three ala Neves, Ruiz and Vitiniha. Who do you buy?

[tomaldinho1]

As third-party without a dog in the fight... what do you mean by this? The only filtering in the graphic is that you had to play 100 long passes and 5+ per 90 mins in a season. Therefore...

• The only "filtering" is for precisely the attribute being discussed
• There are exclusions, but that's because it only shows the top of the list
• Progression as it's actually quite difficult for a midfielder to make a successful long pass that isn't progressive

If we are trying to prove passing directness, specifically Xavi's ability to pass the ball forwards quickly/directly, this graphic is literally useless.

If you filter something by accuracy + are assessing long passing you immediately screw yourself, for example with Xavi he will make hundreds of let's say 15-25m passes in all directions, many low risk, some just to kill time if they are ahead and his accuracy % will be in the 90's and many will register as 'long'. According to the other poster this proved "Xavi was better than anyone at getting the ball up the pitch quickly"...yet it does not in anyway shape or form.

Your last bullet point is wild though, look at the pass maps and the arrow directions - I'd say about 50% are lateral or backwards. Even in our team, our midfielders pass backwards all the time to the CBs or WBs now Amorim has come in.

 

[simonhch]

Baleba, Mainoo and Barrios

 

[Daydreamer]

If we are trying to prove passing directness, specifically Xavi's ability to pass the ball forwards quickly/directly, this graphic is literally useless.

Why is table of players that play a high volume of long passes - ranked by their accuracy in completing those passes - 'literally useless"?

If you filter something by accuracy + are assessing long passing you immediately screw yourself, for example with Xavi he will make hundreds of let's say 15-25m passes in all directions, many low risk, some just to kill time if they are ahead and his accuracy % will be in the 90's and many will register as 'long'. According to the other poster this proved "Xavi was better than anyone at getting the ball up the pitch quickly"...yet it does not in anyway shape or form.

Many passes would be low risk... and many others wouldn't. Seeing as has 241 assists to his name (which doesn't include through balls that were pre-assists or key passes that weren't converted) it's pretty safe to say that many of his 8-10 long passes per game were progressive.

Your last bullet point is wild though, look at the pass maps and the arrow directions - I'd say about 50% are lateral or backwards. Even in our team, our midfielders pass backwards all the time to the CBs or WBs now Amorim has come in.

I said it's difficult to play successful long pass from midfield that isn't progressive. Obviously most of Xavi's passes weren't, that's the case for all players.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Why is table of players that play a high volume of long passes - ranked by their accuracy in completing those passes - 'literally useless"?


Many passes would be low risk... and many others wouldn't. Seeing as has 241 assists to his name (which doesn't include through balls that were pre-assists or key passes that weren't converted) it's pretty safe to say that many of his 8-10 long passes per game were progressive.


I said it's difficult to play successful long pass from midfield that isn't progressive. Obviously most of Xavi's passes weren't, that's the case for all players.

Literally just read the exchange? a) it's not that 'long' for one but b) more importantly it could be 1000 passes just back to a CB.
You'll need to explain that second point, not in a mean way, but that statement "Seeing as has 241 assists to his name (which doesn't include through balls that were pre-assists or key passes that weren't converted) it's pretty safe to say that many of his 8-10 long passes per game were progressive." could not be more vague/pointless unless you add some context.
I don't get your third point, your italics don't match your original quote so you'll need to explain?

 

[golden_blunder]

Cheaper options

Ruben Neves (PL experience)
Chris Rigg (punt)

 

[Daydreamer]

Literally just read the exchange? a) it's not that 'long' for one but b) more importantly it could be 1000 passes just back to a CB.

I read the exchange. A pass of 25 yards or more is long, seeing as the during the majority of a football match the two defensive lines are within 50 yards of each other. And they couldn't be 1000 passes back to the CB because nobody who played that way would be in the team very long. You yourself said that the La Liga list is dominated by top Barca and Real players.

You'll need to explain that second point, not in a mean way, but that statement "Seeing as has 241 assists to his name (which doesn't include through balls that were pre-assists or key passes that weren't converted) it's pretty safe to say that many of his 8-10 long passes per game were progressive." could not be more vague/pointless unless you add some context.

