How much difference does a captain really make? It is a familiar question when an important player misses matches, but one that is surprisingly difficult to answer. A captain’s influence is rarely limited to leadership alone, particularly when that player is also central to the team’s attacking football.
Martin Ødegaard presents an interesting example. Arsenal’s captain started 26 of their 38 Premier League matches in 2024/25, with the team producing noticeably different results across the 12 matches he did not start.
Arsenal averaged 2.08 points per match when Ødegaard started, compared with 1.67 when he did not. Their goal difference also deteriorated considerably.
Yet the underlying attacking numbers tell a less dramatic story. Arsenal’s expected goals (xG) difference remained positive without their captain, and the gap between the two groups was much smaller than the final scorelines suggested.
The distinction raises an important question: were Arsenal substantially worse without Ødegaard, or did their results exaggerate the change in performance?
Arsenal’s results were noticeably worse without their captain
Ødegaard was officially appointed Arsenal captain in July 2022. His importance became a particular talking point after he suffered an ankle injury in September 2024, as documented in the Premier League’s injury analysis.
His absence provides an opportunity to examine the relationship between a captain’s involvement and team performance across a complete Premier League season.
FIVDA reconstructed Arsenal’s 38 league matches using match results and xG data from August to December, alongside January to May match data. Each fixture was classified according to whether Ødegaard started, using his match-by-match playing record.
The first comparison shows a meaningful difference.
When Ødegaard started, Arsenal averaged 2.08 points per match and a goal difference of +1.19 per match. Without him in the starting XI, those figures fell to 1.67 points and +0.33 goals.
That is a reduction of 0.41 points per match, accompanied by a much larger deterioration in goal difference.
The scorelines therefore suggest that Arsenal were considerably more dominant when their captain started. However, they do not tell us whether the team was consistently creating better chances or simply achieving better results from those chances.
That distinction becomes clearer when expected goals are introduced.
The underlying performance gap was much smaller
Expected goals estimate the likelihood of a shot becoming a goal based on characteristics of the chance. By comparing a team’s xG for and against, we can examine its underlying chance-quality balance rather than relying exclusively on the final score.
Across the 26 matches Ødegaard started, Arsenal averaged an xG difference of +0.78 per match.
In the 12 matches he did not start, that figure was +0.63.
The difference was therefore only 0.16 xG per match, substantially smaller than the 0.86-goal gap in actual goal difference.
Figure 1 — Arsenal’s Results Fell More Than Their xG Balance
Arsenal averaged 0.41 fewer points per match when Ødegaard did not start, but their xG-difference decline was only 0.16 per match. Data: StatMuse match and player records; FIVDA calculations.
This is the investigation’s most revealing finding.
Arsenal’s results were clearly better with Ødegaard starting, but their underlying chance-quality advantage did not decline to anything like the same extent.
Even without their captain in the starting XI, Arsenal generated better-quality chances than they conceded on average. For a separate examination of Arsenal’s defensive performance in the following season, FIVDA has also analysed Arsenal’s defensive statistics in 2025/26.
That does not mean his absence had no effect. Expected goals cannot capture every aspect of performance, and the metric does not measure leadership, organisation or individual influence directly.
It does, however, challenge the idea that the worse scorelines reflected an equally large deterioration in Arsenal’s underlying control of matches.
The difference in results was much greater than the difference in chance-quality balance. FIVDA’s wider analysis of Premier League expected goals versus actual goals explores why scorelines and underlying attacking measures do not always tell the same story.
Does the comparison survive an adjustment for opposition?
One problem with comparing matches in which a player started against those he missed is that the fixtures were not necessarily equivalent.
A team might face stronger opponents during an injury absence or play a disproportionate number of difficult away matches. Those circumstances can influence results independently of the missing player.
FIVDA therefore made a simple statistical adjustment for home advantage and opposition strength, using each opponent’s final league points total from the Premier League’s published season records.
The adjustment did not eliminate the association between Ødegaard starting and Arsenal performing better.
