A new similarity function for Pythagorean fuzzy sets with application in football analysis

Rongfeng Li; Paul Augustine Ejegwa; Kun Li; Iorshase Agaji; Yuming Feng; Idoko Charles Onyeke; Rongfeng Li; Paul Augustine Ejegwa; Kun Li; Iorshase Agaji; Yuming Feng; Idoko Charles Onyeke

doi:10.3934/math.2024242

AIMS Mathematics

2024, Volume 9, Issue 2: 4990-5014. doi: 10.3934/math.2024242

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

A new similarity function for Pythagorean fuzzy sets with application in football analysis

1.
School of Intelligent Technology, Chongqing Preschool Education College, Chongqing 404047, China
2.
Department of Mathematics, Joseph Sarwuan Tarka University, Makurdi, Nigeria
3.
Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing and Control, Chongqing Three Gorges University, Chongqing 404100, China
4.
School of Electronic and Information Engineering, Chongqing Three Gorges University, Chongqing 404100, China
5.
Department of Computer Science, Joseph Sarwuan Tarka University, Makurdi, Nigeria
6.
Chongqing Engineering Research Center of Internet of Things and Intelligent Control Technology, Chongqing Three Gorges University, Chongqing 404100, China

Received: 08 December 2023 Revised: 08 January 2024 Accepted: 12 January 2024 Published: 24 January 2024
MSC : 03E72, 20N20, 47S40

The idea of Pythagorean fuzzy sets (PFSs) has been extensively applied in various decision-making scenarios. Many of the applications of PFSs were carried out based on similarity functions. Some methods of similarity functions for PFSs (SFPFSs) cannot be trusted for a reliable interpretations in practical cases due to some of their setbacks. In this work, a new method of SFPFSs is developed with the capacity to outsmart the efficiency of the extant SFPFSs in terms of precise results and appropriately satisfying the rules of SFs. The new method is described with some results to validate the properties of SFs. In terms of practical application, we use the newly developed method of SFPFSs to discuss the relationship between the players of the Liverpool Football Club (FC) in the 2022/2023 English Premier League (EPL) season to assess their performances in their resurgent moments within the season. Using data from BBC Sport analysis (BBCSA) on the players' rating per match in a Pythagorean fuzzy setting, we establish the players' interactions, communications, passing, contributions, and performances to ascertain the high ranking players based on performances. Similarly, a comparative analyses are presented in tables to undoubtedly express the superiority of the newly developed method of SFPFSs. Due to the flexibility of the newly developed method of SFPFSs, it can be used for clustering analysis. In addition, the new method of SFPFSs can be extended to other uncertain environments other than PFSs.

Keywords:

Citation: Rongfeng Li, Paul Augustine Ejegwa, Kun Li, Iorshase Agaji, Yuming Feng, Idoko Charles Onyeke. A new similarity function for Pythagorean fuzzy sets with application in football analysis[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(2): 4990-5014. doi: 10.3934/math.2024242

Related Papers:

[1]	Nasser Aedh Alreshidi, Muhammad Rahim, Fazli Amin, Abdulaziz Alenazi . Trapezoidal type-2 Pythagorean fuzzy TODIM approach for sensible decision-making with unknown weights in the presence of hesitancy. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(12): 30462-30486. doi: 10.3934/math.20231556
[2]	Esmail Hassan Abdullatif Al-Sabri, Muhammad Rahim, Fazli Amin, Rashad Ismail, Salma Khan, Agaeb Mahal Alanzi, Hamiden Abd El-Wahed Khalifa . Multi-criteria decision-making based on Pythagorean cubic fuzzy Einstein aggregation operators for investment management. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(7): 16961-16988. doi: 10.3934/math.2023866
[3]	Misbah Rasheed, ElSayed Tag-Eldin, Nivin A. Ghamry, Muntazim Abbas Hashmi, Muhammad Kamran, Umber Rana . Decision-making algorithm based on Pythagorean fuzzy environment with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy set and Choquet integral. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(5): 12422-12455. doi: 10.3934/math.2023624
[4]	Li Li, Mengjing Hao . Interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy entropy and its application to multi-criterion group decision-making. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(5): 12511-12528. doi: 10.3934/math.2024612
[5]	Hifza, Muhammad Gulistan, Zahid Khan, Mohammed M. Al-Shamiri, Muhammad Azhar, Asad Ali, Joseph David Madasi . A new fuzzy decision support system approach; analysis and applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(8): 14785-14825. doi: 10.3934/math.2022812
[6]	Li Li, Xin Wang . Hamming distance-based knowledge measure and entropy for interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy sets. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(4): 8707-8720. doi: 10.3934/math.2025399
[7]	Sana Shahab, Mohd Anjum, Ashit Kumar Dutta, Shabir Ahmad . Gamified approach towards optimizing supplier selection through Pythagorean Fuzzy soft-max aggregation operators for healthcare applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(3): 6738-6771. doi: 10.3934/math.2024329
[8]	Muhammad Ihsan, Muhammad Saeed, Alhanouf Alburaikan, Hamiden Abd El-Wahed Khalifa . Product evaluation through multi-criteria decision making based on fuzzy parameterized Pythagorean fuzzy hypersoft expert set. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(6): 11024-11052. doi: 10.3934/math.2022616
[9]	T. M. Athira, Sunil Jacob John, Harish Garg . A novel entropy measure of Pythagorean fuzzy soft sets. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(2): 1050-1061. doi: 10.3934/math.2020073
[10]	Nadia Khan, Sehrish Ayaz, Imran Siddique, Hijaz Ahmad, Sameh Askar, Rana Muhammad Zulqarnain . Sustainable practices to reduce environmental impact of industry using interaction aggregation operators under interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy hypersoft set. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(6): 14644-14683. doi: 10.3934/math.2023750

Abstract

1. Introduction

Football analysis is a decision-making aspect that uses data and video to analyze the performance of players and teams by using football analytics metrics like goal threat metrics (i.e., expected goals), creativity metrics (i.e., expected assists, shot creating actions, and goal creating actions), and possession metrics (i.e., passes per defensive action, progressive distance, team sequences). In a way, football analysis is a decision-making problem. Many human decision-making problems are predominantly carried out with the aid of a decision-making method like multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM), especially, in tasks concerning systems involving large-scale. In most cases, a decision-making process has imprecisions and uncertainties. The fuzzy set, represented as $\mathfrak{F}$ , was developed by Zadeh ^[1] in terms of membership degree (MD), denoted by $\sigma$ to offer some relief to the solution of decision-making under uncertain conditions. But, $\mathfrak{F}$ lacks the ability to tackle imprecision because it does not consider non-membership degree (NMD), denoted by $\delta$ , and, hesitation parameter denoted by $\eta$ .

By incorporating $\delta$ (i.e., $\delta \neq 1-\sigma$ ) and $\eta$ (i.e., $1-\sigma-\delta$ ), Atanassov ^[2] developed a structure called intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFSs) to perfect the limitation of $\mathfrak{F}$ , and enable the tackling of decision-making imprecision. IFS has been industrious in many real-world problems of decision-making diagnosis of disease ^[3,4,5,6], pattern and clustering analysis ^{[7,8,9,10,11,12,13]}, and using different approaches like distance operators, similarity operators, correlation operators, and aggregation operators to discuss various real-life problems ^[14,15,16].

Though IFS is very applicable, there are some cases where IFSs cannot be utilized. To be specific, when the aggregate of $\sigma$ and $\delta$ exceeds unity, IFS loses its usefulness. To resolve this issue, Atanassov ^[17] developed a structure called IFS of the second type, popularly known as Pythagorean fuzzy sets (PFSs), as noted in ^[18]. In PFS, the aggregate of $\sigma$ and $\delta$ can exceed unity with $\sigma^2+\delta^2\le 1$ . Some decision problems via the concepts of correlation operators and partial correlation operator, under PFSs have been studied with decision-making applications ^[19,20,21]. Certain applications of PFSs have been discussed based on similarity/distance operators for decision-making ^{[22,23,24,25]}, disease diagnosis ^[26], and pattern recognition ^{[27,28,29,30,31]}. Because of the flexibility of PFSs in the discussion of complex real-life problems, the idea has been applied in pattern classification ^[32], Frank power aggregation operators ^[33], predicting maternal outcomes ^[34], disaster control ^[35], and selection process ^[36,37,38], etc.

The idea of PFSs has been applied to discuss various MCDM methods. The study of MCDM under PFSs was initiated, and certain real-world problems were discussed via the approach used in ^[39]. In addition, some decision problems via MCDM were explicated under PFSs in ^[40,41]. In ^[42], decision making was executed under PFSs using multiobjective optimization on the basis of ratio analysis (MOORA) for MCDM, and Huang et al. ^[43] used distance measure and score function under PFSs to discuss MOORA in MCDM. Wang et al. ^[44] discussed a Pythagorean fuzzy (PF) MCDM with a MOORA-Borda method in the evaluation of ecological governance. Gocer and Buyukozkan ^[45] discussed an extension of PF MULTIMOORA and used it to discuss new product development. Akram et al. ^[46] also extended the PF MULTIMOORA approach via 2-tuple linguistic PFSs to discuss multi-attribute group decision-making (MAGDM). Other PF MCDM methods were discussed in ^[47,48,49].

Moreover, SFPFSs is quite flexible and has been applied in so many areas. Wei et al. ^[50] developed a method of SFPFS, based on the cosine metric and applied it to decision-making. The approach violated the metric condition of similarity if the PFSs are indistinguishable, because instead of the similarity being 1, the approach yields $0.3333$ for $n = 3$ , where $n$ is the cardinality of the underlying set. Hussain and Yang ^[51] constructed a similarity operator for PFSs established on the Hausdorff metric and applied it to discuss fuzzy TOPSIS. The approach in ^[51] satisfies similarity metric conditions but, does not include the hesitation margin, and hence renders the approach inappropriate. In ^[52], four approaches of measuring SFPFSs were developed and while the first two do not consider the hesitation margin, the other two considered the all of the parameters of PFSs to circumvent any error that may stems from omission. However, the approaches yield an indistinguishable similarity value (i.e., $0.5$ for $n = 2$ ) in the case of identical PFSs, which is a violation of the metric axioms. In ^[53], an approach for measuring SFPFSs, which generalized the approach in ^[50], was developed and applied to MCDM problem. But, the approach yields $0.5$ for $n = 2$ in the case of equal PFSs, which is a violation of the metric axioms. Similarly, an approach for similarity measure between PFSs was developed in ^[54] using the tangent function, but yields an inappropriate similarity value (i.e., $0.5$ for $n = 2$ ) if the PFSs are indistinguishable, which is a violation of the metric axioms and thus renders the approach ineffective.

The itemized approaches of SFPFSs ^{[50,51,52,53,54]} are defective with respects to the metric conditions of SF. The two approaches in ^[52] left out Pythagorean fuzzy hesitation margin (PFHM) from the computations. The approaches in ^{[50,52,53,54]} absolutely violated the metric conditions for similarity function if the considered PFSs are identical. Although the approach in ^[51] satisfied the metric conditions satisfactorily, it excludes the PFHM of the PFSs under consideration. The setbacks in these extant methods of SFPFSs constitute the motivation for the development of a new method of SFPFS.

Oftentimes, football analysis is provided on each player immediately after a match is played, and this analysis is mostly challenged by the coaches and football fans due to some uncertainties and imprecisions beyond the control of the analysts. Because of the flexibility and reliability of PFSs in curbing uncertainties and imprecisions, it is expedient to apply SFPFS to discuss football analysis. In addition, a careful study of the applications of PFSs shows that PFSs have not been applied for the purpose of football analysis. To this end, this paper constructs a new similarity function for PFSs with application to football analysis using the case of the Liverpool FC in the 2022/2023 EPL season. The study uses data from BBC Sport analysis of each of the players in some of the matches played by Liverpool FC. The contributions of the work consist of the following;

● Construction of a new similarity function for measuring similarity between PFSs,

● Description of the new similarity function for PFSs in alliance with similarity metric conditions,

● Development of a new application area for PFSs in the analysis of the performance of Liverpool FC in the 2022/2023 EPL season based on the MCDM method via the new similarity function, and

● Comparative analysis of the new similarity function under PFSs with extant similarity approaches ^{[50,51,52,53,54]} to authenticate the new similarity approach.