I'm confused, what more context is needed? I'm saying that there clearly must have been a fair few of Xavi's passes that were progressive for him to assist 241 times in career.

I don't get your third point, your italics don't match your original quote so you'll need to explain?

Really?

Progression as it's actually quite difficult for a midfielder to make a successful long pass that isn't progressive

I said it's difficult to play successful long pass from midfield that isn't progressive.

They're practically word for word. When a midfielder plays a successful 25 yard pass, it's very likely to be progressive. Of course, Xavi could theoretically be booting it back to his CB 1000 times as you claimed earlier, but it's highly unlikely he would have played nearly 800 games for Barca if that's what he was doing.

 

[tomaldinho1]

I read the exchange. A pass of 25 yards or more is long, seeing as the during the majority of a football match the two defensive lines are within 50 yards of each other. And they couldn't be 1000 passes back to the CB because nobody who played that way would be in the team very long. You yourself said that the La Liga list is dominated by top Barca and Real players.


I'm confused, what more context is needed? I'm saying that there clearly must have been a fair few of Xavi's passes that were progressive for him to assist 241 times in career.


Really?


They're practically word for word. When a midfielder plays a successful 25 yard pass, it's very likely to be progressive. Of course, Xavi could theoretically be booting it back to his CB 1000 times as you claimed earlier, but it's highly unlikely he would have played nearly 800 games for Barca if that's what he was doing.

Firstly, that was an example, secondly it's 20m in the graph - that is not a long pass in my eyes. It would take more than 3 to go the width of a pitch! Thirdly, clearly the 1000 passes to the CB was an extremem to highlight the issue with the said graphic. Not sure what the bolded means without further context.

Sure, no one is saying he didn't play some progressive passes - the poster said he was literally the best, and then used the graph to tell me only Scholes did more. But then, think about what you're saying here, can you only assists from long passes? Surely many will simply be set pieces or simple balls? Luckily for us, we have the data.

So sure, there are some longer passes in there but then this is a guy who made how many passes on a pitch - the percentage of these more direct passes must be miniscule, like less than 1%, I reckon it might even be less than 0.01% if you think he was completing 1600+ passes a season, there's also a huge amount of corners and freekicks in there.

Yes, really, the reason I asked is it doesn't make sense - why would the length of a pass dictate it's likelihood for progression? That makes no sense. Barca particularly under Pep were renowned for constantly using their CBs and recycling the ball when they were ahead, passing side to side and backwards for 5mins or more at a time, hence why people often criticised them for being boring.

 

[Daydreamer]

Firstly, that was an example, secondly it's 20m in the graph - that is not a long pass in my eyes. It would take more than 3 to go the width of a pitch! Thirdly, clearly the 1000 passes to the CB was an extremem to highlight the issue with the said graphic.

The graphic states that the for the purposes of the list a long pass is defined as 25m or more. The statisticians who compiled the data obviously deem it a long pass. I agree, seeing as for the majority of the game that is roughly equidistant between the two defensive lines. But you are of course free to disagree.

Not sure what the bolded means without further context.

The context was in the sentence preceding it (pro tip: a great place to look for context)...

And they couldn't be 1000 passes back to the CB because nobody who played that way would be in the team very long. You yourself said that the La Liga list is dominated by top Barca and Real players.

The implication is that no one plays hundreds of games for Barca and Real if they're making hundreds of 25m+ passes to their CBs. I didn't want to insult your intelligence by spelling that out.

Sure, no one is saying he didn't play some progressive passes - the poster said he was literally the best, and then used the graph to tell me only Scholes did more. But then, think about what you're saying here, can you only assists from long passes? Surely many will simply be set pieces or simple balls? Luckily for us, we have the data.

You say "think about what you're saying here"... and then ask a rhetorical question that is not at all what I was saying. I'm beginning to suspect this argument may not be entirely in good faith, but let's continue...

So sure, there are some longer passes in there but then this is a guy who made how many passes on a pitch - the percentage of these more direct passes must be miniscule, like less than 1%, I reckon it might even be less than 0.01% if you think he was completing 1600+ passes a season, there's also a huge amount of corners and freekicks in there.

