The Chelsea Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ramires
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 35K
  • Views Views 3M
cfc12345 said:
Looks like Mikel could be off :(
Click to expand...

While Mikel is certainly an underrated player, frankly speaking, there are better players around

Michael *** said:
While Gareth Bale sacrificed his creative side to become a pure goalscorer (four assists but an amazing 21 goals), Mata’s performance was perfectly balanced – twelve assists, twelve goals. Mata’s positional sense is outstanding – see his drop into a deeper position to provide the pass for Demba Ba against Manchester United – he’s one of those rare creative players that appears to instinctively understand the tactical situation in a game, and position himself accordingly. He combines reliable ball retention with an amazing efficiency in the final third, orchestrating games from the midfield but popping up in the box to provide finishes too. He’s not just one of the best players in the Premier League at the moment, but possibly the best player in his position the division has ever seen.
Click to expand...

High Praise indeed and certainly not unwarranted
 
Alcaraz said:
While Mikel is certainly an underrated player, frankly speaking, there are better players around



High Praise indeed and certainly not unwarranted
Click to expand...

Nor sure on Bale sacrificing creative side as he plays with Donkey like Ade and Defoe who is very hit and miss player. While Mata plays with almost as bad strikers there are other players who can finish off the chances he created.

Also IMO assists won't tell the complete story as Chelsea are decent from set pieces whereas Spurs are not (haven't checked the stats, just going by what I remember).
 
sunilvk7 said:
Nor sure on Bale sacrificing creative side as he plays with Donkey like Ade and Defoe who is very hit and miss player. While Mata plays with almost as bad strikers there are other players who can finish off the chances he created.

Also IMO assists won't tell the complete story as Chelsea are decent from set pieces whereas Spurs are not (haven't checked the stats, just going by what I remember).
Click to expand...

Yeah well Michael *** definitely is not using just assist numbers to make his deduction
 
Alcaraz said:
Yeah well Michael *** definitely is not using just assist numbers to make his deduction
Click to expand...

Then in fairness he should have pointed out that Bale created 75 chances in the league to Mata's 95. If Spurs had converted in the same way that Chelsea did, then you would be talking about Bale in a similar vein. This is why I prefer key passes to assists. It's not the creator's fault if they cannot convert the chances he makes.
 
Mike. said:
Then in fairness he should have pointed out that Bale created 75 chances in the league to Mata's 95. If Spurs had converted in the same way that Chelsea did, then you would be talking about Bale in a similar vein. This is why I prefer key passes to assists. It's not the creator's fault if they cannot convert the chances he makes.
Click to expand...

But this was never meant to be a comparison between Bale and Mata...And its not me but Michael *** who is praising Juan Mata
 
Alcaraz said:
But this was never meant to be a comparison between Bale and Mata...And its not me but Michael *** who is praising Juan Mata
Click to expand...

I'm pointing out where he says Bale sacrificed his creativity, and the stats he used for that basis. Which is what Sunil was getting at with Bale, its a bit harsh to say he sacrificed it when he was still carving out chances, but not seeing them converted.
 
Aannddyy said:
Well this is not true. His conversion rate was 14%, which is higher than most strikers around.
Click to expand...
Not the lowest according to Whoscored.com, but still low:
428.jpg
 
Aannddyy said:
I was talking "shot conversion rate" not "chance conversion rate".
Click to expand...

What is your definition? Because here its the number of goals scored from the total number of shots taken. Which is usually the typical standard, and at no point is 14% better than most strikers.
 
cfc12345 said:
Are they trying to threaten Napoli?? Don't think Napoli will really care because city or Madrid could be willing to pay what they want or they get to keep their star striker.
Click to expand...

Yeah I dont get the bluff here. Napoli are quite happy to keep him.
 
Mike. said:
What is your definition? Because here its the number of goals scored from the total number of shots taken. Which is usually the typical standard, and at no point is 14% better than most strikers.
Click to expand...

Well, when your main striker is Suarez (~12%) you can see where he's coming from :P. Sadly, however, Aspas' conversion rate is not 14% but 11.5%, according to that list...
 
Mike. said:
Yeah I dont get the bluff here. Napoli are quite happy to keep him.
Click to expand...

Could be a bluff, or it could just be the simple truth that Chelsea don't think Cavani would be worth dropping over £52 million on (which, frankly, I agree with). It's pretty much just saying "That's our final offer, take it or leave it", which isn't bluffing so much as not beating around the bush so much.

Athe~ said:
Well, when your main striker is Suarez (~12%) you can see where he's coming from :P. Sadly, however, Aspas' conversion rate is not 14% but 11.5%, according to that list...
Click to expand...

Problem is, conversion rate is such a woolly statistic, and everyone has their own definition of what a shot is and lots of other auxiliary junk. Opta stats put RVP's conversion rate - which they have a dedicated stat for - at 22%, compared to Whoscored putting him at about 18%.
 
Aannddyy said:
I was talking "shot conversion rate" not "chance conversion rate".
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I didn't understand.
Now, what is "Shot conversion rate"? Goals per shot? Because that same as Chance conversion rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

FMBase

Beta

Resources

Back
Top