I agree but it's only the one assist that is charitable not a couple of them. Two were from corners, two from thorugh balls and then the one today when he pulled it back for Costa after neat link up play with Hazard. None of these are "charitable".

 

I don't disagree with you, I think he's been an absolutely brilliant signing and has added a quality of passing to our midfield that we haven't seen since Lampard's heyday. I'm just pointing out that assists aren't a particularly reliable barometer of a player's contribution to a team's ability to create chances.

I don't disagree with you, I think he's been an absolutely brilliant signing and has added a quality of passing to our midfield that we haven't seen since Lampard's heyday. I'm just pointing out that assists aren't a particularly reliable barometer of a player's contribution to a team's ability to create chances.

They aren't, but even disregarding the assists, Cesc has created more chances than any other Chelsea player this season: 16 key passes in 4 games.

Edited September 13, 201411 yr by Ward

Even disregarding the assists, Cesc has created the most chances in our team so far: 4 key passes per game. 

 

I don't think you understand the nature of my objection... I'm not trying to criticise Fabregas.

 

WhoScored (assuming that's where the stat comes from - not that it particularly matters, they can serve as a perfectly good model for these attempts to analyse football statistically) defines a key pass as "The final pass leading to a shot at goal from a teammate". The final pass can be a two-yard layoff, a set piece, a forty-yard lofted through ball which splits the defence, it can bounce off a player's arse, the possibilities are endless and thoroughly unequal in their importance, yet each is equally defined as a 'key pass'.

 

My point is that there is no statistical way to consistently identify the key piece of genius which is most responsible for causing a goal, and that lack of qualitative appreciation of what causes a goal (or anything else) will always be the downfall of any statistical analysis of football. As well as mentioning the assists, ForeverCarefree (someone whose understanding of football I put a lot of faith in) identified three excellent things Fabregas has brought to the team - 'calmness', 'vision' and 'execution', yet it isn't possible to measure any of them statistically; they can only really be understood in words or action.

 

Statistics can be very important in helping us understand football, there are definitely things we can measure, but they are only useful if we know how to interpret them. Relying on them solely to come up with answers will not provide a full understanding of the game. And Fabregas has been brilliant.

I don't think you understand the nature of my objection... I'm not trying to criticise Fabregas.

 

WhoScored (assuming that's where the stat comes from - not that it particularly matters, they can serve as a perfectly good model for these attempts to analyse football statistically) defines a key pass as "The final pass leading to a shot at goal from a teammate". The final pass can be a two-yard layoff, a set piece, a forty-yard lofted through ball which splits the defence, it can bounce off a player's arse, the possibilities are endless and thoroughly unequal in their importance, yet each is equally defined as a 'key pass'.

 

My point is that there is no statistical way to consistently identify the key piece of genius which is most responsible for causing a goal, and that lack of qualitative appreciation of what causes a goal (or anything else) will always be the downfall of any statistical analysis of football. As well as mentioning the assists, ForeverCarefree (someone whose understanding of football I put a lot of faith in) identified three excellent things Fabregas has brought to the team - 'calmness', 'vision' and 'execution', yet it isn't possible to measure any of them statistically; they can only really be understood in words or action.

 

Statistics can be very important in helping us understand football, there are definitely things we can measure, but they are only useful if we know how to interpret them. Relying on them solely to come up with answers will not provide a full understanding of the game. And Fabregas has been brilliant.

I agree with you, but in this case, Fabregas's statistics actually reflect his influence on our play and are well-deserved, 1 "charitable" assist for Hazard or not. So it hardly has any relevance. 

I agree with you, but in this case, Fabregas's statistics actually reflect his influence on our play and are well-deserved, 1 "charitable" assist for Hazard or not. So it hardly has any relevance. 

 

Why have you taken such offence at the idea that Fabregas, a player who we both agree has been a unimaginably good addition to our previously limited creative arsenal, got one of his many assists for something which was very simple and didn't have much to do with the scoring of the goal?

 

No one is taking anything anything else he did away from him, but in this one instance, can we not accept that assists were not a particularly useful way of determining who did the creative work for scoring a goal?

Why have you taken such offence at the idea that Fabregas, a player who we both agree has been a unimaginably good addition to our previously limited creative arsenal, got one of his many assists for something which was very simple and didn't have much to do with the scoring of the goal?

 

No one is taking anything anything else he did away from him, but in this one instance, can we not accept that assists were not a particularly useful way of determining who did the creative work for scoring a goal?

I haven't taken offence. I just find it puzzling why you mentioned it at all when 1 unimpressive assist clearly has no relevance, considering how great he's been for us. People usually talk about "charitable" assists when a player gets great stats undeservedly, which is clearly not the case, as you admit yourself. So in this case, what is the point? 

I don't think you understand the nature of my objection... I'm not trying to criticise Fabregas.

WhoScored (assuming that's where the stat comes from - not that it particularly matters, they can serve as a perfectly good model for these attempts to analyse football statistically) defines a key pass as "The final pass leading to a shot at goal from a teammate". The final pass can be a two-yard layoff, a set piece, a forty-yard lofted through ball which splits the defence, it can bounce off a player's arse, the possibilities are endless and thoroughly unequal in their importance, yet each is equally defined as a 'key pass'.

