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.
John ******* Mikel :$Don't see why such a big deal is being made over dictation. Both are inherently reliant on a player deeper in midfield to truly run the game. A Scholes, Arteta player. As much as I may dislike and mock Barry, it's a disservice to him to say it's Silva who dictates the game. Chelsea don't particularly have such a player, Mata is pushed out to the wing and has to drop deep to where he's less effective to influence the game at all, and he's still outperforming Silva on key stats. If Arsenal hadn't dropped a clanger and missed out on Mata, I'd say we'd be truly seeing how good he is right now.
Barely played under AVB and slows the tempo down far too much. Pass.John ******* Mikel :$
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 team3-4 brilliant games? Or about time you remove those rose tinted blue glasses?
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 TorresBarely played under AVB and slows the tempo down far too much. Pass.
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.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
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?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.
Debating purely over statistics is retarded. They're an aid, not gospel. Too many variables to a football game to truly determine a player's ability from his statistics, hence why 'moneyball' won't work for football.
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?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".
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.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.
That doesn't mean what they consider as clear cut chance is spot on.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.