Kevin de Bruyne

[Mufassir08 2,400]

So far from what I have witnessed De Bruyne's passing range and selection is better than Hazards. I do love Eden but KDB has a special passing game in my humble opinion.

Completely agree KDB's vision is very very special.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

Whilst I agree with some of the other points you make, I strongly disagree with this point based on using this website.

My view on statistics is that they might occasionally provide you with a starting point when examining an aspect of a player's game, or maybe help you clarify something. But too many people place too much stock in them without fully understanding them and that goes right from tackles made (not all tackles are equal and the tackle itself might result in the opposition winning back the ball etc.) up to goals scored.

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.

[The only place to be 11,313]

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.

Again, I disagree. Each tackle is unique and you would need to look at each one to see what is actually causing the tackle to be unsuccessful. Is it his technique, is it his positioning, is it his position on the field or are the external factors playing a part. Like I said, you can use the statistics as a starting point to alert you to something but you can't just look at them on their own and decide he's a 'very weak' tackler. That's simply not how the game of football works.

If it was, why would we bother?

As for the goals scored point, I was referring to the type of goals scored and the opposition they were scored against. A player who scored the 4th and 5th goals in routs against weak opposition may not be as good a goalscorer as the guy who scores the only goal against strong opposition.

Stats have their place, but it's nowhere near as prominent as some people on here make out.

[bushman 2,043]

Every player has his strong points & weak points.

Of course, he works on his weak ones.

Sometimes, stats are an indication of certain abilities, disabilities. However, the stats are not to be taken too seriously.

Every game could be & is different in the broader picture of the player.

[Gorando 184]

De Bruyne is the most gifted of all Belgian players IMO. While some combine athleticism with technical skills (Hazard, Kompany,..). KDB has the most 'pure talent'. I don't get this debate on his tackling abilities. He's an attacking player not a defensive one. Pirlo playes as a defensive midfielder but he hardly ever makes tackles. It's all about the players around him who do the dirty work. same for KDB

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

Again, I disagree. Each tackle is unique and you would need to look at each one to see what is actually causing the tackle to be unsuccessful. Is it his technique, is it his positioning, is it his position on the field or are the external factors playing a part. Like I said, you can use the statistics as a starting point to alert you to something but you can't just look at them on their own and decide he's a 'very weak' tackler. That's simply not how the game of football works.

If it was, why would we bother?

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

[The only place to be 11,313]

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

And there's a reason those stats guys aren't the manager, but are simply a tool at the manager's disposal. I'm not saying stats don't have their place, but they need to be interpreted properly and not just relied on because they're 'objective'. The point is football is unpredictable and no matter the sample size, you have to actually see what happens on the pitch to understand it. You can't simply rely blindly on stats. Earlier on you suggested that Ramires is weak at passing, and I don't disagree. But you cited his assists as an example of that. Now look at Luka Modric who had just 3 assists in one season (2010-11 I believe) - does that make him a weak passer? No.

In fact he was key to most of their attacking endeavours but he would play the ball that unlocked teams so that an assist could be made. Stats are great and I'm a big fan of their use, but they are a tool. De Bruyne may well have bad stats when it comes to tackling but that doesn't mean he's a bad tackler.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

And there's a reason those stats guys aren't the manager, but are simply a tool at the manager's disposal. I'm not saying stats don't have their place, but they need to be interpreted properly and not just relied on because they're 'objective'. The point is football is unpredictable and no matter the sample size, you have to actually see what happens on the pitch to understand it. You can't simply rely blindly on stats. Earlier on you suggested that Ramires is weak at passing, and I don't disagree. But you cited his assists as an example of that. Now look at Luka Modric who had just 3 assists in one season (2010-11 I believe) - does that make him a weak passer? No.

In fact he was key to most of their attacking endeavours but he would play the ball that unlocked teams so that an assist could be made. Stats are great and I'm a big fan of their use, but they are a tool. De Bruyne may well have bad stats when it comes to tackling but that doesn't mean he's a bad tackler.

Of course you need perspective, but not as much as you make out. You compare Modric to Ramires, but last season they played different positions. Ramires played attacking midfield or in a midfield of a 4-3-3. Modric played in the deep-lying midfield role which almost never gets assists in any great numbers. Nobody would compare those two players' statistically. For that position, you need to look at other stats.and if you look at whoscored.com, it rates Modric as "very strong" when it comes to passing which is accurate because it combines a number of different statistics to get that. (long balls, key passes, minutes per chance created, etc...). Ramires is graded as a poor passer not because of his assists, but because of his overall numbers. You can look at one particular statistic (or even two) and come away with the wrong impression, you take a multitude of stats and they can give you a full impression. And yes you can absolutely tell a lot about a player without ever seeing them play.

