Главное преимущество «Арсенала» в новом сезоне перед остальными претендентами на титул - это та же самая команда. Главный недостаток «Арсенала» - это та же самая команда @markstats
😁225👍34🤔9❤3👎3

Channel
@markstats
On this record: Observations · Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Stars · Posts · Citations · Telegram's recommendations · Referenced elsewhere · Cite this entry
11,694subscribers
+344 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 10,000–31,623.
| Telegram ID | -1001467581072 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @markstats |
| Created | 18 September 2020 — measured — cross-checked against a third-party dataset (ext.tg_channel) |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 5 September 2026 |
| Measurements held | 28 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 5 September 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/markstats |
These are measurements, not verdicts. Each one below states something we counted, alongside the evidence it was counted from, so you can check it rather than take it. None of them is graded: every observation this register holds is recorded at severity 0, because the precision of the detectors behind them has not been measured yet, and a rating we cannot support is worse than none. Read each as a fact about the data, not as a judgement about the channel. How we measure.
11,800 average views per post against 11,694 subscribers — an engagement rate of 100.5%. Across the 24,770 registered channels in the same cohort — 10,000–31,619 subscribers, posting mainly in Russian — the middle half sit between 5.57% and 22.3%, with a median of 11.3%.
| Window | 30 days (7 August 2026 – 6 September 2026) |
|---|---|
| Posts measured | 9 of 9 published in the window (0 exact, 9 rounded by Telegram) |
| Views totalled | 105,780 |
| Mature posts only | 100.5% over 9 posts read at least 24h after publication |
| Subscribers | 11,694 measured 5 September 2026 |
| Cohort | b10000:rus · 24,770 channels · p10 2.83% · p25 5.57% · p50 11.3% · p75 22.3% · p90 40.2% |
| Position in cohort | 99.326th percentile · 8.9× the cohort median |
| Uncertainty | ±0.248% of the figure, from Telegram’s rounding |
| Post language | Russian · 100.0% of the window’s posts |
When this is recorded. A channel is listed here only when its engagement rate sits at or above the 99th percentile of its cohort and is at least 3× away from that cohort’s median — above it — on both the all-readings figure and the mature-only figure. The percentile alone would be circular: a percentile cut puts the same share of every cohort in the tail whatever the data looks like. The distance from the median is what makes it a statement about this channel.
This is not a verdict, and the direction is not a quality signal. A low rate has many innocent causes — audiences that read in the Telegram app without opening the channel, a subscriber base built long before the current output, an audience in a different timezone from our reading. A high rate has innocent causes too: a post that travelled far beyond the channel’s own subscribers will do it. We publish the measurement and the distribution it sits in. The full cohort baselines are downloadable, so this comparison can be reproduced rather than trusted.
Recorded under the key err_high, last confirmed 6 September 2026. An observation that a later pass no longer finds is cleared, and a cleared observation is removed from this page rather than being shown struck through — we do not keep publishing a claim we have withdrawn. Dispute an observation.