The raw points-per-match advantage of 0.41 increased to 0.55 after adjustment. The goal-difference gap rose from 0.86 to 1.04 per match, while the xG-difference gap increased from 0.16 to 0.32.
Figure 2 — The Descriptive Adjustment Does Not Erase the Gap
Allowing for venue and opponent strength leaves positive differences favouring matches Ødegaard started. The model describes associations within the 2024/25 season; it does not establish that his presence caused those differences.
The adjusted figures strengthen the case that the original comparison was not simply an artefact of Arsenal facing stronger opposition or playing more away fixtures when Ødegaard was absent.
But they should not be interpreted as a precise measure of his individual value.
The analysis covers only 38 matches, including 12 non-starts, and those absences were not randomly distributed. Other changes in personnel, form and match circumstances could have influenced the results.
The adjustment helps describe the pattern. It cannot establish what Arsenal would have achieved had Ødegaard started every match.
The biggest difference appeared away from home
Breaking the results down by venue reveals another important distinction.
At the Emirates, Arsenal’s points return barely changed. They averaged 2.07 points across 15 matches Ødegaard started, compared with 2.00 across four non-starts.
Their home xG difference was actually higher in the four matches he did not start: +1.87 per match, compared with +0.60 when he started.
That is an interesting counterexample, although four matches are far too few to establish a reliable home-performance pattern.
Away from home, the contrast was considerably stronger.
Arsenal averaged 2.09 points per away match when Ødegaard started, falling to 1.50 across eight away non-starts.
The underlying figures were even more striking. Their away xG difference dropped from +1.03 per match to just +0.01.
Figure 3 — The Split Is Concentrated Away From Home
Arsenal’s largest differences in points and xG balance occurred away from home. The home non-start sample contains only four matches, so the venue comparison should be treated as descriptive rather than conclusive.
This matters because the overall season average conceals two different patterns.
At home, Arsenal maintained a strong results record without Ødegaard starting, and their underlying chance-quality balance remained positive. Away, their xG advantage almost disappeared across the eight non-starts.
The evidence suggests that the association between Ødegaard’s involvement and Arsenal’s performance was particularly noticeable away from home.
Whether that reflected his individual influence, the strength of the opposition, other absences or the circumstances of those fixtures cannot be established from this comparison alone.
Was Arsenal missing its captain or its creator?
The difficulty with evaluating Ødegaard’s absence is that his responsibilities extend well beyond wearing the captain’s armband.
The Premier League’s analysis of his return highlighted his importance to Arsenal’s attacking play, including their right-sided combinations, pressing and central chance creation.
Those responsibilities provide a footballing explanation for why his availability matters.
A player who helps organise possession, combine with team-mates and create opportunities can influence a side’s performance through actions that are entirely separate from captaincy.
His leadership may also matter, but the two forms of influence are difficult to isolate when they belong to the same player.
That is why this investigation cannot determine whether Arsenal’s results reflected a loss of leadership, creativity or some combination of factors.
It would be equally misleading to interpret the adjusted points gap as a numerical value for captaincy. The model identifies an association with Ødegaard starting, not the independent contribution of his armband.
The evidence supports a more measured conclusion: Arsenal’s results deteriorated without their captain starting, but the underlying performance data suggests a more complicated change than the scorelines alone imply.
What Arsenal’s season tells us about a captain’s absence
Arsenal’s 2024/25 campaign demonstrates both the value and the limitations of comparing a team’s performances with and without an important player.
The points and goal-difference figures indicate a meaningful difference when Ødegaard did not start. The xG comparison shows that Arsenal’s underlying chance-quality advantage remained positive, while the away-match split reveals where their performance appeared most vulnerable.
Together, those findings establish a stronger case than results alone, but not a causal one.
Most importantly, they show why assessing a captain’s importance requires separating the different questions involved.
Did Arsenal perform differently without Ødegaard? Yes. Did the evidence establish how much of that difference came from leadership rather than his footballing ability? No.
A captain’s absence can coincide with a meaningful change in team performance. Proving that the armband itself explains the change is a much harder task.