And football is not unpredictable, It is extremely predictable. The league leaders of the biggest four leagues are ManU, Barcelona, Juventus, and Bayern. There are really only a few teams in every league that have any chance at all to win.Teams that spend money will win. Teams that don't spend money, have no chance. It's only unpredictable in the game to game which is what makes it great to watch.

[The only place to be 11,313]

Of course you need perspective, but not as much as you make out. You compare Modric to Ramires, but last season they played different positions. Ramires played attacking midfield or in a midfield of a 4-3-3. Modric played in the deep-lying midfield role which almost never gets assists in any great numbers. Nobody would compare those two players' statistically. For that position, you need to look at other stats.and if you look at whoscored.com, it rates Modric as "very strong" when it comes to passing which is accurate because it combines a number of different statistics to get that. (long balls, key passes, minutes per chance created, etc...). Ramires is graded as a poor passer not because of his assists, but because of his overall numbers. You can look at one particular statistic (or even two) and come away with the wrong impression, you take a multitude of stats and they can give you a full impression. And yes you can absolutely tell a lot about a player without ever seeing them play.

And football is not unpredictable, It is extremely predictable. The league leaders of the biggest four leagues are ManU, Barcelona, Juventus, and Bayern. There are really only a few teams in every league that have any chance at all to win.Teams that spend money will win. Teams that don't spend money, have no chance. It's only unpredictable in the game to game which is what makes it great to watch.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I think you need a ton of perspective with which to assess stats and the stats guys would tell you that themselves. It's just one more tool in a manager's arsenal. The Modric point is fair.

As for football being unpredictable, obviously I was making the same point that you eventually arrived at. Football is only predictable on the game to game basis, except for when it isn't. Look at Porto's win in 2004 or Greece's win the same year. That's why football supporters love the game. Over a 38 game season, sure you'd expect the top teams to win purely due to resources available. But tomorrow we're going to try and win a game to possibly play Bradford in a final. That's the beauty of this game.

[DDA 9,937]

I prefer facts over stats. The FACT is if stats were key to winning games both player and game stats. Then we would have never won the Champions League last year. This is why I don't take much notice of the pass percentage and tackle percentages of each individual because it only takes one good assist and one good finish to score a winning goal.

[The Skipper 20,609]

KDB would be ideal in the pivot in a game where we do not need extra protection from midfield, e.g. a game where opponents sit deep and let us strut our stuffs.

[kellzfresh 7,229]

I'm begining to really like kevin. I never really watched him but I later did and my goodness, he has that beckham vision for a pass. I read his tackling is bad but I don't think pirlo's will be much better.

KDB 4th highest in Europe for 'Most Key Passers/Game',

Best Rated Central Midfielders (12/13)

http://t.co/Gh8MlSDH

From these stats, its proof that he is one of the top cm in europe now. Since we can't play two defensive minded people in the pivot, I suggest we should get KDB back next season to slot in here. He is just too talented.

[Hamilton 2,120]

News from Germany saying he has clinched with two members of the team. Assani Lukimya injured teammate Eljero Elia, wich triggerd the reaction from KDB. "It's always the same with him" bild quoting KDB who points out that Lukimya's style is to brutal for training.

According to Kreizeitung KDB also had words with reserve goalie Christian Vander. Nobody could quote Vander, but KDB's reaction could gave an hint about what Vander said. "You just shut up about Chelsea!"

After Thomas Schaaf came between the players KDB calmed down. Schaaf did protect Lukimya by saying that it wasn't a bad tackle and that those things happen at training.

[Leif 6,006]

Good call a few posts above ^^^ He's actually not too dissimilar to how Beckham used to play.

[JDY 1,290]

News from Germany saying he has clinched with two members of the team. Assani Lukimya injured teammate Eljero Elia, wich triggerd the reaction from KDB. "It's always the same with him" bild quoting KDB who points out that Lukimya's style is to brutal for training.

According to Kreizeitung KDB also had words with reserve goalie Christian Vander. Nobody could quote Vander, but KDB's reaction could gave an hint about what Vander said. "You just shut up about Chelsea!"

After Thomas Schaaf came between the players KDB calmed down. Schaaf did protect Lukimya by saying that it wasn't a bad tackle and that those things happen at training.

Was reading the Bremen forums a while ago and most were laughing at Bild, as they seemed to have an agenda against KdB ever since his comments about Germans being 'stiff' (even though he says the translation was incorrect).