The data for the work is collected from the BBC Sport analyses for the considered number of matches played by the Liverpool team in the 2022/2023 EPL season. After collection, the data is converted to PF data to enhance the encapsulation of uncertainties and imprecisions of the analysts. For the conversion, each MD is the allocated value by the analysts, each NMD is $1-\text{MD}$ from the corresponding MD, and each HM is computed using $\text{HM} = (1-\text{MD}^2-\text{NMD}^2)^{0.5}$ . The structure of the rest of the paper is as follows: Section 2 discusses some properties of PFSs, outlines some existing similarity functions under PFSs, and identifies their setbacks; Section 3 presents the new similarity function for PFSs and outlines its properties; Section 4 presents the new application of PFSs in football analysis based on the new similarity function to determine the contributions of the eleven frequently used players and, equally, presents comparative studies to showcase the preeminence of the new similarity function over the extant similarity functions; and Section 5 recaps the paper and provides some recommendations.

2. Preliminaries

We reiterate the idea of PFSs and some extant similarity functions between PFSs.

2.1. Pythagorean fuzzy sets

We take $S$ to be the universe of discourse in the work.

Definition 2.1. Consider the structure

$\begin{equation*} \aleph = \lbrace \langle s_j, \sigma_{\aleph}(s_j), \delta_{\aleph}(s_j) \rangle\mid s_j\in S\rbrace, \end{equation*}$

in which case, $\sigma_{\aleph}, \; \delta_{\aleph}\colon X\to [0, 1]$ signify MD and NMD of $s_j\in S$ .

${\rm{i}})$ $\aleph$ is called an IFS in $S$ if $\Big(\sigma_{\aleph}(s_j)+\delta_{\aleph}(s_j)\Big)\in [0, 1]$ , and $\eta_{\aleph}(s_j) = 1-\sigma_{\aleph}(s_j)-\delta_{\aleph}(s_j)$ is the hesitation margin of $\aleph$ ^[2].

${\rm{ii}})$ $\aleph$ is called a PFS in $S$ if $\Big(\sigma^2_{\aleph}(s_j)+ \delta^2_{\aleph}(s_j)\Big)\in [0, 1]$ , and $\eta_{\aleph}(s_j) = \Big(1-\sigma^2_{\aleph}(s_j)-\delta^2_{\aleph}(s_j)\Big)^{0.5}$ is the hesitation margin of $\aleph$ ^[18].

PFS $\aleph$ can also be represented by $\aleph = \bigg(\sigma_{\aleph}(s_j), \delta_{\aleph}(s_j)\bigg)$ , called the Pythagorean fuzzy number (PFN).

Definition 2.2 (^[18]). Assume that $\aleph$ , $\aleph_1$ , $\aleph_2$ , and $\aleph_3$ are PFSs in $S$ . Then,

${\rm{i}})$ equality

$\aleph_1 = \aleph_2\; \text{iff}\; \sigma_{\aleph_1}(s_j) = \sigma_{\aleph_2}(s_j)\; \text{and}\; \delta_{\aleph_1}(s_j) = \delta_{\aleph_2}(s_j), \forall s_j\in S.$

${\rm{ii}})$ inclusion

$\aleph_1\subseteq \aleph_2 \; \text{iff}\; \sigma_{\aleph_1}(s_j)\leq \sigma_{\aleph_2}(s_j) \; \text{and}\; \delta_{\aleph_1}(s_j)\geq \delta_{\aleph_2}(s_j), \forall s_j\in S.$

${\rm{iii}})$ complement

$\overline{\aleph} = \lbrace \langle s_j, \delta_{\aleph}(s_j), \sigma_{\aleph}(s_j) \rangle |s_j\in S \rbrace.$

${\rm{iv}})$ union

$\aleph_1\cup \aleph_2 = \lbrace \langle s_j, \max\lbrace \sigma_{\aleph_1}(s_j), \sigma_{\aleph_2}(s_j)\rbrace, \min\lbrace \delta_{\aleph_1}(s_j), \delta_{\aleph_2}(s_j)\rbrace \rangle |s_j\in S \rbrace.$

${\rm{v}})$ intersection

$\aleph_1\cap \aleph_2 = \lbrace \langle s_j, \min\lbrace \sigma_{\aleph_1}(s_j), \sigma_{\aleph_2}(s_j)\rbrace, \max\lbrace \delta_{\aleph_1}(s_j), \delta_{\aleph_2}(s_j)\rbrace \rangle |s_j\in S \rbrace.$

Definition 2.3 (^[23]). If $\aleph$ , $\aleph_1$ , and $\aleph_2$ are PFSs in $S$ , then the SFPFS represented by $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)$ is $\Upsilon\colon PFS \times PFS\to [0, 1]$ , satisfying:

${\rm{i}})$ $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)\in [0, 1]$ .

${\rm{ii}})$ $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2) = 1$ $\Leftrightarrow$ $\aleph_1 = \aleph_2$ .

${\rm{iii}})$ $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2) = \Upsilon(\aleph_2, \aleph_1)$ .

${\rm{iv}})$ $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph)\leq \Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)+\Upsilon(\aleph_2, \aleph)$ .

Table 1 explains the nature of the similarity function.

Table 1. Nature of

$\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)$ .

Nature	Interpretations
$\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)=0$	$\aleph_1$ and $\aleph_2$ have no similarity
$\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)=1$	$\aleph_1$ and $\aleph_2$ have perfect similarity
$\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)\approx 0$	$\aleph_1$ and $\aleph_2$ have no significant similarity
$\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)\approx 1$	$\aleph_1$ and $\aleph_2$ have significant similarity

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

2.2. Extant methods of SFPFSs

Assume we have two PFSs

$\aleph_1 = \lbrace \langle s_j, \sigma_{\aleph_1}(s_j), \delta_{\aleph_1}(s_j) \rangle| s_j\in S\rbrace$

and

$\aleph_2 = \lbrace \langle s_j, \sigma_{\aleph_2}(s_j), \delta_{\aleph_2}(s_j) \rangle| s_j\in S\rbrace$

for $S = \lbrace s_1, s_2, \cdots, s_k\rbrace$ . Let us assume:

$\wp_1 = \sigma_{\aleph_1}(s_j)-\sigma_{\aleph_2}(s_j), \; \wp_2 = \delta_{\aleph_1}(s_j)-\delta_{\aleph_2}(s_j), \wp_3 = \eta_{\aleph_1}(s_j)-\eta_{\aleph_2}(s_j),$

$\tilde{\wp}_1 = \sigma^2_{\aleph_1}(s_j)-\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}(s_j), \; \tilde{\wp}_2 = \delta^2_{\aleph_1}(s_j)-\delta^2_{\aleph_2}(s_j), \tilde{\wp}_3 = \eta^2_{\aleph_1}(s_j)-\eta^2_{\aleph_2}(s_j).$

The following are some extant methods of finding similarity for PFSs:

$1)$ Similarity function in ^[50]

$\begin{equation} \begin{split} \Upsilon_1(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)& = \dfrac{1}{k}\Sigma^k_{j = 1}\cos \Big[\dfrac{\pi}{4}\big(|\tilde{\wp}_1| +|\tilde{\wp}_2| + |\tilde{\wp}_3|\big)\Big].\\ \end{split} \end{equation}$

(2.1)

This method violates the rule of similarity function. For example, while computing the similarity between $\aleph_1$ and $\aleph_2$ in $S = \lbrace s_1, s_2, s_3\rbrace$ , if $\aleph_1 = \aleph_2$ , then we see that

$\begin{equation*} \begin{split} \Upsilon_1(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)& = \dfrac{\cos 0}{3} = 0.3333, \\ \end{split} \end{equation*}$

which disagrees with $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2) = 1$ $\Leftrightarrow$ $\aleph_1 = \aleph_2$ . Thus, the method ^[50] is not a reliable similarity measure.

$2)$ Similarity function in ^[51]

$\begin{equation} \begin{split} \Upsilon_2(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)& = \dfrac{1-\Delta(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)}{1+\Delta(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)}, \end{split} \end{equation}$

(2.2)

where

$\Delta(\aleph_1, \aleph_2) = \dfrac{1}{k}\Sigma^k_{j = 1}\max\lbrace|\tilde{\wp}_1|, |\tilde{\wp}_2|\rbrace.$

Though this approach fulfills the rules of the similarity function, it does not into take account the hesitation margins. Thus, its results cannot be trusted.

$3)$ Similarity functions in^[52]

$\begin{equation} \begin{split} \Upsilon_3(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)& = \dfrac{1}{k}\Sigma^k_{j = 1}\Big[2^{1-\frac{1}{2}\big(|\tilde{\wp}_1|+|\tilde{\wp}_2|\big)}-1\Big], \end{split} \end{equation}$

(2.3)

$\begin{equation} \begin{split} \Upsilon_4(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)& = \dfrac{1}{k}\Sigma^k_{j = 1}\Big[2^{1-\max\lbrace|\tilde{\wp}_1|, |\tilde{\wp}_2|\rbrace}-1\Big], \end{split} \end{equation}$

(2.4)

$\begin{equation} \begin{split} \Upsilon_5(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)& = \dfrac{1}{k}\Sigma^k_{j = 1}\Big[2^{1-\frac{1}{2}\big(|\tilde{\wp}_1|+|\tilde{B\wp}_2|+|\tilde{\wp}_3|\big)}-1\Big], \end{split} \end{equation}$

(2.5)

$\begin{equation} \begin{split} \Upsilon_6(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)& = \dfrac{1}{k}\Sigma^k_{j = 1}\Big[2^{1-\max\lbrace|\tilde{\wp}_1|, |\tilde{\wp}_2|, |\tilde{\wp}_3|\rbrace}-1\Big]. \end{split} \end{equation}$

(2.6)

Methods (2.3) and (2.5) are approximately the same if the values of the hesitation margins are negligible. It is likewise for (2.4) and (2.6). The similarity approaches in (2.3) and (2.4) do not take into account the hesitation margins, and so the approaches are not appropriate. In addition, if $\aleph_1$ and $\aleph_2$ are PFSs in $S = \lbrace s_1, s_2\rbrace$ , and $\aleph_1 = \aleph_2$ , then (2.3)–(2.6) yield

$\begin{equation*} \left. \begin{split} &\Upsilon_3(\aleph_1, \aleph_2) = \Upsilon_4(\aleph_1, \aleph_2) = \Upsilon_5(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)\\ &\Upsilon_6(\aleph_1, \aleph_2) = 0.5 \end{split} \right\}, \end{equation*}$

which contradict the similarity maxim (i.e., $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2) = 1$ $\Leftrightarrow$ $\aleph_1 = \aleph_2$ ). Hence, the approaches ^[52] are not reliable.

$4)$ Similarity function in ^[53]

$\begin{equation} \begin{split} \Upsilon_7(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)& = \dfrac{1}{k}\Sigma^k_{j = 1}\cos \Big[\dfrac{\pi}{2} \bigg(\dfrac{|\tilde{\wp}_1|^q+|\tilde{\wp}_2|^q+|\tilde{\wp}_3|^q}{2}\bigg)^\frac{1}{q}\Big], \end{split} \end{equation}$

(2.7)

where $q\geq 1$ is the $L_q$ norm. To verify the appropriateness of this function, we assume there are two equal PFSs $\aleph_1$ and $\aleph_2$ in $S = \lbrace s_1, s_2, s_3\rbrace$ , and so (2.7) yields

$\begin{equation} \begin{split} \Upsilon_7(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)& = \dfrac{\cos 0}{3} = 0.3333, \end{split} \end{equation}$

(2.8)

which contradicts the similarity maxim of separability (i.e., $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2) = 1$ $\Leftrightarrow$ $\aleph_1 = \aleph_2$ ). Hence, the results from this approach cannot be reliable.

