Podolski: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics
The fundamental objective of football is to score more goals than the opposition. However much in real, practical terms, it is far from that simple: the undeniable truth is that goals win games. That fact meant that for a long time, the centre forward’s only real duty was goalscoring. As the player stationed furthest forward, scoring was the only thing with which they needed to concern themselves.
In recent years, the re-popularisation of one-striker systems has dictated that they must take on a more complete role. Some old-style poachers remained and still do, but they are visibly disappearing and dying out with every year that passes. Among the world’s elite strikers, only one resembles the more one-dimensional nature of the common ancestor, and that is Radamel Falcao, who remains purely because he is so supreme as that poacher figure. And even then, his former side Atlético Madrid did significantly better for ditching him and moving towards more complete, team-orientated style than they ever did with him as their focal point.
Even though the demand for complete, competent-in-every-regard players at the highest level continues to grow, there remains space for players that provide little outside the final third, but they are few in number. Of the major European sides, only three can lay claim to such players, who are also of the required standard. Arsenal have Theo Walcott, Barcelona have Pedro Rodríguez and Bayern Munich have Thomas Müller. And as times goes on, Pedro’s diminishing effectiveness has made him less and less deserving of having his name on that list.
The point being that to live as a pure end product player, as those three do, the need is to be brutally effective almost all the time. Two of them have been regularly relied on as their team’s main goalscorers, or assist-providers. That is their reason for not contributing an awful lot to the rest of the team’s play outside of the final third. It’s a difficult niche, which is why there are so few of them, and why they are such unique players. They are special talents, but somewhat lacking in all-round ability (which actually works in their favour). Their limitations on the ball make their off-ball work so much more important; their movement stretches oppositions and creates space for the rest of the team. So even if they are cut adrift for spells, they are habitually contributing.
Technically speaking, there exists another final-third-only player in Arsenal’s ranks. A player who has become immune to criticism for many, because when the most popular criticism of a player is that ‘he scores, but does nothing else’, the instant retort is that ‘goals win games’.
Take a closer Luk
The cases for and against Lukas Podolski are imbalanced, to say the least. On the one hand, there are the fans: he scores goals, he is an excellent finisher and crosser of the ball, he is clearly well-liked within the squad and is (by the looks of things) good for its morale. These points are fairly difficult to argue against. Podolski has a wonderful left foot and although his contributions can be meagre, they tend to be precise when present. He does very little in the way of buildup play, but he does get goals and occasional assists from Arsenal’s left.
So why does Podolski not belong among the aforementioned three? After all, he has contributed as many goals and assists as Walcott (36) in the last two seasons and only three fewer than Pedro (39)*. Compared to Walcott, it took Podolski 68 games to Walcott’s 51 – with Podolski having 10 more starts and seven more appearances from the bench to his name. Pedro himself needed 82 games (64 starts, 18 as a substitute) – and with those numbers, it’s not hard to see why he’s become less and less important at Barcelona. The issue behind the pure numbers with Podolski is the distribution of the goals. (*Stats only including the Premier League/La Liga and Champions League.)
Perhaps it’s somewhat unfair to pit Podolski against three unquestionably superior players, but at a club of Arsenal’s level, to get away with contributing as little to the general play as he does, the requirement is that you add the kind of diversity to the team that they do – the surprise factor and productivity that Walcott and Müller boast proudly, and which Pedro at least used to. But there is no such return here.
Judging players solely by their numerical output is quite one-dimensional, but in Podolski’s case, it is the only way of doing so. Of his 28 Arsenal goals (all competitions), in the league he has mustered 2 goals and 6 assists against opposition who finished in the top half. The goals being against Liverpool in Brendan Rodgers’ third game, and the other a scuffed and deflected effort against a 10-man Tottenham Hotspur. Two of the assists came in the same games; three in the 5-1 demolition of 10th-finishing West Ham, and the last being against Manchester City this season. With regard to scoring against top half opposition, he also managed FA Cup goals against eventual 9th-placed Swansea in 2013, and Liverpool last season.
He has notched 16 goals and 5 assists against lower-half Premier League sides in the last two seasons, with an extra two goals and one assist in the FA Cup against Championship outfits. Though to save from this becoming a real issue, he managed to capitalise on one terrible piece of defending and arguably getting away with a foul to score two against Bayern in two seasons when Arsenal were two and three goals down, respectively. Even his other three Champions League goals were against teams knocked out in the group stage, with one assist against fellow qualifiers Schalke.
