Some immaculate passing but even more impressive the vision from Cesc to pick out some of those passes

Fabregas leads the league in big chances created:

Not really surprising, though. I've seen somewhere that last season he created more big chances than anyone in Europe. Di Maria and Sigurdsson are the only ones more or less keeping up so far.

Ramires doing pretty well huh.

What on earth is a 'big chance'?

Ramires doing pretty well huh.

Yeah, but the pool is a bit too small. 

What on earth is a 'big chance'?

A really easy chance, usually in front of goal. A chance that should have been scored. Many players create a lot of chances, but very few can consistently create big chances. It's basically the quality of the final ball. We had a problem with big chances last season.

Well the problem is that 'big', 'easy', 'should' and 'quality' are all subjective terms, the value of which will differ based on who is interpreting the information. It's similar to the problem with taking assists at face value as an indicator of a player's creative ability.

Well the problem is that 'big', 'easy', 'should' and 'quality' are all subjective terms, the value of which will differ based on who is interpreting the information. It's similar to the problem with taking assists at face value as an indicator of a player's creative ability.

Opta is interpreting the information. Unlike "chances created" and "assists," "big chances created" is more or less the best indicator of a player's creativity in the final third. You can get an easy, accidental assist; you can create a  "chance" before a random shot that has little chance of scoring, but you can't get an easy "big chance" stat.

 

For example, Cesc's assist for Hazard's goal against Leicester. It was an unremarkable pass and Hazard did all the work, but it became an "assist" and a "chance created." But it didn't become a "big chance." See the difference? That's why it's the best stat when it comes to creativity in the final third.

Edited October 9, 201411 yr by Ward

I am still not satisfied that we have reached an adequate definition of a 'big chance', but we might be able to shed some light by taking on Opta's perspective. This means that we have to rely on Opta's interpretation of the raw data.

 

Opta cover a lot of matches at once, so presumably they have more than one person overseeing the statistics. There are two possibilities - either every single Opta employee's definition of 'big chances', 'key passes', 'assists' (etc.) is exactly the same, or as individuals each interpreter places their own value on each term.

 

Possibility 2 will lead to inconsistency of data interpretation across different agents, but we only get one version of each event so that is more or less useless to us. Possibility 1 leads to consistency, but having one single perspective on a fast-paced event with hundreds of factors acting at once doesn't necessarily lead to an accurate interpretation, just an undisputed one. It's the same as history - you won't get a full understanding of an event from reading one person's perspective, as much as they might try and convince you that you might. You have to understand a range of perspectives, which is why statistical analysis of football without the benefit of also observing the event won't ever give you the full picture.

I am still not satisfied that we have reached an adequate definition of a 'big chance', but we might be able to shed some light by taking on Opta's perspective. This means that we have to rely on Opta's interpretation of the raw data.

 

Opta cover a lot of matches at once, so presumably they have more than one person overseeing the statistics. There are two possibilities - either every single Opta employee's definition of 'big chances', 'key passes', 'assists' (etc.) is exactly the same, or as individuals each interpreter places their own value on each term.

 

Possibility 2 will lead to inconsistency of data interpretation across different agents, but we only get one version of each event so that is more or less useless to us. Possibility 1 leads to consistency, but having one single perspective on a fast-paced event with hundreds of factors acting at once doesn't necessarily lead to an accurate interpretation, just an undisputed one. It's the same as history - you won't get a full understanding of an event from reading one person's perspective, as much as they might try and convince you that you might. You have to understand a range of perspectives, which is why statistical analysis of football without the benefit of also observing the event won't ever give you the full picture.

The fact remains that it's still the best statistical indication of a player's creativity in the final third. It's not completely objective, of course, but it gives a more clear picture than the objective data of "chances created" and "assists." Opta have a clear definition of a big chance that they use: “A situation where a player should be reasonably be expected to score usually in a one-on-one scenario or from very close range.” That immediately discards easy assists and passes that usually count as "chances."

For example, Hazard created an insane amount of "chances" last season (80-90), but only about 10 of them were "big chances," according to Opta. It's a very hard stat to get. You don't get it accidentally. 

Edited October 9, 201411 yr by Ward

Unless you're dealing with probability there's no room for subjectivity in statistics, and counting events during a game of football has nothing to do with that. The events have to be clearly defined otherwise you'll and up with junk data unusable for any analysis.

What I am able to conclude by carefully analysing our games and taking all the statistical databases under heavy consideration is that ... Fabregas has been pretty good for us so far.

 

 

 

Who gives a sh*t anyway? As long as we're winning it's all well and good for me.

Does anyone know why he wasn't included in the squad for Spain's last game?

Maybe he was tired.

Does anyone know why he wasn't included in the squad for Spain's last game?

 

He was a sub.

He was on the bench...

He was on the bench...

It's ok no complain let him rest

It's ok no complain let him rest

Yeah.

He will be fresh at least, hopefully Diego came back with no issues and is ready for Sat.

Don't need him don't want him and he's a category A bellend so a big fat no as far as I'm concerned

 

Definitely dont need him do we

Definitely dont need him do we

No point bringing up the past.

Plenty folk didn't like the guy because of the Arsenal stuff, doens't mean we should bring every comment up on it.

He's doing the buisness and every single Chelsea fan will be delighted so long as that continues....which I'm sure it will.

Edited October 16, 201411 yr by RFC_CFC

I was against this move,since he is a ex Gunner and ex Barca and clearly never tried to hide that he hates us.Still he proved many wrong including me he really brought something new to us as a team and he is worth the money we payed for him.He is only 27 in his prime and he can just get better,assists like crazy and works well with Costa.

 

Saying all this he will never grew to me as a personal favourite,just like Cole liked him and thanked him for his amazing services but i could never really love an ex gunner that much.

The Arsenal stuff doesn't really bother me, he was a Catalonia kid at heart anyway.

The more you despise a rival player tends to suggest how well they have done or are doing at that club I find....................That's why everyone loved Torres

To be fair, Spain have Iniesta and Silva ahead of Cesc in the pecking order. 

Definitely dont need him do we

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.