2018/19 Gylfi Sigurdsson

Status
Not open for further replies.
He literally explains the whole thing if you scroll up about 5cm.

no I did read it, again how is that a thing it's absolutely ridiculous

ie, lets say tosun who has what 3 goals? we all think he's not good enough which he quite clearly isn't, what if I pulled some jarg stat out saying he has an expected goal per game, it's not his fault the keepers keep making good saves against him, as other players would score this chance he is just very unlucky that at this time the keeper made a good save
 
no I did read it, again how is that a thing it's absolutely ridiculous

ie, lets say tosun who has what 3 goals? we all think he's not good enough which he quite clearly isn't, what if I pulled some jarg stat out saying he has an expected goal per game, it's not his fault the keepers keep making good saves against him, as other players would score this chance he is just very unlucky that at this time the keeper made a good save
I agree that the stat is a bit of a weird one but not for that reason. You're misunderstanding the concept of it. If Tosun has a high expected goal rate but a low actual goal rate, it would be a bad thing. It wouldn't be used to say 'it's not his fault, he's unlucky' it would be used to say he should be scoring more than he is, we need a better finisher. That's slightly different with assists because you're talking about a reliance on someone else, so to an extent you can say 'he couldn't really have done any more there, it's just poor finishing'.

Where I think it falls down is it can't take into account individual situations or the variables in team mates. So for example if Sigurdsson plays a through ball 10 yards in front of Tosun theres a very good chance he won't get it, because he's slow both to react and to cover ground. The stat kind of chalks that down to Sigurdsson doing his job well, because other players would score from it, whereas your eyes tell you it was a stupid thing to do because regardless of what someone else would have done, Tosun was never going to get it. Similarly it can't take into account the occasions where a player could swing a cross in to a theoretically dangerous area and notch it as an expected assist (a big favourite of Bolasie's supporters in his first season that one) but actually assesses the situation instead, realises it would be pointless and so just keeps hold of the ball.

For me stats and analytics are good to give credence/balance to an argument, but actually watching and understanding a game of football is a much better way of judging players.
 
For me stats and analytics are good to give credence/balance to an argument, but actually watching and understanding a game of football is a much better way of judging players.

Nobody in stats/analytics would argue otherwise.

But you'll also find the stats models rate exactly the same players most people do with their eyes.

I can tell you, from having looked this week, that Gylfi is very high on the list from through balls played in the league, something like 10th from memory. If you are watching a game or highlights that tends to stick in your mind. But he is really, really low in the run of the mill passes around the box. Again from memory I think he was in the bottom 5 in the league for attacking midfielders. Over time run of the mill short passes around the box create a decent number of chances. His lack of involvement in that type of play is a huge weakness.
 
Someone better tell the Premier League to change the requirements for the golden boot because apparently number of goals scored doesn't mean anything

Well if the golden boot was claimed to be a definitive list of best overall players in the league you’d have a point, but alas it isn’t, and is simply an award given to the player who’s scored the most goals. That’s why there’s a thing called Player of the Year that’s separate from the golden boot where people actually vote for who they think the best player has been that season.
 

The discussion on here seems to miss the point a little for my money. He is decent on the ball in my opinion but he doesn't do it nearly often enough.

Gomes and Gana need options when they are on the ball, but we don't have a striker to hold the ball up, we don't have intelligent runs made in behind by our wingers and we have an attacking midfielder (Gylfi) who seems happy not to receive the ball.

It makes our play stodgy and stale and predictable, and by the time we do get the ball in the final third we are faced with 2 banks of 4, set out well. That's hard to break down.
 
because your using daft articles/stats and comparing them to a FAR superior player as a way of telling us how he's not doing to bad, when in reality he is doing bad

for arguments sake I've just skim read that article and it has siggy being better than eriken in stuff like goals ( siggy has taken a few pens ) and it even has him ahead in duels/dribbling who is arsed abar them 2?

the most important one needed as follows...

"In terms of passes, Sigurdsson is involved in substantially less than Eriksen. He averages just 27.12 passes per 90 minutes with a success rate of 74.7%. Eriksen, however, averages 53.92 passes per 90 minutes with a success rate of 83.1%".

thanks for listening

I thought you already said you don’t use stats?

I love it when someone says that they use their eyes to judge players and not stats. That’s one of my favorites.
 
For me stats and analytics are good to give credence/balance to an argument, but actually watching and understanding a game of football is a much better way of judging players.

Stats without an understanding of the game, what’s most important to you club in what type of player, is pointless. Most analytics folks know this. But there are a lot of folks that claim they know the game and don’t know anything. Frankly, if you could measure everything at every time, someone could probably create a model mixed with machine learning that would outperform pretty much every scout. But you still have to create a model.

Regardless, I still don’t understand why a guy that works as hard as he does gets is the subject of so much ire from so many. Just boggles my mind.
 
I've got a season ticket and go to away games when possible (been to a good few this season) and my eyes told me that Sigurdsson was crap for the majority of last season, and after a good start to this season he has reverted back to being crap. The other thing is as well, his set - pieces since he joined us have been atrocious, supposedly set - pieces were his party trick.

Now maybe it's just me, but I look at what a player contributes over the full 90 minutes, and not just on putting the odd good ball through in a game.
 
Last edited:

Stats without an understanding of the game, what’s most important to you club in what type of player, is pointless. Most analytics folks know this. But there are a lot of folks that claim they know the game and don’t know anything. Frankly, if you could measure everything at every time, someone could probably create a model mixed with machine learning that would outperform pretty much every scout. But you still have to create a model.

Regardless, I still don’t understand why a guy that works as hard as he does gets is the subject of so much ire from so many. Just boggles my mind.

As hard as who? Siggy? Don't be silly!!
 
I thought you already said you don’t use stats?

I love it when someone says that they use their eyes to judge players and not stats. That’s one of my favorites.


Took you about 4 days to think of that lad?

Wasn't my stat my link or my article. I'm pointing out why that article flawed
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top