Welcome!

FM Base has been serving the Football Manager community for nearly two decades and we're keen to ensure that we are here for two decades more.

Become a part of our community today, and you'll quickly realise that the Football Manager community is the best community.

Register

Juan Mata or David Silva?

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Silva is more influencial, and has been, but if you look at total stats (shots, touches, passes, intereptions, goals etc) both players are similar. The big difference is that Silva has more of an influence since he plays central, but the stats are remarkably even. What's quite interesting is since Xmas Mata has had a three fold increase in his shooting attempts. He has a good shot on him, so perhaps he will become more incisive in the future. Very good player, gutted the board wouldn't give the money to sign him until we sold Fabs.
 
Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
7,028
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Difficult one for me... Who would I rather have in my team? Probably Juan Mata, because he's younger, more versatile* and probably on about half of Silva's wages.

*Both can play wide, but I think Mata plays more like a winger when he's wide, while Silva cuts inside more (avg 0.8 crosses/game, to Mata's 1.9/game). Though Silva's better than Mata in the deeper role IMO.

Who's the better player at the moment? Silva IMO. He's probably more important to City (despite their billions and world-class squad) than Mata is to Chelsea (mainly just because Chelsea have done badly whether he's in the team or not this season ;)).

Silva is far better at controlling the tempo of games (averaging around 10 more passes/game with a higher success %) and playing through the middle for me, shown in part by the fact he has more assists despite - as Alcaraz is determined to point out - Mata has played more games (actually he's only made 1 more start in all comps, and 3 more apps overall).

Just want to pick up on this...

"[Mata] does not have the company of world-class strikers to finish them off"

I would have thought that Drogba, Sturridge (brilliant form) and Torres qualified as world-class strikers (not DS, but he's been terrific this season). City have had their issues with strikers, too - Dzeko (not scored for 9 games) hasn't been in great form recently, Balotelli'***** and miss and Tevez went AWOL for 6 months.

The best creators surely create good enough opportunities for even the likes of Drogba to score?
 
Last edited:
Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
1,018
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I agree with what joss says but i would say that silva is more of a central mid whilst Mata is more a winger. I would prether mata in my team cause hes younger and cheeper. Its the same as comparing xavi and iniesta. Silva sets the tempo of the game whilst matas on the side crossing and passing.
 
Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
31,888
Reaction score
31
Points
48
I'd take Mata over Silva. Despite often being fielded in a manner that doesnt get teh best from him, he has still been constantly effective in a side that is set up not to benefit from his strengths.
 
Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
31,888
Reaction score
31
Points
48
Difficult one for me... Who would I rather have in my team? Probably Juan Mata, because he's younger, more versatile* and probably on about half of Silva's wages.

*Both can play wide, but I think Mata plays more like a winger when he's wide, while Silva cuts inside more (avg 0.8 crosses/game, to Mata's 1.9/game). Though Silva's better than Mata in the deeper role IMO.

Who's the better player at the moment? Silva IMO. He's probably more important to City (despite their billions and world-class squad) than Mata is to Chelsea (mainly just because Chelsea have done badly whether he's in the team or not this season ;)).

Silva is far better at controlling the tempo of games (averaging around 10 more passes/game with a higher success %) and playing through the middle for me, shown in part by the fact he has more assists despite - as Alcaraz is determined to point out - Mata has played more games (actually he's only made 1 more start in all comps, and 3 more apps overall).

Just want to pick up on this...

"[Mata] does not have the company of world-class strikers to finish them off"

I would have thought that Drogba, Sturridge (brilliant form) and Torres qualified as world-class strikers (not DS, but he's been terrific this season). City have had their issues with strikers, too - Dzeko (not scored for 9 games) hasn't been in great form recently, Balotelli'***** and miss and Tevez went AWOL for 6 months.

The best creators surely create good enough opportunities for even the likes of Drogba to score?
Considering Mata is often not fielded through the middle, its not a fair comparison to say Silva dictates better through the middle.

Second part isnt true, as it depends on how the team is set up, with Drogba, its usually direct balls from deep, which is of little use to Mata. Chelsea for the most part dont even play to Mata's strengths (if they did, they would get far more out of Torres). Silva has been given the free reins. Mata for the most part has not.

Even so he still has a huge impact on the game, and if Chelsea's forwards could finish, would have a far greater assist rate. Chelsea need to learn this next season, and shift Mata to AMC.
 
Last edited:
Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
12,808
Reaction score
0
Points
0
You can take some stats like key passes and say Mata has done better but that doesn't mean he did. Without Silva it was clear how much City struggles and he is the main creator of the team. Silva is playing even though he is injured so only his performances have dropped.

