The Wizard of Özil

[jayramfootball]

The scores / ratings from whoscored are a combination of all aspects of the game and also get adjusted for team performance. They do not represent a players rating according to his key strengths. Ozil's numbers will always be downweighted due to his defensive contrinution which is awful.

You can always argue that a ratings criteria favours one player over another, however ratings treat all players the same, there is no "down-weighting" for not doing something, that's simply a myth. All ratings sites score players on what they do, not on what they don't do - If you think about that no goalkeeper, defender, or striker would ever achieve high ratings as they don't play an all around game ... your premise that "his defensive contribution which is awful causes a down-weighting" is simply wrong, there is no negative impact from not doing something, it's just his lost opportunity.

The reality is that if Ozil defended better he would improve his score, ergo he would be a better player ... something I think we all already know.

WhoScored.com Ratings are based on a unique, comprehensive statistical algorithm, calculated live during the game. There are over 200 raw statistics included in the calculation of a player'’s/team’'s rating, weighted according to their influence within the game. Every event of importance is taken into account, with a positive or negative effect on ratings weighted in relation to its area on the pitch and its outcome.

I think we're saying the same thing. For example, when Ozil goes into a tackle he rarely wins it. His rating gets taken down.
It does mean that all players are on the same ranking system, but it misses the nuance of what a player is actually in the team to do.
As such I do not value whoscored overall ratings, but they do provide key individual metrics that can be really useful.

[Angelito]

[gamechannel]

But he doesn't train hard and doesn't take wage cuts from a management that has d*cked him around from day one.. so in short, f**k Ozil!

[EliteKiller]

Fake Twitter nonsense - https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top ... ce_created

This is the data used by all reputable reporters it shows Ozil with just 1 big chance created in the EPL this season ... passing the ball to a player who shots wildly from 30 yards may count on twitter but it's really not a valid metric ...

According to those Orbinho statistics Arsenal created nearly a 600 chances ... we must have real shit strikers if that's true !!!!!!!!

[theHotHead]

Gamechannel, to cut a long story short Aniym put up a list of games and for the most part said Ozil did a big fat nothing in those games. I had time on my hands so I googled match reports and player ratings. of the 14 or so games listed Ozil had a rating above 5 out of 10 for approx 65% of the games, which suggests he was a high average or more. Clearly then the opinion that Ozil did nothing is a false narrative. I put links to all the reviews too.

Aniym's coffin swiftly followed his demise in the thread

https://www.goonersworld.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28687&start=20250

You do know that the average player rating in the EPL is around 6.7 every year .... so "above 5" does not mean above average .... your claim that over 5 is "high average or more" can quickly be evidenced as false just by looking at any EPL ratings site. .

If you don't understand the statistic you are using it's best not to make false assumptions. In the 14 games listed in that tweet Ozil was below the game average player rating 11 times, so very evidently not "above average" ....

All the following data is from whoscored

In 2016/17 Ozil averaged 7.3 - well above the season's player average of 6.8
In 20171/8 Ozil averaged 7.25 - still well above the season's player average of 6.6
In 2018/19 Ozil averaged 6.78 - almost level with the season's player average of 6.75
In 2019/20 Ozil averaged 6.71 - just slightly below the season's player average of 6.74

Ozil was no question an above average player and even now he's still an average player ... but the trend is all one way

FYI - Pepe was our top ranked player this season at 7.06 - Ozil at 6.71 was ranked only 12th .....

EK, I sourced player ratings from a variety of sources - none of which I don't believe were Whoscored. In any case, if you have a rating system that goes from 1-10, 10 being the highest score, mathematically there are 2 middle scores, 5 and 6, 5 being lower middle and 6 being upper middle. The middle scores are therefore the average, as in, the player was neither good or bad. Scores below 5 are below average, scores above 6 are above average.

Now, if you are taking an Arithmetic Mean average (which clearly none of the ratings I claimed are using and clearly I am not referencing), by totalling the ratings scored and dividing that total by the number of players, that is a totally different value that you are retrieving. Now, assuming you are quoting arithmetic mean averages (which I was not!), if the average in a game is 7, that tells me that by and large most players had higher than average performances. If Ozil scored a 6, but the average works out to be 7, Ozil performed lower than the team's average - but he still put in a performance that was upper average in the scale of 1-10. So even in this scenario, Ozil performed better than Aniym's claimed "He did nothing whatsoever in those games" statement !

[theHotHead]

It was the wrong type of chance he created Angelito, the chance should have been 30 degrees more to the player's left for it to be counted as a proper chance created.

[jayramfootball]

Fake Twitter nonsense - https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top ... ce_created

This is the data used by all reputable reporters it shows Ozil with just 1 big chance created in the EPL this season ... passing the ball to a player who shots wildly from 30 yards may count on twitter but it's really not a valid metric ...

According to those Orbinho statistics Arsenal created nearly a 600 chances ... we must have real shit strikers if that's true !!!!!!!!

Chances created are not the same as big chances created. It means a pass was made to player that enabled him to get a shot off at goal. Yes, some of those will be simple passes that result in a 25 yard shot, but then again it's a level playing field for everyone. You know that some assists are the same... not a big chance created. So if you go down the route you are suggesting then we have to also start splitting out assist types.
Not worth it.

The bottom line is that Ozil creates more chances than any other Arsenal player.

[Angelito]

It was the wrong type of chance he created Angelito, the chance should have been 30 degrees more to the player's left for it to be counted as a proper chance created.

On a different note, I can't wait for Ozil to go full-throttle on the Arsenal hierarchy after he leaves. He's going to go full-Germany on them.

