Welcome to FM Base
Want access to our Standard Logo Megapack and P20 kit packs? You know what to do!
Register

Juan Mata or David Silva?

sunilvk7

SAF greatest ever.
Dec 16, 2008
13,085
0
0
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
So there are no stats to show how many chances created by Silva and Mata are wasted. Mata takes set pieces too at which Chelsea are good, chances are created from set pieces too?

So indeed your second para proves it. Mata takes set piece so high chance creation rate?

Edit: How do you prove that forwards wasted the chances created by Mata with those stats? For all we know all the Mata's goal scoring chances fell to midfielders and defenders?
 
Last edited:

Joel`

Member
Jul 23, 2010
8,166
0
0
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.
City have far more possession on average than Chelsea, Silva on average plays 10 more passes a game than Mata, meaning his chances of playing a key pass are higher.
 

sunilvk7

SAF greatest ever.
Dec 16, 2008
13,085
0
0
City have far more possession on average than Chelsea, Silva on average plays 10 more passes a game than Mata, meaning his chances of playing a key pass are higher.
So it doesn't matter if he plays deeper than Mata, just because he plays 10 more passes means he has more chances of playing key passes?

Err lets give it to Mata, he is good at playing key passes. How does that mean he is better than the player who was absolutely terrific till Jan (Before his injury, which also deflated his stats btw).

I have given enough examples of how Key passes is not the measure of player creativeness or how good he is. Iniesta and WBA players.
 

sunilvk7

SAF greatest ever.
Dec 16, 2008
13,085
0
0
Chelsea averages 56% possession and ManCity averages 58%.


Still if Silva takes 10 more passes than Mata doesn't that mean Silva is available for passes more often that Mata. Also considering Mata is the only creative player Chelsea have whereas City have few of them.
 

Joel`

Member
Jul 23, 2010
8,166
0
0
So it doesn't matter if he plays deeper than Mata, just because he plays 10 more passes means he has more chances of playing key passes?

Err lets give it to Mata, he is good at playing key passes. How does that mean he is better than the player who was absolutely terrific till Jan (Before his injury, which also deflated his stats btw).

I have given enough examples of how Key passes is not the measure of player creativeness or how good he is. Iniesta and WBA players.
And because Chelsea have a lot of the ball in their defensive and middle thirds giving Mata less time on the ball to influence the game doesn't harm his chances at all? I can dismantle your statistics just as easily as you can anything I put up, because comparing players from different teams is adding the biggest variable of any into the equation, the teams themself. I only posted because you posted some stupid table showing Chelsea as 'clinical', I didn't particularly want to argue on statistics, I said right before that, and have multiple times in the past, how I dislike statistics being used like this, so I don't see the need in your last sentence either.
 
Last edited:

Mike.

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2009
31,888
31
48
So it doesn't matter if he plays deeper than Mata, just because he plays 10 more passes means he has more chances of playing key passes?

Err lets give it to Mata, he is good at playing key passes. How does that mean he is better than the player who was absolutely terrific till Jan (Before his injury, which also deflated his stats btw).

I have given enough examples of how Key passes is not the measure of player creativeness or how good he is. Iniesta and WBA players.
But then look beyond the stats, Mata doesnt have everything through him, especially when Chelsa go direct, he is also in a more peripheral position, yet still manages to have a big impact. Key passes are a decent guide of how creative a player, but not the whole story.

I would love to see what happens if Chelsea played everything through Mata at AMC for a whole season, then you get a fair comparison
 

Joel`

Member
Jul 23, 2010
8,166
0
0
And I still stand by my initial argument. Mata is in his first season, playing half of it where the team were refusing to play for the manager, out of position in an inferior team, and he's still performing as he is. Plus the fact he's younger and a far more established finisher, means he edges it.

And City may have more creative players, they've also scored nearly twice as many. Just because they have more players who can play a key pass doesn't inhibit his ability to do so as well. It should accumulate to more goals, which it has.
 

sunilvk7

SAF greatest ever.
Dec 16, 2008
13,085
0
0
And because Chelsea have a lot of the ball in their defensive and middle thirds giving Mata less time on the ball to influence the game doesn't harm his chances at all? I can dismantle your statistics just as easily as you can anything I put up, because comparing players from different teams is adding the biggest variable of any into the equation, the team itself. I only posted because you posted some stupid table showing Chelsea as 'clinical', I didn't particularly want to argue on statistics, I said right before that, and have multiple times in the past, how I dislike statistics being used like this, so I don't see the need in your last sentence either.
Err, I posted these stats as Alcaraz posted the stats to prove something. Its easy to play with stats to prove whatever you want to, and right from the start I'm doing the same, to prove how stats are not be all to compare the players.

