I'm well aware that some stats have value, I've not argued otherwise. But how can you tell, from distance covered alone, whether a player was getting back to cover, or finding space? That stat doesn't give you any of that information.
Quote from: ktvillan on September 18, 2012, 02:52:51 PMI'm well aware that some stats have value, I've not argued otherwise. But how can you tell, from distance covered alone, whether a player was getting back to cover, or finding space? That stat doesn't give you any of that information. As with all stats the numbers only give you an impression, the odds are someone who's covered 7miles in midfield will have been more productive in harrying the opposition and being available for passes than someone who's covered 5miles, if they also have more interceptions, more touches and more attempted passes then it backs it up further. No stat is all that useful on it's own but as part of a selection of stats it can be part of a big picture.
Quote from: paul_e on September 18, 2012, 03:32:28 PMQuote from: ktvillan on September 18, 2012, 02:52:51 PMI'm well aware that some stats have value, I've not argued otherwise. But how can you tell, from distance covered alone, whether a player was getting back to cover, or finding space? That stat doesn't give you any of that information. As with all stats the numbers only give you an impression, the odds are someone who's covered 7miles in midfield will have been more productive in harrying the opposition and being available for passes than someone who's covered 5miles, if they also have more interceptions, more touches and more attempted passes then it backs it up further. No stat is all that useful on it's own but as part of a selection of stats it can be part of a big picture. "The odds are"? Hardly a convincing argument. There is no reliable correlation between distance covered and what you are claiming can be deduced from it. A player could be a headless chicken running around in circles all day. The stats on interceptions, touches, and attempted passes will tell you something about his contribution and involvement re the overall play - but why does it matter if he made his contribution whilst covering 3 km or 10 km? I'm still unconvinced that distance covered adds any further useful information.
Quote from: ktvillan on September 19, 2012, 06:41:01 PMQuote from: paul_e on September 18, 2012, 03:32:28 PMQuote from: ktvillan on September 18, 2012, 02:52:51 PMI'm well aware that some stats have value, I've not argued otherwise. But how can you tell, from distance covered alone, whether a player was getting back to cover, or finding space? That stat doesn't give you any of that information. As with all stats the numbers only give you an impression, the odds are someone who's covered 7miles in midfield will have been more productive in harrying the opposition and being available for passes than someone who's covered 5miles, if they also have more interceptions, more touches and more attempted passes then it backs it up further. No stat is all that useful on it's own but as part of a selection of stats it can be part of a big picture. "The odds are"? Hardly a convincing argument. There is no reliable correlation between distance covered and what you are claiming can be deduced from it. A player could be a headless chicken running around in circles all day. The stats on interceptions, touches, and attempted passes will tell you something about his contribution and involvement re the overall play - but why does it matter if he made his contribution whilst covering 3 km or 10 km? I'm still unconvinced that distance covered adds any further useful information. That's the point though, against a decent team you need to cover more ground to make those interceptions, touches, passes, etc. At lower levels you'll see similar results for those stats but the distance covered will be lower, as the quality goes up so does the required work rate to make an impact. The days of great players being lazy and then lighting up with the ball are long gone, all of the top players (except central defenders and goalkeepers who need to be much more disciplined positionally) in world football currently (except for maybe Ibrahimovic, which is why there is debate about him being included) are hard workers. If you're static you'll struggle to have an impact on the game, I can't believe anyone can watch football and not see how important fitness and work rate are, distance covered is the most reliable stat to measure this. Distance covered measures your physical capability to play and the other stats mentioned then measure your techincal ability to use that capability to effect the game, they are irrefutably linked and both are required to make it at the top level.
This is an example of stats not providing much/any information (cut and paste from another thread):Matthew Lowton has started his Aston Villa career strongly and highlighted just how strongly with a goal of the season contender against Swansea City on Saturday.Villa fans will always welcome a goal from defence but the main concern will be that Lowton is doing his job at the back.Here's a quick look at his stats so far...Matthew Lowton has made 4 starts and played 360 minutes of football. He has made 10 interceptions and won 50% of his aerial duels.He has made 11 clearances and won 79% of his tackles so far.He has also contributed 147 passes of which only 6 were long balls. He has shown his willingness to get into attacking positions with 9 crosses and 3 clear chances created.From those 147 passes he has a passing accuracy of 82%.He has had two shots, both on target and one resulting in a devastating goal from outside the area.
Statistics are just like mini-skirts, they give you good ideas but hide the most important thing.