Player Watch: Erik Lamela

[wrd]

Absolutely spot on. Also I think you may have been drawn into making this a comparison with Moura which I highly doubt is your point in the first place, so it would be a shame if anyone responding decides to go down that route and have a whine.

Lamela has a huge off the ball influence, it's so clear. What I think a lot of people might have missed is that he does the same kinda thing on the ball. He always wants the ball and if he's not making a run will come pick it up. He's one of the few players who'll happily try and ping it around one touch. When he's got it he'll be looking for a clever pass, trying to open up space. YES when he has time to think he sometimes takes way to much fecking time on the ball and gets tackled but he makes up for that big time. He's gone up to another level with it this season under Mou and it's so shit he got that injury earlier in the season.

But it's more than just about Lamela, it's about getting enough ball players on the park. Lamela is one of the players who'll get the pass and move boulder rolling and that is what makes him so valuable right now. We as many of those type of players on the pitch and as few as possible who'll hide or roll the ball about sideways.

Lamela is a player for me who, you have to use sparingly or else he'll break down. I'd try and save him for games against the big 6 where we'll be defending a lot, games where we need to turn around a bad run of form (as shown at the weekend) and then I'd only use him as a sub here and there, if it's a game where we need a spark or we're winning but the lead is slim and we need to close it out.

For example, I wouldn't start him against Everton with City to come soon after. He needs to be managed carefully.

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

Lamela has played well recently. Motm certainly not in my opinion, there has been no end product. The favourite SC boo boy Lucas, has been just as industrious and hard working and has a good assist (Jose has mentioned his influence in the WBA game specifically). But garners grudging 'compliments' on good performances. But generally its derision.

Lamela (£30M) has been with us SEVEN years.
165 appearances
16 goals

Lucas (£25M) has been with us THREE years
90 appearances
15 goals
and of course the famous 3 at Ajax

I like Lamela's 'spark' and energy , but lets be honest end product is missing. But to call our recent performances as being 'down to him' is not true, they have been strong team performances (2nd half Chelsea and WBA) . Sure Lamela can be a good player for us, even a very good one. However you always have to add the following ...WHEN FIT !

For 7 years its a poor return return on investment, that was about 30% of the Bale money. World class (when fit) sorry, not a chance.

I agree with some of that. However I like Lucas Moura too and I don't feel a big need to pit them against eachother, especially not after they appeared together in the league and looked great. But if you are going to detail statistics, there is something worth mentioning about Lamela. He's played approx. the equivalent of 100 matches in total Premier League game time, and produced a total of approx 50 goals and assists, which means that in per 90 minutes of game time, he produces one goal or assist every second match he plays. It's difficult, I know, because our overarching impression is that he just is never fit. But there is no doubt that Lamela's ability is really high. Maybe not world class, maybe not Messi. But certainly too good to be talked down by fans of his own club.

 

[Jules_PF]

I agree that Moura has overall been a decent player for us and gets more criticism than he deserves. However, your post gives an unfair and inaccurate view of Lamela.

Lamela cost £25.8m (€30m not £30m). That's only 3% more than Moura, not the 20% more you've suggested for your comparison, and we paid well below market value for Moura (PSG was in desperate need to sell in January, when there were few buyers about, to fund the Mbappe transfer. I believe his contract may also have been running down).

Your stats for goals and appearances are Premier League only, so don't show the full picture of what either player has contributed. You've also omitted assists, even though that's a key part of an attacking midfielder's end product. Despite your criticism of Lamela's end product, his rate of assists is very respectable. You've also not mentioned that Moura has played as a striker / second striker at times (including when he scored the hat-trick against Ajax that you brought up), whereas Lamela always plays as an attacking midfielder / winger - this obviously makes it's difficult to fairly compare their goal contributions. In reality, the two have contributed a similar rate of combined goals and assists, but Lamela actually narrowly edges it, so your stats are misleading.