You present evidence of Xavi playing tons of long progressive passes (and even this is just a fraction as it only contains chances that were successfully converted). And what do you take from this? It means nothing because Xavi passed the ball a lot. Something no one in this thread (or likely any thread on any forum) was disputing.

Yes, really, the reason I asked is it doesn't make sense - why would the length of a pass dictate it's likelihood for progression? That makes no sense. Barca particularly under Pep were renowned for constantly using their CBs and recycling the ball when they were ahead, passing side to side and backwards for 5mins or more at a time, hence why people often criticised them for being boring.

You literally answered you're own question. When Xavi's priority was to retain possession, he'd play it short to one of the many options that was virtually always available to him. So if he decided to pass the ball over 25M (and did so successfully) then in all likelihood...

Wait, I don't even have to finish that line of thought. You already did...

 

[OverratedOpinion]

Watching this thread devolve into 3 people snip at eachother about what type of long passes Xavi played has been great fun.

 

[Daydreamer]

Watching this thread devolve into 3 people snip at eachother about what type of long passes Xavi played has been great fun.

Yeah, I should be writing a play... I'm 100% procrastinating : )

 

[Daydreamer]

It's not even my own argument that I'm defending. And Xavi never even played for the team I support.

I need to log off and finish this scene. Thanks for the wake up call, @OverratedOpinion.

 

[tomaldinho1]

The graphic states that the for the purposes of the list a long pass is defined as 25m or more. The statisticians who compiled the data obviously deem it a long pass. I agree, seeing as for the majority of the game that is roughly equidistant between the two defensive lines. But you are of course free to disagree.


The context was in the sentence preceding it (pro tip: a great place to look for context)...

The implication is that no one plays hundreds of games for Barca and Real if they're making hundreds of 25m+ passes to their CBs. I didn't want to insult your intelligence by spelling that out.


You say "think about what you're saying here"... and then ask a rhetorical question that is not at all what I was saying. I'm beginning to suspect this argument may not be entirely in good faith, but let's continue...


You present evidence of Xavi playing tons of long progressive passes (and even this is just a fraction as it only contains chances that were successfully converted). And what do you take from this? It means nothing because Xavi passed the ball a lot. Something no one in this thread (or likely any thread on any forum) was disputing.


You literally answered you're own question. When Xavi's priority was to retain possession, he'd play it short to one of the many options that was virtually always available to him. So if he decided to pass the ball over 25M (and did so successfully) then in all likelihood...

Wait, I don't even have to finish that line of thought. You already did...

Your inability to understand a stat and what it means terrifies me.

• a yard is not the same as a meter.
• they literally did so....
• 'tonnes' ok, that 0.01% being 'tonnes' seems a solid line of thought

I feel like you wrote something and forgot what you were trying to say somewhere along the way, the last piece just makes zero sense. You came into the conversation saying you had no dog in the game but didn't understand something, then proved you have zero idea how to unpick a stat and have just wasted my time. Like go through the posts, what new idea or question have you asked the other dude didn't already cover?

 

[OverratedOpinion]

It's not even my own argument that I'm defending. And Xavi never even played for the team I support.

I need to log off and finish this scene. Thanks for the wake up call, @OverratedOpinion.

Like feck you are. Crack on, move on to Iniesta.

 

[Daydreamer]

Like feck you are. Crack on, move on to Iniesta.

Damn it, he's pulled me back in...

 

[Daydreamer]

Your inability to understand a stat and what it means terrifies me.

• a yard is not the same as a meter.

This made me literally laugh out loud. I'm aware that a yard is not the same as a metre. A yard is shorter than a metre. So the chart is listing players who have played at 100 passes of 27.3 yards or more in a season. That is counter to the point you're making. It's one thing not comprehending what I write, but please keep your own thoughts straight.

• they literally did so....

You actually would need to provide context for this bullet point as you give no indication what it's in reference to.

• 'tonnes' ok, that 0.01% being 'tonnes' seems a solid line of thought

Yes, "tonnes". The absolute number of long progressive passes is the point. Nobody is arguing that majority of Xavi's (or indeed any midfielder's) were long. Just that many of them were.

