Martin Ødegaard (8)

[Ach]

Our captain

[Nuggets]

He tries his best a true Captain, he runs everywhere trying to make things happen.

[Maiso]

Sunday’s Man City game highlight what I keep about arguing on here.
1) A leader.
2) Can assist.
3) Can score goals.
4) Has grit, works ao hard on and off the ball and fights.

Whatever style that the manager demands, Odegaard will try his best to adapt in it.
Attacking football, he will attack.
Possession football, he will keep the ball.
An open game, he will go with the flow.
Defensive formation / style, he will work hard etc..

What more can I ask for from the guy?

[alexis2015finalgoal]

People being too harsh on him.
Trossard's shot in the second half was directly from his through-ball. If Trossafd scored, he'd have got an assist.
He won the ball back and helped set up Jesus for his first-half chances.

He wasn't outstanding but he did create, and as the captain and number 10/creative number 8, he wasn't anonymous. The entire team was more focused on off the ball work over on the ball work but he did contribute in the way he should.

He's a better number 10/8 than Ozil was. And no, I'm not saying he's better than Ozil overall. But Ozil's fault was that he was an old school number 10 who needed a structure around him. Odegaard is more all action and can press as well as find the incisive pass.

He was a 6/10. Not shit but not great.

[Maiso]

People being too harsh on him.
Trossard's shot in the second half was directly from his through-ball. If Trossafd scored, he'd have got an assist.
He won the ball back and helped set up Jesus for his first-half chances.

He wasn't outstanding but he did create, and as the captain and number 10/creative number 8, he wasn't anonymous. The entire team was more focused on off the ball work over on the ball work but he did contribute in the way he should.

He's a better number 10/8 than Ozil was. And no, I'm not saying he's better than Ozil overall. But Ozil's fault was that he was an old school number 10 who needed a structure around him. Odegaard is more all action and can press as well as find the incisive pass.

He was a 6/10. Not shit but not great.

I just a hypothetical. Replace this Odegaard with the “Arsenal Ozil” in this team. Now weigh up the PROS and CONS.
Does the team get stronger, get weaker or stays the same?

We are slogging it out Home and Away against Man City, Bayern, Liverpool etc..

[theHotHead]

I think Ozil banged Maiso's missus, thats why he is so bitter and has to talk about Ozil so much.

I bet he has a room with Ozil photos defaced, in his cave somewhere, he gets triggered by the mere mention of his name.

Nothing you say changes the fact Odegaard has a way to go to be mentioned in the same breath as Ozil.

[Maiso]

Maiso.

At some point you need to stop for second and accept that the entire football world has moved to a model of both visual and numerical analysis of players and teams.
To suggest that everyone in the professional game is somehow misguided and that you are capable of being more informed by just watching a few games is not an argument that makes any sense or that you can realistically win.
It's why I can say with confidence that no one claiming to analyse the game today has any credibility if they don't use numbers in conjunction with visual analysis.
For those content to just watch and enjoy, I say fair play, the game should primarily be about entertainment - but leave it there. Enjoy the game.

How many times have you ever watched any football pundits or commentators on Sky sports, MOTD or any other football related media platform go into Stats analysis? Former players turned pundits, commentators eg, Souness, Gary Neville, Henry, Former and current managers etc on Sky sports or MOTD etc going on about Chances created, blocks, Expected Goals, Expected shots, Distance covered, Pre assists, Finding pockets of space stats, blah blah?

All they ever do is commentate on what they see in any given match, interpret it and then give their subjective opinion. For example these are the types of comments you typically hear during football analysis: “This defender should have positioned him this way or that way. This striker should have been making that run behind. This DM player should have run with his man. The back four should have run out together in order for that offside trap to come off. The keeper should have never let that ball beat him at the near post Etc..”

What you never hear from football analysts after each match is what you and others want to convince me about. This STATS thing. They always talk about systems, Formations, player work ethic, player positional play, players being aware of their surroundings, individual player responsibilities etc. I have never seen any football commentator / pundit being overly obsessed with some irrelevant stats like some of you seem to highlight. Physical Performance is what matters and then from that the Stats will always follow.

I remember Alan Hansen on MOTD used to say, I paraphrase: “All these fancy STATS don’t win you games. Strong performances are what win games”.

