Re: Mata+Hazard Vs Götze+Reus

by juventus101 Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:05 pm

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:
juventus101 wrote:Saying Hazard is better than Reus is something i disagree with.

Saying Mata is better than Gotze is something i laugh at.

Nah, you are something to laugh at though.

Dont care what you think of me. Fact is, Gotze is a level above Mata, and the.gap is only going to get bigger with time. Theres a reason Mata is what, 5th string for Spain?

by buddytaller Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:42 pm

Player debates always comes down to preferences and bias, in my opinion Hazard is going to be so much better than the other three but at the moment Mata takes it he's been in superb form all season and is clearly Chelsea's best player. Goetze and Reus are good but they are currently behind the Chelsea duo.

by Mr Nick09 Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:32 pm

Lunatic Fringe wrote:i came across this topic and i had to reply, clearly there is either a bias against, some kind of hate towards chelsea or people don't actually watch eden hazard and mata. ill come up with stats just for the sake of the argument. first of all this is the truth, mata is above all the others mentioned, he is on his own level right now. no one can touch him in his position.

now here are stats for the season,

hazard- 12 goals, 17 assists, 22 (if you count penalties won)
mata 18 goals, 28 assists

vs
gotze 14 goals 9 assists
reus 15 goals, 8 assists

now you can say you prefer gotze and reus but they are def not better, maybe they're on the same level but not better, statistically, hazard and mata are far better. perhaps gotze and reus are better at goal scoring, but assisting, play making, controlling the game, etc, it has to go to hazard and mata. but i'll say that they are on the same level and all have strengths of their own.

lastly, seriously watch them actually play before coming to these conclusions, seriously.

I 100% agree with you, the statistically superior Mata and Hazard have led Chelsea out to the CL and onto the much superior Europa League. Meanwhile, Gotze and Reus could barely make it to the quarters of a piss poor Champions League.

Hail Statistics, opium of the uneducated football aficionado :bow:

by Lunatic Fringe Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:31 pm

last season, mata was chelsea's player of the season when chelsea won the champions league and fa cup, so it's not just about stats. mata is currently better than all of them, that's just the truth. sure it's a matter of opinion but that's most rational conclusion at this point in time. in years to come maybe the other three will catch up and be better, but right now it's not even a debate.

by Mr Nick09 Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:50 pm

Oh yes, History remembers Mata for his decisive role in chelsea winning the champiions league, what a player, what a season, emulating the likes of Iniesta or Kaka. He teared through the CL with magnificent display of skills and technique, putting Barcelona and Bayern to the sword as he went on to win the trophy. hail Mata :bow:

by Great Leader Sprucenuce Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:56 pm

juventus101 wrote:
Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:
juventus101 wrote:Saying Hazard is better than Reus is something i disagree with.

Saying Mata is better than Gotze is something i laugh at.

Nah, you are something to laugh at though.

Dont care what you think of me. Fact is, Gotze is a level above Mata, and the.gap is only going to get bigger with time. Theres a reason Mata is what, 5th string for Spain?

knew you would take that seriously.

5th string? last i checked 5th strings don't get called up....

Also Gotze would struggle to start for Spain they have ridiculous AM talent.

Mata has more goals than Gotze, more assists and more chances created.

I don't know what else i need to say but he's performing at an elite level this season.

There is no massive difference between the two, both are WC footballers.

To suggest otherwise is just blatant fanboyism.

I love Gotze i really do even to the stage of being accused of overhyping him but what Mata has done this season should be respected.

by The Nature Boy Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:12 pm

but mata isn't world class because he's not German, doesn't play for a BL side :coffee:

by VivaStPauli Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:33 pm

Mr Nick09 wrote:
I 100% agree with you, the statistically superior Mata and Hazard have led Chelsea out to the CL and onto the much superior Europa League. Meanwhile, Gotze and Reus could barely make it to the quarters of a piss poor Champions League.

Hail Statistics, opium of the uneducated football aficionado

I think I love you.

by Casciavit Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:37 pm

The Nature Boy wrote:but mata isn't world class because he's not German, doesn't play for a BL side

by Kaladin Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:39 pm

The gap between Mata and Gotze isn't THAT big....looking at some of the posts, you'd think people are comparing R9 to Borrielo lol

by alexander mahone Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:06 pm

Just because Dortmund went this far in CL and Chelsea failed their group, doesn't mean Mata excellent stats doesn't have a weight when comparing him to other players. Obviously it doesn't mean everything, but it does tell you something too. He created more, he scored more, he's more vital to his team, he did it with much more adversities, yet the best appreciation some can give to him is that: "he's not that far off Gotze" lol, what an insult.

