EYE TEST VS STATS

EYE TEST VS STATS

The importance of the “eye test” in shaping perceptions about certain players cannot be understated. A couple of heated discussions on Twitter this week brought this point to the fore. First, there was an invitation for fans to choose a “PSL XI” of the last three seasons. Most of the positions were relatively easy to settle as both the statistics and how fans perceive the players could be married without much difficulty. When it was time to choose the left wing, the choice came down to Bradley Ralani and Deon Hotto. This is when statistics and the eye test told contrasting stories.

The selection of Ralani to the “PSL XI” ahead of the statistically superior Hotto was based on most fans seeing Bradley as a baller and Deon as a road runner. No matter how superior Hotto’s stats are, most fans were adamant that Ralani had been the best winger of the last three years in the PSL. The statistics back Hotto’s ability to come up with a goal contribution on a regular basis.

• Ralani had 35 Goals and Assists (G+A) in the last 3 seasons from 84 games at 0.42 goal contribution per game.
• Ralani’s best statistical season in the period was 2019/20 with 5 goals and 11 assists in 31 games at 0.52 goal contribution per game.
• Hotto had 53 G+A in the last 3 seasons from 119 games at 0.45 goal contribution per game.
• Hotto’s best statistical season in the period was 2018/19 with 6 goals and 16 assists in 35 games at 0.63 goal contribution per game.
  Hotto played an extra 35 games in the period, yet his average goal contribution per game is still higher than that of Ralani, in addition to a higher total goal contribution.
  Yet, Ralani was chosen ahead of Hotto as the best left winger in the PSL in the last three seasons. The eye test had trumped the actual contribution from both players on the pitch.

After the “PSL XI” heated exchanges came the Billiat v Manyama debate that divided the Amakhosi faithful.
Some Chiefs fans see Manyama as an irredeemable cow and frown at those who dare to compare him favourably against Billiat. To most, Khama is clear and Manyama should not even be at Chiefs. The stats tell a different story though:

• Billiat had 13 G+A in the last 2 seasons from 47 games at 0.28 goal contribution per game.
• In the last 3 seasons, Billiat had 35 G+A in 85 games at 0.41 goal contribution.
• Billiat’s best statistical season in the period was 2018/19 with 10 goals and 11 assists in 38 at 0.55 goal contribution per game.
• Manyama had 28 G+A in the last 2 seasons in 71 games at 0.39 goal contribution.
• In the last 3 seasons, Manyama had 29 G+A in 101 games at 0.29 goal contribution.
• Manyama’s best statistical season in the period was 2019/20 with 7 goals and 10 assists in 32 games at 0.53 goal contribution per game.
  When extended to 3 years, Billiat has 34 G+A to Manyama’s 29 G+A.

Billiat was head and shoulders above Manyama three seasons ago, mainly due to having a full season free of injuries. Manyama has clearly caught up statistically in the last couple of seasons as Billiat has struggled with injuries and poor form. Their overall stats are very close for one to be considered clear of another in the last three seasons. When we confine our focus to the last two seasons, Manyama is clear of Billiat. This shows how fans are still holding on to what Billiat did in his first season, rather than his output in the last 2 seasons.
Manyama has had some terrible performances, but even in those games, he usually contributes something. Billiat on the other hand can have a quiet game with a couple of classy touches that linger in the memory, without contributing any tangible end product.
Last season saw some of the worst performances for Manyama in a Chiefs shirt, but he was still the statistical leader offensively for the team.
Billiat passes the eye test with his silky smooth first touch, ability to beat his man and a mesmerising turn of pace. But these moments are infrequent, just enough to keep fans craving for more while his overall contribution is minimal.
Manyama often loses the ball with a heavy touch, can struggle to beat his man one-on-one and takes some bad decisions in the last third. Yet, even during games where he struggles, Manyama often comes up with an assist or goal at critical moments.
It doesn’t matter how much G+A Manyama contributes, he just doesn’t have the silky-smooth play of Billiat. So the harsh criticism of Manyama is due to him failing the eye test, whereas the failings of Billiat are masked by the fact that he is an aesthetically pleasing player, sonhe passes the eye test.

Neither metric should be used exclusively to judge a player, but when there is a dispute about who has been the best in a given period of time between players, stats should be used to look beyond aesthetics. The eye test is objective, whereas statistical output goes beyond emotions.