And Graham Souness used to channel somewhat a similar attitude when he was a pundit during the Champions League games on ITV back in the day. I remember us being knocked out at the last 16 stage. Souness was fuming that night. I think he was on with Ian Wright that game. Wrighty tried to point to our possesion stats, the amount of shots we had, the amount of passes we made etc.. And Souness was not having it. He said to Wrighty, “you can keep going on about Stats but these Arsenal players keep showing a soft underbelly. They should be better coached tactically (when in possession and when out of possession) so that they can get the basics first. He also said to Wrighty, no stat is going to convince me that the poor / naive Arsenal defending we witnessed tonight was anything but what we all saw with our own eyes etc..”.

[theHotHead]

Listen Maiso, its simple common sense. As Jay has said it stats should be used in the correct context to back up an argument or opinion. Stats cannot be ignored when used correctly because stats are facts. Not sure why you are beating this thing to death.

Only an idiot would point to stats to build an argument thats flawed or stupid. For example, claiming you bossed a game because you had 70% possession but lost is foolishness. If that possession was dead possession - mindless sideways passing - is not bossing anything.

If the possession yielded chance after chance that the strikers kept missing then the argument would be valid. So the argument needs to be strong and then it needs to be backed up by the stats. Its quite simple, if you ignore stats because they don't align with your point of view you are being an idiot. Facts matter.

So when people are arguing about the effectiveness of a creative midfielder using metrics like goals scored and created, there are no better metrics that can be used to determine how good a creative player is, those stats cannot be ignored. Now, if a player has other attributes not linked to creativity that you want to champion, thats a different conversation, but don't come into an argument about creativity and start talking about defending cos thats arguing backwards and it has nothing to do with the original argument.

[jayramfootball]

Maiso
I don’t want to convince you of anything.
It was you who made the claim you know all you need to know from just watching.
It’s me that is not convinced by your claim.

It’s a simple fact that every single football club , coaches, managers, scouts etc use stats extensively as part of their toolkit for assessing players and performances.
Not the be all and end all - just as part of the toolkit. An important part.

No one involved in this sport with any intent of analysing and assessing a player just watches and thinks they know everything.

There are some old pros for sure who hate stats, a bit like grandpa not liking computers. Wasnt it Hansen who said ‘you can’t win anything with kids’ . Didn’t look deeply enough at that Utd team and let his bias and hubris take over.

No person alive is a good analyst of football without using stats.
Pundits and commentators don’t analyse.
What they show you on sky is bread for the masses stuff.

Sorry, but if you tell me just by watching that you have deep insights into the game, enough to accurately compare players across eras, to a level that is more than a simple opinion, i will reply that i don’t believe you and disregard the opinion as just a fan enjoying the game and not really thinking too deeply - which again is fine, just not football analysis.

[theHotHead]

Its a foolish argument Jay. You only need to watch shows like MoTD where they make analysis and then provide a stat or stats to emphasis/reinforce their point. These stats cover metrics that football fans don't even think about most of the time and hen they are provided in the right contet it makes you understand the point and it gives greater significance to the point.

So for anyone to say stats don't matter or even that stats are not the most important thing they are being naive. Imagine being a football scout, you go to watch 2 players. One is a tricky dicky, looks excellent on the ball but doesn't have enough end product, versus a simple meat and 2 veg player that doesn't stand out, he isn't flashy but scores goals. Neither player scored on the 2 occassions the scout went to see them, he has to make a decision. Without looking at the stats he won't know that the simple player has scored more than double the flashy player. If the decision was based on what his eyes saw alone he would pick the flashy player. Had he known the simple player had scored a ton of goals prior - it would be a no brainer, choose the simple player.

[jayramfootball]

Its a foolish argument Jay. You only need to watch shows like MoTD where they make analysis and then provide a stat or stats to emphasis/reinforce their point. These stats cover metrics that football fans don't even think about most of the time and hen they are provided in the right contet it makes you understand the point and it gives greater significance to the point.

So for anyone to say stats don't matter or even that stats are not the most important thing they are being naive. Imagine being a football scout, you go to watch 2 players. One is a tricky dicky, looks excellent on the ball but doesn't have enough end product, versus a simple meat and 2 veg player that doesn't stand out, he isn't flashy but scores goals. Neither player scored on the 2 occassions the scout went to see them, he has to make a decision. Without looking at the stats he won't know that the simple player has scored more than double the flashy player. If the decision was based on what his eyes saw alone he would pick the flashy player. Had he known the simple player had scored a ton of goals prior - it would be a no brainer, choose the simple player.