Edit:
Also, Dortmund went this far is not so much because they have a much superior Reus/Gotze instead of the lowly Mata/Hazard. They made it as a team, several players showed up big time in their CL campaign.

by VivaStPauli Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:08 pm

Of course Götze scores less, he's not surrounded by scrubs, like Mata is, so other people get on the scoresheet as well Razz

by Mr Nick09 Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:52 pm

Why is everyone is this thread just talking about skills and abilities and ability to score or play through balls? lol

let's assume they are evenly matched skillwise, shall we talk about defending, running and sheer effort away from the ball? Laughing

i see an easy winner here Laughing

If i am building a team and i have the choice between both duos, without all the potential bs, i will pick the duos that can actually put in a shift defending, pressing the ball, remain tactically consistent etc... Gotze and Reus it's spelled, yeah those guys. Mata and hazard, for all their talents, are lazy fckers who can hardly play a pressure game.

by Abramovich Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:51 am

Goetze is the best player out of the 4 I'd say, however he's MASSIVELY overrated on this forum. Well maybe like extra bias's like juve guy, for me the ranking goes Goetze, Mata, Reus then Hazard.

With it being pretty close between Mata and Goetze, Mata is a freaking beast and a half.

by Lunatic Fringe Thu Mar 28, 2013 5:23 am

imo gotze will probably be better one day given how talented he is at 20, but right now is he better than mata? no. not in terms of consistency, over all performance and his importance to the team. does that mean gotze won't be one day? hell no and people just ignore the over all stats as if it doesn't matter. it does, maybe in parts gotze shows his absolute brilliance which mata cannot reach (which i doubt anyway but ill give him that) but mata has been phenomenal in the epl, absolutely one of the best players since he joined and undoubtedly the best attacking mid since he joined. the stats aren't a fluke. he's that important to chelsea.

by Mr Nick09 Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:23 am

we ignore stats because they dont matter for people who watch games consistently. How important a player is for a team doesnt always show up on a team sheet, otherwise Mata would be better than Iniesta.

by The Nature Boy Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:49 am

Mr Nick09 wrote:we ignore stats because they dont matter for people who watch games consistently. How important a player is for a team doesnt always show up on a team sheet, otherwise Mata would be better than Iniesta.

Nick I agree with you to a point. There are players like Arturo Vidal who, if you looked at stats alone, would be considered an average MF. If you watch the games, see him in the system, and observe what his contributions are on a weekly basis you see how foolish it would be to call him average.

On the flip side, to make sweeping statements like "we ignore stats because they don't matter" doesn't really add up to me. Stats don't tell the whole story, but they certainly help us understand what other players do on the field. Strikers, for example, can be (not saying that I do this) analyzed by statistics. If your main job is to put the ball in the back of the net and stats tell us that you do this 1 time in every 3 games, we can determine how proficient you are as opposed to other strikers.

the main argument I have about using stats is that when you use one stat, there is always another that can tell a different side of the story. take the goals per game stat for example... player a scores 1 in every 2 games but takes 7 shots a game. yeah that player scores a lot but is he efficient in front of goal? maybe. but at the end of the day, who cares?

The eyeball test is all you need.

by The Nature Boy Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:53 am

an even better example of stats which was brought up in another thread:

Xavi has an 89% pass completion percent in the CL. How many of those are through balls putting someone in on goal. how many of those are played backwards. how many of those are simple routine passes that just keep possession? the 89% doesn't tell us much, doesn't tell the whole story.

Pirlo, on the other hand has a 74% pass completion rate, with 400 less passes. How many of those were long balls on the counterattack? doesn't always tell us the whole story about his passing ability.

Buruk Yilmaz is the CLs top scorer. Is he the best player? stats would tell you yes.

by Toffer Harley Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:57 am

some people might overinterpret the votes for götze and reus. for instance, my thinking was that there are four very good footballers, but i'd rather have götze and reus because they are younger overall, best of friends, have the same nationality and also the higher ceiling individually. the aspect of them being a "duo" isn't considered as much as i thought it would be.

however, focussed on this point in time the difference in individual skill would be pretty small.

by juventus101 Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:01 pm

Im pretty sure Mata is 5th choice. Lets see...Spain play a 4-3-3, with AMs on the outside of the front 3. Fabregas i wont consider an AM as he is played purely as a false 9 for Spain. So theres Iniesta, Cazorla, Silva, and Pedro all that come in front of him for Spain. I feel like im forgetting someone too, but either way, that makes Mata 5th in the pecking order. Gotze would start in Spain in my opinion. And Germany has more attacking midfield talents:

Gotze, Reus, Muller, Ozil, Kroos, Podolski, etc.

