Juan Mata or David Silva?
- Thread starter Alcaraz
- Start date
- Replies 80
- Views 11K
Jack Fulham
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 6,850
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Doesn't Mata play in a more advanced position than Silva on the field which could mean it is more likely that he is going to attempt a key pass and score a goal?
Mata's been quietly effective this season but he hasn't really blown me away. I'm sure we will see the best of him next season, Silva didn't really come into his own until this season but he has been poor the second half of the season.
Mata's been quietly effective this season but he hasn't really blown me away. I'm sure we will see the best of him next season, Silva didn't really come into his own until this season but he has been poor the second half of the season.
You have to take in consideration the teams they play in, considering Chelsea have been pretty woeful for the large part of this season I think Mata has had a bigger effect. I can't decide who is better, David Silva maybe edges it.
Don't see why such a big deal is being made over dictation. Both are inherently reliant on a player deeper in midfield to truly run the game. A Scholes, Arteta player. As much as I may dislike and mock Barry, it's a disservice to him to say it's Silva who dictates the game. Chelsea don't particularly have such a player, Mata is pushed out to the wing and has to drop deep to where he's less effective to influence the game at all, and he's still outperforming Silva on key stats. If Arsenal hadn't dropped a clanger and missed out on Mata, I'd say we'd be truly seeing how good he is right now.
Juan Mata. Statistically, and also watching him. He's quicker, perhaps doesn't have the amazingly silky dribbling of Silva, but is more aware of his surroundings in a movement sense and has a better delivery into the box.
John ******* Mikel :$
Barely played under AVB and slows the tempo down far too much. Pass.
you misunderstood me, mostly people automatically think of Silva because he has truly had those games where he has blown you away. Mata has not had those type of games yet has been quietly effective and has outperformed Silva despite playing a pretty woeful team
Has developed into more of a 'passer' than a 'creator' at any rate. No wonder AVB was after Modric last summer. Drooling at what could have been with both Mata and Modric in the same team along with Torres
Here is the conversion rate stat. Chelsea have better rate than City. So they have better striker argument is moot as City waste more chances than Chelsea.
It doesn't show about individual players but "Chelsea dont have good strikers to convert the chances" argument doesn't hold good.
Here is the conversion rate stat. Chelsea have better rate than City. So they have better striker argument is moot as City waste more chances than Chelsea.
It doesn't show about individual players but "Chelsea dont have good strikers to convert the chances" argument doesn't hold good.
umm.. not sure about this piece of stat but most of our chances have come from set-pieces where we are very dangerous. Also how many of those chances have been converted by forwards?
That's what exactly I'm saying in this thread from the start. Stats wont tell the full story, for example they will never show the quick thinking of a player or player making himself for passes.
Care to pull out a stat to show how many chances are wasted by both City and Chelsea forwards? How many of them are created by Mata and how many by Silva?
I'm saying it again, stats are not be all and end all. Clear cut chances doesn't mean sure goal scoring chance. What seems clear goal scoring chance for Whoscored.com might not be same for "For example EPL index".
I am not saying stats show the full story but the likelihood is that if I came into this thread with no stats and simply saying that Mata was the best, i wuld have got shot down for biasedness or whatever. However stats are a good aid to proving my point
Also to eliminate the error you mentioned, all the stats I have used is from one site.
Here is the conversion rate stat. Chelsea have better rate than City. So they have better striker argument is moot as City waste more chances than Chelsea.
It doesn't show about individual players but "Chelsea dont have good strikers to convert the chances" argument doesn't hold good.
Drogba and Torres have scored a combined 16% of Chelsea's total PL goals, so clearly that argument does hold. ****, include Sturridge and that's a combined 32% of their total goals. Compare that to City where Aguero has 25% of their goals by himself, United where Rooney has 28% of all their goals, Arsenal where RVP has 41% of their goals. One of the main strikers from the big teams almost contribute the same amount of goals as 3 of Chelsea's together, so they blatantly don't have as good strikers.
18% of Chelsea's goals have come from defenders, implying that they score a lot from set pieces or from defenders being in positions to score easily converted chances, since you don't expect defenders to score, or be in the positions, to score from more difficult attacking plays. This would imply that a large amount of these goals come from clear cut chances, accounting for these goals in your stats gives a new conversion rate of 33%, for the rest of the team. Not so good.
Statistics are fun.
That doesn't mean what they consider as clear cut chance is spot on.
You are using stat to prove a point which are ridiculously close, but some how just because Mata made more key passes you sided with him. Then I also posted how many WBA players have more key passes than Iniesta.
Mata plays higher up the pitch than Silva and this is what Whoscored.com says. So it is not surprising to see him making just .4 key passes more than Silva and also like I said many times, everything goes through Mata so the chances of playing key passes is higher for Mata than Silva.