This point is obvious to anyone that ever watched even a few of his games.

And if they didn't watch his games, they could read the chart on page 3 that you seem to have such a problem with.

And if, like you, someone didn't want to accept those stats, they could look at graphic of Xavi's assists - that you yourself found and posted - and see the plethora long passes that he laid on a plate for successive generations of grateful Barca attackers.

Good day, Sir.

 

[Daydreamer]

Like feck you are. Crack on, move on to Iniesta.

And this time I really have to leave it there, I'm on a deadline.

 

[Dion]

Damn it, he's pulled me back in...

I appreciate the need to jump up my defence but there's some cases where you will just never change someone's mind! Have to settled for providing a full argument that stands on its own and leave it to others to make up their own mind. I think this is one of those cases.


And I was the one who linked the graphic of his assists originally, I just didn't embed it because I didn't want to take up too much space!

 

[tomaldinho1]

This made me literally laugh out loud. I'm aware that a yard is not the same as a metre. A yard is shorter than a metre. So the chart is listing players who have played at 100 passes of 27.3 yards or more in a season. That is counter to the point you're making. It's one thing not comprehending what I write, but please keep your own thoughts straight.


You actually would need to provide context for this bullet point as you give no indication what it's in reference to.


Yes, "tonnes". The absolute number of long progressive passes is the point. Nobody is arguing that majority of Xavi's (or indeed any midfielder's) were long. Just that many of them were.

This point is obvious to anyone that ever watched even a few of his games.

And if they didn't watch his games, they could read the chart on page 3 that you seem to have such a problem with.

And if, like you, someone didn't want to accept those stats, they could look at graphic of Xavi's assists - that you yourself found and posted - and see the plethora long passes that he laid on a plate for successive generations of grateful Barca attackers.

Good day, Sir.

Just quoting this for when you realise.

You can hold any opinion you wish but you aren’t reading things properly and much of what you post ain’t really making sense. You also ignore literally everything that goes against your viewpoint so what’s the point? Either you are quite young and didn’t watch Pep’s Barca in particular, or you just see football wildly differently to me. Either is cool.

Farewell.

 

[Dion]

He's right though, the absolute number of successful long passes was the original point. I'm also not sure you should be being critical of people ignoring things that go against their viewpoint given the exchange on the previous page.

 

[tomaldinho1]

He's right though, the absolute number of successful long passes was the original point. I'm also not sure you should be being critical of people ignoring things that go against their viewpoint given the exchange on the previous page.

As a final post, as you just keep ignoring what you said and shifting the goalposts.

This was what you said:

Generally speaking the ball moves quicker than the man. In midfield (especially in a double pivot) your dribbling is there to create space for yourself to pass the ball forwards, not carry the ball forwards yourself. It's a useful skill to have, to be sure, but it's not essential. Xavi was better than anyone at getting the ball up the pitch quickly, far, far better than Yaya Toure for example. Pace will never not be an advantage, but it's a luxury on top of the essentials which pretty much all of the best midfielders ever lacked anyway.

We then had a back and forth very clearly about directness - I do not think Xavi was a player who played loads of long direct passes for the most part, every pass map supports this point. The graphic had no bearing on direction as was made painstakingly clear in many replies since then. At the end of the day, you think something that I think is a bad take, we move on.

 

[Dion]

As a final post, as you just keep ignoring what you said and shifting the goalposts.

This was what you said:

We then had a back and forth very clearly about directness - I do not think Xavi was a player who played loads of long direct passes for the most part, every pass map supports this point. The graphic had no bearing on direction as was made painstakingly clear in many replies since then. At the end of the day, you think something that I think is a bad take, we move on.

This is what I mean about ignoring bits you don't like, which you unfairly accused Daydreamer of. Barcelona were very good at keeping the ball up the pitch when they got it there, which involves making a lot of short passes as well. But that doesn't change the fact that Xavi was absolutely incredible at breaking the lines of the midfield and getting the ball into the forwards quickly. It was absolutely foundational in how Barcelona controlled the game by never letting opponents settle. It's why in 2011 sporting publications were writing articles about Xavi being the best long passer in the world (which is one of the things you ignored).