My point is that there is no statistical way to consistently identify the key piece of genius which is most responsible for causing a goal, and that lack of qualitative appreciation of what causes a goal (or anything else) will always be the downfall of any statistical analysis of football. As well as mentioning the assists, ForeverCarefree (someone whose understanding of football I put a lot of faith in) identified three excellent things Fabregas has brought to the team - 'calmness', 'vision' and 'execution', yet it isn't possible to measure any of them statistically; they can only really be understood in words or action.

Statistics can be very important in helping us understand football, there are definitely things we can measure, but they are only useful if we know how to interpret them. Relying on them solely to come up with answers will not provide a full understanding of the game. And Fabregas has been brilliant.

I wonder whether we can statistically prove that Hazard had a blinder yesterday and was probably the best and most effective player on the pitch...

I haven't taken offence. I just find it puzzling why you mentioned it at all when 1 unimpressive assist clearly has no relevance, considering how great he's been for us. People usually talk about "charitable" assists when a player gets great stats undeservedly, which is clearly not the case, as you admit yourself. So in this case, what is the point? 

 

I mentioned it because (like I said) I don't think assists or key passes or any statistical indicator of quality are a completely reliable way of assessing how creative a player is. Again, I am not criticising Fabregas. The only reason I think you're offended is because you keep throwing the word 'charitable' back at me as if I compared him to Charlie Adam or something.

 

I wonder whether we can statistically prove that Hazard had a blinder yesterday and was probably the best and most effective player on the pitch...

 

Nope, you can't prove that somebody was probably anything, genuine proof is certain. Plus WhoScored (who operate purely based on stats) rate Costa as having performed better. Clearly you interpret the match differently to the WhoScored statistics, and your opinion is no less valid because of it.

Stats can be useful but are not the perfect indicator of footballing quality.

I loved how he celebrated in front of the mhl after Costa's second

Stats like assists are a nice little indicator, but can be taken with a large dose of salt. As Plokoon said I could pass the ball to my mate in my own penalty area and he could then beat 10 men and put it in with his penis, and I would be credited with an assist. I would feel slightly ill too.

 

Also a player like Hazard could beat men all over the place, put a player in who then makes a simple pass to a striker who scores, Hazard wouldnt be credited with an assist. Its a nice stat but meaningless at times.

Edited September 14, 201411 yr by dkw

Stats like assists are a nice little indicator, but can be taken with a large dose of salt. As Plokoon said I could pass the ball to my mate in my own penalty area and he could then beat 10 men and put it in with his penis, and I would be credited with an assist. I would feel slightly ill too.

 

Also a player like Hazard could beat men all over the place, put a player in who then makes a simple pass to a striker who scores, Hazard wouldnt be credited with an assist. Its a nice stat but meaningless at times.

I agree with this. The importance of an assist of a goal might be anything from 10% to 90%. Sometimes the scorer does the hardest part, but it can be the other way round. Giving credit to the scorer who does a simple tap-in while the assister does all the hard work, uses his vision and creativity and lays a perfect pass seems unfair too. 

Nope, you can't prove that somebody was probably anything, genuine proof is certain. Plus WhoScored (who operate purely based on stats) rate Costa as having performed better. Clearly you interpret the match differently to the WhoScored statistics, and your opinion is no less valid because of it.

Stats can be useful but are not the perfect indicator of footballing quality.

 

I'm sure it would be possible to find stats that prove Eden was the best player on the pitch, you just have look for the relevant numbers.

 

The only thing that you cannot measure with stats is defence. Great defending is all about denying the opposition players space and time on the ball, basically not giving them a chance to do anything positive with it. You cannot quantify events that did not happen.

According to Chelsea's facebook page, Cesc is now the first player in Premier League history to get an assist in six consecutive games.

Edited September 14, 201411 yr by Jonty

I'm sure it would be possible to find stats that prove Eden was the best player on the pitch, you just have look for the relevant numbers.

 

The only thing that you cannot measure with stats is defence. Great defending is all about denying the opposition players space and time on the ball, basically not giving them a chance to do anything positive with it. You cannot quantify events that did not happen.

 

My point is that you can't prove something subjective like who was the 'best' player - of course you can find evidence which supports it, evidence which contradicts it, or evidence which supports somebody else being the best player, but you can never prove it outright because 'good' has no statistical value, yet is a very important value to people, so we must find other ways of giving value to events in football which aren't statistical.

 

I agree with you about it being impossible to find worthwhile defensive statistics though, that is an excellent point. Quite often a player's defensive stats will be more reflective of his team's style of play than his own ability to defend.

Here's another interesting stat: only 23.08% of polled Shed Enders agree that Hazard was the best player on the pitch yesterday. ;)

Cesc > Mata

Cesc > Mata

Not comparable for he, two midfielders who play in different ways

Not comparable for he, two midfielders who play in different ways

In a sense who'd you choose if you had the choice.

In a sense who'd you choose if you had the choice.

For the team now definitely Cesc but in a team like Barca's I'd chose Mata. It's about getting the player in and using them in the right system.

I'd say Cesc is a better footballer than mata

I'd say Cesc is a better footballer than mata

In terms of overall game yeah but I think Mata's probably a better goal scorer

I think it is unfair to compare the two really but if you just list players from any position at the moment Cesc is right up there and Mata is not. Lot of rumours Mata being surplus to LVG...can't really believe how big his fall has been..

I don't think there is anything Mata can do that Cesc can't.

I don't think there is anything Mata can do that Cesc can't.

Two different players but you are right. Just as I write Mata scores an excellent goal. Still love the little magician. Excellent in every way.

Costa and Fabregas.