Ki

This sums it up for me. Do I think that Kayal and Ledley offer more in the CM spot? Often, yes.

But I think Ki, whose game is not based on physicality, will only improve as he gets older and I don't think he is anywhere close to his peak. If we sold him now I think we'd regret it in a few years time.

 

We could debate all day on the so called technical side of Ki's game or his lack of effort and tackling ability, however I think the debate should be centred on whether or not we play better and get more positive results, when Ki is operating in central midfield, which is the only realistic position he can play in, given the nature of the his game and his own temperament.

From my line of thinking it is quite clear we get more wins and play a more fluid and powerful game when Ki is not in the side. To me that is the most important aspect of this debate.

 

Presenting this as a meaningful statistic is ignorant at best. It'd only mean something if we played the same 10 players, in the same formation, with the same tactics each time. But we haven't, so drawing any sort of conclusion from these figures is impossible. Why keep repeating them?

 

I agree.

Although the same could be said other way around, Ki's assist rate or goals scored etc. may mask/overblow his actual contributions.

Remember, Kris Boyd is statistically better than Henrik Larsson

 

Fair point. I think though at least the assists/goals record shows that at least he is not as useless as some here would like to think.

 

I think the general consensus among us "Ki haters" (as we have been so generously christened :icon_mrgreen is that Ki has ability - just doesn't do it enough.

Although, Venglos is pretty extreme

 

It's nice when we agree on things

 

Breaks my heart though

In all fairness though, Venglos is more than entitled to his opinion

 

Can't deny that, I suppose!


edit : it's important to remember we're all Tims at the end of the day.

 

Agree with this. The team just plays better without ki i think. But i do get wound up with people blowing his trumpet avout his technical ability and passing seriously over the top.

 

That statistic is far from meaningless, we haven't lost or drawn this year in the league when we don't play Ki bar the Aberdeen game where Lenny decided to rotate about five players. It is clear that other variables must be considered but the statistic is about as meaningful as any other. Assists for example rely on other players finishing ability. There is no football statistic which doesn't in some way rely on other players.

 

Amen brother!


:huddle:

 

It's meaningless in that you cannot rationally infer anything from it.

The assist record does rely on another player's finishing ability but it shows that the assisting player has the ability to put the other player in a position where he can score a goal.

 

Your statistic is not only relevant it is very damning against Ki, and is a clear indicator that the bottom line denominator is when Ki plays we either draw or lose games, or at best struggle badly to scrape a narrow win.

 

No it doesn't, your assuming football there is a one man game, there are far too many variables like format has stated that render this stat useless.

1st of all the same team would have to be played in all those games to render error variables meaningless.
2nd football is played with 11 men on the pitch, just because Ki has played a game where Celtic on the day draw does not mean he is the sole cause of it, it can be deduced as mere coincidence.

Please do not use that statistic as some sort of Wand that automatically makes your opinion right. Statistics can be construed anyway someone likes, they are not reliable when it comes to football because shocks always occur and records are made to be broken.

 

Also agree with this.

To suggest that the sole reason we lose games is because Ki plays is just poppycock!

 

You can believe in coincidences if you want,I'll stick to the stats and facts.

The facts are we lost to Rangers at Ibrox,against Hearts in the Cup Semi final, and against Kilmarnock in the Cup Final ( Ki sub 56min) all with Ki in the midfield.Our three defeats this year all figured with Ki in the central midfield, you don't need to be a statistician to see that. Go figure.

 

It is neither relevant, nor damning, nor clear.

The facts are we lost to Rangers at Ibrox, against Hearts in the Cup Semi final, and against Kilmarnock in the Cup Final ( Ki sub 56min) all with every member of our starting lineup having drank water before the game. Our three defeats this year all figured with our players drinking water, you don't need to be a statistician to see that. Go figure.

 

You may disagree but personally I think winning percentage is an important stat, just like any other stat it is incapable of judging a player by itself but when it adds up to what the majority of the Celtic support(including myself) see happening on the field then I think it is meaningful. Imo it is just as meaningful as an assist because both rely on variables beyond the players control.

 

refusing to acknowledge that a 30% difference in win percentage between when Ki plays and when he doesn't is akin to burying your head in the sand. There are absolutely no statistics that can accurately measure one players contribution to the team in isolation, that doesn't make the winning percentage irrelevant. Obviously if a player was performing at a very high level and we were winning fewer games with said player in the team I would trust my eyes over the statistics but in this case the stats just support what my eyes tell me. This year our winning percentage has drastically dropped with Ki in the team even though our lineup has remained relatively consistent. If the lineup was being constantly rotated the win percentage would be less damning but that simply isn't the case.