Simply put: in the league, Podolski has scored three and assisted three times against teams that finished above 9th in the last two seasons. And with the exception of one of those assists (City last season), those teams themselves were in disarray at the time of asking. Liverpool in the FA Cup, too, which was a nice exception. Just four games in two seasons against good sides in which Podolski’s contribution has been the difference between winning, drawing or losing. And including the second 5pur2 in that is somewhat generous.
“His career has become like a Banksy on a decaying wall: impressive from afar but as soon as you’re close enough to do some proper inspection, the façade collapses.”
The greatest issue with Podolski is movement. If a player’s movement creates room and chances for his team mates, then his pure numbers becomes less of an issue. Just see an on-form Olivier Giroud, or even more so Yaya Sanogo. Podolski’s movement is something close to the Loch Ness Monster. In that I am not yet convinced it actually exists, despite some questionable pieces of evidence to the contrary.
Which means that with Podolski, you have someone who contributes less than nothing a worrying amount of the time. In fact, he is detrimental a lot of the time because he is a player in the team’s front five who is so predictable that the opposition can put more effort into stopping the other four, rendering them less effective. Occasionally this will work in Podolski’s favour, as it leaves him more open through no great work of his own. But most of the time, it works for no one.
With that being the case, Arsenal have a player who cannot do anything except shoot and cross, but he does both of those well when afforded the space to do so. The further issue being that good teams very rarely allow the kind of space that he needs, because they are mostly not actively inept. So going deeper, there is a player who is mostly more harm than good against sides of any kind of calibre. But as we saw to a degree last season, points against the lower half of the table count just as much as against the competition. A team needs to win every game possible and a player who habitually scores against smaller sides can win Arsenal important games.
So, is that Podolski’s use? Are Arsenal paying close to six figures per week for a player to score almost exclusively against lower half opposition in low pressure games? Personally speaking, I was mostly on board with the idea of a player to rotate in to play against smaller sides – it would be useful for maximising the depth in the squad while keeping the more practical and useful players fresh – but his atrocious performances in the FA Cup Semi-Final and Final changed my mind. As soon as either team showed any semblance of organisation, his only move was to attempt poorly-angled shots from the corner of the penalty area. They may have been lower level teams, but they were completely focussed, rendering Podolski useless.
Podolski’s Germany record is an impressive 47 goals in 116 appearances, but again, a look at the spread of those goals is instructive. Yet still he has 116 German caps and a World Cup winners’ medal. His career has become like a Banksy on a decaying wall: impressive from afar but as soon as you are close enough to do some proper inspection, the façade collapses.
Yet, as has been said, you do need to win every game possible. And even if Podolski’s only worthwhile contributions are against poor teams in poor states, he allows Arsenal to win those games. But at circa £100,000 a week and being a near-damaging influence against better opposition, while Arsenal also have at least three outwardly superior left wing options (Alexis Sánchez, Santi Cazorla and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain) and are rich in possibilities for the right side, too, Podolski is barely even required for depth purposes. Even though most are not ‘natural goalscorer’ types as Podolski is, they can all do more than enough to replace his contribution.
He is seemingly well-liked, but Arsenal cannot be in the business of holding onto wastrels because they are good friends with two of their most important players. He is occupying a space in a well-crowded area that would be better going to another. His stats tell the story we want to believe; everything else is just the unfortunate truth we would rather not have to acknowledge.
have u not been supporting arsenal? when did we NOT have an injury crisis? Keep him he can play stirker and wings …
Sorry to say that but your stats are totally wrong !
Walcott played 43 matches (31starts) in 2012-2013
and 18 matches (13starts) in 2013-2014.
43+18=61 apperances not 51 as claimed in the article.
So the real numbers are 69-61= 8 matches more for Pod.
Podolski started in 53matches in the same time that’s a difference of 9 starts between the two players.
Also Walcott played overall 4192 minutes in the two seasons while Podolski played 4.247 minutes.
4247-4192=55
So Podolski only played 55minutes more than Walcott to achieve his stats.
Walcott and Podolski played both in 7 domestic cup matches in the two seasons. You mention Podolski record against Championship sides but why didn’t you mention that Walcott scored in 2012-2013 one goal versus Brighton and two versus Coventry or that he had 3 assists and scored 3 against the later relegated Reading in the League Cup ? I also would like to question why you critize his goals in the CL ? For example Walcott played against the same teams and didn’t have these numbers to be fair he played less minutes plus Chamberlain wasn’t able to score or assist in one of these matches.
