Player Watch: Erik Lamela

[Strikeb4ck]

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.

This is like 2 posts back man...

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.

 

[Neon_Knight_]

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.

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.

My interest is in gaining an accurate picture of reality, not in misleading people with cherry-picked stats to prove that I'm right to people I've never met. Even the most honest of us won't always delve into the stats with enough detail / scrutiny, so to accuse someone of intentionally omitting stats is uncalled for. If you were to peruse my post history it should be clear that I actually give stats more scrutiny than most.

I didn't break it down by competition because:
a) Total stats give a more complete picture.
b) The stats would have taken even longer to pull together.

We're comparing attacking midfielders. Perhaps the only reason you didn't break your stats down to include only games where Alli, Son and Moura played as attacking midfielders (rather than as a striker / second striker) is because you know it will make their stats worse than their total stats do - and therefore not outshine Lamela's stats to the same degree. I would normally assume that you simply didn't think about that discrete but important factor, but perhaps you accused me of intentionally omitting information to support my argument because it's something that you would think to do yourself. Hopefully not...

I compared Lamela to Eriksen specifically because:
a) He was considered our most creative/productive player for the majority of Lamela's time at the club, so is a good benchmark.
b) Like Lamela, he never had a run in the team as a striker or second striker, so it's a more like-for-like comparison than Alli/Son/Moura.

You've highlighted that Lamela gets more goals and assists in non-PL games than in PL games. That's the case for pretty much all players.
Eriksen's average goals/assists per minute in the PL is only marginally worse than in non-PL games. This suggests that, unlike Lamela, he failed to be significantly more productive against weaker opposition - only producing a similar rate of goals and assists instead of a notable improvement. Not only that, but he managed fewer goals & assists per minute against non-PL opposition than Lamela.
If one player has performed better in the PL games and the other has performed better in non-PL games, how can you conclusively deduce that one is more productive than the other? Obvious answer - by comparing the total stats that you've dismissed.

While highlighting the difference in PL vs. non-PL you've managed to omit that Lamela has better stats than Eriksen in the Champions League (128 mins vs. 190 mins - it's not even close). I won't accuse you of doing that intentionally to back up your argument though.

I have a suggestion for why the stats of these two players may be skewed by PL vs. non-PL:
When returning from each spell out injured, Lamela has lacked the necessary match fitness to start PL games, so has been used as a sub in the PL and has started cup games.
Eriksen started most PL games, rarely coming on as a sub. Proportionately, he featured far more frequently as a sub in non-PL games, due to squad rotation.
A player who starts a game is more likely to contribute a goal/assist than one who comes on in the 80th minute. It's statistically proven that subs generally have very little impact on the outcome of games, as more often than not the goals scored/conceded before they enter the field of play are what decide the result. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the stats of both players show a correlation to this.

If you really want to get into it and not omit anything that could influence the stats, there is another variable that could contribute to Eriksen's more favourable stats. He was our primary set piece taker, so should have more goals as a result of routinely taking direct free-kicks and more assists from his indirect free-kicks and corners.
Although Lamela did take a decent amount of corners, he was never the primary corner taker if Eriksen was on the pitch. A comparatively large proportion of Lamela's corners would have been during his numerous late substitute appearances when corners were taken short to run down the clock (i.e. not going to result in an assist).

Maybe we should also take into consideration that Lamela is most praised for his pressing and not his goals/assists. Conversley, Eriksen was frequently criticised for his lack of pressing, for being weak in the tackle and for contributing generally not doing enough out of possession.
Eriksen is 6% more productive in possession than Lamela (based on goals & assists per min in all competitions). If Lamela 6% more productive out of possession then it could be argued that makes him an equal player. I have no stats at my disposal to confirm it, but my eyes/memory tell me that Lamela is considerably more productive out of possession than Eriksen. If I'm right, there is a strong case for Lamela contributing more to the team than Eriksen.
(For the record, I rated Eriksen very highly and have a less critical opinion of his contributions out of possession than some. I simply see Lamela as contributing far more out of possession than would normally be expected of an attacking player).

 

[Neon_Knight_]

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.

I think it's worth all of us noting that nearly every recent Spurs player with superior goal/assist stats has been touted as 'world class' or as having 'the potential to become world class', and there has been speculation about them needing to leave to win trophies / being poached by 'bigger' clubs. Kane, Son, Alli, Eriksen, Bale...

For me, this supports the idea that if he hadn't been injured so much he could have become world class.

 

[Strikeb4ck]

My interest is in gaining an accurate picture of reality, not in misleading people with cherry-picked stats to prove that I'm right to people I've never met. Even the most honest of us won't always delve into the stats with enough detail / scrutiny, so to accuse someone of intentionally

I didn't break it down by competition because:
a) Total stats give a more complete picture.
b) The stats would have taken even longer to pull together.