Moura:
Appearances - 138 (90 PL)
Goals - 29 (15 PL)
Assists - 16 (7 PL)
Combined goals & assists per game - 0.326 (0.244 PL)
Minutes per goal/assist - 181.778
Points per game - 1.70 (1.69 PL)

Lamela:
Appearances - 240 (165 PL)
Goals - 35 (16 PL)
Assists - 46 (26 PL)
Combined goals & assists per game - 0.338 (0.255 PL)
Minutes per goal/assist - 162.679
Points per game - 1.81 (1.79 PL)

Throughout Poch's reign, Lamela's "spark and energy" consistently made a huge difference to the intensity of our high press. It was very noticeable how much better we pressed as a team when he was on the pitch. Our team's effectiveness at pressing reduced significantly when he was absent, with people on here criticising Eriksen, Son and Ali for not pressing enough / not doing enough out of possession - even if they didn't notice that this was caused by Lamela's absence.
Under Mourinho, Lamela started this season well and had a positive impact on how the team performed out of possession, even when people were getting frustrated with him hanging on to the ball for too long - but then got injured (again).
Although it's impossible to support this with stats, to my eyes it is glaringly obvious and I know many fans who strongly agree - it is true that the success of the team's high press was "down to him" - even if not everyone (including you) seems to have noticed.

This season, we took 13/15 points from the 5 PL games that Lamela featured in before his calf injury, scoring 15 goals (3 per game) in the process. He was omitted for 2 PL games, in which we took only 1/6 points and scored only 3 goals (1.5 per game).
He put in decent performances in both Caraboa Cup games that he featured in - particularly against Chelsea when he scored a crucial goal and his "spark and energy" was clearly (to me at least) fundamental to our performance.
While he was injured for a run of 7 PL games, we took only 11/21 points and scored only 7 goals.
Following his return from injury, each of his introductions from the bench has coincided with us finishing the game playing with more urgency and energy than we had before he was subbed on.
That could all be coincidental, but his runs of games under Poch tended to coincide with the team being in good form too. At a certain point, coincidence becomes unlikely.

I was quoting only PL.

I can sum your post up for you....Lamela is the hidden hand of all our great displays. Oh.. ok right..

Fee was £25.8 million, plus up to £4.2 million in bonus payments. Seeing as he has been so stellar for us over the SEVEN years, guess we paid out the £4.2 so £30m (you know when £30m was an awful lot for a transfer fee).

I'll repeat I don't think Lamela is lame (see what I did there) but nor is he the great player over the SEVEN years that he is being purported to be. It maybe because of injuries, tbh , I don't really care. The whole seven year saga has not been a successful investment nor is he from his stats, even yours, a success, more an, If only...........(insert excuse)

Loved the Rabona but........

 

[That Wanyama Goal]

His work rate is admirable and he can win us a crafty FK. Best thing he’s done for us was the penalty he won at Anfield 2018 in the 2-2 game.
You can talk about injuries and run of form but in almost 8 years at the club he’s hardly progressed has he?

 

[buckley]

You can have facts proving Lamela is a positive for spurs you can see with your own eyes his commitment and bravery but there will always be those who read what's said pro Lamela but refuse to take it on board but they seem to have this agenda and to them he will always be rubbish no matter the facts and statistics which are better than Mouras but he seems to be loved by the anti Lamela people very odd .
By the way 20 plus games a season is not too shabby allowing for his injury problems .

 

[Strikeb4ck]

You can have facts proving Lamela is a positive for spurs you can see with your own eyes his commitment and bravery but there will always be those who read what's said pro Lamela but refuse to take it on board but they seem to have this agenda and to them he will always be rubbish no matter the facts and statistics which are better than Mouras but he seems to be loved by the anti Lamela people very odd .
By the way 20 plus games a season is not too shabby allowing for his injury problems .

I think there are a lot of us who realize that he is:

1) A decent player by Prem standards who'd probably start for most sides outside the top 7/8.
2) At times a more vital player for us than his skill otherwise would suggest because his workrate/pressing is infectious and carries through to the rest of the players. For that reason he is pivotal for us at times.
3) A player who unfortunately doesn't have the pace/dribbling to regularly beat a man out wide and holds on to the ball for far too long and doesn't spot passes when playing as a #10. Ultimately his actual production in the sense of chance creation is very low and has been for a long time, with no signs of improvement.

A reasonable fan will probably resign to agree with all 3 of those things. He has his role in the squad and adds a unique & understated dynamic to the team, but he doesn't produce near enough to warrant needing to play every game (and can't with his injury history anyways).

Ultimately if I told you we could get a direct swap from some club for a player with equal workrate but who has 10g/10a in another big 5 league and plays the same position...I don't think anyone would say no.

