Granit Xhaka: Page 23 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

Granit Xhaka

Claudius

goon wrote:
100%. Plus Xhaka's problem isn't playing progressive passes anyway, that's the one thing he's actually decent it, it's everything else. Watching Elneny in the last couple of games and it's notable how much more fluid he is than both Xhaka and Ceballos, gets the ball out of his feet quickly and plays a crisp and accurate short/sideways pass. In his case he's just a bit rubbish at everything else. All three of them are slow too. Ideally you get the complete midfielder who's excellent all around, but we at least need someone who's good at more than just 1 thing.

Exactly what I’m saying. Goon always gets it.
The stats are actually good on these things and align to what you see.
There is a reason why I would swap out Xhaka for Locatelli without a thought. Locatelli has faster one touch passing and is able to pass on the move. Bring Locatelli and Saliba in, and on paper, your offense speeds up significantly.

Gazza M

please God, sell him this summer. don't care how vocal he is, how much of a coaches favourite he is, or if we've looked worse when he hasn't played. force this team to evolve without him

RowJimmy

Quincy Abeyie wrote:
Like I've said previously, stats are good for backing up what you see on the pitch. Trying to use stats alone in this "what you've seen is actually wrong" kind of way is a plan B if you don't have the best thing - having actually watched the matches. All of us watch enough matches to know perfectly well what Xhaka is and isn't capable of. We know that his passing in isolation is good but that he dwells on the ball after using too much time to control in in the first place and that all of this takes even longer if he's on the wrong foot. The stat doesn't say that he's a good passer. That's something you have to make your mind up yourself based on the weaknesses in his game and whether his accuracy when given enough time is enoygh to weird up for that.

Stats are only useful if they tell you something different. If they tell you that what you already see is correct then they are, quite literally, useless.

I don't think Xhaka is compatible with the style I'd like to see Arsenal play, and so I'd like to see him sold.

QuincyAbeyie

Row Jimmy wrote:
Quincy Abeyie wrote:
Like I've said previously, stats are good for backing up what you see on the pitch. Trying to use stats alone in this "what you've seen is actually wrong" kind of way is a plan B if you don't have the best thing - having actually watched the matches. All of us watch enough matches to know perfectly well what Xhaka is and isn't capable of. We know that his passing in isolation is good but that he dwells on the ball after using too much time to control in in the first place and that all of this takes even longer if he's on the wrong foot. The stat doesn't say that he's a good passer. That's something you have to make your mind up yourself based on the weaknesses in his game and whether his accuracy when given enough time is enoygh to weird up for that.

Stats are only useful if they tell you something different. If they tell you that what you already see is correct then they are, quite literally, useless.

I don't think Xhaka is compatible with the style I'd like to see Arsenal play, and so I'd like to see him sold.

Then I have a question for you: What is the value of watching a game? Do you think you can better judge a performance from reading the stats afterwards without watching it?

RowJimmy

Quincy Abeyie wrote:
Row Jimmy wrote:
Stats are only useful if they tell you something different. If they tell you that what you already see is correct then they are, quite literally, useless.

I don't think Xhaka is compatible with the style I'd like to see Arsenal play, and so I'd like to see him sold.

Then I have a question for you: What is the value of watching a game? Do you think you can better judge a performance from reading the stats afterwards without watching it?

The value of watching a game is that I enjoy watching games. (Sometimes.) I don't particularly enjoy stats. But there's no question in my mind that statistical analysis tells us things our eyes don't.

RowJimmy

Row Jimmy wrote:
Quincy Abeyie wrote:
Then I have a question for you: What is the value of watching a game? Do you think you can better judge a performance from reading the stats afterwards without watching it?

The value of watching a game is that I enjoy watching games. (Sometimes.) I don't particularly enjoy stats. But there's no question in my mind that statistical analysis tells us things our eyes don't.

PS: This doesn't mean I think this particular stat is especially useful.

QuincyAbeyie

Row Jimmy wrote:
Quincy Abeyie wrote:
Then I have a question for you: What is the value of watching a game? Do you think you can better judge a performance from reading the stats afterwards without watching it?

The value of watching a game is that I enjoy watching games. (Sometimes.) I don't particularly enjoy stats. But there's no question in my mind that statistical analysis tells us things our eyes don't.

Let me rephrase then, obviously I know that you don't watch the games simply to get knowledge about performances. Do you think you're better suited to discuss a performance from seeing stats and not watching the game, or vice versa? If your answer is that stats is the way to go then fair enough, I disagree. I'm not saying stats are wrong - they never are. The conclusions you draw from them can be. The Xhaka stat in question was posted in a tweet with the following text:

Interesting how Granit Xhaka is 'average' while the other four are top players.

That text is implying

That Xhaka is better than what we're giving him credit for because of that stat.
That this stat is the reason the other four are hailed as top players.

Both of those are clearly wrong. Thiago is a world class technician, Fernandinho has been one of the best DMs in the league for years, breaking up attack after attack. The stat doesn't even tell you that Xhaka is a good progressive passer (even though I think he is). It simply says that he has many of them. The player with the most passes isn't automatically the best passer.