[theHotHead]

Chances created are not the same as big chances created. It means a pass was made to player that enabled him to get a shot off at goal. Yes, some of those will be simple passes that result in a 25 yard shot, but then again it's a level playing field for everyone. You know that some assists are the same... not a big chance created. So if you go down the route you are suggesting then we have to also start splitting out assist types.
Not worth it.

The bottom line is that Ozil creates more chances than any other Arsenal player.

Its an argument the Ozil haters like to trot out consistently, its as if the chance is only accepted if it was a clear scoring opportunity - i.e. open goals or one on ones. Its hogwash. The same stat is applied to EVERY PLAYER IN FOOTBALL. If Ozil leads the stat from a subset of players its because he is better at it than others, no bias, no fabrication and no twisting of anything to suit an agenda. He created a chance for someone else to score. Did the player get a shot off ? Well, without Ozil's pass he wouldn't have got the shot off.

[Santi]

Pretty embarrassing if those numbers are true given how infrequently he’s played

[Highbury Hillbilly]

Pretty embarrassing if those numbers are true given how infrequently he’s played

By those numbers, a "chance" may as well be a forward pass. Pepe bagged a few assists this season, but 49 chances? Hell no. Ceballos with 37? Where?

According to the PL website's "Big Chances Created", KDB is top of the list with 33; 19 of those ended up in the back of the net.

That's a 57% conversion rate, in a team that scored 102 times. That's a much more reasonable estimate of what constitutes a chance than whatever Orbinho is using.

https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top/players/big_chance_created

[EliteKiller]

EK, I sourced player ratings from a variety of sources - none of which I don't believe were Whoscored. In any case, if you have a rating system that goes from 1-10, 10 being the highest score, mathematically there are 2 middle scores, 5 and 6, 5 being lower middle and 6 being upper middle. The middle scores are therefore the average, as in, the player was neither good or bad. Scores below 5 are below average, scores above 6 are above average.

Now, if you are taking an Arithmetic Mean average (which clearly none of the ratings I claimed are using and clearly I am not referencing), by totalling the ratings scored and dividing that total by the number of players, that is a totally different value that you are retrieving. Now, assuming you are quoting arithmetic mean averages (which I was not!), if the average in a game is 7, that tells me that by and large most players had higher than average performances. If Ozil scored a 6, but the average works out to be 7, Ozil performed lower than the team's average - but he still put in a performance that was upper average in the scale of 1-10. So even in this scenario, Ozil performed better than Aniym's claimed "He did nothing whatsoever in those games" statement !

You are way over complicating ....

An average is worked out by adding up a set of data and dividing it by the number of units in that set ... the range may be 1 > 10 but that's entirely irrelevant ... if every player gets a 9 and Ozil gets an 8 he is not above average and has not performed better than anyone, he's just been rated above the mid-point but is still below average for that game.

In a football match you have 22 players who are rated, thus to find the average you add those 22 ratings then divide by 22 to get a figure ...

The average in the entire EPL this season, that's every player's game rating added together and divided by the number of games they've all played, is 6.74 ... it's not 5 ... lower than 6.74 is thus a below average rating, higher than 6.74 is an above average rating.

Ozil is rated at 6.71 this season against an EPL average of 6.74 ... does that make sense now?

[Angelito]

[jayramfootball]

Amazing - Ozil magic pulling all the strings in midfield and working so hard to move around the pitch.
Top class goal.

[jayramfootball]

EK, I sourced player ratings from a variety of sources - none of which I don't believe were Whoscored. In any case, if you have a rating system that goes from 1-10, 10 being the highest score, mathematically there are 2 middle scores, 5 and 6, 5 being lower middle and 6 being upper middle. The middle scores are therefore the average, as in, the player was neither good or bad. Scores below 5 are below average, scores above 6 are above average.

Now, if you are taking an Arithmetic Mean average (which clearly none of the ratings I claimed are using and clearly I am not referencing), by totalling the ratings scored and dividing that total by the number of players, that is a totally different value that you are retrieving. Now, assuming you are quoting arithmetic mean averages (which I was not!), if the average in a game is 7, that tells me that by and large most players had higher than average performances. If Ozil scored a 6, but the average works out to be 7, Ozil performed lower than the team's average - but he still put in a performance that was upper average in the scale of 1-10. So even in this scenario, Ozil performed better than Aniym's claimed "He did nothing whatsoever in those games" statement !

You are way over complicating ....

An average is worked out by adding up a set of data and dividing it by the number of units in that set ... the range may be 1 > 10 but that's entirely irrelevant ... if every player gets a 9 and Ozil gets an 8 he is not above average and has not performed better than anyone, he's just been rated above the mid-point but is still below average for that game.

In a football match you have 22 players who are rated, thus to find the average you add those 22 ratings then divide by 22 to get a figure ...

The average in the entire EPL this season, that's every player's game rating added together and divided by the number of games they've all played, is 6.74 ... it's not 5 ... lower than 6.74 is thus a below average rating, higher than 6.74 is an above average rating.

Ozil is rated at 6.71 this season against an EPL average of 6.74 ... does that make sense now?

Erm no. It's whoscored that over complicates the overall rating. They use so many variables and apply them to all positions. It results in Adama Traore being ranked the 3rd best player in the league, well ahead of, for example, David Silva - who had more goals, more assists, more passes (3 times as many!), better completion rate of passes (by miles), more key passes. (by miles)
One of the primary reasons is that Traore got 6 MOTM awards given by Whoscored. But being decent in a game full of shit performances provides man of the match awards.

Use whoscored for inidividual stats, not their ridiculous rating system.