- Jul 2, 2013
- 427
- 1,862
I can see the argument that for something like finishing stats are better than the eye test. Ultimately with finishing all that really matters is whether the ball goes into the goal, so with a large enough sample size and decent data on the quality of chances it's going to be more accurate than the eye test which can easily be unconsciously biased. For example someone who regularly belts it into the top corner might appear to be a better finisher that someone who regularly puts it low and only just out of reach of the keeper but the stats could tell us the true story that player two actually scores more of their chances.I think we should stop.
How the hell is a bunch of predicted stats better at determining someone's finishing ability, than actually witnessing someone's finishing ability?
When I literally witness something with my own eyes, that means it's happened. It can't be denied, it can't be questioned. It just is!
That's one of the most bizarre things I've ever been told. You've just got to be arguing for the sake of it, surely?