Kevin de Bruyne

[JDY 1,290]

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

I don't know. Why does whoscored rate Ba's holding on to the ball as 'weak'? Or Ramires passing as 'weak'. Neither are true. De Bruyne's defensive contribution is not as bad as people make out. He's contributed more in a midfield 3 than Lampard has in the pivot.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

I don't know. Why does whoscored rate Ba's holding on to the ball as 'weak'? Or Ramires passing as 'weak'. Neither are true. De Bruyne's defensive contribution is not as bad as people make out. He's contributed more in a midfield 3 than Lampard has in the pivot.

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.

[JDY 1,290]

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.

Yeah, was going to say it must take into account assists, key passes etc. I think Ramires' passing is really underrated for the role that he plays. Sure it could be better but I certainly wouldn't say it's weak. Regarding the Ba point, whenever I've seen him his hold up play has been good, but as you say Torres is woeful in this regard, and even previously Drogba could be clumsy at times when keeping it. I'm only going by his time at Bremen, and I would say 'very weak' is quite harsh (76% success is pretty good infact) I didn't see him at all at Genk so maybe he has improved since then, and the rating reflects his time there to?

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't arguing because I think he should play in the pivot, I actually don't think he should (been back and fourth). He could probably develop and do a decent job there, but I don't think it will totally suit him or be worth the hassle in the end (when we have someone like Oscar more suited). De Bruyne's playstyle is too aggressive for the pivot, both with his passing and running with the ball. I'd like to see him on the right or behind the ST where he can utilize his strengths fully.

I think a lot of people see De Bruyne and want to fit him in the team anywhere possible. We see the attack with the likes of Mata, Hazard etc and wonder how he would get in, and he's too talented not to be playing every week.

[DDA 9,570]

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.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

I think a lot of people see De Bruyne and want to fit him in the team anywhere possible. We see the attack with the likes of Mata, Hazard etc and wonder how he would get in, and he's too talented not to be playing every week.

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).

[The only place to be 11,313]

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

Because statistics don't tell the whole story. They need interpretation, which is why they're helpful to interpret what you see on the pitch but aren't a good substitute for that.

It's why some of us still like to watch the matches.

[bushman 2,043]

To watch games at the stadiums is just fine but to see replays on TV gives you a better or closer look at the players & plays.

Almost all of games on TV are analyzed, plays are revised...by reporters.

[The only place to be 11,313]

To watch games at the stadiums is just fine but to see replays on TV gives you a better or closer look at the players & plays.

Actually that's not strictly the case. You're restricted by the director's choices. When you see a player in person you can watch everything he does, the way he moves around the pitch and even his body language. It's why scouts are invaluable to clubs.

So you don't end up with another Bebe.

[bushman 2,043]

Actually that's not strictly the case. You're restricted by the director's choices. When you see a player in person you can watch everything he does, the way he moves around the pitch and even his body language. It's why scouts are invaluable to clubs.

So you don't end up with another Bebe.

quite the contrary.

Scouts are there to view players & I am certain these scouts have those players on videos too for later evaluation.

Even though, I must admit to be at the stadium alive,it must be one heck of a thrill. The surroundings, the ability to boo...

To see it on TV it gives you closer look, details on the players. Today´s technology allows it.

[The only place to be 11,313]

quite the contrary.

Scouts are there to view players & I am certain these scouts have those players on videos too for later evaluation.

Even though, I must admit to be at the stadium alive,it must be one heck of a thrill. The surroundings, the ability to boo...

To see it on TV it gives you closer look, details on the players. Today´s technology allows it.

So you're essentially agreeing with my earlier point that statistics and videos don't tell the whole story.

It's the problem with certain modern-day fans - they rely on statistics without necessarily understanding them. The tackle statistic for example isn't just a number. It's maybe dozens of individual acts that essentially have one of two outcomes (tackle made/not made). But each of those individual acts is a complex series of acts that tell their own story.

In De Bruyne's case, he may have a low tackling percentage but he may only need small adjustments to his game to make him a more effective player. But there's no statistic on whoscored.com that tells you that.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

Because statistics don't tell the whole story. They need interpretation, which is why they're helpful to interpret what you see on the pitch but aren't a good substitute for that.

It's why some of us still like to watch the matches.

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.

[bushman 2,043]

So you're essentially agreeing with my earlier point that statistics and videos don't tell the whole story.

It's the problem with certain modern-day fans - they rely on statistics without necessarily understanding them. The tackle statistic for example isn't just a number. It's maybe dozens of individual acts that essentially have one of two outcomes (tackle made/not made). But each of those individual acts is a complex series of acts that tell their own story.

In De Bruyne's case, he may have a low tackling percentage but he may only need small adjustments to his game to make him a more effective player. But there's no statistic on whoscored.com that tells you that.

So, I see you finally got the hint.

I agree, statistics are meaningless sometimes.

De Druyne can not be looked upon as to his tackling statistics only. After all, the 3 Amigos do not track back well either.

Personally, I would like to see him at Chelsea, soon.

By the way, do you have a season tickets & if so, how much was it ? Yesterday, they started selling tickets for Sparta vs Chelsea in Prague, the tickets were gone in less than 3 hours.

[The only place to be 11,313]

Nobody looks at statistics and thinks "now I don't have to watch the game".

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.

[Muzchap 8,964]

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.

Exactly!

Stats are meaningless in all honesty - they are always 'retrospective' and have no indication of 'future' performance - anybody who thinks they can predict the future is an idiot...

If 'stats' were so great, then why doesn't Chelsea ALWAYS beat inferior opposition? Why do the 'Cup Games' bring shock after shock after shock... Because regardless of ability (stats measured) - hard work, determination, desire and passion also count a HELL OF A LOT in sport and they aren't quantified....

So relying on stats is like seeing only 50% of the picture... AND with stats you're never comparing Apples to Apples - no two games are the same, so a players last match stats are completely irrelevant to the next opposition....

But we live in a world where people believe stats can control everything, banks, insurance, economy etc... It's just another misnoma and borders on delusional...

[bushman 2,043]

Stats & more stats, they say. Just bring De to Chelsea regardless of his stats.

[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.