You've made an awful lot of wrong assumptions and misinterpretations of my viewpoints. Rest assured that I don't go around second-guessing myself, drowning in data, trying to make sense of the world. I just happened to be of the viewpoint that Valencia isn't a great crosser, but isn't nearly as bad as suggested, and spent a short time looking into the data. I'd never looked at it before last week. I happened to find it interesting and informative. I expected lots of people to find it a bit dull. I am surprised you found the existence of it so troubling. Seeing things which challenge your assumptions can be a bit uncomfortable, I suppose.
25
Season Average Rating
- Appearances
- 39
- Clean sheets
- 18
- Goals
- 3
- Assists
- 1
- Yellow cards
- 9
- Status
You've made an awful lot of wrong assumptions and misinterpretations of my viewpoints. Rest assured that I don't go around second-guessing myself, drowning in data, trying to make sense of the world. I just happened to be of the viewpoint that Valencia isn't a great crosser, but isn't nearly as bad as suggested, and spent a short time looking into the data. I'd never looked at it before last week. I happened to find it interesting and informative. I expected lots of people to find it a bit dull. I am surprised you found the existence of it so troubling. Seeing things which challenge your assumptions can be a bit uncomfortable, I suppose.
Carvajl and Marcelo can put in a decent cross tho. How often do you see them chip a floated ball in from say 40 yards from goal?
Listen your bias is clear, nothing I say will convince you either way. He isn't a good crosser about what 95% on this thread mention this yet you somehow don't buy it.
They cross less frequently.. yess but Valencia is just as capable of crossing the ball not to level of carvajal obviously but not as good as him but at a decent rate as both my stats and eye test indicate.
Honestly please don't reply me. People like you piss me the hell off. You have no evidence that I am biased and you are only saying that because you can't disprove what I'm saying. Furthermore your barrage of logical fallacy continues with the bandwagon fallacy, which is that just because something is of popular belief( which you can't prove in this case) It must be true. You have no evidence, no logic, and no argument other than to assert that i am biased. Utterly pathetic.
You could go troll through every post then get back to me on the stats of how many people have pointed out he is a woeful crosser.
The evidence is also within your posts.
Also how do you measure danger of the cross? You can't, it's a simple as that. It's something decided by viewing it.
Stats are half the story, the other half is from viewing.
There are far too many variables for some one to break down and even then it wouldn't be perfect. Weather,pressure,tiredness,eyesightand positioning of the cross, there are so many it would be impossible to just rely off of stats.
You seem to be quantifying frequency as a sign of quality. Which is redundant. Also easily refuted by what I mentioned earlier of his crossing position and the type of cross anyone could get those numbers crossing as he does it wouldn't be hard because teams will happily let you cross from there as there is no danger.
You really seem to be struggiling with the idea of what a quality cross is. That's your major issue. You also don't actually have any proof, it's just your opinion which goes against the populas.
Others have tried to break it down for you but sometimes there is just no debating with ignorance or zealots.
Keep up the good fight tho, it's at least been entertaining but unfortunately I think you're drastically mistaken.
As Ive said 4 times now( amazing how you can yourself can claim a 95% majority population as fact from over 9 pages worth of posting but you can't seem to remember a simple reply to your own comment just a page ago, interesting?) To best assess the danger of a cross through statistics, one would have to look at the amount of crosses from said player that lead to a shot on target. A dangerous cross is a cross that poses the threat of goal I assume and since a shot on target poses the threat of goal, then therefore a cross that lead to a shot on target is a dangerous cross. As stated Valencia compared to Serge Aurier, a renowed offensive full back, Valencia has a 3% advantage in terms of key cross accuracy while attempting much more crosses than Aurier.(Using last season as a reference)
However, I've stated before( which of course you didn't see before) that this stat has a minor imperfection in that a dangerous cross put in by the player might go unnoticed if the shot was off target due to the inability of the player at that time. That is where the eye test comes in to play where as fans we can determine how often these external events occurred.
We finally found some middle ground! yay! If only you used your super powers that determine can determine what 95% of this board thinks about Valencia's crossing from 9 full pages of posting to to realize what was said a gazzillion times by me just 1 page ago.
While once again I agree you can't rely just on stats, the factors you listed are just south of laugable. Weather? Pressure? eye sight? Are you joking? Are you sure you don't want to cite whether or not the players ate breakfast that morning? their calorie in take? come on man.
There you go. You finally mentioned an factor that makes sense, except that this isn't a factor outside of the players control. Who made the decision to cross the ball? Why would a player cross the ball from a far out position when the player can just recycle possession or take the player on to get a better opportunity to cross.