I honestly wouldn't have bothered replying, but the whole calling out @Daydreamer for something you've been doing repeatedly rubbed me the wrong way.

 

[tomaldinho1]

This is what I mean about ignoring bits you don't like, which you unfairly accused Daydreamer of. Barcelona were very good at keeping the ball up the pitch when they got it there, which involves making a lot of short passes as well. But that doesn't change the fact that Xavi was absolutely incredible at breaking the lines of the midfield and getting the ball into the forwards quickly. It was absolutely foundational in how Barcelona controlled the game by never letting opponents settle. It's why in 2011 sporting publications were writing articles about Xavi being the best long passer in the world (which is one of the things you ignored).

I honestly wouldn't have bothered replying, but the whole calling out @Daydreamer for something you've been doing repeatedly rubbed me the wrong way.

Go through my posts and bullet what I have ignored that is relevant to the argument. I suspect all of them will be strawmen to the original argument but I am intrigued.

@Daydreamer their points did not even make sense, they weren't even reading things properly - including the graphic they wanted to argue about so on that front I won't engage because that is purely bad faith.

 

[Dion]

I mean I highlighted the specific example that annoyed me in that post and you've ironically ignored it

I also think trying to undermine someone's argument because they said you posted a graphic first (which you were using to aid your case at the time) when actually it was me, on a previous page who posted a link to it without actually posting the image in the middle of 3 things is a bit more bad faith

 

[tomaldinho1]

I mean I highlighted the specific example that annoyed me in that post and you've ironically ignored it

I also think trying to undermine someone's argument because they said you posted a graphic first (which you were using to aid your case at the time) when actually it was me, on a previous page who posted a link to it without actually posting the image in the middle of 3 things is a bit more bad faith

Where is the link or reference to the 2011 sporting publication?

 

[Dion]

Where the rest of our posts from yesterday are, on the previous page.

 

[Gonçalo Motta]

OP should change the thread name to "Honorary Xavi thread"

 

[tomaldinho1]

Where the rest of our posts from yesterday are, on the previous page.

Give post number...unless I am being blind, quite possible hence why I am asking you to provide multiple times, there is nothing in Daydreamers posts referring to this. Assuming you will either not respond or give some sarky reply, please just think through clogging up threads in bad faith.

 

[Dion]

Give post number...unless I am being blind, quite possible hence why I am asking you to provide multiple times, there is nothing in Daydreamers posts referring to this. Assuming you will either not respond or give some sarky reply, please just think through clogging up threads in bad faith.

If you genuinely didn't see it and you were doing all this in good faith you would have done Ctrl+F for '2011' on the previous page and clicked on the only hit. Instead you're doing all this and I'm not playing that game.

 

[tomaldinho1]

If you genuinely didn't see it and you were doing all this in good faith you would have done Ctrl+F for '2011' on the previous page and clicked on the only hit. Instead you're doing all this and I'm not playing that game.

That was your own post not Daydreamers! I'm genuinely creasing how absurd this is. I am still awaiting you to show all these great points that I ignored by the way, can I expect them today?

Re the now highlighted 2011 article, please tell me you understand how that is no different from the graphic? It is literally just saying which player has the best pass completion % for 25 yard+ passes in world football - no surprises the CM who runs the game for the team who pass the most in world football is at the top? The irony is in the same article, it literally goes onto the reference Pirlo making more long balls than him but just with a slightly worse pass percentage. In fact all three of the other midfielders referenced all were above him, so using your flawed logic, they are all more progressive passers than Xavi surely?

 

[diarm]

Something like Wharton, Stiller and Mainoo could work really well.

 

[Daydreamer]

Something like Wharton, Stiller and Mainoo could work really well.

Trying to get the thread back on track with a post relevant to the OP, are we?

You should be ashamed of yourself : )

 

[diarm]

Trying to get the thread back on track with a post relevant to the OP, are we?

You should be ashamed of yourself : )

I'm hanging my head in shame.

 

[Dion]

That was your own post not Daydreamers! I'm genuinely creasing how absurd this is. I am still awaiting you to show all these great points that I ignored by the way, can I expect them today?