 

[ralvy]

I think there are a lot of us who realize that he is:

1) A decent player by Prem standards who'd probably start for most sides outside the top 7/8.
2) At times a more vital player for us than his skill otherwise would suggest because his workrate/pressing is infectious and carries through to the rest of the players. For that reason he is pivotal for us at times.
3) A player who unfortunately doesn't have the pace/dribbling to regularly beat a man out wide and holds on to the ball for far too long and doesn't spot passes when playing as a #10. Ultimately his actual production in the sense of chance creation is very low and has been for a long time, with no signs of improvement.

A reasonable fan will probably resign to agree with all 3 of those things. He has his role in the squad and adds a unique & understated dynamic to the team, but he doesn't produce near enough to warrant needing to play every game (and can't with his injury history anyways).

Ultimately if I told you we could get a direct swap from some club for a player with equal workrate but who has 10g/10a in another big 5 league and plays the same position...I don't think anyone would say no.

Nah, you're dead wrong about item No. 3. He may not be speedy Gonzalez, but Lamela is actually quite a decent dribbler who spots lots of passes.

Also, it's not just that he has excellent work rate, it's also that he's quite smart at applying it and it often leads to scoring chances. I honestly don't think there are too many players I would rather have than Lamela.

 

[LeParisien]

One of the most frustrating things when people don't read stuff properly on a forum and they go off on a tangent at something you didn't even say

Ridiculous comment. No way Davies should be first choice left back.

 

[hellava_tough]

I was quoting only PL.

I can sum your post up for you....Lamela is the hidden hand of all our great displays. Oh.. ok right..

Fee was £25.8 million, plus up to £4.2 million in bonus payments. Seeing as he has been so stellar for us over the SEVEN years, guess we paid out the £4.2 so £30m (you know when £30m was an awful lot for a transfer fee).

I'll repeat I don't think Lamela is lame (see what I did there) but nor is he the great player over the SEVEN years that he is being purported to be. It maybe because of injuries, tbh , I don't really care. The whole seven year saga has not been a successful investment nor is he from his stats, even yours, a success, more an, If only...........(insert excuse)

Loved the Rabona but........

In general, 7 years at a club in and around the first team strikes me as good value for money from the initial outlay, although I could be wrong.

It would be interesting (to me at least lol) to do some analysis on which players have offered the best value over the years.

Transfer fee paid and wages divided by length of service would give a basis of how much per year we're paying on a player.

And then compare that to minutes on the pitch, goals, assists, tackles, passes, xg, etc.

And then transfer fee recouped when they leave the club.

I hope our transfer committee are conducting this sort of analysis, so we buy moneyball players that we don't lose money on.

 

[dudu]

In fairness, there's a reason he was featured on TV at the age of 12. His trajectory largely plateaued predominantly thanks to his fitness.



Edit: Nice to see he was a Pro Evo fan, which was way better at the time.

still is

 

[AnotherSpursFan]

It's the same thing I was saying in the match thread yesterday. You'd think 99% of the forum was bipolar if you spent one month on here. Every single game swings opinions entirely. Nothing seems to be based on any long term evidence, it's just the most recent 45-90 minutes that then form everyone's opinion about the team, players, managers, opposition, etc. A week ago we were hopeless, now we beat WBA and the "energy is back", "our players care again", and we are once more title contenders "if we put this kind of performance in against City". Lamela needed to be sold 2 weeks ago and now he seems to be the spark that's started our revival.

We are once more title contenders

 

[Neon_Knight_]

I think there are a lot of us who realize that he is:

1) A decent player by Prem standards who'd probably start for most sides outside the top 7/8.
2) At times a more vital player for us than his skill otherwise would suggest because his workrate/pressing is infectious and carries through to the rest of the players. For that reason he is pivotal for us at times.
3) A player who unfortunately doesn't have the pace/dribbling to regularly beat a man out wide and holds on to the ball for far too long and doesn't spot passes when playing as a #10. Ultimately his actual production in the sense of chance creation is very low and has been for a long time, with no signs of improvement.

A reasonable fan will probably resign to agree with all 3 of those things. He has his role in the squad and adds a unique & understated dynamic to the team, but he doesn't produce near enough to warrant needing to play every game (and can't with his injury history anyways).

Ultimately if I told you we could get a direct swap from some club for a player with equal workrate but who has 10g/10a in another big 5 league and plays the same position...I don't think anyone would say no.