Cl+Qualifictaion minutes:
Podolski 646 – 5goals + 2 assists
Walcott 525 – 2goals + 3 assists
Chamberlain 422 – 0 goals + 0 assists
Cause you like to mention that Podolski achieve nearly nothing against the better sides let’s remove the goals and assists from the CL qualification cause the teams are more poor.
Podolski – 5goals + 1assist
Walcott – 2goal + 1assists
Chamberlian – still nothing
Another part which really is not fair is your complaining about not scoring or assisting against the top teams in the league the problem is he hardly played against them why didn’t you point that out ? And where are the Walcott stats about the issue here if you wanna compare players you can’t leave that out. Also I dunno what you expect from a player to come on versus teams like Chelsea or Liverpool after around 70min when your team is down 6 or 5 goals. The ONLY match he started against a Top4 in the league was the 1:1 versus City where he managed to make an assist he played overall just 133min against these teams in 2013-2014 (league) if you add the FA-Cup he played 202 minutes versus the Top4 and scored 1 goal plus 1 assist not bad at all in his 4 matches. On the other hand why didn’t the according to your article much better players didn’t score against the lower table sides and why had he often to score the goal to the lead with so called superior players on the pitch ?
To state that Chamberlain is superior to Podolski seems like a joke to me he scored in his 4036 minutes for Arsenal or 82matches just 9goals and made 14assists.
Two of the goals versus Championship sides and I really can’t remember more than five matches where he had an superior impact to the average Podolski performance.
You also feel the need to mention his international goals if you have a look at other players like Messi, Ronaldo or Klose the stats look quiet similar or do you expect that players don’t score in the Qualification rounds for the World and Euro Cup cause the opposite teams are poor ?
How shit would he be if he didn’t score against teams like China but I could also raise the question why was he the only one able to score in that 1:1 versus China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Messi#International_goals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristiano_Ronaldo#International_goals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miroslav_Klose#International_goals
Please fix your article or take it down it seems really biased and is sadly full of wrong stats and claims.
I’ll have to double check but I may have made a mistake with the Walcott stats. Must have forgotten to carry the 1, apologies.
Why would I mention Walcott’s goals in the cups? They weren’t part of the stats I used and this article is about Podolski. Walcott in the 12/13 CL run only started against Schalke away (scored one), Bayern home (played up front and we got flattened) and Bayern away (got an assist). In 13/14 he started away at Marseille (scored) and came off the bench when we played them at home. So scored 1 vs qualifiers and got a good assist vs Bayern. I’d like more from him, but then in the league, in the last two seasons, he has scored and/or assisted against City, United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Spurs and Everton. That’s all of the top 7 bar us. So there is grounds to let him off a bit there.
You mention Podolski not starting most of the big games. Well since 12/13, in the league, he’s had 3 starts vs City (got one assist); 2 starts vs Liverpool – got 1 goal, 1 assist, in the same game in 12/13); 2 starts vs Chelsea – no goals, no assists; 1 start vs Spurs, 1 goal, 1 assist (all after they were down to 10)); 2 starts vs United (but one at CF, being fair)) and 1 start vs Everton. He also came off the bench vs Spurs (score 1-2), vs Everton (score 0-0) and vs Liverpool (score 0-5), and neither scored nor assisted, nor improved things.
So we have 9 starts and 3 off the bench in 2 years in the league for an exchange of 2 goals and 3 assists, and at risk of repeating myself: 1+1 of those came vs Liverpool in a state, 1+1 vs Spurs with 10 men. The other was that great cross vs City for Flamini this season.
There is some merit in the point that you need someone to score against smaller teams. But that’s not a unique skill. We didn’t struggle to beat those teams when we didn’t have him and Germany haven’t either. He steps up against poor sides because he’s capable of doing so. He’s not lazy or even completely without quality, and I wouldn’t go anywhere saying he’s not up to it mentally. He’s just not good enough overall and at what we need from him.
Chamberlain is inconsistent, but the mistake you’re making is judging him purely by his goals and assists when he offers so much more. Podolski doesn’t do anything but score or assist if he’s playing, hence it’s a perfectly valid metric to use to evaluate him.
If he wasn’t there to do it vs China then someone else would have been. They’re Germany, they are easily capable of having someone else to score against such teams, just as Arsenal are the same. That point is the worst I’ve seen in Podolski’s defence by a long way.
So apart from the arithmetic mistake (apologies again), that should have addressed that.