Yes, I'm far less concerned about you ignoring someone else's posts. But going after other posters for "ignoring stuff that doesn't suit you" when you ignore others is pretty poor form. And the latter is a bit of a weird thing to say when you're about to post about something you ignored just below...

Re the now highlighted 2011 article, please tell me you understand how that is no different from the graphic? It is literally just saying which player has the best pass completion % for 25 yard+ passes in world football - no surprises the CM who runs the game for the team who pass the most in world football is at the top? The irony is in the same article, it literally goes onto the reference Pirlo making more long balls than him but just with a slightly worse pass percentage. In fact all three of the other midfielders referenced all were above him, so using your flawed logic, they are all more progressive passers than Xavi surely?

And yeah, I didn't include Pirlo in the original by name because the list was only Prem and La Liga players, but it's pretty obvious he's right up there with Scholes, Xavi and Kroos, isn't he? I don't think anyone would even try and deny that, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove. Inler and De Rossi are only up there because it was written fairly early into the season so it's a small sample size, where as the others have season after season of doing it.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Yes, I'm far less concerned about you ignoring someone else's posts. But going after other posters for "ignoring stuff that doesn't suit you" when you ignore others is pretty poor form. And the latter is a bit of a weird thing to say when you're about to post about something you ignored just below...


And yeah, I didn't include Pirlo in the original by name because the list was only Prem and La Liga players, but it's pretty obvious he's right up there with Scholes, Xavi and Kroos, isn't he? I don't think anyone would even try and deny that, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove. Inler and De Rossi are only up there because it was written fairly early into the season so it's a small sample size, where as the others have season after season of doing it.

Bro, still waiting on that list? Please post.

 

[Dion]

Bro, still waiting on that list? Please post.

I mean you didn't even acknowledge the fact you posted a pass map of a pretty major tactical outlier when it was called out, the article I mentioned is another and quickly brushing over the fact you suggested I'd read the graphic wrong, then accused me of insulting you, then never acknowledging either again when it was explained to you how it clearly wasn't the case in either one. And that's just off the top of my head from a quick exchange yesterday.

It's the reason I stopped responding yesterday, because as soon as you're called out on something you never acknowledge it and then immediately move on to something else. Then you call out other people for things and accuse others of posting in bad faith while posting stuff like "show me the list" when we've just discussed an exact example of you doing it, as if it needs to be 2 for it to count. It's hypocrisy and poor form.

 

[tomaldinho1]

I mean you didn't even acknowledge the fact you posted a pass map of a pretty major tactical outlier when it was called out, the article I mentioned is another and quickly brushing over the fact you suggested I'd read the graphic wrong, then accused me of insulting you, then never acknowledging either again when it was explained to you how it clearly wasn't the case in either one. And that's just off the top of my head from a quick exchange yesterday.

It's the reason I stopped responding yesterday, because as soon as you're called out on something you never acknowledge it and then immediately move on to something else. Then you call out other people for things and accuse others of posting in bad faith while posting stuff like "show me the list" when we've just discussed an exact example of you doing it, as if it needs to be 2 for it to count. It's hypocrisy and poor form.

You added context I didn’t know to a pass map, then proceeded to provide one of your own choosing which then just proved my argument.
Re insulting you wrote about ‘assuming’ I had basic comprehension skills. Seemed rude.
You did read the graphic wrong - if you think it shows progressive passing, that is incorrect. Since then you’ve said a lot of random stuff but it doesn’t change the fact you misunderstood what you posted actually showed.

 

[Dion]

I'm not here to relitigate things with you just because you've asked me to pull them up. Even now you're misrepresenting the original to try and avoid the actual discussion. This was the actual quote, for reference.

I will also point out you seem to have misread your own graphic as the number of passes per 90 is bracketed, so Xavi has categorically not made the most passes anyway...

Which I then highlighted, I had in fact not misread

The list is sorted by accuracy, but the number of long passes per game is as you said, in brackets. Xavi averages between 8-10 long passes per game, the only really comparable figures in terms of consistent volume are Kroos and Scholes.

and you chose to never acknowledge. You later intentionally misquoted my original remark and then didn't acknowledge it when I pointed it out to you.