$5)$ Similarity function in ^[54]

$\begin{equation} \begin{split} \Upsilon_8(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)& = \dfrac{1}{k}\Sigma^k_{j = 1}\Big[1-\tan \dfrac{\pi}{8} \big(|\tilde{\wp}_1|+|\tilde{\wp}_2|\big)\Big]. \end{split} \end{equation}$

(2.9)

The output from this approach ^[54] is not reliable. To see this, assume there are two equal PFSs $\aleph_1$ and $\aleph_2$ in $S = \lbrace s_1, s_2\rbrace$ , and so we have

$\begin{equation*} \begin{split} \Upsilon_8(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)& = \dfrac{1}{2} = 0.5, \end{split} \end{equation*}$

and so $\Upsilon_8(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)\neq 1$ . In addition, the approach also omits the hesitation margins.

3. New similarity function for PFSs

Due to the setbacks in the discussed extant methods of SFPFSs, we are motivated to develop a new method of SFPFSs which is well constructed without the exclusion of any parameters, satisfies the similarity maxims, and possesses better accuracy.

Definition 3.1. Given we have two PFSs

$\aleph_1 = \lbrace \langle s_j, \sigma_{\aleph_1}(s_j), \delta_{\aleph_1}(s_j) \rangle| s_j\in S\rbrace\; \text{and}$

$\aleph_2 = \lbrace \langle s_j, \sigma_{\aleph_2}(s_j), \delta_{\aleph_2}(s_j) \rangle| s_j\in S\rbrace$

for feature space $S = \lbrace s_1, s_2, \cdots, s_k\rbrace$ , we define the new similarity function for $\aleph_1$ and $\aleph_2$ as follows;

$\begin{equation} \begin{split} \Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2) = \dfrac{3k-\Big(|\sigma^2_{\aleph_1} -\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}|+|\delta^2_{\aleph_1}-\delta^2_{\aleph_2}| +|\eta^2_{\aleph_1}-\eta^2_{\aleph_2}|\Big)}{3k+ \Big(|\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}|+|\delta^2_{\aleph_1} -\delta^2_{\aleph_2}|+|\eta^2_{\aleph_1}-\eta^2_{\aleph_2}|\Big)}, \end{split} \end{equation}$

(3.1)

where

$\Big(|\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}| +|\delta^2_{\aleph_1}-\delta^2_{\aleph_2}|+|\eta^2_{\aleph_1}-\eta^2_{\aleph_2}|\Big) = \sum^k_{j = 1}\Big(|\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}(s_j)-\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}(s_j)| +|\delta^2_{\aleph_1}(s_j)-\delta^2_{\aleph_2}(s_j)|+|\eta^2_{\aleph_1}(s_j) -\eta^2_{\aleph_2}(s_j)|\Big).$

Now, we find the similarities between three PFSs to ascertain the superiority of the new similarity function over the other similarity functions ^{[50,51,52,53,54]}.

Example 3.1. Suppose there are three PFSs $\aleph_1$ , $\aleph_2$ , and $\aleph_3$ defined in $S = \lbrace s_1, s_2, s_3\rbrace$ as follows;

$\aleph_1 = \lbrace \langle s_1, 0, 1 \rangle, \langle s_2, 1, 0 \rangle, \langle s_3, 0.5, 0.7 \rangle\rbrace,$

$\aleph_2 = \lbrace \langle s_1, 1, 0 \rangle, \langle s_2, 0, 1 \rangle, \langle s_3, 0.45, 0.68 \rangle\rbrace,$

$\aleph_3 = \lbrace \langle s_1, 0.99, 0 \rangle, \langle s_2, 0.98, 0 \rangle, \langle s_3, 0.55, 0.69 \rangle\rbrace.$

By using the new similarity method and the similarity methods in ^{[50,51,52,53,54]}, we obtain Table 2.

Table 2. Results of similarity methods.

Similarity Methods	$(\aleph_1, \aleph_1)$	$(\aleph_2, \aleph_2)$	$(\aleph_3, \aleph_3)$	$(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)$	$(\aleph_1, \aleph_3)$	$(\aleph_2, \aleph_3)$
$\Upsilon_1$ ^[50]	$0.3333$	$0.3333$	$0.3333$	$-0.0550$	$-0.2073$	$0.0259$
$\Upsilon_2$ ^[51]	$1$	$1$	$1$	$0.1887$	$0.4662$	$0.4563$
$\Upsilon_3$ ^[52]	$0.3333$	$0.3333$	$0.3333$	$-0.1709$	$-0.0098$	$-0.0107$
$\Upsilon_4$ ^[52]	$0.3333$	$0.3333$	$0.3333$	$-0.1721$	$-0.0206$	$-0.0266$
$\Upsilon_5$ ^[52]	$0.3333$	$0.3333$	$0.3333$	$-0.1751$	$-0.0206$	$-0.0295$
$\Upsilon_6$ ^[52]	$0.3333$	$0.3333$	$0.3333$	$-0.1721$	$-0.0163$	$-0.0180$
$\Upsilon_7$ ^[53]	$0.3333$	$0.3333$	$0.3333$	$-0.0605$	$-0.0810$	$0.2190$
$\Upsilon_8$ ^[54]	$0.3333$	$0.3333$	$0.3333$	$0.1132$	$0.3963$	$0.3363$
$\Upsilon$	$1$	$1$	$1$	$0.3688$	$0.6094$	$0.5976$

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

The results in show that the similarity methods in ^{[50,52,53,54]} could not satisfy the similarity metric condition in the sense that, $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_1)\neq 1$ , $\Upsilon(\aleph_2, \aleph_2)\neq 1$ , and $\Upsilon(\aleph_3, \aleph_3)\neq 1$ , though the PFSs are equal. On the contrary, the new similarity method and the method in ^[51] fulfill this condition. In addition, the similarity methods in ^{[50,52,53,54]} yield similarity values outside the unit interval $[0, 1]$ , which is again a violation of the similarity metric condition. In this case, we conclude that:

● the similarity methods in ^{[50,52,53,54]} are not appropriate similarity methods, and

● the new similarity method yields the most accurate results by comparison to the similarity methods in ^{[50,51,52,53,54]}.

Next, we consider some of the properties of the new similarity function for PFSs to show its alignment with the similarity metric conditions.

Theorem 3.1. The similarity function $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)$ of PFSs $\aleph_1$ and $\aleph_2$ in $S = \lbrace s_1, s_2, \cdots, s_k\rbrace$ are symmetric and separable.

Proof. To verify the symmetric nature of $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)$ , we show that $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2) = \Upsilon(\aleph_2, \aleph_1)$ . Thus,

$\begin{eqnarray*} \Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)& = \dfrac{3k-\Big(|\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}|+|\delta^2_{\aleph_1}-\delta^2_{\aleph_2}|+|\eta^2_{\aleph_1}-\eta^2_{\aleph_2}|\Big)}{3k+\Big(|\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}|+|\delta^2_{\aleph_1}-\delta^2_{\aleph_2}|+|\eta^2_{\aleph_1}-\eta^2_{\aleph_2}|\Big)}\\ & = \dfrac{3k-\Big(|\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}|+|\delta^2_{\aleph_2}-\delta^2_{\aleph_1}|+|\eta^2_{\aleph_2}-\eta^2_{\aleph_1}|\Big)}{3k+\Big(|\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}|+|\delta^2_{\aleph_2}-\delta^2_{\aleph_1}|+|\eta^2_{\aleph_2}-\eta^2_{\aleph_1}|\Big)}, \\ \end{eqnarray*}$

i.e., $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2) = \Upsilon(\aleph_2, \aleph_1)$ since

$\begin{equation*} \begin{split} |\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}|& = |-\big(\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}\big)|, \\ |\delta^2_{\aleph_2}-\delta^2_{\aleph_1}|& = |-\big(\delta^2_{\aleph_2}-\delta^2_{\aleph_1}\big)|, \\ |\eta^2_{\aleph_2}-\eta^2_{\aleph_1}|& = |-\big(\delta^2_{\aleph_2}-\delta^2_{\aleph_1}\big)|. \end{split} \end{equation*}$

Next, we verify separability, i.e., we show that $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2) = 1$ iff $\aleph_1 = \aleph_2$ . Suppose that $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2) = 1$ . Then, we have

$\begin{equation*} \begin{split} 3k-\Big(|\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}| +|\delta^2_{\aleph_1}-\delta^2_{\aleph_2}| +|\eta^2_{\aleph_1}-\eta^2_{\aleph_2}|\Big) = 3k+\Big(|\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}| +|\delta^2_{\aleph_1}-\delta^2_{\aleph_2}| +|\eta^2_{\aleph_1}-\eta^2_{\aleph_2}|\Big), \; \end{split} \end{equation*}$

i.e.,

$\begin{equation*} \begin{split} 2\Big(|\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}|+|\delta^2_{\aleph_1}-\delta^2_{\aleph_2}|+|\eta^2_{\aleph_1}-\eta^2_{\aleph_2}|\Big) = 0. \end{split} \end{equation*}$

Then,

$\Big(|\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}|+|\delta^2_{\aleph_1}-\delta^2_{\aleph_2}|+|\eta^2_{\aleph_1}-\eta^2_{\aleph_2}|\Big) = 0,$

which imples that $\sigma^2_{\aleph_1} = \sigma^2_{\aleph_2}$ , $\delta^2_{\aleph_1} = \delta^2_{\aleph_2}$ , and $\eta^2_{\aleph_1} = \eta^2_{\aleph_2}$ . Hence, $\aleph_1 = \aleph_2$ .

Conversely, if $\aleph_1 = \aleph_2$ , then

$|\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}| = 0, |\delta^2_{\aleph_1}-\delta^2_{\aleph_2}| = 0, |\eta^2_{\aleph_1}-\eta^2_{\aleph_2}| = 0.$

Thus,

$\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2) = \dfrac{3k}{3k} = 1.$

Theorem 3.2. The similarity function $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)$ is bounded, where $\aleph_1$ and $\aleph_2$ are PFSs in $S = \lbrace s_1, s_2, \cdots, s_k\rbrace$ .

Proof. To prove boundedness, we show that $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)$ is the subset of a finite interval, $[0, 1]$ . To prove this, we verify $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)\geq 0$ and $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)\leq 1$ . It is easy to see that $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)\geq 0$ , because

$|\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}|\geq 0, |\delta^2_{\aleph_1}-\delta^2_{\aleph_2}|\geq 0, |\eta^2_{\aleph_1}-\eta^2_{\aleph_2}|\geq 0.$

Next, we investigate $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)\leq 1$ . In

$\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2) = \dfrac{3k-\Big(|\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}|+|\delta^2_{\aleph_1}-\delta^2_{\aleph_2}|+|\eta^2_{\aleph_1}-\eta^2_{\aleph_2}|\Big)}{3k+\Big(|\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}|+|\delta^2_{\aleph_1}-\delta^2_{\aleph_2}|+|\eta^2_{\aleph_1}-\eta^2_{\aleph_2}|\Big)},$

by letting

$|\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}| = F_x, |\delta^2_{\aleph_1}-\delta^2_{\aleph_2}| = F_y, |\eta^2_{\aleph_1}-\eta^2_{\aleph_2}| = F_z,$

we get

$\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2) = \dfrac{3k-\Big(F_x+F_y+F_z\Big)}{3k+\Big(F_x+F_y+F_z\Big)}.$

Then,

$\begin{eqnarray*} \Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)-1& = &\dfrac{3k-\Big(F_x+F_y+F_z\Big)}{3k+\Big(F_x+F_y+F_z\Big)}-1\\ & = &\dfrac{3k-\Big(F_x+F_y+F_z\Big)-3k-\Big(F_x+F_y+F_z\Big)}{3k+\Big(F_x+F_y+F_z\Big)}\\ & = &-\dfrac{2\Big(F_x+F_y+F_z\Big)}{3k+\Big(F_x+F_y+F_z\Big)}\\ &\leq 0. \end{eqnarray*}$

Thus, $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)\leq 1$ .