1) I'd say he would start for all teams outside of the top 7 and and half the teams within the top 7 (i.e. 16 or 17 of the 20 teams), and would improve the bench of the other few teams.
2) Agreed.
3) Strongly disagreed.

Regarding your suggestion of swapping him for a player with 10 assists & 10 goals in another 'big 5 league', I would suggest that goals and assists are easier to come by in most of the other top 5 leagues, compared to the Premier League.
That aside, Lamela actually has actually demonstrated that he's capable of goal and assist stats in that order, when he stays fit for enough of a season. Lamela got 21 goals and assists in only 36 games for Roma, the season before we signed him - key players tend to rack up their season totals over 45-60 game (i.e. 50% more games than Lamlea took to rack up 21, so over a "full" season he would reasonably have achieved 30+ goals and assists). His rate of goals and assists has continued to be very respectable for us, despite

Here are his stats for us:
2013/14: 17 games (951 mins) / 1 goal / 4 assists / 190 mins per goal or assist
2014/15: 46 games (2919 mins) / 5 goals / 10 assists / 194 mins per goal or assist
2015/16: 46 games (3072 mins) / 10 goals / 11 assists / 146 mins per goal or assist
2016/17: 14 games (944 mins) / 2 goals / 7 assists / 105 mins per goal or assist
2017/18: 33 games (only 1320 mins) / 4 goals / 7 assists / 120 mins per goal or assist
2018/19: 33 games (only 1550 mins) / 6 goals / 3 assists / 172 mins per goal or assist
2019/20: 35 games (only 1659 mins) / 4 goals / 5 assists / 184 mins per goal or assist
2020/21: 18 games (only 762 mins) / 2 goals / 0 assists / 381 mins per goal or assist
Total: 240 games (13,177 mins) / 35 goals / 46 assists / 163 mins per goal or assist

Averaged over a "full" season of 3750 minutes on the pitch, that gives a total of 23 goals and assists (i.e. better than 10 goals + 10 assists).
I've based 3750 on the average playing time of other first choice Spurs players in similar positions during the same era to give a realistic outlook. Messi and Ronaldo played 4500-5000+ minutes per season in their prime years, so I don't think I've been overly generous.

By comparison, Eriksen averaged a goal or assist every 153 minutes for us and averaged 24.3 goals/assists per season (or 24.5 when adjusted to a 3750 minute season). That's only very marginally better than Lamela, yet he was not only consistently our most creative player, but also had more assists than any other player in the PL during his 6.5 years in England. If you really think Lamela's "actual production...is very low", what standard are you holding him to?

Those are very good stats for a player in his position competing in the toughest league in the world, even without factoring in that:
1) He arrived to the toughest league in the world as a 21 year old who didn't speak the language and was unable to play or train for most of his first year (very tough to adapt and settle under those circumstances). As we've seen with countless players joining the PL, form and productivity tend to increase after the first couple of years. That tough period is included in the total / average stats above, yet you will possibly be using the stats of settled players in their prime years as a bench-mark.
2) His persistent injuries must have significantly stunted his development, so his stats would surely have otherwise been even more impressive.
3) For many of his minutes on the pitch he will not have been at full match fitness, due to his injuries - he has almost never had a full pre-season followed by an extended run in the team.
4) Many of his minutes on the pitch must have been spent trying to play himself into form. Match fitness aside, it must take several months to regain your best form after a long-term injury. He often got injured again just as he was starting to find his feet.
5) When recently returned from injury, Poch tended to use him in short bursts to see out games where we were leading and not really trying to score (Lamela would press with intensity and then shield the ball by the corner flag instead of crossing or cutting inside). He was essentially being tasked with defensive duties, not those of an attacking midfielder / wide forward and this further reduces his rate of goals and assists. He wouldn't have been used in this way anywhere near as much had it not been for injuries (he would have started most of those games).

 

[Neon_Knight_]

You can have facts proving Lamela is a positive for spurs you can see with your own eyes his commitment and bravery but there will always be those who read what's said pro Lamela but refuse to take it on board but they seem to have this agenda and to them he will always be rubbish no matter the facts and statistics which are better than Mouras but he seems to be loved by the anti Lamela people very odd .
By the way 20 plus games a season is not too shabby allowing for his injury problems .

