Spot on, Superb post one of the best I’ve read on here for some time), eloquently argued, but I feel it’s possibly wasted on its recipient who when confronted with ideas that don’t conform or contradict his, likes to spout hackneyed football geezer cliches about how football is about the “eye test” and not “graphs” and if more people (like him) agree with him he must be right.Well of course, but again that's not the reality. No-one is saying that stats alone alone should dictate someone's impression of a player. I just said that stats provide context, insight and evidence to support opinions.
You know, just like how you're suggesting that someone who squandered 4 sitters, lost the ball 5 times and botched 3 free-kicks had a bad game. You are literally invoking stats to evidence your opinion, and when you think about it, that's ALL anyone can actually do.
What I'm saying is that looking at stats helps you determine whether or not someone has a point. Let's take an example of a supporter watching from the stands. He has no access to replays, no access to zoomed-in camera angles, no access to information such as how far that player has run, how many passes they've made, etc. All he has, is his limited perspective of what is happening, in real-time, undoubtledly heavily influenced by the emotions he is feeling during any given moment of play. Every single missed pass feels like a clanger. Every scuffed shot feels like a howler. Every time the opposition breaks, it feels like the player didn't track back enough. Every corner which fails to beat the first man feels like a waste of time.
Maybe he doesn't know that the player had a 93% pass completion rate. Maybe he doesn't know that the player has covered more distance than anyone in the game, and made the second-most tackles. Maybe he doesn't know that the shot he scuffed was actually because an opposition player subtly fouled him, but the ref didn't spot it. Maybe the player finally gets an assist in the end of the game, but it's too late to overturn the 2 goals the opposition scored because the defense went to sleep.
What if that supporter then leaves the ground, thinking that the player had a poor game, when in fact the player was one of the best performers on the pitch, and it just didn't FEEL like it, because the team lost?
That's precisely where stats can help that supporter understand what actually took place, and what their eyes missed, and why all the newspapers gave the player a rating of 8 for the game. If someone wants to double down on "well I know what I saw and stats can't tell me otherwise", then the whole idea of debating it becomes pointless.
Do you not agree with that? That's my whole point.
Again, if you're going to invent whatever circumstances you like, any time you like, then there's little point in discussing this, isn't there?
I think Frank Lampard was one of the best midfielders of his generation, born out by the fact that he scored more goals than most strikers.