Cazorla+Ozil, statistically best combo in football

[Yankee_Gooner_Dandee]

http://www.espnfc.us/arsenal/story/2695 ... idfielders

Apparently these two are the best combination of defensive+offensive midfielders in Europe's top five leagues, at least statistically speaking.

I don't really consider Cazorla a defensive midfielder, but the stats are interesting nonetheless.

Here's the full list (including Kos as 2nd best defender)
http://www.football-observatory.com/IMG ... 15/124/en/

[arseofacrow]

http://www.espnfc.us/arsenal/story/2695 ... idfielders

Apparently these two are the best combination of defensive+offensive midfielders in Europe's top five leagues, at least statistically speaking.

I don't really consider Cazorla a defensive midfielder, but the stats are interesting nonetheless.

No.

[augie]

Wasnt denilson statistically the best passer in europe a few years ago ?

[Redarmy]

Wasnt denilson statistically the best passer in europe a few years ago ?

Thats just about says everything about statistics..

Like Bayern in the first game with over 700 passes....who gives a shit we won 2-0

[Robin_L]

If impressive stats mean fuck all to you when we win games, then I expect you'll be magnanimous and avoid listing negative stats (e.g. no. of shots on target) when we lose a game, yeah? Whaddaya mean "no"?

[Theoperator]

For me its sums up what been going well for us for over 18 months now. For a while They didnt seem to work together well. Now that Santi has taken a more defensive position its been a joy- I suspect that Santis nose was well put out by Ozil, but fair play to him, he puts in a shift defensively, which he wasnt ding at first when playing more alongside.

I was even thinking we needed to get rid of Santi- thank goodness we didnt .

No stats are needed to confirm whats been obvious we are a brillinat team with them on fire- hard to stop.

[DB10GOONER]

One last time for all you statmonkey fuckers!!!

Stats in football often have no bearing on reality. It all depends if you are quoting quantitative stats or qualitative stats.

Denilson's 98% pass completion stat was pointless because it didn't take into account the quality of pass, only the quantity. The vast majority of his passes were 5 yard sideways and backwards passes that had no impact on the game. They also counted poor passes where he fired the ball ten yards behind his intended team mate and said team mate had to scramble back to make contact with the ball, possibly risking injury or losing possession. Once the team mate made contact though the successful pass stat counted for Denilson.

Extreme example time;
Say Denilson attempts 100 pointless simple sideways 5 yard passes in a game and had no impact on the game but he completes 98 passes and gets a 98% pass success stat. Compare that to say Bergkamp or Vieira who might have attempted 100 more difficult passes in behind the oppo defence and only completed 10 passes but 2 of those passes were killer balls that split the oppo defence wide open and set up 2 goals winning the game. Their overall passing success stats for that game are only 10%. Who was the better player? Who had the bigger impact?

Regarding negative stats. The no shots on target stat is relevant because if you have not won a game and have had lots of possession but no shots on target you cannot claim to have performed well enough as a team. Those stats are indicative of a major problem.

Now, please, everybody, FUCK OFF WITH THE STATS!!!!

[arseofacrow]

If impressive stats mean fuck all to you when we win games, then I expect you'll be magnanimous and avoid listing negative stats (e.g. no. of shots on target) when we lose a game, yeah? Whaddaya mean "no"?

Why are you like this? What made you like this?

[DB10GOONER]

If impressive stats mean fuck all to you when we win games, then I expect you'll be magnanimous and avoid listing negative stats (e.g. no. of shots on target) when we lose a game, yeah? Whaddaya mean "no"?

Why are you like this? What made you like this?

Post of the week right there! That'll get me through today.

[officepest]

If impressive stats mean fuck all to you when we win games, then I expect you'll be magnanimous and avoid listing negative stats (e.g. no. of shots on target) when we lose a game, yeah? Whaddaya mean "no"?

Why are you like this? What made you like this?

Post of the week right there! That'll get me through today.

Statistically speaking, Robin_L has an 87.3% chance of posting total bollocks.

[DB10GOONER]

If impressive stats mean fuck all to you when we win games, then I expect you'll be magnanimous and avoid listing negative stats (e.g. no. of shots on target) when we lose a game, yeah? Whaddaya mean "no"?

Why are you like this? What made you like this?

Post of the week right there! That'll get me through today.

Statistically speaking, Robin_L has an 87.3% chance of posting total bollocks.

Only 87.3%? Seems like more.

[officepest]

If impressive stats mean fuck all to you when we win games, then I expect you'll be magnanimous and avoid listing negative stats (e.g. no. of shots on target) when we lose a game, yeah? Whaddaya mean "no"?

Why are you like this? What made you like this?

Post of the week right there! That'll get me through today.

Statistically speaking, Robin_L has an 87.3% chance of posting total bollocks.

Only 87.3%? Seems like more.

That’s the thing, mate: stats only tell half the story.