He has averaged 32.3 games per season. As you say, that's not too shabby. Why would three managers (AVB, Poch & Jose) have kept reintroducing him into one of the top teams in the PL, whenever he's been fit and available, if he isn't good enough for our starting XI? Unfortunately, some people only see what they want to see / what the media's narrative tells them to see. I believe I've already made a comparison to Anderton and King in this thread (similar injury problems, yet repeatedly makes key contributions immediately upon return).

 

[Strikeb4ck]

1) I'd say he would start for all teams outside of the top 7 and and half the teams within the top 7 (i.e. 16 or 17 of the 20 teams), and would improve the bench of the other few teams.
2) Agreed.
3) Strongly disagreed.

Regarding your suggestion of swapping him for a player with 10 assists & 10 goals in another 'big 5 league', I would suggest that goals and assists are easier to come by in most of the other top 5 leagues, compared to the Premier League.
That aside, Lamela actually has actually demonstrated that he's capable of goal and assist stats in that order, when he stays fit for enough of a season. Lamela got 21 goals and assists in only 36 games for Roma, the season before we signed him - key players tend to rack up their season totals over 45-60 game (i.e. 50% more games than Lamlea took to rack up 21, so over a "full" season he would reasonably have achieved 30+ goals and assists). His rate of goals and assists has continued to be very respectable for us, despite

Here are his stats for us:
2013/14: 17 games (951 mins) / 1 goal / 4 assists / 190 mins per goal or assist
2014/15: 46 games (2919 mins) / 5 goals / 10 assists / 194 mins per goal or assist
2015/16: 46 games (3072 mins) / 10 goals / 11 assists / 146 mins per goal or assist
2016/17: 14 games (944 mins) / 2 goals / 7 assists / 105 mins per goal or assist
2017/18: 33 games (only 1320 mins) / 4 goals / 7 assists / 120 mins per goal or assist
2018/19: 33 games (only 1550 mins) / 6 goals / 3 assists / 172 mins per goal or assist
2019/20: 35 games (only 1659 mins) / 4 goals / 5 assists / 184 mins per goal or assist
2020/21: 18 games (only 762 mins) / 2 goals / 0 assists / 381 mins per goal or assist
Total: 240 games (13,177 mins) / 35 goals / 46 assists / 163 mins per goal or assist

Averaged over a "full" season of 3750 minutes on the pitch, that gives a total of 23 goals and assists (i.e. better than 10 goals + 10 assists).
I've based 3750 on the average playing time of other first choice Spurs players in similar positions during the same era to give a realistic outlook. Messi and Ronaldo played 4500-5000+ minutes per season in their prime years, so I don't think I've been overly generous.

By comparison, Eriksen averaged a goal or assist every 153 minutes for us and averaged 24.3 goals/assists per season (or 24.5 when adjusted to a 3750 minute season). That's only very marginally better than Lamela, yet he was not only consistently our most creative player, but also had more assists than any other player in the PL during his 6.5 years in England. If you really think Lamela's "actual production...is very low", what standard are you holding him to?

Those are very good stats for a player in his position competing in the toughest league in the world, even without factoring in that:
1) He arrived to the toughest league in the world as a 21 year old who didn't speak the language and was unable to play or train for most of his first year (very tough to adapt and settle under those circumstances). As we've seen with countless players joining the PL, form and productivity tend to increase after the first couple of years. That tough period is included in the total / average stats above, yet you will possibly be using the stats of settled players in their prime years as a bench-mark.
2) His persistent injuries must have significantly stunted his development, so his stats would surely have otherwise been even more impressive.
3) For many of his minutes on the pitch he will not have been at full match fitness, due to his injuries - he has almost never had a full pre-season followed by an extended run in the team.
4) Many of his minutes on the pitch must have been spent trying to play himself into form. Match fitness aside, it must take several months to regain your best form after a long-term injury. He often got injured again just as he was starting to find his feet.
5) When recently returned from injury, Poch tended to use him in short bursts to see out games where we were leading and not really trying to score (Lamela would press with intensity and then shield the ball by the corner flag instead of crossing or cutting inside). He was essentially being tasked with defensive duties, not those of an attacking midfielder / wide forward and this further reduces his rate of goals and assists. He wouldn't have been used in this way anywhere near as much had it not been for injuries (he would have started most of those games).

Lol...with all due respect, I think there is a reason you've omitted the competition title in those statistics you've managed to scrounge together.