Vs

Iniesta, Pedro, Cazorla, Silva, Mata, etc.

by Toffer Harley Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:09 pm

juventus101 wrote:Im pretty sure Mata is 5th choice. Lets see...Spain play a 4-3-3, with AMs on the outside of the front 3. Fabregas i wont consider an AM as he is played purely as a false 9 for Spain. So theres Iniesta, Cazorla, Silva, and Pedro all that come in front of him for Spain. I feel like im forgetting someone too, but either way, that makes Mata 5th in the pecking order. Gotze would start in Spain in my opinion. And Germany has more attacking midfield talents:

Gotze, Reus, Muller, Ozil, Kroos, Podolski, etc.

Vs

Iniesta, Pedro, Cazorla, Silva, Mata, etc.

really, carzola? scratch

obviously he is not as good individually, but does he really get picked ahead of mata?

by The Nature Boy Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:12 pm

has been for the last few Matches.

It is remarkable that Mata doesn't start for Spain, nor is he first choice sub.

I don't think that has anything to do with talent, personally.

by alexander mahone Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:16 pm

About passing stats, aren't there also many other stats like key passes created, through balls, long balls, etc? I think the difference of what Xavi and Pirlo do with their passes can be pretty much seen on those, I'm sure Pirlo leads in key passes created for example, still doesn't tell the whole story, but gives more than just accuracy.

Anyway, so there is: eye test vs stats and there is: long run vs merely several matches.

Both eye test and stats in tournament like CL, as imo there are too little samples of matches, doesn't tell much more than performances on the day of the games included. But eye test and stats for long enough period, say certain season stats with 40++ matches or even better stats for last 2 or 3 seasons, is quite helpful to understand player's ability on what one can do on regular basis.

As limited as stats is, imo long run stats >>>> eye test on merely several matches. I'm not saying that you don't need to watch and can fully rely on seasonal stats. But understanding the stats wouldn't hurt. If you only watch a player for several matches, long run stats would enable you to get a more informed perception of a player. And even if you watch a player week in week out, stats would still help in many ways. I understand the arrogance of "I trust my own eyes", but you can only get so much from eyes alone with so many things happening at the same time during the game, not too mention if you watch multiple matches at the same time. How can you be sure you won't miss any important detail that probably will alter your perception of what you watch? Unless you watch the game repeatedly. Also your bias and expectation might cloud what you perceives. Not too mention others' opinions that probably affect your perception too. Stats as limited as what's available at the very least is objective enough.

Bringing up stats to back Mata up imo is a much better argument than many ridiculous statements against Mata in this thread. They are all attacking players, so comparing assist and goal stats is at least rather make sense, that's pretty much speak of their ability both to create (I personally prefer key passes rather than assists to show this but Mata still leads either way) and to finish on regular basis. Not the whole story but still much more relevant than many other BS in this thread.

Edit:
Also, able to show importance to a team means something because to an extent that shows how well one can assume responsibilty, that's a plus, not every player even with similar or more talent can do that. Of course it doesn't automatically make him better than any player who looks less important for his team. But it's an advantage, just like having a better workrate is also an advantage.

by Mr Nick09 Thu Mar 28, 2013 4:42 pm

the sad thing at the end of the day is that comparing two players in truth means absolutely nothing at all. Football is not an individual sports like tennis where athletes can be compared with parameters. PLayers are only as good as the sytem they play in, how much the they enhance the overall organization and how much the overall organization enhance them.

That's why individual awards are deemed silly for some. Not two teams play the same system with the same players, so making an absolute comparison between two players is biased at many levels. in that sense, stats can be meaningless if you dont take into account every single factor.

by Toffer Harley Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:34 pm

Mr Nick09 wrote:the sad thing at the end of the day is that comparing two players in truth means absolutely nothing at all. Football is not an individual sports like tennis where athletes can be compared with parameters. PLayers are only as good as the sytem they play in, how much the they enhance the overall organization and how much the overall organization enhance them.

That's why individual awards are deemed silly for some. Not two teams play the same system with the same players, so making an absolute comparison between two players is biased at many levels. in that sense, stats can be meaningless if you dont take into account every single factor.

corny but true. this isn't the NBA

by sree999 Wed Oct 30, 2013 3:19 pm

by Sponsored content