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 5 Sept 2026, 00:56 | 11,694 | +26 |
| 3 Sept 2026, 08:47 | 11,668 | +27 |
| 2 Sept 2026, 00:24 | 11,641 | +37 |
| 1 Sept 2026, 03:15 | 11,604 | -39 |
| 31 Aug 2026, 05:08 | 11,643 | +42 |
| 30 Aug 2026, 04:12 | 11,601 | +85 |
| 29 Aug 2026, 01:07 | 11,516 | +26 |
| 28 Aug 2026, 01:33 | 11,490 | +5 |
| 27 Aug 2026, 00:03 | 11,485 | +22 |
| 25 Aug 2026, 20:44 | 11,463 | -1 |
| 24 Aug 2026, 18:47 | 11,464 | +10 |
| 23 Aug 2026, 00:53 | 11,454 | +48 |
| 21 Aug 2026, 14:09 | 11,406 | +4 |
| 20 Aug 2026, 16:58 | 11,402 | +5 |
| 19 Aug 2026, 18:09 | 11,397 | -10 |
| 18 Aug 2026, 18:56 | 11,407 | +15 |
| 17 Aug 2026, 22:04 | 11,392 | +28 |
| 16 Aug 2026, 20:54 | 11,364 | +9 |
| 15 Aug 2026, 09:35 | 11,355 | -1 |
| 13 Aug 2026, 23:16 | 11,356 | first reading |
28 posts held, back to 25 June 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 46 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views — note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 31 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 28 (25 June 2026 – 31 August 2026) |
| Views total | 105,780 |
| Reactions total | 1,272 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 3 Sept 2026, 00:38 UTC |
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
3,277 reactions across 28 posts, in 7 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 41.0% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 👍 | 1,342 | 41.0% | |
| 😁 | 901 | 27.5% | |
| ❤ | 616 | 18.8% | |
| 🔥 | 192 | 5.86% | |
| 🤔 | 123 | 3.75% | |
| 👎 | 80 | 2.44% | |
| 👏 | 23 | 0.702% |
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 28 of the 28 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 3,277 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 28 most recent posts we hold, published 25 June 2026 to 31 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @markstats. Telegram publishes the count on the public post preview alongside ordinary reactions, and this register reads it there. It is the only figure on this site that measures money moving rather than attention.
Stars are not reactions, and the two are never added. They are rendered in the same strip on Telegram and counted in the same shape, but one is a tap and the other is a purchase. The reaction totals and the engagement rate elsewhere on this page exclude every figure in this section, and no rate here is computed against a reaction count.
This is not revenue, and we publish no currency figure. What a Star costs a reader and what it pays a channel are different numbers, Telegram takes a share we cannot observe, and the terms have changed. Converting a Star count into money would be an estimate dressed as a measurement, so the count is where we stop.
Counted over the 28 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 25 June 2026 to 31 August 2026. Star counts above 1,000 reach us in Telegram’s short form and carry the same three-significant-figure rounding as everything else on this page.
Главное преимущество «Арсенала» в новом сезоне перед остальными претендентами на титул - это та же самая команда. Главный недостаток «Арсенала» - это та же самая команда @markstats
😁225👍34🤔9❤3👎3
Прошлый сезон стал худшим для «Манчестер Сити» в эпоху Пепа Гвардиолы по доле владения при преимуществе в счете - всего 56%. В нейтральном геймстейте команда по-прежнему контролировала мяч на привычном уровне (65,2%). Однако после выхода вперед «Сити» уже не удавалось так же легко управлять матчами через владение, как, например, пять лет назад. Причин может быть много: от общего снижения уровня команды до более сме…
👍46❤18🔥7🤔5😁2
Слишком много внимания уделяется проценту владения «Челси». За последние два матча команда провела считанные минуты при равном счете, а все остальное время лидировала. Вполне естественно, что соперники будут больше владеть мячом. При этом «Челси» пусть и не идеально, но достаточно комфортно обороняется низким блоком, а главное - уничтожает соперников на пространстве благодаря таланту атакующей тройки @markstats
👍70❤12🤔9👎3😁2
Несмотря на поражение, во втором матче сезона «Тоттенхэм» выглядел лучше, чем в первом. В первую очередь, благодаря прогрессу в начальной стадии атак. Во-первых, вместо Бергвалля в центре с первых минут вышел Бентанкур. Во-вторых, «Ньюкасл» прессинговал не так агрессивно, как «Брентфорд». В результате «Тоттенхэму» регулярно удавалось создавать численное преимущество в центре и продвигать мяч через короткие передачи.…
👍51❤17😁7🔥5🤔4
В недавнем интервью Андони Ираола рассуждал о том, что у каждой команды есть свой естественный темп игры - определенная скорость действий с мячом и без него. И добавил важную деталь: тренеру очень сложно изменить такие привычки, во многом они заложены в самих игроках. Сам того не зная, Ираола довольно точно описал одну из проблем, с которой «Манчестер Юнайтед» сталкивается уже не первый сезон. Бруну Фернандеш по св…