The fact of the matter is he has scored 16 goals and provided 26 assists across 165 Premier League games in about 8 years playing for us. I'm not saying that is awful, but it certainly isn't setting the world alight across 8 seasons.

In the Champions League half his total output came in a match vs Red Star Belgrade.

Majority of his impressive production on a per-minutes basis has been vs bad teams in Europe & domestic cups, which I think you're fully aware of having looked into those stats. Obviously he has had some output against a couple good teams as well, but lets not make him out to be a worldbeater statistically like your post just tried to. If he was that good he'd do it regularly in the Prem.

I like Eric. He has his role in this team. But he is not a world-class attacker like some here would have you believe, and that's my point.

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

The fact of the matter is he has scored 16 goals and provided 26 assists across 165 Premier League games in about 8 years playing for us.

Total playing time is about the equivalent of 100 games. Yes he has appeared in 165 games, but you don't strengthen your point by omitting the big difference in number of appearances vs. total game time. If fit, which unfortunately he just "never" is, but if fit, I'd have him in all line ups all the time.

 

[Strikeb4ck]

Total playing time is about the equivalent of 100 games. Yes he has appeared in 165 games, but you don't strengthen your point by omitting the big difference in number of appearances vs. total game time.

I did the math too, just didn't bother posting. He has a goal/assist every 211 minutes in the Premier League.

Eriksen G/A every 155 minutes.
Dele G/A every 142 minutes.
Son G/A every 113 minutes.
Chadli G/A every 198 minutes.
Lamela G/A every 211 minutes.
Lucas G/A every 235 minutes.
Bergwijn G/A every 245 minutes (small sample).
Lennon G/A every 246 minutes (with minutes in some bad Spurs teams).
Ndombele G/A every 289 minutes (with a lot of minutes in deep CM).
Townsend G/A every 290 minutes.

The 2nd winger spot has been a problem for years and I don't think Lamela is the answer at this point.

Again. It's hardly terrible. It's certainly not amazing either. That's pretty much some kind of contribution every 5 halves. But you also have to factor in:

1) He was playing for a high scoring team. It's not like he gets to be compared to a Burnley attacker.
2) Production has dropped last 3 seasons.
3) Failure to stay fit this many seasons in a row is a problem in and of itself, and at this point we can't expect 25 90's in the Prem from him.

 

[Shadydan]

Lol...with all due respect, I think there is a reason you've omitted the competition title in those statistics you've managed to scrounge together.

The fact of the matter is he has scored 16 goals and provided 26 assists across 165 Premier League games in about 8 years playing for us. I'm not saying that is awful, but it certainly isn't setting the world alight across 8 seasons.

In the Champions League half his total output came in a match vs Red Star Belgrade.

Majority of his impressive production on a per-minutes basis has been vs bad teams in Europe & domestic cups, which I think you're fully aware of having looked into those stats. Obviously he has had some output against a couple good teams as well, but lets not make him out to be a worldbeater statistically like your post just tried to. If he was that good he'd do it regularly in the Prem.

Again, I like Eric. He has his role in this team. But he is not a world-class attacker like some here would have you believe, and that's my point.

No one has fekin said that ffs, you're allowed make a point without straw manning or going to extremes you know

 

[Strikeb4ck]

No one has fekin said that ffs, you're allowed make a point without straw manning or going to extremes you know

Ok sorry - this was in reference to the ones who said he'd be world class without the injuries a page or two ago. Not like I was making words up.

Fair enough, not entirely the same concept. But also doesn't detract from my point even if you see it as some hyperbole with that bit included.

 

[Shadydan]

Ok sorry - this was in reference to the ones who said he'd be world class without the injuries a page or two ago. Not like I was making words up.

Fair enough, not entirely the same concept. But also doesn't detract from my point even if you see it as some hyperbole with that bit included.

He was averaging a goal every other game in Serie A when he was 19, this was before he picked up any injuries

It's not totally inconceivable that he would have gone onto be a world class player as he was showing world class potential, I believe that was the point being made.

 

[SlotBadger]

The fact of the matter is he has scored 16 goals and provided 26 assists across 165 Premier League games

You've just disregarded minutes per contribution (the most accurate performance barometer) and used appearances to validate your point.

If someone is subbed on for 1 minute in 90 matches and fails to score, his statistics will read played 90, scored 0. In reality, he's been on the pitch for the duration of 1 (one) match.