Claudius

Part of the problem is that for too long we have used output stats incorrectly to evaluate players. We look at one or two high level numbers and use that to sum up an entire player. When you watch a player you see dozens of attributes that describe the way he plays. Most of each of these can be represented statistically, allowing us to evaluate the player against others. Descriptions of how that player passes are but one facet of a players whole. It is possible for a player to be elite at one thing while being average or mediocre at other facets of the game. This is what scouts might write up in a report, stats just represent in a quantitative and unbiased way.

Anzac

Quincy Abeyie wrote:
Row Jimmy wrote:
The value of watching a game is that I enjoy watching games. (Sometimes.) I don't particularly enjoy stats. But there's no question in my mind that statistical analysis tells us things our eyes don't.

Let me rephrase then, obviously I know that you don't watch the games simply to get knowledge about performances. Do you think you're better suited to discuss a performance from seeing stats and not watching the game, or vice versa? If your answer is that stats is the way to go then fair enough, I disagree. I'm not saying stats are wrong - they never are. The conclusions you draw from them can be.

Agreed to this if you only ever look at stats in isolation and with out context.
I watch games for the emotional connection primarily and the analysis is secondary & not usually during play.
I usually look at the stats afterwards to get an indicator of some fundamentals of both the team and individuals, and review this against what I saw to give it context as to if it enhances our performance or if it detracts due to some other aspects not reflected in those stats.
Sometimes I don't look back at a game for days depending on the performance.

swider

Quincy Abeyie wrote:
Row Jimmy wrote:
The value of watching a game is that I enjoy watching games. (Sometimes.) I don't particularly enjoy stats. But there's no question in my mind that statistical analysis tells us things our eyes don't.

Let me rephrase then, obviously I know that you don't watch the games simply to get knowledge about performances. Do you think you're better suited to discuss a performance from seeing stats and not watching the game, or vice versa? If your answer is that stats is the way to go then fair enough, I disagree. I'm not saying stats are wrong - they never are. The conclusions you draw from them can be. The Xhaka stat in question was posted in a tweet with the following text:

Interesting how Granit Xhaka is 'average' while the other four are top players.

That text is implying

That Xhaka is better than what we're giving him credit for because of that stat.

That this stat is the reason the other four are hailed as top players.

Both of those are clearly wrong. Thiago is a world class technician, Fernandinho has been one of the best DMs in the league for years, breaking up attack after attack. The stat doesn't even tell you that Xhaka is a good progressive passer (even though I think he is). It simply says that he has many of them. The player with the most passes isn't automatically the best passer.

Or we can add another stats to those, 1 goal and 2 assists in the league at the end of the season. That is far worse than not good enough IMO.

Claudius

Quincy, the way you’re using stats is very one dimensional. If all I do is take Joe Willock’s goals or xG90 it will identify him as one of the best attackers in the league. If that is all I go on, I miss the richness of the rest of his game which we see when we watch Arsenal and Newcastle games. One stat does not mean Granit Xhaka is the best midfielder. It just means he’s good at one thing. Remember when you used to trade car cards as a kid, and you’d have speed, handling, acceleration, etc on the card. Think of it the same way.

banduan

Gazza M wrote:
please God, sell him this summer. don't care how vocal he is, how much of a coaches favourite he is, or if we've looked worse when he hasn't played. force this team to evolve without him

agreed. Bit like ditching Wenger. We need to move on.

QuincyAbeyie

Claudius wrote:
Quincy, the way you’re using stats is very one dimensional. If all I do is take Joe Willock’s goals or xG90 it will identify him as one of the best attackers in the league. If that is all I go on, I miss the richness of the rest of his game which we see when we watch Arsenal and Newcastle games. One stat does not mean Granit Xhaka is the best midfielder. It just means he’s good at one thing. Remember when you used to trade car cards as a kid, and you’d have speed, handling, acceleration, etc on the card. Think of it the same way.

That's what I'm saying. The tweet you posted (not you, the person tweeting) clearly implied that Xhaka can't be an average midfielder because he's good at that one stat and the other players who are good at that thing are called top class. Ignoring completely that this isn't even their main strength.

And I've never heard of car cards. 😆 Pokémon, sure.

Meatwad

which one of you is this?

Gazza M

tweeted like a classically clueless zoomer

goon

Who the hell dedicates a Twitter account to Xhaka without it being a parody?

JazzG

Clueless, twitter isn't covering itself in glory these days! Not coincidence our decline coincides with him being our first choice CM.

Claudius

JazzG wrote:
Clueless, twitter isn't covering itself in glory these days! Not coincidence our decline coincides with him being our first choice CM.

He’s most symbolic but I think filling a team with players like Giroud and Lacazette will further weaken you. We need to raise the bar for what it means to be an Arsenal starter.

Qwiss

We announced Giroud before RVP left, if we'd replaced the snake with another top striker Giroud would have been the perfect 2nd choice striker, a real plan B player but with a bit of quality about him too.

Laca I like, he puts in a tremendous shift most of the time but he just doesn't have any really top qualities. A good player but not quite at the level to lead the line for us. Its was a gamble we needed to take that year though and other strikers of similar stature were being transferred for silly money too. Wenger was smart enough to move to Auba quickly though when the opportunity arose.

Bring Back Kerrea Gilbert

Not sure Wenger was calling such shots three months before his "resignation" tbh.

Great points though.

« Previous Page Next Page »