What on earth are you talking about? It's patently obvious how Gerrard was given 29 points and I have no idea why you are talking about 29 stats. As you would say, learn to read.
Edit: Also, the weighting of the stats has nothing to do with Opta, that's down to the writer of the article. And "one of the few that Gerrard beat Lampard at" - "the few" being 4?
Edit 2: And you're the one that bangs on about the pointlessness of the assist stat and I expect the clear cut chance created stat is an attempt to alleviate this. AFAIK this refers to key passes which create a chance which should be scored. It's entirely possible this could be less than the assist stat because assists include getting an accidental or unimportant touch in the build up to a goal.
I don't really rate Gerrard or Lampard as midfielders anyway, they're both centre forwards if you ask me.
I don't bang on about assist stats being pointless, at all.
As for Opta stats, meh, I'm doing other stuff, I guess i meant EPL index stat or whatever the site is.
The main thing is that the points system is COMPLETELY ARBITRARY.
Aside from the points being completely arbitrary and the points ONLY being valid for that particular group of players(put in another 30 players and all the point totals would change, that is how useful the points are). There is no difference between a 89% pass completion of Parker and the 76% (which is abysmal for the EPL by the way) of Gerrard, with Lampard being significantly closer to Parker than Gerrard in that.
It does not take into account several of the stats, Lampard is scored on 5 out of 16 stats, purely because he isn't in the top 3 of most of them, many of which leave nothing to suggest how useful they are. As said, Gerrard gets 5 whole points for having the highest aerial 50/50 win rate... Did he win 5 headers all season, all of which went straight to an opposition defender? Does the stat mean anything at all? From that list we have no idea, yet he gets 5 points, and Lampard gets nothing for the significantly higher tackling and pass completion rate, which we can assume both are hugely more significant than aerial 50/50 win rate.
Minutes played isn't scored, despite when you want to take ONE squad to a tournament a players fitness being crucial.... King in the last tournament for instance, he wouldn't be scored down vs other centre backs in that comparison, yet had it been scored, which it damn well should be, King would have dropped down the list and maybe not been chosen.
The comparison is arbitrary, the points are arbitrary, and it doesn't compare 2/3rd's of Lampards stats vs Gerrard, making the points comparison completely invalid.
When you look at the invididual stats, the MOST important ones are all in Lampards favour, same goes for Parker vs Carrick. The points aren't a statistic, its a persons arbitrary scoring system which is of no worth at all.
Lampard and Gerrard also aren't centre forwards by any stretch of the imagination. Not least because Gerrard's fitness seemingly more than anything else but also Liverpool's squad means he's barely been a withdrawn striker for the past 2 years, and he only really played that role semi frequently for a couple years before that.
Rewatch the champs league final, and the semi's and the quarters, and England for the past 8 years, Lampard has played the defensive role often for donkeys years, and the offensive role, he's better going forward but extremely good defensively, Scholes is also very effective defensively(great players are often good anywhere).
Lampard has out scored and out assisted EVERYONE in central midfield in the league over the past 7-8 years, his pretty much worst year in terms of goals/assists is about equal to Gerrards best, his best is miles ahead of Gerrards.
Anyway, at least Opta when they do their index, they DO rank stats(and this changes frequently as Opta, other index's and managers all change what they think is important on a basically yearly basis as they look for the "moneyball" stats to run a team), assists and goals would be significantly higher weighted in the final score than aerial duals, and maybe they do or don't, but aerial duals should also factor in how many won balls go to a team mate, one player might win 5 but all 5 go to a team mate, another player might win 30, but not a single one gets to a team mate, so even if one player wins less, its more worthwhile knocking him the ball in the end.
Here the points are arbitrary, so yes on a completely arbitrary points system(which completely negates the possibility of a player being the best all around by a mile.... Lampard and Parker, easily for instance), Gerrard is better, when you base the scoring on, winning the ball in the final third... but not turning this into anything, and winning a few headers all season which may or may not have been useful at all.
Stat's are fine, arbitrary scoring and comparisons are useless.
