2018/19 Gylfi Sigurdsson

[Groucho]

I like him and I think he’s a good player and I’m glad we have him, but does anyone else think he looks mostly miserable?

 

[Charro]

I like him and I think he’s a good player and I’m glad we have him, but does anyone else think he looks mostly miserable?

Thought this myself.

I don't think he's enjoying the pressure that comes with playing for a club like us.

 

[BlueToff]

Hey I get you have to make money and all that but it's a massive con.

"Creating enough" is not really a quantifiable stat as you can create in loads of different ways, do these stats take into account an intelligent run for example that completely takes a defender out of the game even when said player was nowhere near the ball. There are all kinds of different things that result in "stats" and the results mean nothing as they can not be compared against different teams (as much as they want you to believe they can be.)

Highest speed means nothing either! He could just be running fast in stupid positions.

Again, stats show nothing. Funnily enough I somewhat agree with you overall but not by using stats to prove your point as they prove nothing as they are just a bunch of numbers.

I will take the likes of Opta down one day....

I don't sell the stats. The company I work for, I work in the editorial section. But they own Opta. And if it's a massive con, then they've managed to con the entirety of football. They aren't a new thing, btw, stats were used in the 80s ffs.

Stats do show something. But, they have to be caveated.

The only aim of my post was to put the stats out there and make a point that, on Sunday, I don't think he played badly, and he certainly wasn't anonymous as a poster in the Bernard thread suggested

 

[Papa Shango]

I don't sell the stats. The company I work for, I work in the editorial section. But they own Opta. And if it's a massive con, then they've managed to con the entirety of football. They aren't a new thing, btw, stats were used in the 80s ffs.

Stats do show something. But, they have to be caveated.

The only aim of my post was to put the stats out there and make a point that, on Sunday, I don't think he played badly, and he certainly wasn't anonymous as a poster in the Bernard thread suggested

99.9% of football stats are nonsense.

See how easy it is?

Yeah I remember them in the 80's and thought it was stupid at the time too as football is not a sport that lends itself to stats. It's an easy con because clubs will do anything to even gain what they see to be a tiny advantage.

The only thing that stood out for my regarding Sigurdsson this past week was that he could have put some pressure on the Arsenal player after Davies had cleared the ball for their first goal. Apart from that I think he is generally alright, not great, not awful.

 

[Parker]

99.9% of football stats are nonsense.

See how easy it is?

Yeah I remember them in the 80's and thought it was stupid at the time too as football is not a sport that lends itself to stats. It's an easy con because clubs will do anything to even gain what they see to be a tiny advantage.

The only thing that stood out for my regarding Sigurdsson this past week was that he could have put some pressure on the Arsenal player after Davies had cleared the ball for their first goal. Apart from that I think he is generally alright, not great, not awful.

You're being ridiulous there mate. Stats are facts that are used to interpret and provide an opinion. They aren't made up numbers. Just because you don't like to use them because of whatever reason doesn't mean they can't be used by others to provide an opinion.

 

[mkrudden]

It looks solid on paper, but in reality it just heaps more pressure on what is effectively a back-six struggling to bypass the opposition press.

99.9% of football stats are nonsense.

See how easy it is?

Yeah I remember them in the 80's and thought it was stupid at the time too as football is not a sport that lends itself to stats. It's an easy con because clubs will do anything to even gain what they see to be a tiny advantage.

The only thing that stood out for my regarding Sigurdsson this past week was that he could have put some pressure on the Arsenal player after Davies had cleared the ball for their first goal. Apart from that I think he is generally alright, not great, not awful.

You're being ridiulous there mate. Stats are facts that are used to interpret and provide an opinion. They aren't made up numbers. Just because you don't like to use them because of whatever reason doesn't mean they can't be used by others to provide an opinion.

If i may wade in-

stats are decent indicators of where to start an analysis but they should never be used in isolation. They should always be contexualised.

For example, judging a "Number 10" on assists (you know where i'm going with this, in this thread) is fine as long as you contextualise it with the quality of the finishing ahead of him.

So as on Sunday, if Sigurdssen puts us through on goal twice as he did and we don't score- what more can he do? He'll get zero for assists.

So stats are telling you he didn't create a goal but your eyes tell you he did everything he could to create the goalscoring chance. We just had Walcott (twice I think, i'll check) crap himself.

Same goes for Davies with that through ball to DCL early on. That should have been an assist. It wasn't and seemingly we use the fact it wasn't to beat the player's 'ineffectiveness'.

Bonkers.

 

[COYBL25]

I just posted this in the Bernard thread, so will repeat here.

I looked at his stats from Sunday on Opta.

Distribution wise, these were his numbers:

Total attempted passes 36 - that's the third most behind Davies (37) and Digne (38).

His overall passing accuracy was 86.1%. That's the second most of the whole team, with Walcott's 94.4% (from 18 passes) the highest.

Gylfi made 28 passes in the opposition half, more than any other player. Davies made 27 though so that shows he was also trying to push us forward.