Frequency matters definitely when assesing crossing accuracy compared to another player. A player who barely played enough or just dosen't like to cross might sucessfully complete 6 crosses out 15 crosses which has a very high accuracy but a player might attempt 200 crosses and complete 40 crosses. (20%) But generally frequency shouldn't be that big of a factor if the players being compared have attempted close to the same amount of crosses.
I think you already know what I am going to say?
You know the sign of a sore loser of a debater? when they start resorting to Ad Hominems. Can't say I'm surprised. You somehow thought that Valencia's crossing accuracy was skewed because of Zlatan and Fellaini, you stated that because valencia being a horrible crosser is of popular belief then that makes the statement true even though it is false in and of itself and you can't prove that it is of popular belief either. Now you resort to attacking the poster. As I said before, Utterly. Pathetic.
Cough cough umm you attacked me like 3 posts back so yeah if attacking someone is a sign of defeat then guess you lost a while ago.
Also my statement of 95% wasn't fact, I also led in to that statement by saying 'something like' clearly not stating it as pure fact.
Also sorry but your idea of a cross being dangerous by the amount on target isn't going to deterim how dangerous a cross is, I'm sorry but that is just stupid reasoning. Also our stats were improved by the likes of Zlatan and Fellaini you I'm guessing watched us last season and saw the amount of lofted rubbish balls that we put in and Fellaini and Zlatan managed to fight and get a connection on.
Another example if it's a floaty ball and Fellaini manages to nod it forward towards goal, no pace, no nothing just seems like a pass back was that threatening? He can't generate any power or direction on it as he is having to stand still and wait for it to drop. So because he directs that on target in your logic you stated above it makes that a threatening cross? This is the logic you're applying yes?
Now read that then Contemplate how flawed your logic is.
So also cross accuracy... now I would say when crossing you don't actually aim directly for a person. You're aiming for a zone in front of your on coming players so that they are coming on to the ball and can adjust paths and so on to get the best connection with it.
Another sort of thing you tried to rubbish. You don't think weather is a factor? So if it's foggy and a player can barely see you don't think that affects the outcome of a cross? Or say the sun is very low and blinding the player again you don't think that affects the outcome of what is happening.
A player is tired or injured can't move as they normally would or put in the effort and you don't think those factors or variables count
So please go try again and prove to me why you believe Valencia is a good crosser because it just seems like it's your opinion as you've provided no evidence. You've actually hurt your own case repeatedly.
Even funnier you claim I have no logic. I've given many examples of the difference between what and how Valencia crosses and what a good cross actually looks like. Flat whipped in crosses in to a zone with on coming traffic instead of our players standing waiting for someone to make up their mind if they want to chip it in or recirculate possession.
He's a woeful crosser and average defensively. His best asset is that he is consistently average.
Wow. Would you like to explain why?
I thought we discussed this? This is a slippery slope because if you want to say that then why cant we say that Carvajal's ridiculous accuracy is due to having the tall likes of Ronaldo, Benzema, Bale, and Morata who are far better movers off the ball than Fellaini or Zlatan? And no don't reply by saying:" well thats because they can actually put in a decent cross" because you don't know that as you haven't seen Carvajal cross outside of Real Madrid.
Okay you gave a vague example. If you said the ball has no direction, yet the ball ended up at Fellaini, then Valencia obviously intended for the ball to arrive at Fellaini because for Fellaini to get the ball he would have to be in the vicinity of where the cross ended up.
My logic is feeling really strong. You haven't actually disproved anything. Kinda sad.
What? A cross is a form of pass. Whether it is direct or not, the point is that it eventually gets to your teammates. Whether the cross actually reaches the teammate and how well does the cross set the reiciever up for goal is how they are evaluated.
Those factors aren't just pertinent to the person crossing they are pertinent to all players. Valencia isn't the only right back who encounters a situation with bad weather or the pitch is bad. All players encounter these kinds of things and they reflect in the average statistic. The point is that these players are professional footballers and should be able to handle a little bit of bad weather. I could never in this day imagine having this encounter with my former coach:
Coach:" Hey what happened there today? Your passes/crosses/shot were all over the place!
Me:" Well you see, the sun was too bright "
Being tired is like the lamest excuse for allowing something to affect your game. You are a freaking professional footballer being paid millions of dollars. Being in peak condition for a whole season is the bare minimum. If anything, Valencia should be given more leeway with crossing if your "tired" logic follows because he has had to go through many situations where he plays like a game every 3-4 days last season.
