TorontoChelsea

Each tackle is unique but that's the point of sample sizes. If you look at statistics for one game, they will be almost meaningless for the overall play of the player. But if you are taking half a season's worth of games, the sample size is large enough so that the you have a very accurate picture. And yes, you can look at that and say "he's a very weak tackler" just like I can look at them and say "he's very creative" and knowing this does not diminish my enjoyment of football in the least. I never get the "why bother?" argument because it makes no sense. I love football and love watching it but I know, that I, like everyone, watch it with subjective eyes so statistics provide some objectivity. They don't diminish from the game. They enhance our understanding of it. And anyone who thinks that clubs do not employ people to go over and over the statistics (more advanced ones than we have) is deluding themselves. They are an important part of understanding the game. Here is a quote from a Simon Kuper piece..."We’ve somewhere around 32 million data points over 12,000, 13,000 games now,” Mike Forde, Chelsea’s performance director, told me one morning in February in the empty stands of Stamford Bridge. Football is becoming clever". And about the buying of Makelele: "If only Real had studied the numbers, they might have spotted what made him unique. Forde explained: “Most players are very active when they’re aimed towards the opposition’s goal, in terms of high-intensity activity. Few players are strong going the other way. If you look at Claude, 84 per cent of the time he did high-intensity work, it was when the opposition had the ball, which was twice as much as anyone else on the team.”" http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/9471db52-97bb-11e0-9c37-00144feab49a.html#axzz2Ihn9kL00

I disagree. Statistics don't tell the whole story, but they tell enough that when they come up with data that is strong, it can't be ignored. Over a small sample size, your example of how tackles differ is correct because there are variations. Someone can be a very good goal scorer and still go through a drought. But the larger the sample size, the more accurate the data. Over half a season as a sampling size, someone who is seen as a "very weak" tackler IS a very weak tackler. For every successful tackle, De Bruyne commits one foul AND gets dribbled by once. That is plainly awful and well beyond the possibility of some statistical anomaly. I don't think this particularly means anything long-term except that he has to work on this part of his game.

Statistics don't tell the whole story, but they are also objective. People largely see what they want to see. I do agree that statistics alone will never be near enough to judge a player, but they do give you a good idea of a player's strengths and weaknesses. Also, when statistics say something very strongly, it inevitably does mean something. Also, enjoying watching matches is entirely separate from statistical analysis. Nobody looks at statistics and thinks "now I don't have to watch the game". They are just another key in understanding of a player's quality.

I think his flexibility is key. He can play any of the three attacking midfield slots immediately, can play midfield in a 4-3-3 and could play in the pivot in a pinch (and a pinch is all we seem to have these days). He could come in next year and play regularly all over the pitch. The only problem is what Chelsea plan to do with Oscar. If they spend big on another central midfielder, then attacking midfield with Hazard, Mata, Oscar, Moses, and De Bruyne means that playing time would be tough to come by. (Look at how much time Marin has received this year).

Ramires' passing is weak, 3 assists in 80 Premier League games most of them in attacking positions, shows that pretty emphatically and maybe Ba has been poor holding on to the ball this year. We've seen him in only a handful of games and only had Torres to compare him to. I'm not saying their scoring system is perfect, but it's pretty damn good and "very weak" is extreme and is definitely worth noting. No Chelsea player is graded at very weak for anything which means that statistically, De Bruyne must be awful at tackling. It's something I'm sure he can work on, but I certainly don't think he's ready to start inthe pivot right now.

Then why does whoscored (which is based entirely on statistics) rate his tackling as "very weak"?

I took it from WAGNH. "He's a terrible tackler at this point, committing fouls or coming up empty on over 3/4 of his attempts to dispossess an opponent."

I had school closed a couple of times. Once, there was a blizzard, once an ice storm. -25 and heavy snow? Who cares? Go to school!!! I had cousins who lived in D.C. then and if there was any snowfall at all, they'd get school cancelled.

It's not ridiculous. Someone who has a 25% success rate in tackling IS a very bad tackler. There are plenty of stats that don't tell the whole story, but plenty of them also tell you a lot. If someone has a 60% passing rate, they're not a good passer. If someone has 4 goals on 90 shots, they're a poor finisher. One of the positives of stats is that they can bypass subjectivity. It is not possible to have a 25% tackle success rate and not be a very bad tackler. That said, that is right now. Tackling is something can a player can improve on.

I read (on WAGNH) that De Bruyne's tackle pct% is around 25% which is atrocious. Whoscored.com lists his tackling as "very weak". That's worse than Mata's rating. He does have potential for the pivot but can't see Chelsea handing him an uncontested starting job.

1-1!!!!!

A game of two halves. In balance, we probably deserved the win, but both goals, we got calls that could have gone the other way. (Penalty was close, the Ramires tackle on Coquelin was definitely a foul though). Voted Ramires MOTM. Was dominant defensively even though he's pretty weak going forward. I don't understand the starting Mata, Hazard, and Oscar together thing. It looks great when we are dominating possession but the second we aren't, it's a mess. Too weak, too soft in possession. Hazard waited too long to make decisions. Oscar was dispossessed five times today. Cole was excellent. Cahill's last-minute tackle saved us. Rafa waited too long to make changes. All the changes he made were fine, but just took too long to make.

Well, 3 points. I'll take it.

What a tackle by Cahill. Phew...

Ba coming on

Come on Rafa!

Crap.... Torres couldn't hold the ball up which is what cost us there but this goal has been coming. (and that's why people rate Cazorla)

Arsenal actually look like they are trying this half...have to keep focus.

Great first half. No changes needed at this point. If things stay the same for another 15 minutes, we can bring on Ba. We did get lucky on the first goal which should have been a Ramires foul, but we are dominating them so the scoreline is fair. Another strange starting XI for Arsenal. Yes, they have injuries, but who exactly is their ball-mover in the centre of midfield? Coquelin? If I were them, I'd move Wilshire back to the centre of the pitch, move Cazorla central and bring on someone to play on the left.

Does Walcott have a clause in his contract where he gets bonuses for offsides?

How's this for our pivot? Ramires and Lampard have combined for 9 tackles already. (Also, about a 90% passing rate)

Were Arsenal practicing getting their corners to Cech? If so, they're doing a great job.

2-0!!!

Penalty!

Really good match so far. High tempo, great chances, fans in good voice. Everything a derby should be. What a pass that was by Azpilicueta too.