We're comparing attacking midfielders. Perhaps the only reason you didn't break your stats down to include only games where Alli, Son and Moura played as attacking midfielders (rather than as a striker / second striker) is because you know it will make their stats worse than their total stats do - and therefore not outshine Lamela's stats to the same degree. I would normally assume that you simply didn't think about that discrete but important factor, but perhaps you accused me of intentionally omitting information to support my argument because it's something that you would think to do yourself. Hopefully not...

I compared Lamela to Eriksen specifically because:
a) He was considered our most creative/productive player for the majority of Lamela's time at the club, so is a good benchmark.
b) Like Lamela, he never had a run in the team as a striker or second striker, so it's a more like-for-like comparison than Alli/Son/Moura.

You've highlighted that Lamela gets more goals and assists in non-PL games than in PL games. That's the case for pretty much all players.
Eriksen's average goals/assists per minute in the PL is only marginally worse than in non-PL games. This suggests that, unlike Lamela, he failed to be significantly more productive against weaker opposition - only producing a similar rate of goals and assists instead of a notable improvement. Not only that, but he managed fewer goals & assists per minute against non-PL opposition than Lamela.
If one player has performed better in the PL games and the other has performed better in non-PL games, how can you conclusively deduce that one is more productive than the other? Obvious answer - by comparing the total stats that you've dismissed.

While highlighting the difference in PL vs. non-PL you've managed to omit that Lamela has better stats than Eriksen in the Champions League (128 mins vs. 190 mins - it's not even close). I won't accuse you of doing that intentionally to back up your argument though.

I have a suggestion for why the stats of these two players may be skewed by PL vs. non-PL:
When returning from each spell out injured, Lamela has lacked the necessary match fitness to start PL games, so has been used as a sub in the PL and has started cup games.
Eriksen started most PL games, rarely coming on as a sub. Proportionately, he featured far more frequently as a sub in non-PL games, due to squad rotation.
A player who starts a game is more likely to contribute a goal/assist than one who comes on in the 80th minute. It's statistically proven that subs generally have very little impact on the outcome of games, as more often than not the goals scored/conceded before they enter the field of play are what decide the result. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the stats of both players show a correlation to this.

If you really want to get into it and not omit anything that could influence the stats, there is another variable that could contribute to Eriksen's more favourable stats. He was our primary set piece taker, so should have more goals as a result of routinely taking direct free-kicks and more assists from his indirect free-kicks and corners.
Although Lamela did take a decent amount of corners, he was never the primary corner taker if Eriksen was on the pitch. A comparatively large proportion of Lamela's corners would have been during his numerous late substitute appearances when corners were taken short to run down the clock (i.e. not going to result in an assist).

Maybe we should also take into consideration that Lamela is most praised for his pressing and not his goals/assists. Conversley, Eriksen was frequently criticised for his lack of pressing, for being weak in the tackle and for contributing generally not doing enough out of possession.
Eriksen is 6% more productive in possession than Lamela (based on goals & assists per min in all competitions). If Lamela 6% more productive out of possession then it could be argued that makes him an equal player. I have no stats at my disposal to confirm it, but my eyes/memory tell me that Lamela is considerably more productive out of possession than Eriksen. If I'm right, there is a strong case for Lamela contributing more to the team than Eriksen.
(For the record, I rated Eriksen very highly and have a less critical opinion of his contributions out of possession than some. I simply see Lamela as contributing far more out of possession than would normally be expected of an attacking player).

Look, we can debate this some more another day but I've done all the Transfermarkt research/averaging I want to do for today and I'm not going to do more to try to shift 10 people's point of view on a forum. I do appreciate that you bring a reasonable and thought out argument, however.

It's a debate that we can't really go into detail with because we've not had much variety in our attacking 3 behind Kane over the past 5 or so seasons. We're just both cherrypicking stats at some point. I don't have time to look into how many games Lamela played as a #10 vs low blocks in away games in the Prem vs how many Lucas played as a striker against high lines vs top half sides.

For me though if there are 4 unavoidable facts it's that our best attacking the past ~5 years has consisted of:
a) a highly productive left winger (Son)
b) a highly productive striker (Kane)
c) a highly productive CAM (Eriksen/Dele), obviously this has faltered a bit this season under Jose
d) a mix of players we've tried at RW who ultimately are not as productive as the other 3

I think that is the reason why I believe right winger is right behind CB with the position we need to improve on the most. If we had signed Grealish that summer we [maybe] had the chance, we would 100% be a better team right now. And I think that's what myself and some others who are more open to upgrading on Lamela think - that if we can buy a top wide player, we should. There's no surprise that our level falls off not just when Kane is out but Son too.

I like Coco, I just don't think he is as good or productive as some people here seem to think, and I don't think he was ever going to be become a world-class player (which is a word tossed around too much anyways). His flaws are not flaws that come from lack of match fitness. He holds the ball for too long, it's his biggest flaw as a creative player.

But hey - if he can produce at that level that some people seem to think he is capable of then I'm very happy to be proven wrong. As a start, hopefully he can stay injury free for a couple months.