Re insulting you wrote about ‘assuming’ I had basic comprehension skills. Seemed rude.

And yet when I suggested you'd misunderstood the remark (the context was clearly "I extended you a benefit of the doubt you haven't extended to me") and I directly asked you what you thought it meant to be offended by you didn't acknowledge it further and complete skipped over it.

I didn't bother pulling you up on it because frankly the discussion was going nowhere, but when you start accusing other users of this stuff then I can't really keep overlooking it.

 

[tomaldinho1]

I'm not here to relitigate things with you just because you've asked me to pull them up. Even now you're misrepresenting the original to try and avoid the actual discussion. This was the actual quote, for reference.

Which I then highlighted, I had in fact not misread

and you chose to never acknowledge. You later intentionally misquoted my original remark and then didn't acknowledge it when I pointed it out to you.

Bro, you said something false then clarified it after I said it was false. You keep saying things and then acting like it's weird I took them at face value, as if there was some other way to interpret:
"Basically only post eye-op Scholes made more long passes than Xavi around that time in the PL/La Liga."

And yet when I suggested you'd misunderstood the remark (the context was clearly "I extended you a benefit of the doubt you haven't extended to me") and I directly asked you what you thought it meant to be offended by you didn't acknowledge it further and complete skipped over it.

Yes, surely because if you don't get how that could be offensive - either you meant no offence, or you're lying (neither matters to the debate about Xavi).

I didn't bother pulling you up on it because frankly the discussion was going nowhere, but when you start accusing other users of this stuff then I can't really keep overlooking it.

It is painstakingly clear you either don't understand the basic interpretation of stats or (what I personally belief) you have dug a hole so deep the only way out is to keep digging until you get to daylight again i.e. I just give up. You can try and distract and be vague about ignoring stuff, bad faith, whatever you like but I quoted what you said for you a few times now + you just keep going down random rabbit holes which I assume is a tactic. Unless you have something new to offer specific to Xavi and his long direct passing, the entire point of why I originally posted as it's simply not what he was known for at all, I bid you adieu.

 

[Dion]

Bro, you said something false then clarified it after I said it was false. You keep saying things and then acting like it's weird I took them at face value, as if there was some other way to interpret:
"Basically only post eye-op Scholes made more long passes than Xavi around that time in the PL/La Liga."

I mean, again you're just deliberately ignoring the context in which it was posted and your actual response to avoid acknowledging that you made a mistake.

Yes, surely because if you don't get how that could be offensive - either you meant no offence, or you're lying (neither matters to the debate about Xavi).

Oh I'm sure it could have been misunderstood as offensive, given the entire point of the statement was to highlight how offensive the above was. That's why I asked you what you thought it meant to be offended by. And while it's not relevant to the Xavi discussion, it is relevant to users discussing things in bad faith.

It is painstakingly clear you either don't understand the basic interpretation of stats or (what I personally belief) you have dug a hole so deep the only way out is to keep digging until you get to daylight again i.e. I just give up. You can try and distract and be vague about ignoring stuff, bad faith, whatever you like but I quoted what you said for you a few times now + you just keep going down random rabbit holes which I assume is a tactic. Unless you have something new to offer specific to Xavi and his long direct passing, the entire point of why I originally posted as it's simply not what he was known for at all, I bid you adieu.

Again, none of this since I started posting again has been about Xavi, it's been about you unfairly calling out a user for something you are guilty of yourself. All this is just projection.

 

[tomaldinho1]

I mean, again you're just deliberately ignoring the context in which it was posted and your actual response to avoid acknowledging that you made a mistake.

Oh I'm sure it could have been misunderstood as offensive, given the entire point of the statement was to highlight how offensive the above was. That's why I asked you what you thought it meant to be offended by. And while it's not relevant to the Xavi discussion, it is relevant to users discussing things in bad faith.

Again, none of this since I started posting again has been about Xavi, it's been about you unfairly calling out a user for something you are guilty of yourself. All this is just projection.

Mate you do you, it’s clear at this point you’re not even interested in the debate. Whatever you were getting from this I hope it scratched the itch, was immensely frustrating from my side. Adios.