Ok, Mata has 17 (Goals and assists) in 28+3 league games. (0.54 per game)
Silva has 18 (goals and assists) in 28+3 league games. Better than Mata.
Young has 12 (Goals and assists) in 16+5 league games (0.57)

Who has done better? Like I said you can use stats and prove anything.

Also Giggs has 10 goals and assists in 12 starts and 11 subs. If you go by mins per assist/goal he would top the chart

Generally I do not look at assists as it gives an unfair indication of just how good a player is.

A players assists is widely impacted by the quality of his team-mates whilst the number of key passses he makes per game is not. I dont think you understand the fine distinction between key passes and assists Sunil.

Key passes is the number of clear-cut goal scoring chances a player creates per game. Mata actually creates 3 clear-cut goal-scoring chances per game. Assists is basically how many of these chances are actually converted into goals. So Mata may create 3 goal-scoring chances per game but due to our poor forwards, hardly any of them are finished hence he ranks below Silva in the assists column.

Another example is the player you mentioned Ashley Young. Young actually creates only 1.5 goal-scoring chances per game half of that of Mata. However, on the occasions that he does create chances, he has a higher chance of getting an assist to his name because of the quality of the forwards he plays with in Rooney/Hernadez etc.

Hence, why I believe Juan Mata is one of the best players in the PLM. If he actually had more clinical forwards infront of him, he would surely eclipse Silva in the assists column as well
 
Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
12,808
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'd take Mata over Silva. Despite often being fielded in a manner that doesnt get teh best from him, he has still been constantly effective in a side that is set up not to benefit from his strengths.
exactly, i was ather shocked by how similar the stats were and how Mata actually was better than Silva in certain asrwas despite the fact that Silva is playing in a team more suited to his game. Makes me wonder just how good Mata can be if we put the right players around him.

Think Chelsea should definitely build the team around Mata this summer. Especially after seeing his stats
 
Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I don't think you really have to guess, look at what the three of them used to do at Valencia with a front man who could actually finish. He's only added to his game since then.
 
Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
290
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Two very good players for me, Mata is a key player for Chelsea and Silva is a key player for Manchester City, If I'm honest Silva just scrapes it at the moment for me. When Mata gets better players around him he will eventually get better, still young and lots of improving. Remember Silva has been in English football longer than Mata.
 
Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
8,166
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Mata. Has barely played through the middle in a lesser team and his influence is still huge. And he's a better finisher than Silva.
 
YNWA.
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
14,836
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Silva for me. Just an overall better player and has that extra yard of pace which Mata dont have.
 
Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
12,808
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Silva for me. Just an overall better player and has that extra yard of pace which Mata dont have.

Dont think Silva is faster than Mata. I may be wrong but i dont think their is a significant difference in their pace.
 
Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
12,808
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I think people really need to get over those 3-4 brilliant performances given by Silva and look at cold hard facts.
 
SAF greatest ever.
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
13,085
Reaction score
0
Points
0
A players assists is widely impacted by the quality of his team-mates whilst the number of key passses he makes per game is not. I dont think you understand the fine distinction between key passes and assists Sunil.

Key passes is the number of clear-cut goal scoring chances a player creates per game.
l

Key passes is not clear cut goal scoring chance, it is the important pass that lead to goal scoring chance?

For example if Modric slips superb though ball to lennon, who in turns squares the ball to adebayor to score then Key pass for Modric is 1 and assist for Lennon is 1.

Like I said I can play with stats all day long just how I posted Lucio stats to prove he is the best CB in the world. Good to see you ignored that one.

Mata is one of the best players in the League no doubt but not better than Silva.

I have also mentioned the reasons that favor Mata to play key passes as everything goes through him. Everything. Whereas Silva has others to share his burden with.

Also what these stats wont show is qucikness of the player to play the pass and ability to control tempo. No way these stats can prove that.

If he actually had more clinical forwards infront of him, he would surely eclipse Silva in the assists column as well
Or probably the clear cut chances created are not as clearer as Silva creates?
 
YNWA.
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
14,836
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dont think Silva is faster than Mata. I may be wrong but i dont think their is a significant difference in their pace.
I think its fairly obvious when you watch them play, mata cannot get away from someone the same way silva does
 
SAF greatest ever.
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
13,085
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I think people really need to get over those 3-4 brilliant performances given by Silva and look at cold hard facts.
3-4 brilliant games? Or about time you remove those rose tinted blue glasses?
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
1,453
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Silva. I think Silva edges Mata in everything but finishing and shooting.
Both top class players. And Silva does carry a small injury problem aswell....which affects him at times.
 
Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
0
Points
0
What is the point posting a discussion thread if you do not accept the discussion taking place? Partisanship for your club's talent is not being "a fan", it's wearing blinkers. They're both excellent players, both offer a lot to attacking teams, and both are at a similar level. They used to play for the same club so it's no suprise they have a similar style, and hopefully, they will be playing in the PL for a while!
 
Top