It's similar to drawing conclusions about the 'laziness' of a player.

Arsenal - and all clubs - invest in sophisticated GPS solutions to monitor players movement, runs, intensity of runs etc... stats we never even see that the clubs are reviewing constantly. They don't look at one element of a player - like Ozil for example and make broad brush conclusions about 'laziness'. That's fan language which is almost always without any insight and is based on a few examples that stood out for them and social media tropes that get created.

It is what it is and it's not a criticism of anyone watching only and drawing conclusions - we all do it because we either don't have the time to look at the underlying numbers for every player in every team or don't have access to the type of stats the clubs are using day to day to assess their team performance and individual contributions.

But I cannot possibly concur with anyone who claims some kind of footballing 'horse whispering' superpower that allows them to watch a game on TV and have a deep insight into not just the game and all the players, but also comparisons to other players and players from different generations. That's nonsense.

[theHotHead]

Quite.

I'm at a loss as to how you judge how good a creative player is, because if its not by goals, assists and chances created how else can you determine the player's level ?!!!

Surely if Player A has more goals, assists and chances created than player B he is the better creative player, how can that even be up for discussion ?!!!

[Rockape]

Stats are perfect for a game like golf, but not for football. To say someone has an assist for taking a corner for example is a joke. It may bear no relation to the quality of the cross.

You can't argue with fairways hit, distance of drives, greens in regulation, number of putts etc etc.....especially as its done over 18 holes minimum.

[theHotHead]

They said James Ward-Prowse has the most assists from corners than anyone. Now look at his corners, look at Beckham's corners, then look at corners that are just floated in there.

There is a reason the likes of Ward-Prowse and Beckham get so many assists from free kicks and corners, its because their dead-ball delivery is the best in class. If you deliver a shit corner you won't get an assist, the corner needs to be on point and if its converted its a well earned assist. Delivering corners with pace and whip and curl into the right area first time is not easy bro !!

[Maiso]

I think Ozil banged Maiso's missus, thats why he is so bitter and has to talk about Ozil so much.

I bet he has a room with Ozil photos defaced, in his cave somewhere, he gets triggered by the mere mention of his name.

Nothing you say changes the fact Odegaard has a way to go to be mentioned in the same breath as Ozil.

Again, as they say. You know that someone is losing or has lost the argument / debate when they turn to juvenile name calling and ad hominems. Lol

All you have done since we started this back and forth is obfuscate, deflect, pivot, contradicting yourself (fallacious reasoning), get triggered, constantly lashing out, Ad hominems, not address the points I keep making etc.
And whenever your emotions get the better of you (overwhelming) you lash out like a little boy, you then continually proclaim how I am dense and you are not going to engage with me anymore. But every time you are back with your child-like surface level argumentates. Lol smh

And about me hating Ozil because he must have banged my missus? And to be honest, I don’t think that my missus would ever entertain a weak man like Ozil. She is a highly educated, independent and strong minded woman. Do you remember that incident when Ozil ran and hid inside the car? Locked the doors and rolled up the windows and left Kolasinac on his own to fight off those holigans. He ran into the car and hide with the females while alpha male (Kolasinac) stood his ground. So I doubt that my missus would find such a Beta male very appealing. She would b!tch him about. But you never know, life is unpredictable.

But on the other hand you wouldn’t blame me for being mad at him if he did bang my wife. It’s human nature to retaliate. That’s the difference between me and you. I bet you would happily let Ozil deep dip your missus while you watch, and you would be so proud. All because you idolise and worship the guy. Are you an Ozil cuck?

And I don’t have any Ozil pictures anywhere in my house. I have never had a single picture of him in my house (Defaced or Not).

But I bet you have your own little sacred Ozil shrine by your beside. And do you still own some of your old boxers with Ozil’s pictures on them? Was just wondering.

So we have now established where we both fall. I am a Ozil Hater while you are a Ozil cuck. Right?

Anyways. Back to the actual debate if you are not going to threaten not engaging me for the 1000th time.