Numbers are handy shorthand, but they don't win matches on their own. If a set of stats for Lundstram from three years back comes out 9% different to other sources, it's reasonable to question the data and how it was pulled. You can reproduce public figures with AI or by checking multiple sites, and that should make things verifiable — but it doesn't mean every aggregation is equal.

Where the doubt comes from

To be fair, aggregation can introduce quirks. Different sites define actions in slightly different ways or round things differently. Fans tend to use publicly available sources, and those are fine for general debate. Professionals at clubs have access to different feeds and deeper tagging. That doesn't automatically make a fan-compiled number wrong, but it does explain why small differences can pop up and why someone might call them out.

Can prompts be rigged?

It's a valid question. If you're using AI to pull together numbers, the prompt, the chosen sources, and the way you ask for rounding or timeframes can affect the output. That isn't some mysterious conspiracy — it's just data hygiene. Ask for raw sources, timestamps and exact definitions. If the 9% gap is real, show where it comes from and we can judge whether it's a mistake, different methodology, or a genuine anomaly.

Stats versus what you actually saw

And here's the crux: obsessing over one metric misses the full picture. You can have two players with similar numbers in one area and still offer different things on the pitch. I've said it before — performances, positioning, presence and the eye test matter. If you reckon Lundstram gave us more in certain moments than Raskin, that's a fair fan case. Use the numbers to support that view, not as the sole arbiter. Ultimately, verify your sources, be clear about definitions, and don't let a single percentage point decide the argument for you.

Written by SixteenNinety: 16 June 2026

Tags: match-review transfers injury