Imagine Dave MacKay playing in a Jose 5 man defensive low-block, inviting the oppo on and conceding 14 shots on our goal per game? I guarantee you now there will be people calling for his head and for him to be replaced, that he's a sicknote injury liability and we should "get rid". Were stats available then, you'd probably get me telling those people they are dicks and present the figures behind why I think he's a great player and we should keep him. Just as I'm doing with Lloris.Yes and that is why sometimes we should learn to trust what our eyes are telling us a bit more. For example how did anyone decide that Dave Mackay was a great player for Spurs in the 60’s? It wasn’t from studying statistics for hours on end which weren’t available in those days anyway- it was by people using their eyes. If I apply that to Hugo unfortunately my eyes tell me he is not as good as he was irrespective of what any stats say
The thing is you are coming at this from the impression that I'm sat behind a computer screen studying stats. I don't, I never ever looked at them until after I've seen the game and then only to prove what I've seen and support how to communicate what I've seen.
I only read articles about them, what they are, how they are used, how they are applied. I can't even interoperate the player radar's that get used today (the ones that show the player profile), they mean absolutely nothing to me in isolation, but I do review them if someone has bothered to support each one with text and highlight their strengths, I then go and watch them play to see what the fuss is all about (if I've never heard of them).
I've never met anyone, including those that are data hungry obsessives who don't watch the game. Makes you wonder why it's a billion-dollar industry and why every football club employs an army of stat analysts using bespoke tech to interpret the data. Maybe they are onto something.