Of those 28 passes, 85.7% were accurate. Compare that to 70.4% from Davies (purely comparable as they attempted a similar number of passes in the opposition half).

Gylfi played 4 'key passes' (passes that led to a chance, basically). That was the highest on our team, and also the highest in the game.

Arsenal's highest in that regard was Ramsey, with 2 key passes. Now, Ramsey got 2 assists from both his key passes, whereas Gylfi got none. That again backs up the point that Gylfi creates chances, we just don't put them away (i.e. Walcott on Sunday, Walcott v Southampton).

Gyfli put in 8 crosses in total, including set pieces. Digne put in the most (10).

Gyfli put in 3 'good crosses', 2 of which were from open play, so that shows his 5 of his set pieces were poor, which needs to improve. Digne put in 7 open play crosses, but only one 'good cross' in total (from 10 attempted). I know that's hard to validate because it's opinion sort of, but these are what the stats say.

Defensively, Gyfli won possession back 6 times. That's the second highest in our team behind Gana and Walcott (both 8). Gylfi conceded possession 16 times, level with Richarlison. Digne and Davies led the way in that regard (26 and 20 respectively).

Sigurdsson had a total of 62 touches, the third highest on the team. Digne and Kenny had more, which probably shows our issue - everything was to our full-backs too deep too often.

Finally, the player tracking stats.

Gylfi covered 11.99km, more than any other player on the pitch. Davies was the closest to him on our team, covering 11.83, with Digne not far behind.

Believe it or not, Gylfi was actually clocked as having the highest average speed in our side, with 7.39 km/h.

He sprinted 11 times.

Richarlison was clocked as the quickest player on our team in terms of top speed, as he reached 33.51 km/h. Richarlison sprinted 25 times.

Gylfi's top speed was 32.09 km/h. That is the fourth highest on the team behind Richarlison, Keane and DCL. So, just bare in mind, that's quicker than Walcott, Digne, Bernard, Gueye and Davies.

Aubameyang notched Arsenal's top speed with 33.9 km/h.

So, back to the point. I reckon Gylfi was a 6/10 on Sunday, but could easily have had two assists and was among our top players in the majority of the departments where we want him to have an impact.

You can put your stats in the bin mate, all I need is my eyes to tell me how badly average he is.

 

[Parker]

You can put your stats in the bin mate, all I need is my eyes to tell me how badly average he is.

"We don't take kindly to your kind round here with your fancy shmancy statisticals!"

*Spits in can*

 

[COYBL25]

Thought this myself.

I don't think he's enjoying the pressure that comes with playing for a club like us.

Maybe that`s one of his problems, same as his time with Spurs - he can`t handle the step up in expectations.

Unfortunately when you are the record signing at a club and one of the highest paid players at the club, a certain level of expectation comes with that.

Hopefully Swansea will find a load of money down the back of the sofa and take him back to his spiritual home in January.

 

[riddick]

@BlueToff Can you break it down by half? He was good in the first(about a 7, maybe a bit higher) but I thought he was just completely anonymous in the second.

And your stats show him being amongst the top in your picked categories yet you only have him a 6/10?

 

[paulbefc]

You now have to report those stats in here every single week @BlueToff. This was amusing reading.

 

[BlueToff]

You can put your stats in the bin mate, all I need is my eyes to tell me how badly average he is.

I'm just putting the stats there with a very brief analysis of his performance on Sunday.

Up to you how to use them - or not.

 

[BlueToff]

@BlueToff Can you break it down by half? He was good in the first(about a 7, maybe a bit higher) but I thought he was just completely anonymous in the second.

And your stats show him being amongst the top in your picked categories yet you only have him a 6/10?

I'll have a look later, mate

I think he was a 6/10. He was good in the first half and pretty iffy in the second. So I'd say a 6 is about fair.

I was just using the stats to show he wasn't crap, which is what some were saying. I was putting them out there as a way to gauge how he performed in terms of his distribution, defending, running and creation.

 

[evertonarntwe]

I'll have a look later, mate

I think he was a 6/10. He was good in the first half and pretty iffy in the second. So I'd say a 6 is about fair.

I was just using the stats to show he wasn't crap, which is what some were saying. I was putting them out there as a way to gauge how he performed in terms of his distribution, defending, running and creation.

are you saying a 6 isn't crap?

 

[riddick]

I'll have a look later, mate

I think he was a 6/10. He was good in the first half and pretty iffy in the second. So I'd say a 6 is about fair.

I was just using the stats to show he wasn't crap, which is what some were saying. I was putting them out there as a way to gauge how he performed in terms of his distribution, defending, running and creation.

I will hold my hand up and admit those are good numbers for Gylfi, but, for too much of his tenure with us, it's the exception to the rule.

And I will stand by anyone who says "but he runs a lot" isn't a worthwhile stat. That's a "use your eyes" scenario. I just don't see his running do much of anything most of the time.