Theorem 3.3. Suppose $\aleph_1$ , $\aleph_2$ , and $\aleph_3$ are PFSs in $S = \lbrace s_1, s_2, \cdots, s_k\rbrace$ with the inclusion $\aleph_1\subseteq \aleph_2\subseteq \aleph_3$ . Then, the new similarity function satisfies the following properties:

${\rm{i}})$ $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_3)\geq \Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)$ and $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_3)\geq \Upsilon(\aleph_2, \aleph_3)$ ,

${\rm{ii}})$ $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_3)\geq \max\lbrace\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2), \Upsilon(\aleph_2, \aleph_3)\rbrace$ ,

${\rm{iii}})$ $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_3)\leq \Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)+\Upsilon(\aleph_2, \aleph_3)$ .

Proof. ⅰ) In the light of the inclusion, we have

$\begin{equation*} \begin{split} &|\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_3}|\geq |\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}|, \; |\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_3}|\geq |\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_3}|, \\ &|\delta^2_{\aleph_1}-\delta^2_{\aleph_3}|\geq |\delta^2_{\aleph_1}-\delta^2_{\aleph_2}|, \; |\delta^2_{\aleph_1}-\delta^2_{\aleph_3}|\geq |\delta^2_{\aleph_2}-\delta^2_{\aleph_3}|, \\ &|\eta^2_{\aleph_1}-\eta^2_{\aleph_3}|\geq |\eta^2_{\aleph_1}-\eta^2_{\aleph_2}|, \; |\eta^2_{\aleph_1}-\eta^2_{\aleph_3}|\geq |\eta^2_{\aleph_2}-\eta^2_{\aleph_3}|. \end{split} \end{equation*}$

Thus,

$\begin{equation*} \begin{split} &\dfrac{3k-\Big(|\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_3}|+|\delta^2_{\aleph_1} -\delta^2_{\aleph_3}|+|\eta^2_{\aleph_1}-\eta^2_{\aleph_3}|\Big)} {3k+\Big(|\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_3}|+|\delta^2_{\aleph_1}-\delta^2_{\aleph_3} |+|\eta^2_{\aleph_1}-\eta^2_{\aleph_3}|\Big)}\geq \dfrac{3k-\Big(|\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}| +|\delta^2_{\aleph_1}-\delta^2_{\aleph_2}|+|\eta^2_{\aleph_1} -\eta^2_{\aleph_2}|\Big)}{3k+\Big(|\sigma^2_{\aleph_1} -\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}|+|\delta^2_{\aleph_1}-\delta^2_{\aleph_2}| +|\eta^2_{\aleph_1}-\eta^2_{\aleph_2}|\Big)} \end{split} \end{equation*}$

and

$\begin{equation*} \begin{split} &\dfrac{3k-\Big(|\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_3}|+|\delta^2_{\aleph_1} -\delta^2_{\aleph_3}|+|\eta^2_{\aleph_1}-\eta^2_{\aleph_3}|\Big)} {3k+\Big(|\sigma^2_{\aleph_1}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_3}| +|\delta^2_{\aleph_1}-\delta^2_{\aleph_3}|+|\eta^2_{\aleph_1}-\eta^2_{\aleph_3}|\Big)}\geq \dfrac{3k-\Big(|\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_3}|+|\delta^2_{\aleph_2}-\delta^2_{\aleph_3}|+|\eta^2_{\aleph_2}-\eta^2_{\aleph_3}|\Big)}{3k+\Big(|\sigma^2_{\aleph_2}-\sigma^2_{\aleph_3}|+|\delta^2_{\aleph_2}-\delta^2_{\aleph_3}|+|\eta^2_{\aleph_2}-\eta^2_{\aleph_3}|\Big)}. \end{split} \end{equation*}$

Hence, $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_3)\geq \Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)$ and $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_3)\geq \Upsilon(\aleph_2, \aleph_3)$ .

ⅱ) From ⅰ), it is certain that ⅱ) holds.

ⅲ) Given the fact that $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_3)\geq \max\lbrace\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2), \Upsilon(\aleph_2, \aleph_3)\rbrace$ , it follows that

$\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_3)\geq \min\lbrace\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2), \Upsilon(\aleph_2, \aleph_3)\rbrace,$

where $\max\lbrace\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2), \Upsilon(\aleph_2, \aleph_3)\rbrace$ and $\min\lbrace\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2), \Upsilon(\aleph_2, \aleph_3)\rbrace$ are either $\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)$ or $\Upsilon(\aleph_2, \aleph_3)$ , respectively. Hence, it is certain that,

$\Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_3)\leq \Upsilon(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)+\Upsilon(\aleph_2, \aleph_3),$

which implies that the similarity function satisfies the triangle inequality.

4. Analysis of Liverpool FC during the 2022/2023 EPL season based on SFPFSs

Liverpool FC is a prominent football club situated in Liverpool, England. Liverpool FC was founded in 1892 and played its home matches at Anfield. Liverpool FC plays in EPL, the highest tier of the English football divisions. Liverpool FC is presently managed by a German football manager called Jurgen Klopp. The club has won several domestic titles, namely: nineteen League/EPL titles, eight FA Cups, nine League Cups, and 16 FA Community Shields. In addition, the club has won international titles namely: six European Cups/UEFA Leagues, three UEFA Cups, four UEFA Super Cups, and one FIFA Club World Cup. Liverpool FC has one of the widest fans bases across the whole world in comparison to other prominent football clubs.

4.1. Liverpool matches for the analysis

Liverpool FC performances in the 2022/2023 EPL season were inconsistent, especially during the first half of the season due to several uncertainties, like the issue of adaptability for new players, loss of forms, injuries, and the inability of the club to adequately replace some departing players. These issues dampened the players' performances a great deal. However, Liverpool FC regained form in the middle of the second half of the season, starting from the match Liverpool FC played with Arsenal FC on 09/04/2023 to the match played with Aston Villa FC on 21/05/2023, covering nine matches. The results of the matches can be seen in Table 3.

Table 3. Liverpool's matches and scores.

Match Day	Matches	Fixture Place	Scores	Remarks
09/04/2023	Liverpool Vs Arsenal	Home	2:2	Draw
17/04/2023	Leeds United Vs Liverpool	Away	1:6	Win
22/04/2023	Liverpool Vs Nottingham Forest	Home	3:2	Win
26/04/2023	Westham United Liverpool	Away	1:2	Win
30/04/2023	Liverpool Vs Tottenham	Home	4:3	Win
03/05/2023	Liverpool Vs Fulham	Home	1:0	Win
06/05/2023	Liverpool Vs Brentford	Home	1:0	Win
15/05/2023	Leicester City Vs Liverpool	Away	0:3	Win
21/05/2023	Liverpool Vs Aston Villa	Home	1:1	Draw

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

By denoting the matches as $\mathcal{M}_i$ for $i = 1, 2, \cdots, 9$ , the performance ratings of eleven frequently used players according to BBC Sport analysis are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Liverpool players's ratings.

Match ratings
Players	Positions	$\mathcal{M}_1$	$\mathcal{M}_2$	$\mathcal{M}_3$	$\mathcal{M}_4$	$\mathcal{M}_5$	$\mathcal{M}_6$	$\mathcal{M}_7$	$\mathcal{M}_8$	$\mathcal{M}_9$
Alisson	Goalie	$\frac{5.92}{10}$	$\frac{7.27}{10}$	$\frac{6.55}{10}$	$\frac{7.12}{10}$	$\frac{6.51}{10}$	$\frac{7.17}{10}$	$\frac{7.46}{10}$	$\frac{8.08}{10}$	$\frac{5.82}{10}$
Arnold	Defender	$\frac{5.63}{10}$	$\frac{7.76}{10}$	$\frac{6.77}{10}$	$\frac{7.27}{10}$	$\frac{7.00}{10}$	$\frac{7.13}{10}$	$\frac{6.10}{10}$	$\frac{8.45}{10}$	$\frac{5.45}{10}$
Konate	Defender	$\frac{6.09}{10}$	$\frac{6.79}{10}$	$\frac{6.44}{10}$	ABS	$\frac{6.38}{10}$	$\frac{6.89}{10}$	$\frac{7.38}{10}$	$\frac{7.87}{10}$	$\frac{5.35}{10}$
Van Dijk	Defender	$\frac{5.25}{10}$	$\frac{7.07}{10}$	$\frac{6.41}{10}$	$\frac{6.88}{10}$	$\frac{6.31}{10}$	$\frac{6.79}{10}$	$\frac{8.40}{10}$	$\frac{7.83}{10}$	$\frac{5.47}{10}$
Robertson	Defender	$\frac{5.77}{10}$	$\frac{7.49}{10}$	$\frac{6.08}{10}$	$\frac{6.85}{10}$	$\frac{6.49}{10}$	$\frac{6.93}{10}$	$\frac{7.45}{10}$	$\frac{8.01}{10}$	$\frac{5.45}{10}$
Fabinho	Midfielder	$\frac{5.36}{10}$	$\frac{6.83}{10}$	$\frac{6.37}{10}$	$\frac{6.85}{10}$	$\frac{6.37}{10}$	$\frac{6.63}{10}$	$\frac{7.36}{10}$	$\frac{7.73}{10}$	$\frac{5.33}{10}$
Henderson	Midfielder	$\frac{5.66}{10}$	$\frac{7.28}{10}$	$\frac{6.37}{10}$	$\frac{6.76}{10}$	$\frac{6.11}{10}$	$\frac{6.58}{10}$	$\frac{6.62}{10}$	$\frac{7.66}{10}$	$\frac{5.29}{10}$
Jones	Midfielder	$\frac{5.16}{10}$	$\frac{7.16}{10}$	$\frac{6.22}{10}$	$\frac{6.80}{10}$	$\frac{7.0}{10}$	$\frac{6.73}{10}$	$\frac{7.37}{10}$	$\frac{8.62}{10}$	$\frac{5.35}{10}$
Salah	Striker	$\frac{5.51}{10}$	$\frac{8.18}{10}$	$\frac{7.21}{10}$	$\frac{7.01}{10}$	$\frac{7.16}{10}$	$\frac{7.20}{10}$	$\frac{7.72}{10}$	$\frac{8.16}{10}$	$\frac{5.71}{10}$
Gakpo	Striker	$\frac{5.65}{10}$	$\frac{7.84}{10}$	$\frac{6.73}{10}$	$\frac{7.56}{10}$	$\frac{7.24}{10}$	$\frac{6.96}{10}$	$\frac{7.29}{10}$	$\frac{7.59}{10}$	$\frac{5.68}{10}$
Jota	Striker	$\frac{5.29}{10}$	$\frac{7.94}{10}$	$\frac{7.51}{10}$	$\frac{7.11}{10}$	$\frac{7.42}{10}$	$\frac{6.72}{10}$	$\frac{7.39}{10}$	$\frac{6.99}{10}$	$\frac{5.61}{10}$

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

4.2. Players' ratings under Pythagorean fuzzy environment

Due to indecision in everyday events, the BBC Sport analysts would have definitely encountered imprecisions while rating players. Following this, we transform the players' ratings into PFSs. BBC Sport analysts give analysis of every EPL match immediately after the match is played. After collecting the data, it is converted to PF data to enhance the encapsulation of uncertainties and imprecisions of the analysts. For the conversion, each MD is the allocated value by the analysts, each NMD is $1-\text{MD}$ from the corresponding MD, and each HM is computed using $\text{HM} = (1-\text{MD}^2-\text{NMD}^2)^{0.5}$ . By letting the players be denoted by $\mathcal{P}_j$ for $j = 1, 2, \cdots, 11$ , their ratings in the Pythagorean fuzzy setting can be seen in Table 5.