Not really. I've attacked your stupid statements. I haven't called you stupid. Then again based on your previous comments, I am not surpirised you are struggling to tell the difference.
Last edited:
How can they tell that they are putting in dangerous crosses? It makes no sense to infer that someone floating a cross isn't putting in a dangerous cross because the actual danger of the cross stems from whether or not it has the danger of goal. The style of the cross is irrelevant. Valencia assisted a lot of Rooney headers from floated crosses and has had multiple assist from floated crosses over the past seasons.
How do you know that Valencia is hoping? Can you read his mind? I hope you understand the crossing is a seriously low percentage game. If a player has no intention of who the player will hit, then chances are it will reflect heavily in the crossing accuracy stat. Given Valencia's decent success in the present and how good he was at crossing when he first got here, I think its best to give the player the benefit of the doubt.
I think you are fully aware that any player crossing the ball is supposed to look up and see if anyone is making a run? Why would someone cross the ball if there isn't anyone in the box or if he can't see anybody making a run? Those scenarios are quite rare especially at top football clubs where you have to be great both on and off the ball. Still you still haven't provided a reason as to why a shot on target can't be considered a dangerous cross. Your just trying to to find other rare types of dangerous crosses.
Okay that sucks but those rarely happened and in those sort of instances pro footballers should be trying to get high efficient shots. Why would you cross the ball when you can't see shit unless you are in a very dangerous position? Besides, cases of fog don't really happen as much and as said before all pro players go through circumstances.
A professional athlete who has never boxed professionally in his life. Who's fault was it that he never developed the required cardio for boxing?Besides I was talking about professional footballers not all professional athletes. Obviously pro footballers train harder than pro boxers and are required to be much more physically fit. Can't believe you brought up a boxing example in a professional football argument and yet you are claiming that I'm talking garbage.
@Andersons Dietician
Again half of what you're saying is just repeating your previous waffle. Also a fighter who trains to peak on one night will be fitter than a footballer. Also Mata, Ozil and many players before them have been pulled off because they are out on their feet. Tiredness affects players deal with it.How can they tell that they are putting in dangerous crosses? It makes no sense to infer that someone floating a cross isn't putting in a dangerous cross because the actual danger of the cross stems from whether or not it has the danger of goal. The style of the cross is irrelevant. Valencia assisted a lot of Rooney headers from floated crosses and has had multiple assist from floated crosses over the past seasons.
How do you know that Valencia is hoping? Can you read his mind? I hope you understand the crossing is a seriously low percentage game. If a player has no intention of who the player will hit, then chances are it will reflect heavily in the crossing accuracy stat. Given Valencia's decent success in the present and how good he was at crossing when he first got here, I think its best to give the player the benefit of the doubt.
I think you are fully aware that any player crossing the ball is supposed to look up and see if anyone is making a run? Why would someone cross the ball if there isn't anyone in the box or if he can't see anybody making a run? Those scenarios are quite rare especially at top football clubs where you have to be great both on and off the ball. Still you still haven't provided a reason as to why a shot on target can't be considered a dangerous cross. Your just trying to to find other rare types of dangerous crosses.
Okay that sucks but those rarely happened and in those sort of instances pro footballers should be trying to get high efficient shots. Why would you cross the ball when you can't see shit unless you are in a very dangerous position? Besides, cases of fog don't really happen as much and as said before all pro players go through circumstances.
A professional athlete who has never boxed professionally in his life. Who's fault was it that he never developed the required cardio for boxing?Besides I was talking about professional footballers not all professional athletes. Obviously pro footballers train harder than pro boxers and are required to be much more physically fit. Can't believe you brought up a boxing example in a professional football argument and yet you are claiming that I'm talking garbage.
@Andersons Dietician
I feel like I need to draw you a diagram as we are honestly getting no where or even show you a practical example. There is actually a Monday night football section on crossing and Carragher even mentions as a defender those are the kind of balls you want all day.
Now to be honest I'm done. I don't want to call you names or anything but sorry this is one of the stupidest conversations I've ever had the displeasure of being involved in.
You're of course welcome to your opinion it's just not one I'm going to share.
People are really taking issue with Valencia. Footballing hipsters seem obsessed with hyper attacking fullbacks. Forget other phases of the game because we are United and we should be peppering their goal every minute of the game, it works for Arsenal right?
The only issue with Valencia is that he's getting old; hopefully TFM can develop on loan and be his replacement.
The only issue with Valencia is that he's getting old; hopefully TFM can develop on loan and be his replacement.