 

[Neon_Knight_]

Look, we can debate this some more another day but I've done all the Transfermarkt research/averaging I want to do for today and I'm not going to do more to try to shift 10 people's point of view on a forum. I do appreciate that you bring a reasonable and thought out argument, however.

It's a debate that we can't really go into detail with because we've not had much variety in our attacking 3 behind Kane over the past 5 or so seasons. We're just both cherrypicking stats at some point. I don't have time to look into how many games Lamela played as a #10 vs low blocks in away games in the Prem vs how many Lucas played as a striker against high lines vs top half sides.

For me though if there are 4 unavoidable facts it's that our best attacking the past ~5 years has consisted of:
a) a highly productive left winger (Son)
b) a highly productive striker (Kane)
c) a highly productive CAM (Eriksen/Dele), obviously this has faltered a bit this season under Jose
d) a mix of players we've tried at RW who ultimately are not as productive as the other 3

I think that is the reason why I believe right winger is right behind CB with the position we need to improve on the most. If we had signed Grealish that summer we [maybe] had the chance, we would 100% be a better team right now. And I think that's what myself and some others who are more open to upgrading on Lamela think - that if we can buy a top wide player, we should. There's no surprise that our level falls off not just when Kane is out but Son too.

I like Coco, I just don't think he is as good or productive as some people here seem to think, and I don't think he was ever going to be become a world-class player (which is a word tossed around too much anyways). His flaws are not flaws that come from lack of match fitness. He holds the ball for too long, it's his biggest flaw as a creative player.

But hey - if he can produce at that level that some people seem to think he is capable of then I'm very happy to be proven wrong. As a start, hopefully he can stay injury free for a couple months.

I suspect Bale was intended to add quality to our RW.

 

[That Wanyama Goal]

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).

Stats can be very telling but I'm afraid I believe you've just wasted however long it took you to pull this information together. Out of boredom, I checked his stats for 15/16 which he hit the 10g/10a, as I suspected the majority of the goals were scored in the Europa League , a tournament that only minnows care about until it reaches the Semi-final stage. The goals he scored in the league that season was not game-changers, in fact, most of the goals in the league he had scored come after the game had already been won or lost.

He's not an integral part of the squad, if he was/is then that shows how average our squad actually is in reality. It's not unreasonable to have expected a £30 million pound signing from Argentina to have good technical ability, he's very one-footed which is always a concern. When you think about it, his left foot is hardly a wand to justify why he's overly reliant on using it. I can't think of one time he's played a pass or done an assist which made me think yep that's why we paid £30 million for him.

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

Can't believe that he scored 15 goals in Italian league in one season before we bought him that's about equiv to 20 goals in the prem considering how defensive Italian prem is. Hard to believe he scored that many really, such a shame he's had so many injuries, he's quite a unique player who when on top form can be a handful for opponents. Can also never ever fault his attitude.

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

Can also never ever fault his attitude.

That is something I find so funny. We complain to no end about players lacking attitude, and not showing enough effort (or compromise as Mourinho calls effort). And then here's a player who is all attitude, all effort, and even he is faulted.

 

[beats1]

But what does he do?

 

[PrettyColors]

Lamela when playing well is our 3rd best attacker and has been for awhile. He was integral in the Chelsea Carabao cup match and the 6-1 vs. United this season as well.

His chronic injuries (and time spent getting into form after those injuries) means that this happens at most 10-12 matches per season. He'll never consistently be able to deliver the pass on time but still brings a ton overall -- his energy levels and ability to take responsibility are literal shots in the arm to our offensive play.

 

[punkisback]

Take of Lamela and Ndombele and we take away any ability to play football.

 

[ralvy]

Take of Lamela and Ndombele and we take away any ability to play football.

Yeah. I realize that Vinicius quite simply had to be given a chance tonight, and that neither of Son, Kane and Dele could be moved to make room for him for different reasons, so it was really unfortunate that Lamela had to be the one being sacrificed. However, in doing so, we pretty much became unable to keep competing with Everton, but I really can't blame Mourinho for that.

 

[Ghost Hardware]

Had to be taken off as he looked shot, and we do have another game coming very soon, but when he left so did our attack.

 

[JCRD]

He seems to be the creative player the player who can play those little balls and disguises them well...

 

[Montalbano]

Summarization of Spurs fans' perception of Lamela:


Another good shift.

 

[chadders]

Thought he was great tonight. Love his desire. He really loves Spurs.

 

[cjbyid]

Leave him in an ice bath till Saturday!

Love him though, very clever on the ball and his movement is great.

Would love a constantly fit GLC beside him.

 

[Bobbins]

If he'd stayed reasonably fit over the years he'd be seen as a legend in the making. Unfortunately the sheer extent of his injuries means that he will end up leaving having never fulfilled his potential, which is a real shame for both him and us.

 

[jezz]

What are the odds of being smashed in the face by a right foot volley from Lamela?
?

 

[hughy]

He's our third best attacking option after Kane and Son, I think that much is certain. If only he could string together 15-20 first team games without injury, he could really solve some of our creativity issues. .