Table 5. Pythagorean fuzzy rtings.

Match ratings
Players	$\mathcal{M}_1$	$\mathcal{M}_2$	$\mathcal{M}_3$	$\mathcal{M}_4$	$\mathcal{M}_5$	$\mathcal{M}_6$	$\mathcal{M}_7$	$\mathcal{M}_8$	$\mathcal{M}_9$
$\mathcal{P}_1$	$\big(\frac{5.92}{10}, \frac{4.08}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.27}{10}, \frac{2.73}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.55}{10}, \frac{3.45}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.12}{10}, \frac{2.88}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.51}{10}, \frac{3.49}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.17}{10}, \frac{2.83}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.46}{10}, \frac{2.54}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{8.08}{10}, \frac{1.92}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{5.82}{10}, \frac{4.18}{10}\big)$
$\mathcal{P}_2$	$\big(\frac{5.63}{10}, \frac{4.37}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.76}{10}, \frac{2.24}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.77}{10}, \frac{3.23}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.27}{10}, \frac{2.73}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.0}{10}, \frac{3.0}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.13}{10}, \frac{2.87}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.1}{10}, \frac{3.9}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{8.45}{10}, \frac{1.55}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{5.45}{10}, \frac{4.55}{10}\big)$
$\mathcal{P}_3$	$\big(\frac{6.09}{10}, \frac{3.91}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.79}{10}, \frac{3.21}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.44}{10}, \frac{3.56}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{0}{10}, \frac{10}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.38}{10}, \frac{3.62}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.89}{10}, \frac{3.11}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.38}{10}, \frac{2.62}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.87}{10}, \frac{2.13}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{5.35}{10}, \frac{4.65}{10}\big)$
$\mathcal{P}_4$	$\big(\frac{5.25}{10}, \frac{4.75}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.07}{10}, \frac{2.93}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.41}{10}, \frac{3.59}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.88}{10}, \frac{3.12}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.31}{10}, \frac{3.69}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.79}{10}, \frac{3.21}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{8.40}{10}, \frac{1.60}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.83}{10}, \frac{2.17}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{5.47}{10}, \frac{4.53}{10}\big)$
$\mathcal{P}_5$	$\big(\frac{5.77}{10}, \frac{4.23}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.49}{10}, \frac{2.51}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.08}{10}, \frac{3.92}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.85}{10}, \frac{3.15}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.49}{10}, \frac{3.51}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.93}{10}, \frac{3.07}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.45}{10}, \frac{2.55}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{8.01}{10}, \frac{1.99}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{5.45}{10}, \frac{4.55}{10}\big)$
$\mathcal{P}_6$	$\big(\frac{5.36}{10}, \frac{4.64}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.83}{10}, \frac{3.17}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.37}{10}, \frac{3.63}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.85}{10}, \frac{3.15}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.37}{10}, \frac{3.63}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.63}{10}, \frac{3.37}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.36}{10}, \frac{2.64}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.73}{10}, \frac{2.27}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{5.33}{10}, \frac{4.67}{10}\big)$
$\mathcal{P}_7$	$\big(\frac{5.66}{10}, \frac{4.34}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.28}{10}, \frac{2.72}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.37}{10}, \frac{3.63}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.76}{10}, \frac{3.24}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.11}{10}, \frac{3.89}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.58}{10}, \frac{3.42}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.62}{10}, \frac{3.38}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.66}{10}, \frac{2.34}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{5.29}{10}, \frac{4.71}{10}\big)$
$\mathcal{P}_8$	$\big(\frac{5.16}{10}, \frac{4.84}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.16}{10}, \frac{2.84}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.22}{10}, \frac{3.78}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.80}{10}, \frac{3.20}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.0}{10}, \frac{3.0}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.73}{10}, \frac{3.27}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.37}{10}, \frac{2.63}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{8.62}{10}, \frac{1.38}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{5.35}{10}, \frac{4.65}{10}\big)$
$\mathcal{P}_9$	$\big(\frac{5.51}{10}, \frac{4.49}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{8.18}{10}, \frac{1.82}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.21}{10}, \frac{2.79}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.01}{10}, \frac{2.99}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.16}{10}, \frac{2.84}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.20}{10}, \frac{2.80}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.72}{10}, \frac{2.28}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{8.16}{10}, \frac{1.84}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{5.71}{10}, \frac{4.29}{10}\big)$
$\mathcal{P}_{10}$	$\big(\frac{5.65}{10}, \frac{4.35}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.84}{10}, \frac{2.16}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.73}{10}, \frac{3.27}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.56}{10}, \frac{2.44}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.24}{10}, \frac{2.76}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.96}{10}, \frac{3.04}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.29}{10}, \frac{2.71}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.59}{10}, \frac{2.41}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{5.68}{10}, \frac{4.32}{10}\big)$
$\mathcal{P}_{11}$	$\big(\frac{5.29}{10}, \frac{4.71}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.94}{10}, \frac{2.06}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.51}{10}, \frac{2.49}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.11}{10}, \frac{2.89}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.42}{10}, \frac{2.58}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.72}{10}, \frac{3.28}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.39}{10}, \frac{2.61}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.99}{10}, \frac{3.01}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{5.61}{10}, \frac{4.39}{10}\big)$

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

In , $\mathcal{P}_{1}$ represents the goalkeeper, $\mathcal{P}_{2}$ , $\mathcal{P}_{3}$ , $\mathcal{P}_{4}$ , and $\mathcal{P}_{5}$ represent the defenders, $\mathcal{P}_{6}$ , $\mathcal{P}_{7}$ , and $\mathcal{P}_{8}$ represent the midfielders, and $\mathcal{P}_{9}$ , $\mathcal{P}_{10}$ , and $\mathcal{P}_{11}$ represent the strikers/attackers, respectively. Now, we establish the relationship between the players using the similarity functions (2.1)–(2.9) ^{[50,51,52,53,54]} and the new similarity function (3.1).

4.2.1. Determination of relationships between goalkeeper and defenders

Here, we compute the similarities between the goalkeeper and the defenders to establish their relationships. By computation, we get the results in Table 6.

Table 6. Goalkeeper vs. Defenders.

SF	$(\mathcal{P}_{1}, \mathcal{P}_{2})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{1}, \mathcal{P}_{3})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{1}, \mathcal{P}_{4})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{1}, \mathcal{P}_{5})$
$\Upsilon_1$ ^[50]	$-0.0933$	$0.0379$	$-0.0799$	$-0.0934$
$\Upsilon_2$ ^[51]	$0.8913$	$0.7693$	$0.9023$	$0.9485$
$\Upsilon_3$ ^[52]	$0.0442$	$-0.0126$	$0.0502$	$0.0773$
$\Upsilon_4$ ^[52]	$0.0604$	$0.0076$	$0.0648$	$0.0848$
$\Upsilon_5$ ^[52]	$0.0442$	$-0.0036$	$0.0502$	$0.0773$
$\Upsilon_6$ ^[52]	$0.0442$	$-0.0126$	$0.0502$	$0.0773$
$\Upsilon_7$ ^[53]	$0.0704$	$-0.1097$	$-0.1078$	$0.0233$
$\Upsilon_8$ ^[54]	$-0.1026$	$0.124$	$0.1782$	$0.4292$
$\Upsilon$	$0.9262$	$0.8401$	$0.9338$	$0.9654$

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

The results show that the new similarity function yields the most precise outputs compare to the other methods. Some of the extant methods ^{[50,52,53,54]} yield negative results which are not defined within the closed interval (i.e., $[0, 1]$ ), and hence they violate the rule of similarity function. From Table 6, we see that Alisson relates more with Robertson than the rest of the defenders. The sequence of the relationships between the goalkeeper and the defenders range from Robertson, Van Dijk, and Alexander-Arnold to Konate.

4.2.2. Determination of relationships among defenders

The similarities among the defenders are calculated to establish their relationships. The relationships among the defenders can be seen in Table 7.

Table 7. Defenders vs. Defenders.

SF	$(\mathcal{P}_{2}, \mathcal{P}_{3})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{2}, \mathcal{P}_{4})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{2}, \mathcal{P}_{5})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{3}, \mathcal{P}_{4})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{3}, \mathcal{P}_{5})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{4}, \mathcal{P}_{5})$
$\Upsilon_1$ ^[50]	$-0.0517$	$0.0178$	$0.1105$	$0.0408$	$-0.0998$	$-0.1061$
$\Upsilon_2$ ^[51]	$0.7048$	$0.8326$	$0.8834$	$0.7572$	$0.7739$	$0.9175$
$\Upsilon_3$ ^[52]	$-0.0357$	$0.0146$	$0.0399$	$-0.0172$	$-0.0108$	$\approx 0$
$\Upsilon_4$ ^[52]	$-0.0131$	$0.0381$	$0.0576$	$0.0049$	$0.0049$	$\approx 0$
$\Upsilon_5$ ^[52]	$-0.0143$	$0.0146$	$0.0399$	$-0.0047$	$-0.0017$	$\approx 0$
$\Upsilon_6$ ^[52]	$-0.0357$	$0.0146$	$0.0399$	$-0.0172$	$-0.0108$	$\approx 0$
$\Upsilon_7$ ^[53]	$0.1111$	$0.0739$	$0.1111$	$-0.1093$	$0.0683$	$0.1093$
$\Upsilon_8$ ^[54]	$0.1446$	$0.0153$	$0.2733$	$-0.4328$	$-0.5565$	$0.1224$
$\Upsilon$	$0.793$	$0.8852$	$0.9207$	$0.8313$	$0.8434$	$0.9442$

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

The results in show that the new similarity function yields satisfactory results with better precision compared to the other methods. Again, the methods in ^{[50,52,53,54]} yield negative results which are not defined within the closed interval (i.e., $[0, 1]$ ). From Table 7, we see that Robertson has a very good performance among the defenders. Robertson and Van Dijk have the best relationship between themselves, followed by Robertson and Alexander-Arnold. In addition, Alexander-Arnold and Van Dijk also have a good relationship. The least relationship among the defenders is the relationship between Alexander-Arnold and Konate.

4.2.3. Determination of relationships between defenders and midfielders

Here, we compute the similarities between defenders and midfielders to establish their relationships. The relationships between the defenders and the midfielders are presented in Tables 8 and 9, respectively.

Table 8. Defenders vs. Midfielders Ⅰ.

SF	$(\mathcal{P}_{2}, \mathcal{P}_{6})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{2}, \mathcal{P}_{7})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{2}, \mathcal{P}_{8})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{3}, \mathcal{P}_{6})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{3}, \mathcal{P}_{7})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{3}, \mathcal{P}_{8})$
$\Upsilon_1$ ^[50]	$-0.1048$	$-0.0769$	$0.0304$	$0.025$	$0.0497$	$0.0257$
$\Upsilon_2$ ^[51]	$0.8501$	$0.8745$	$0.886$	$0.7889$	$0.7571$	$0.7456$
$\Upsilon_3$ ^[52]	$0.0229$	$0.0353$	$0.0413$	$-0.0047$	$-0.0173$	$-0.0216$
$\Upsilon_4$ ^[52]	$0.0438$	$0.054$	$0.0575$	$0.0106$	$0.0153$	$0.005$
$\Upsilon_5$ ^[52]	$0.0229$	$0.0353$	$0.0413$	$0.0002$	$-0.0049$	$-0.0071$
$\Upsilon_6$ ^[52]	$0.0229$	$0.0353$	$0.0413$	$-0.0108$	$-0.0047$	$-0.0173$
$\Upsilon_7$ ^[53]	$-0.1035$	$0.0981$	0.0909	$0.1093$	$0.0951$	$0.1111$
$\Upsilon_8$ ^[54]	$-0.6365$	$0.0608$	$0.2586$	0.3137	$-0.2592$	$0.0657$
$\Upsilon$	$0.8975$	$0.9146$	$0.9225$	$0.8541$	$0.8312$	$0.8229$

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Table 9. Defenders vs. Midfielders Ⅱ.