Yes but footballers train to run be able to run more than 7 miles a game over an entire season. Regardless, its poor to cite Mcgregor's lack of fitness as an excuse becuase it was his fault that he didn't prepare for properly enough and thus he should deal with the consequences same applies for professional football. If you arn't in good condition then that is your fault. Valencia is a hard worker and it shows.
We are getting no where because you have failed to explain why a cross that leads to a shot on target can't be considered a dangerous cross and a decent explanation as to how a cross that flashes across goal is a dangerous cross when the defender should have waited for support in the first place. Could you link me to the MNF section??
I feel the same way. If you arnt bothered to accurately articulate your points or to explain directly why mine are wrong then this discussion is pointless. Good day to you sir.
Been saying for four years now. Go and watch football - not every cross reaches the target. The other team has defenders to make sure of that.
Having said that, Valencia's crossing was way below par in the last game. It was one bad game after a long time.
Having said that, Valencia's crossing was way below par in the last game. It was one bad game after a long time.
Stoke 2:2 Man Utd
Diouf has 1 cross 1 assist from right back. At half time Valencia has about 5 crosses probably more and hasn't come close to hitting a utd player
His crossing is terrible and always has been. All he does is smash it in to the box (or usually a defenders shins) and hope for the best.
To be fair he has put in a couple of decent deliveries. However the one opportunity he had to really set up a chance he overhit. A mixed bag as usual in the final third.
Why is he our entire right hand side again though?
This is the problem with many posters. He puts in 1 or 2 bad crosses and they seem to forget about the 2 very good crosses he put in previous. Match day thread is just full of people moaning. Really grating.
He's better than his last outing but he's still not very good.
Completely agree, his crossing was good just one poor delivery
He's been fine.
I thought his crossing has looked pretty dangerous today tbh, and I'm normally a big critic of it.
Clearly it was Herrera the one who delivered poor crosses today not Valencia. Valencia did so much better with his crossings today and they were quality ones as well. Some people just got no clue.
Aurier was there for the taking...
This. Pathetic really.
He had one good one were rashford should have got across his man and didnt. Every other one has been crap.
If we had a right back that was better at crossing we would be unbeatable!
I respect the fact that he completely controls our right flank by himself and is an absolute freak of an athlete. Closest in terms of evra in covering ground for the full 90 minutes.
But
His crossing is terrible, there's no two ways to look at it. Imagine any other fullback in world football who plays for another elite team who does so little with so much space and time to belt in a cross.
But
His crossing is terrible, there's no two ways to look at it. Imagine any other fullback in world football who plays for another elite team who does so little with so much space and time to belt in a cross.
The thing with Valencia is that it's not necessarily the quality of his crosses today, but the timing. The one where Zouma almost puts it in his own net is a good example. He's looking across the line and sees Rashford breaking past the defenders, but waits and lets Zouma catch up before he delivers the cross. The cross itself looks dangerous, but it's a low percentage cross by the time he decides to put it in.
If only he could put in a decent ball
I have an issue with the lack of competition he has more than his performances itself I must say. I know Darmian is technically his cover but he seems to get used at left back more.
He's the next level of human evolution.
agreed. Better than normal
Is there a worse crosser in the EPL?
He's been fine. Nothing wrong with his performance.
He's at least putting some power on his crosses which will cause danger even if not the most accurate. The most annoying are his useless dink crosses which are so slow and lofted that they'll never lead to anything.
His crossing has cost us today.
Same as always, not a bad game but terrible crossing.
Cant they just take him off any sort of training since he has a superhuman physique already and just make him cross the ball the whole time?
Cant they just take him off any sort of training since he has a superhuman physique already and just make him cross the ball the whole time?
According to Hoddle that one he spanked out for a goal kick was "almost too good"
Far too often a complete attacking dead-end. And that's either because his crossing is terrible or he's far too hesitant. So often he gets the ball wide in a great position and all he does is hold it up until someone else runs over to be in the exact same position he was. It's routinely terrible. He's 32 and wearing the captains armband but when it comes to the final third plays with all the confidence of teenager who's just wet himself.
I thought he was good today. Got us going. Made some good runs off the ball and with it and a few crosses were good efforts.
Can you imagine how shit this team would be if he wasn't in this side? We'd never get the ball anywhere near the oppositions goal on the right hand side without him.
Until a better option comes along he's playing. We certainly don't have one now.
Can you imagine how shit this team would be if he wasn't in this side? We'd never get the ball anywhere near the oppositions goal on the right hand side without him.
Until a better option comes along he's playing. We certainly don't have one now.
His crosses are annoying the hell out of me tbh.
- Status