❤58👍49😁10🤔8🔥4
В сети много обсуждают проблемы «Ливерпуля» при обороне от контратак. Справедливо критикуют структуру владения и естественные инстинкты центральных полузащитников, которые слишком охотно подключаются вперед. При этом меньше внимания получают позиции и действия центральных защитников. В обоих пропущенных голах они находились довольно далеко от остальной команды, а первой реакцией после потери мяча было движение назад…
👍61❤20🔥7🤔3👎1😁1
«Брентфорд» сумел втянуть «Тоттенхэм» в удобный для себя сценарий с большим количеством длинных передач, индивидуальных дуэлей и борьбы за вторые мячи. Характерного для команд Роберто Де Дзерби продвижения через центр почти не было. В первом тайме прессинг «Брентфорда» работал великолепно и практически полностью исключил из розыгрышей пару Тонали - Бергвалль. Длинные передачи тоже не помогали: борьбу как за первые, …
👍64❤20🔥8😁1
«Манчестер Юнайтед» в очередной раз проворачивает гениальную сделку. Всего €70 млн плюс бонусы и такой серьезный апгрейд Угарте. @markstats
😁245👎22❤8🤔5👍3
Больше всего удивила легкость, с которой «Арсеналу» удавалось обороняться через владение против «Манчестер Сити». Во втором тайме команда пасовала с точностью 87.4%, при этом на финальную треть пришлось меньше 3% всех действий. Прессинг «Сити» выглядел совершенно беспомощным и не ставил перед соперником серьезных проблем. Главную роль в таком уровне контроля сыграл Эдегор, который постоянно опускался глубже и помога…
👍88❤30🔥18👏2🤔2😁2
Нет ничего плохого в том, чтобы после гола отдать мяч сопернику и перейти к обороне в низком блоке. Можно плотно закрыть центр, страховать фланговых защитников в дуэлях один-в-один, позволять сопернику бить издали и навешивать, уверенно снимая верх внутри штрафной. Если при этом команда сохраняет угрозу в атаках на пространстве, такую трансформацию стоит называть реакцией на изменившийся геймстейт, а не трусостью. …
👍124👎37❤35🤔17😁6
Твит, набравший 10 тысяч лайков 30 июня: «Посмотрите на Францию. Я искренне не понимаю этой одержимости дорогими полузащитниками. Просто подпишите элитных игроков атаки и окружите их полузащитниками, которые достаточно хороши, чтобы контролировать переходные фазы и останавливать контратаки. Вот формула успеха. Матчи выигрывают нападающие». К несчастью для Франции, полузащитники сборной Испании во главе с Родри, п…
👍105🔥32😁25❤10
С точки зрения атакующего потенциала Франция выглядит сильнее Испании. Это можно объяснить более высоким уровнем исполнителей - и, скорее всего, дело действительно в нем. Но есть и другое важное отличие: Франция чаще создает условия для атак на пространстве, хотя сталкивается с низкими блоками не реже Испании. Именно в переходных эпизодах лучше всего раскрывается связка Олисе - Мбаппе. Поэтому больше всего сегодня …
👍38🔥8🤔2❤1
Showing the 12 most recent of 28 posts we hold for @markstats. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Stars beside a post are paid reactions — Telegram Stars, bought with money and spent on that post. They are a different unit from reactions and are never added to them, here or anywhere else on this page.
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Republishes
Channels on the register whose posts this channel has forwarded.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Named by 7 registered channels — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
The reverse of the list above, and a different kind of signal. This does not require this channel to have ever been asked about directly — each row below is a channel we DID ask Telegram about, whose Telegram-generated list happened to include this one. A channel can appear here with an empty list above it, because being named by someone else’s query is independent of having been queried itself.
This channel appears in 7 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
This handle named by sources this register does not control and did not measure — each shown exactly as found, attributed by name, dated to when it was read.
Wikipedia
One Wikipedia article names this handle in its article text, found by searching for a t.me link inside the article source. A citation is a notability signal, not a verification: nobody here confirmed the cited post is genuine or still says what the article quotes. Article text is CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikipedia contributors; snippets below are short excerpts.
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 5 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Футбол в цифрах” (@markstats), 11,694 subscribers as measured 5 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/markstats.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.