SF	$(\mathcal{P}_{4}, \mathcal{P}_{6})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{4}, \mathcal{P}_{7})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{4}, \mathcal{P}_{8})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{5}, \mathcal{P}_{6})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{5}, \mathcal{P}_{7})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{5}, \mathcal{P}_{8})$
$\Upsilon_1$ ^[50]	$0.1103$	$-0.0799$	$-0.0791$	$-0.0571$	$-0.0832$	$0.0674$
$\Upsilon_2$ ^[51]	$0.9401$	$0.9023$	$0.9023$	$0.9349$	$0.9198$	$0.9232$
$\Upsilon_3$ ^[52]	$0.0722$	$0.0502$	$0.0502$	$0.691$	$0.0601$	$0.0621$
$\Upsilon_4$ ^[52]	$0.0834$	$0.0654$	$0.0676$	$0.0788$	$0.0723$	$0.0741$
$\Upsilon_5$ ^[52]	$0.0722$	$0.0502$	$0.0502$	$0.0891$	$0.0601$	$0.0621$
$\Upsilon_6$ ^[52]	$0.0722$	$0.0502$	$0.0502$	$0.0691$	$0.0601$	$0.0621$
$\Upsilon_7$ ^[53]	$0.0327$	$-0.007$	$0.0513$	$0.0514$	$0.0132$	$0.0683$
$\Upsilon_8$ ^[54]	$0.2221$	$0.2184$	$-0.3919$	$-0.0011$	$0.1224$	$0.2108$
$\Upsilon$	$0.9597$	$0.9338$	$0.9338$	$0.9561$	$0.9458$	$0.9482$

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

The results in Tables 8 and 9 show that the report on the performances of the methods in ^{[50,52,53,54]} is similar to the reports in Tables 6 and 7. From Tables 8 and 9, we see that Van Dijk and Fabinho have the best relationship in terms of passing and communications between each other. In addition, Robertson has a good relationship with Fabinho, Henderson, and Jones in that order. The least relationship between a defender and a midfielder is that between Konate and Jones. From the analysis, the best contributing defenders are Robertson and Van Dijk, in that order.

4.2.4. Determination of relationships among midfielders

The relationships among the midfielders are presented in Table 10 as determined by similarity methods.

Table 10. Midfielders vs. Midfielders.

SF	$(\mathcal{P}_{6}, \mathcal{P}_{7})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{6}, \mathcal{P}_{8})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{7}, \mathcal{P}_{8})$
$\Upsilon_1$ ^[50]	$0.0441$	$0.0734$	$0.0586$
$\Upsilon_2$ ^[51]	$0.9425$	$0.9273$	$0.8947$
$\Upsilon_3$ ^[52]	$0.0737$	$0.0645$	$0.046$
$\Upsilon_4$ ^[52]	$0.0823$	$0.0773$	$0.0618$
$\Upsilon_5$ ^[52]	$0.0737$	$0.0645$	$0.046$
$\Upsilon_6$ ^[52]	$0.0737$	$0.0645$	$0.046$
$\Upsilon_7$ ^[53]	$0.1039$	$0.1093$	$0.0951$
$\Upsilon_8$ ^[54]	$0.1614$	$-0.2673$	$0.038$
$\Upsilon$	$0.9613$	$0.9509$	$0.9286$

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

From Table 10, we see that the new similarity function is sufficiently reliable with precise results compared to the existing methods. It is observed that the midfielders have better relationships among themselves. Clearly, Fabinho and Henderson have the best relationship, followed by the relationship between Fabinho and Jones. Finally, the least relationship among the midfielders is that between Henderson and Jones, which is also good.

4.2.5. Determination of relationships between midfielders and attackers

Here, we present the relationships between midfielders and attackers to ascertain the fluidity of the team via similarity functions. The results are presented in Table 11.

Table 11. Midfielders vs. Attackers.

SF	$(\mathcal{P}_{6}, \mathcal{P}_{9})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{6}, \mathcal{P}_{10})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{6}, \mathcal{P}_{11})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{7}, \mathcal{P}_{9})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{7}, \mathcal{P}_{10})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{7}, \mathcal{P}_{11})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{8}, \mathcal{P}_{9})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{8}, \mathcal{P}_{10})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{8}, \mathcal{P}_{11})$
$\Upsilon_1$ ^[50]	$0.0877$	$0.1019$	$-0.1056$	$-0.074$	$-0.1069$	$0.0088$	$0.0282$	$0.00004$	$0.1104$
$\Upsilon_2$ ^[51]	$0.8546$	$0.8822$	$0.8621$	$0.8345$	$0.8757$	$0.8396$	$0.8723$	$0.8729$	$0.8558$
$\Upsilon_3$ ^[52]	$0.0252$	$0.0393$	$0.0289$	$0.0154$	$0.0359$	$0.0179$	$0.0341$	$0.0344$	$0.0257$
$\Upsilon_4$ ^[52]	$0.0457$	$0.0558$	$0.0485$	$0.0372$	$0.053$	$0.0383$	$0.053$	$0.0533$	$0.0477$
$\Upsilon_5$ ^[52]	$0.0252$	$0.0393$	$0.0289$	$0.0154$	$0.0359$	$0.0179$	$0.0341$	$0.0344$	$0.0257$
$\Upsilon_6$ ^[52]	$0.0252$	$0.0393$	$0.0289$	$0.0154$	$0.0359$	$0.0179$	$0.0341$	$0.0344$	$0.0257$
$\Upsilon_7$ ^[53]	$-0.105$	$-0.1109$	$-0.0924$	$-0.0854$	$-0.1016$	$-0.1083$	$-0.1098$	$-0.1102$	$-0.0798$
$\Upsilon_8$ ^[54]	$0.0277$	$0.1412$	$0.1756$	$-0.1084$	$-0.0069$	$0.0262$	$-0.0069$	0.0126	0.1297
$\Upsilon$	$0.9007$	$0.9199$	$0.9059$	$0.8865$	$0.9154$	$0.8902$	$0.913$	$0.9134$	$0.9015$

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

From the results in Table 11, we see that the midfielders contribute immensely towards the winning streak of the Liverpool FC in the EPL 2022/2023 season. However, it is necessary to note that Fabinho is an exceptional among the midfielders in terms of contribution.

4.2.6. Determination of relationships among attackers

The relationships among the attackers are shown in Table 12 to determine the most effective attackers.

Table 12. Attackers vs. Attackers.

SF	$(\mathcal{P}_{9}, \mathcal{P}_{11})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{6}, \mathcal{P}_{10})$	$(\mathcal{P}_{6}, \mathcal{P}_{11})$
$\Upsilon_1$ ^[50]	$0.1101$	$-0.0682$	$0.0011$
$\Upsilon_2$ ^[51]	$0.9108$	$0.902$	$0.9146$
$\Upsilon_3$ ^[52]	$0.0549$	$0.05$	$0.0571$
$\Upsilon_4$ ^[52]	$0.0711$	$0.0669$	$0.0709$
$\Upsilon_5$ ^[52]	$0.0549$	$0.05$	$0.0571$
$\Upsilon_6$ ^[52]	$0.0549$	$0.05$	$0.0571$
$\Upsilon_7$ ^[53]	$0.1069$	$0.067$	$0.0888$
$\Upsilon_8$ ^[54]	$0.0763$	$0.5241$	$0.065$
$\Upsilon$	$0.9396$	$0.9336$	$0.9422$

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

From Table 12, we see that the attackers have a good number of goals shared among them. In fact, they make a good use of the contributions of the midfielders. Though the attackers related well among themselves, the relationship between Gakpo and Jota is the best.

4.2.7. Determination of the most valuable players

Here, we want to determine the most valuable players among the eleven frequently used players by their manager. The MCDM approach is adopted for the determination process.

Algorithm for the MCDM

The following steps will be followed for the MCDM approach.

Step 1. Formulate the PFDM (Pythagorean fuzzy decision matrix) $\tilde{P}_j = \lbrace M_i (\tilde{P}_j)\rbrace_{(m\times n)}$ , where $i = 1, 2, \cdots, k$ , $j = 1, 2, \cdots, l$ , $M_i$ , and $\tilde{P}_j$ represent matches and players, respectively.

Step 2. Normalize the PFDM to get the normalized PFDM denoted by

$\tilde{P} = \langle \sigma_{\tilde{P}^*_{j}}(M_i), \delta_{\tilde{P}^*_{j}}(M_i)\rangle_{k\times l},$

where $\langle \sigma_{\tilde{P}^*_{j}}(M_i), \delta_{\tilde{P}^*_{j}}(M_i)\rangle$ are PFNs, and $\tilde{P}$ is

$\begin{equation} \langle \sigma_{\tilde{P}^*_{j}}(M_i), \delta_{\tilde{P}^*_{j}}(M_i)\rangle = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \langle \sigma_{\tilde{P}_{j}}(M_i), \delta_{\tilde{P}_{j}}(M_i)\rangle & \; \rm{for BC of}\: \tilde{P}\\ \langle \delta_{\tilde{P}_{j}}(M_i), \sigma_{\tilde{P}_{j}}(M_i)\rangle & \; \rm{for CC of}\: \tilde{P} \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(4.1)

where BC and CC are the benefit criterion and cost criterion, respectively.

Step 3. Compute PIS and NIS using

$\begin{equation} \begin{split} \tilde{P}^+ = \lbrace\tilde{P}^+_1, \tilde{P}^+_2, \cdots, \tilde{P}^+_k\rbrace, \; \tilde{P}^- = \lbrace\tilde{P}^-_1, \tilde{P}^-_2, \cdots, \tilde{P}^-_k\rbrace, \end{split} \end{equation}$

(4.2)

where

$\begin{equation} \tilde{P}^+ = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \langle \max\lbrace \sigma_{\tilde{P}_{j}}(M_i)\rbrace, \min\lbrace\delta_{\tilde{P}_{j}}(M_i)\rbrace\rangle, & \: \rm{if}\; M_i \; \text{is a BC}\\ \langle \min\lbrace \sigma_{\tilde{P}_{j}}(M_i)\rbrace, \max\lbrace\delta_{\tilde{P}_{j}}(M_i)\rbrace\rangle, & \: \rm{if}\; M_i \; \text{is a CC} \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(4.3)

and

$\begin{equation} \tilde{P}^- = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \langle \min\lbrace \sigma_{\tilde{P}_{j}}(M_i)\rbrace, \max\lbrace\delta_{\tilde{P}_{j}}(M_i)\rbrace\rangle, & \: \rm{if}\; M_i \; \text{is a BC}\\ \langle \max\lbrace \sigma_{\tilde{P}_{j}}(M_i)\rbrace, \min\lbrace\delta_{\tilde{P}_{j}}(M_i)\rbrace\rangle, & \: \rm{if}\; M_i \; \text{is a CC} \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(4.4)

Note that, PIS is the positive ideal solution and NIS is the negative ideal solution, respectively.

Step 4. Find the similarities $\Upsilon(\tilde{P}_{j}, \tilde{P}^-)$ and $\Upsilon(\tilde{P}_{j}, \tilde{P}^+)$ based on (3.1).

Step 5. Compute the closeness coefficients $\Theta(\tilde{P}_j)$ using (4.5),

$\begin{equation} \Theta(\tilde{P}_j ) = \dfrac{\Upsilon(\tilde{P}_{j}, \tilde{P}^+)}{\Upsilon(\tilde{P}_{j}, \tilde{P}^+) +\Upsilon(\tilde{P}_{j}, \tilde{P}^-)}, \end{equation}$

(4.5)

for $j = 1, 2, \cdots, k$ .