Just like that conversion rate is stupid stat, I can say most of the stats are stupid. It wont show anything and it is the lazy way to compare players.


I only posted because you posted some stupid table showing Chelsea as 'clinical', I didn't particularly want to argue on statistics,
Err thats not true. Alcaraz posted stat so I posted few more to show how we can play with stats. But in the end you picked up my post as if I'm proving something with the stats.

So at the end of the day we are on same boat picking up different player. ;)
 

sunilvk7

SAF greatest ever.
Dec 16, 2008
13,085
0
0
But then look beyond the stats, Mata doesnt have everything through him, especially when Chelsa go direct, he is also in a more peripheral position, yet still manages to have a big impact. Key passes are a decent guide of how creative a player, but not the whole story.

I would love to see what happens if Chelsea played everything through Mata at AMC for a whole season, then you get a fair comparison
I give it to Mata's first season is better than Silva's.

But the thread is about who had better season, so excluding all the variables and considering only their performances this season I would pick Silva everyday of the week ahead of Mata.

Mata might go on to become twice the player Silva will ever be, but we are talking about this season alone.

Edit: One of the big factor has been Silva's injury. He is not the same player he was because of his injury. Till Jan he was contender for player of the season and only RVP was his competitor.

Like you want Mata to play AMC to prove his worth, likewise we can say Silva to have injury free season to prove his worth?
 
Last edited:

sunilvk7

SAF greatest ever.
Dec 16, 2008
13,085
0
0
It also is down to personal opinion of whom you have in your team.

I would say they look so better as they are technically very good players and premier league defenders **** bricks when they face technically superior players.

Whenever I watched La Liga they were good but never this good. La Liga defenders knows how to defend against these type of players as they face so many week in week out.

Whereas in PL, defenders find it hard to mark the players who are very intelligent in picking up nice positions by moving all over the pitch.

Conclusion: Sign some ****** Spanish/La Liga players. Ever Banega would be the next to shine in the league.
 

Mike.

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2009
31,888
31
48
I give it to Mata's first season is better than Silva's.

But the thread is about who had better season, so excluding all the variables and considering only their performances this season I would pick Silva everyday of the week ahead of Mata.

Mata might go on to become twice the player Silva will ever be, but we are talking about this season alone.

Edit: One of the big factor has been Silva's injury. He is not the same player he was because of his injury. Till Jan he was contender for player of the season and only RVP was his competitor.

Like you want Mata to play AMC to prove his worth, likewise we can say Silva to have injury free season to prove his worth?
Silva missing a few weeks is not the same as Mata only playing 7 games as an AMC...
 
Dec 26, 2010
1,453
0
0
I think Mata has had a better first season than Silva but that's down to style of play. City were a defensive team and Mancini didn't let Silva express himself enough. But now it's different.
 

Mike.

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2009
31,888
31
48
Not starting as AMC doesn't mean he played only as winger. He roams all over the pitch.
Most of his work and supply start wide, and he doesnt get the exposure of Silva. That is patently obvious. Hence waiting to see what happens if/when he is picked to play right through the middle
 

CJACKO11

Member
Dec 16, 2009
15,889
0
0
33
In terms of all in all Silva probably just edges it but Silva took the usual 12months to settle in but it took Mata all of 3 minutes. Plus he has kept this form up in a side which for a lot of the season haven't been playing him in his best position, not to his strengths and a side playing pretty badly. Both are sensational players without a doubt but actually going on what i have just said i'll change my mind to Mata.
 

Redrup

One Nerdy Gamer
Jan 10, 2009
6,980
0
0
29
Both brilliant players.

For me, the choice boils down to what position I required strengthening in. If I wanted a winger, I'd choose Mata. If I wanted a CAM, I'd choose Silva.
 

*Jones*

Pikachuuuuuuuu
Dec 28, 2009
2,350
0
0
Nothing to do with stats for me, I'd pick Silva, I love him. He's the one player I wish Liverpool had signed above anyone else.

I think they're both great players, I just prefer Silva. Probably my fourth favourite player to watch behind Messi, Xavi and Iniesta.
 
Top