Step 6. Decide the maximum closeness coefficient for the analysis. The flowchart for the algorithm is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Flowchart for the MCDM.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Implementation

The PFDM has been presented in . The CC is $M_9$ since it is the match where the players have the lowest performance ratings according to BBC Sport analysts (i.e., the match played with Aston Villa on 21/05/2023). The normalized PFDM is presented in Table 13, and the PIS and NIS are in Table 14.

Table 13. Normalized Pythagorean fuzzy ratings.

Match ratings
Players	$\mathcal{M}_1$	$\mathcal{M}_2$	$\mathcal{M}_3$	$\mathcal{M}_4$	$\mathcal{M}_5$	$\mathcal{M}_6$	$\mathcal{M}_7$	$\mathcal{M}_8$	$\mathcal{M}_9$
$\tilde{P}_1$	$\big(\frac{5.92}{10}, \frac{4.08}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.27}{10}, \frac{2.73}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.55}{10}, \frac{3.45}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.12}{10}, \frac{2.88}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.51}{10}, \frac{3.49}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.17}{10}, \frac{2.83}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.46}{10}, \frac{2.54}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{8.08}{10}, \frac{1.92}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{4.18}{10}, \frac{5.82}{10}\big)$
$\tilde{P}_2$	$\big(\frac{5.63}{10}, \frac{4.37}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.76}{10}, \frac{2.24}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.77}{10}, \frac{3.23}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.27}{10}, \frac{2.73}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.0}{10}, \frac{3.0}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.13}{10}, \frac{2.87}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.1}{10}, \frac{3.9}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{8.45}{10}, \frac{1.55}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{4.55}{10}, \frac{5.45}{10}\big)$
$\tilde{P}_3$	$\big(\frac{6.09}{10}, \frac{3.91}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.79}{10}, \frac{3.21}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.44}{10}, \frac{3.56}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{0}{10}, \frac{10}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.38}{10}, \frac{3.62}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.89}{10}, \frac{3.11}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.38}{10}, \frac{2.62}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.87}{10}, \frac{2.13}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{4.65}{10}, \frac{5.35}{10}\big)$
$\tilde{P}_4$	$\big(\frac{5.25}{10}, \frac{4.75}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.07}{10}, \frac{2.93}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.41}{10}, \frac{3.59}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.88}{10}, \frac{3.12}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.31}{10}, \frac{3.69}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.79}{10}, \frac{3.21}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{8.40}{10}, \frac{1.60}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.83}{10}, \frac{2.17}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{4.53}{10}, \frac{5.47}{10}\big)$
$\tilde{P}_5$	$\big(\frac{5.77}{10}, \frac{4.23}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.49}{10}, \frac{2.51}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.08}{10}, \frac{3.92}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.85}{10}, \frac{3.15}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.49}{10}, \frac{3.51}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.93}{10}, \frac{3.07}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.45}{10}, \frac{2.55}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{8.01}{10}, \frac{1.99}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{4.55}{10}, \frac{5.45}{10}\big)$
$\tilde{P}_6$	$\big(\frac{5.36}{10}, \frac{4.64}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.83}{10}, \frac{3.17}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.37}{10}, \frac{3.63}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.85}{10}, \frac{3.15}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.37}{10}, \frac{3.63}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.63}{10}, \frac{3.37}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.36}{10}, \frac{2.64}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.73}{10}, \frac{2.27}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{4.67}{10}, \frac{5.33}{10}\big)$
$\tilde{P}_7$	$\big(\frac{5.66}{10}, \frac{4.34}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.28}{10}, \frac{2.72}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.37}{10}, \frac{3.63}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.76}{10}, \frac{3.24}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.11}{10}, \frac{3.89}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.58}{10}, \frac{3.42}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.62}{10}, \frac{3.38}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.66}{10}, \frac{2.34}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{4.71}{10}, \frac{5.29}{10}\big)$
$\tilde{P}_8$	$\big(\frac{5.16}{10}, \frac{4.84}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.16}{10}, \frac{2.84}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.22}{10}, \frac{3.78}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.80}{10}, \frac{3.20}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.0}{10}, \frac{3.0}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.73}{10}, \frac{3.27}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.37}{10}, \frac{2.63}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{8.62}{10}, \frac{1.38}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{4.65}{10}, \frac{5.35}{10}\big)$
$\tilde{P}_9$	$\big(\frac{5.51}{10}, \frac{4.49}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{8.18}{10}, \frac{1.82}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.21}{10}, \frac{2.79}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.01}{10}, \frac{2.99}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.16}{10}, \frac{2.84}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.20}{10}, \frac{2.80}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.72}{10}, \frac{2.28}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{8.16}{10}, \frac{1.84}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{4.29}{10}, \frac{5.71}{10}\big)$
$\tilde{P}_{10}$	$\big(\frac{5.65}{10}, \frac{4.35}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.84}{10}, \frac{2.16}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.73}{10}, \frac{3.27}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.56}{10}, \frac{2.44}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.24}{10}, \frac{2.76}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.96}{10}, \frac{3.04}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.29}{10}, \frac{2.71}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.59}{10}, \frac{2.41}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{4.32}{10}, \frac{5.68}{10}\big)$
$\tilde{P}_{11}$	$\big(\frac{5.29}{10}, \frac{4.71}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.94}{10}, \frac{2.06}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.51}{10}, \frac{2.49}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.11}{10}, \frac{2.89}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.42}{10}, \frac{2.58}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.72}{10}, \frac{3.28}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.39}{10}, \frac{2.61}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.99}{10}, \frac{3.01}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{4.39}{10}, \frac{5.61}{10}\big)$

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Table 14. PIS and NIS.

PIS/NIS	$\mathcal{M}_1$	$\mathcal{M}_2$	$\mathcal{M}_3$	$\mathcal{M}_4$	$\mathcal{M}_5$	$\mathcal{M}_6$	$\mathcal{M}_7$	$\mathcal{M}_8$	$\mathcal{M}_9$
$\tilde{P}^{+}$	$\big(\frac{6.09}{10}, \frac{3.91}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{8.18}{10}, \frac{1.82}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.51}{10}, \frac{2.49}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.56}{10}, \frac{2.44}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.42}{10}, \frac{2.58}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{7.2}{10}, \frac{2.8}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{8.4}{10}, \frac{1.6}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{8.62}{10}, \frac{1.38}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{4.18}{10}, \frac{5.82}{10}\big)$
$\tilde{P}^{-}$	$\big(\frac{5.16}{10}, \frac{4.84}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.79}{10}, \frac{3.21}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.08}{10}, \frac{3.92}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{0}{10}, \frac{1}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.11}{10}, \frac{3.89}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.58}{10}, \frac{3.42}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.1}{10}, \frac{3.9}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{6.99}{10}, \frac{3.01}{10}\big)$	$\big(\frac{4.71}{10}, \frac{5.29}{10}\big)$

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

We observe that $\tilde{P}^{+}$ and $\tilde{P}^{-}$ represent the best and worst ratings of the players in each matchday, respectively.

Next, we compute the similarities of $(\tilde{P}_j, \tilde{P}^{+})$ and $(\tilde{P}_j, \tilde{P}^{-})$ based on (3.1), and Table 15 contains the results.

Table 15. Similarities for

$(\tilde{P}_j, \tilde{P}^{+})$ and

$(\tilde{P}_j, \tilde{P}^{-})$ .

Players	$\Upsilon(\tilde{P}_j, \tilde{P}^{+})$	$\Upsilon(\tilde{P}_j, \tilde{P}^{-})$
$\tilde{P}_1$	0.8757	0.8135
$\tilde{P}_2$	0.8836	0.8162
$\tilde{P}_3$	0.7541	0.7901
$\tilde{P}_4$	0.8635	0.832
$\tilde{P}_5$	0.8628	0.8328
$\tilde{P}_6$	0.8367	0.862
$\tilde{P}_7$	0.8286	0.8707
$\tilde{P}_8$	0.8674	0.8305
$\tilde{P}_9$	0.9188	0.7767
$\tilde{P}_{10}$	0.892	0.8047
$\tilde{P}_{11}$	0.8851	0.8098

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Using the information in Table 15, we get the closeness coefficients in Table 16, which is represented in Figure 2.

Table 16. Closeness coefficients.

Players	$\Theta(\tilde{P}_j)$	Ranking
$\tilde{P}_1$	0.5184	Fifth
$\tilde{P}_2$	0.5198	Fourth
$\tilde{P}_3$	0.4883	Tenth
$\tilde{P}_4$	0.5093	Seventh
$\tilde{P}_5$	0.5088	Eighth
$\tilde{P}_6$	0.4926	Ninth
$\tilde{P}_7$	0.4876	Eleventh
$\tilde{P}_8$	0.5109	Sixth
$\tilde{P}_9$	0.5419	First
$\tilde{P}_{10}$	0.5257	Second
$\tilde{P}_{11}$	0.5222	Third

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Figure 2. Closeness coefficients of the players.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

From the ranking in Table 16 and Figure 2, we see that the player that contributes most to the overall performance of the club in the EPL 2022/2023 season is Salah. He is followed by Gakpo, Jota, Alexander-Arnold, Alisson, Jones, Van Dijk, Robertson, Fabinho, Konate, and Henderson, respectively. Overall, all the players (including the less featured ones due to forms and injuries) contributed immensely to the resurgency of the club towards the end of the EPL season. We recommend that, the club should ensure the high ranked players are given contract renewal/extension to enable them to contribute more in the forthcoming seasons.

4.3. Practical implications of the players' similarity analysis

Table 6 indicates that Alisson and Robertson have a closer relationship than the other defenders. The order of the relationships between the goalie and the defenders range from Robertson, Van Dijk, and Alexander-Arnold to Konate. Table 7 shows that, out of all the defenders, Robertson performs exceptionally well. The strongest bond between Robertson and Van Dijk is followed by that between Robertson and Alexander-Arnold. Furthermore, Van Dijk and Alexander-Arnold get along well. The relationship between Alexander-Arnold and Konate is the least strong among the defenders. Van Dijk and Fabinho have the best relationship when it comes to passing and communication between them, as shown by Tables 8 and 9. Furthermore, Robertson gets along well with Jones, Henderson, and Fabinho, in that order. Konate and Jones have the least relationship of any defender and midfielder. According to the analysis, Van Dijk and Robertson are the two best contributing defenders, in that order.

It has been noted that the relationships amongst the midfielders are better. It is obvious that the relationship between Fabinho and Jones is superior to that of Fabinho and Henderson. Last but not least, Henderson and Jones have the least relationship of any midfield player, which is also positive. According to Table 11, midfield players had a significant impact on Liverpool FC's winning streak in the EPL 2022/2023 season. But, it is important to recognize that Fabinho stands out among the midfield players in terms of his contributions. Table 12 indicates that there is a considerable goal distribution among the attackers. In actuality, they effectively utilize the midfielders' contributions. Even though the attackers get along well with one another, Gakpo and Jota have the best relationship.

From the PF MCDM method based on similarity function, we see that the overall players performances are ranked as follows: Salah, Gakpo, Jota, Alexander-Arnold, Alisson, Jones, Van Dijk, Robertson, Fabinho, Konate, and Henderson, respectively. In this approach, the possibility of uncertainties and imprecisions are reliably curbed. Based on the classical approach, which is obtained by summing the player ratings in the nine matches as provided by the BBC Sport analysts, the overall players performances are ranked as follows: Salah, Gakpo, Jota, Alisson, Alexander-Arnold, Robertson, Van Dijk and Jones (tied), Fabinho, Henderson, and Konate, respectively.

We observe that there are no ties in the PF MCDM-based similarity function, whereas ties exists using the classical approach. Though Konate missed matchday 4, he still ranked better than Henderson using the PF MCDM-based similarity function, but that is not the case with the classical approach. By the PF MCDM-based similarity function, Alexander-Arnold ranked better than Alisson, and Jones and Van Dijk ranked better than Robertson against the rankings via the classical approach. These discrepancies are observed in the classical case because the PF MCDM-based similarity function curbed the uncertainties, indecisions, and imprecisions encountered by the BBC Sport analysts. For a reliable football analysis, we strongly recommend the use of the PF MCDM-based similarity function ahead of the classical approach.

5. Conclusions

In this paper, a new method of SFPFSs is developed and applied in the analysis of football matches played by Liverpool FC in the EPL 2022/2023 season. The motivation for the development of this similarity function is because of the limitations of the extant methods of SFPFSs, which include lack of precision, inability to satisfy similarity conditions, omission of the PFHM, and unreliable interpretations in practical cases. These limitations are justified by presenting comparative analyses of the new similarity function versus the extant similarity functions under the Pythagorean fuzzy domain, from which it is certain that the newly developed function outperforms the existing functions. Some theoretic properties of the newly developed similarity function are discussed to showcase its alignment with the similarity conditions. In addition, the new similarity function is used to discuss the relationships that exist among the players of Liverpool FC in the EPL 2022/2023 season in terms of passing, communications, contributions, and performances based on the recognition principle and the MCDM approach by using the players' rating data from BBC Sport analysts in nine consecutive matches. The analyses of the contributions of the players show that the performances of the players are ranked as follows: Salah, Gakpo, Jota, Alexander-Arnold, Alisson, Jones, Van Dijk, Robertson, Fabinho, Konate, and Henderson, respectively. In addition, it is observed that the MCDM approach yields more reliable results compared to the recognition principle and the classical approach. This application of similarity function for PFSs in football analysis is the first of its kind within the fuzzy domain. The new method of SFPFSs is limited, in the sense that it cannot be directly applicable in other variants of fuzzy set like Fermatean fuzzy sets, q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets, and picture fuzzy sets, etc. without modifications. This is because the new method was not constructed to incorporate the properties of these sets. The newly developed similarity function and the novel application are recommended to be studied in other higher variants of fuzzy sets in the future. Specifically, the new similarity function can be applied to the evaluation of ecological governance ^[44], attitude and cost-driven consistency optimization models ^[55], multi-stage consistency optimization algorithms ^[56], and other real-life problems ^[57,58,59].

Use of AI tools declaration

The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

Acknowledgement

This work is supported by the Rural Revitalization Special Project of Chongqing Science and Technology Bureau (No. CSTB2023TIAD-ZXX0017).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

[1]	L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Information and Control, 8 (1965), 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X doi: 10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
[2]	K. T. Atanassov, Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Set. Syst., 20 (1986), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(86)80034-3 doi: 10.1016/S0165-0114(86)80034-3
[3]	S. K. De, R. Biswas, A. R. Roy, An application of intuitionistic fuzzy sets in medical diagnosis, Fuzzy Set. Syst., 117 (2001), 209–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(98)00235-8 doi: 10.1016/S0165-0114(98)00235-8
[4]	E. Szmidt, J. Kacprzyk, Intuitionistic fuzzy sets in some medical applications, In: Computational intelligence: theory and applications, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2001,148–151. http://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45493-4_19
[5]	B. Davvaz, E. H. Sadrabadi, An application of intuitionistic fuzzy sets in medicine, Int. J. Biomath., 9 (2016), 1650037. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793524516500376 doi: 10.1142/S1793524516500376
[6]	P. A. Ejegwa, I. M. Adamu, Distances between intuitionistic fuzzy sets of second type with application to diagnostic medicine, Notes on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets, 25 (2019), 53–70. http://doi.org/10.7546/nifs.2019.25.3.53-70 doi: 10.7546/nifs.2019.25.3.53-70
[7]	P. A. Ejegwa, C. F. Ajogwu, A. Sarkar, A hybridized correlation coefficient technique and its application in classification process under intuitionistic fuzzy setting, Iran. J. Fuzzy Syst., 20 (2023), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.22111/ijfs.2023.42888.7508 doi: 10.22111/ijfs.2023.42888.7508
[8]	S. Xu, J. Chen, J. Wu, Cluster algorithm for intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Inform. Sciences, 178 (2008), 3775–3790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2008.06.008 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2008.06.008
[9]	P. A. Ejegwa, I. C. Onyeke, N. Kausar, P. Kattel, A new partial correlation coefficient technique based on intuitionistic fuzzy information and its pattern recognition application, Int. J. Intell. Syst., 2023 (2023), 5540085. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/5540085 doi: 10.1155/2023/5540085
[10]	A. G. Hatzimichailidis, A. G. Papakostas, V. G. Kaburlasos, A novel distance measure of intuitionistic fuzzy sets and its application to pattern recognition problems, Int. J. Intell. Syst., 27 (2012), 396–409. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21529 doi: 10.1002/int.21529
[11]	P. A. Ejegwa, S. Ahemen, Enhanced intuitionistic fuzzy similarity operator with applications in emergency management and pattern recognition, Granul. Comput., 8 (2023), 361–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41066-022-00334-1 doi: 10.1007/s41066-022-00334-1
[12]	W. Wang, X. Xin, Distance measure between intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Pattern Recogn. Lett., 26 (2005), 2063–2069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2005.03.018 doi: 10.1016/j.patrec.2005.03.018
[13]	F. E. Boran, D. Akay, A biparametric similarity measure on intuitionistic fuzzy sets with applications to pattern recognition, Inform. Sciences, 255 (2014), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2013.08.013 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2013.08.013
[14]	P. A. Ejegwa, J. M. Agbetayo, Similarity-distance decision-making technique and its applications via intuitionistic fuzzy pairs, Journal of Computational and Cognitive Engineering, 2 (2023), 68–74. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewJCCE512522514 doi: 10.47852/bonviewJCCE512522514
[15]	Y. Zhou, P. A. Ejegwa, S. E. Johnny, Generalized similarity operator for intuitionistic fuzzy sets and its applications based on recognition principle and multiple criteria decision making technique, Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst., 16 (2023), 85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44196-023-00245-2 doi: 10.1007/s44196-023-00245-2
[16]	P. Liu, S. M. Chen, Group decision making based on Heronian aggregation operators of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers, IEEE T. Cybernetics, 47 (2017), 2514–2530. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2016.2634599 doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2016.2634599
[17]	K. T. Atanassov, Geometrical interpretation of the elements of the intuitionistic fuzzy objects, International Journal Bioautomation 20 (2016), 27–42.
[18]	R. R. Yager, A. M. Abbasov, Pythagorean membership grades, complex numbers and decision making, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., 28 (2013), 436–452. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21584 doi: 10.1002/int.21584
[19]	P. A. Ejegwa, S. Wen, Y. Feng, W. Zhang, J. Liu, A three-way Pythagorean fuzzy correlation coefficient approach and its applications in deciding some real-life problems, Appl. Intell., 53 (2023), 226–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-022-03415-5 doi: 10.1007/s10489-022-03415-5
[20]	P. A. Ejegwa, S. Wen, Y. Feng, W. Zhang, J. Chen, Some new Pythagorean fuzzy correlation techniques via statistical viewpoint with applications to decision-making problems, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., 40 (2021), 9873–9886. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-202469 doi: 10.3233/JIFS-202469
[21]	D. Yan, K. Wu, P. A. Ejegwa, X. Xie, Y. Feng, Pythagorean fuzzy partial correlation measure and its application, Symmetry, 15 (2023), 216. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym15010216 doi: 10.3390/sym15010216
[22]	W. Zeng, D. Li, Q. Yin, Distance and similarity measures of Pythagorean fuzzy sets and their applications to multiple criteria group decision making, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., 33 (2018), 2236–2254. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22027 doi: 10.1002/int.22027
[23]	P. A. Ejegwa, I. C. Onyeke, Some new distance and similarity algorithms for Pythagorean fuzzy sets with application in decision-making problems, In: Handbook of research on advances and applications of fuzzy sets and logic, Pennsylvania: IGI Global Publisher, 2022,192–211. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-7979-4.ch008
[24]	X. Zhang, A novel approach based on similarity measure for Pythagorean fuzzy multiple criteria group decision making, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., 31 (2016), 593–611. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21796 doi: 10.1002/int.21796
[25]	K. Wu, P. A. Ejegwa, Y. Feng, I. C. Onyeke, S. E. Johnny, S. Ahemen, Some enhanced distance measuring approaches based on Pythagorean fuzzy information with applications in decision making, Symmetry, 14 (2022), 2669. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym14122669 doi: 10.3390/sym14122669
[26]	P. A. Ejegwa, Y. Feng, S. Tang, J. M. Agbetayo, X. Dai, New Pythagorean fuzzy-based distance operators and their applications in pattern classification and disease diagnostic analysis, Neural Comput. Applic., 35 (2023), 10083–10095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-022-07679-3 doi: 10.1007/s00521-022-07679-3
[27]	P. A. Ejegwa, Modified Zhang and Xu's distance measure of Pythagorean fuzzy sets and its application to pattern recognition problems, Neural Comput. Applic., 32 (2020), 10199–10208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-019-04554-6 doi: 10.1007/s00521-019-04554-6
[28]	D. Li, W. Zeng, Distance measure of Pythagorean fuzzy sets, Int. J. Intell. Syst., 33 (2018), 348–361. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21934 doi: 10.1002/int.21934
[29]	P. A. Ejegwa, Personnel appointments: A Pythagorean fuzzy sets approach using similarity measure, Journal of Information and Computing Science, 14 (2019), 94–102.
[30]	X. Peng, New similarity measure and distance measure for Pythagorean fuzzy set, Complex Intell. Syst., 5 (2019), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-018-0084-x doi: 10.1007/s40747-018-0084-x
[31]	P. A. Ejegwa, New similarity measures for Pythagorean fuzzy sets with applications, Int. J. Fuzzy Computations and Modelling, 3 (2020), 75–94. http://doi.org/10.1504/IJFCM.2020.106105 doi: 10.1504/IJFCM.2020.106105
[32]	P. A. Ejegwa, Y. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Feng, Novel measuring techniques with applications in pattern classification and diagnostic process under Pythagorean fuzzy environment, The 2023 International Conference on New Trends in Computational Intelligence, Qingdao, China, 2023, 28–35.
[33]	Y. Yang, Z. S. Chen, Y. H. Chen, K. S. Chin, Interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy Frank power aggregation operators based on an isomorphic Frank dual triple, Int. J. Comput. Int. Sys., 11 (2018), 1091–1110. https://doi.org/10.2991/ijcis.11.1.83 doi: 10.2991/ijcis.11.1.83
[34]	C. O. Nwokoro, U. G. Inyang, I. J. Eyoh, P. A. Ejegwa, Intuitionistic fuzzy approach for predicting maternal outcomes, In: Fuzzy optimization, decision-making and operations research, Cham: Springer, 2023,399–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35668-1_18
[35]	P. A. Ejegwa, A. Sarkar, I. C. Onyeke, New methods of computing correlation coefficient based on Pythagorean fuzzy information and their applications in disaster control and diagnostic analysis, In: Fuzzy optimization, decision-making and operations research, Cham: Springer, 2023,473–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35668-1_21
[36]	S. H. Gurmani, Z. Zhang, R. M. Zulqarnain, An integrated group decision-making technique under interval-valued probabilistic linguistic T-spherical fuzzy information and its application to the selection of cloud storage provider, AIMS Mathematics, 8 (2023), 20223–20253. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.20231031 doi: 10.3934/math.20231031
[37]	S. H. Gurmani, H. Garg, R. M. Zulqarnain, I. Siddique, Selection of unmanned aerial vehicles for precision agriculture using interval-valued q-rung orthopair fuzzy information based TOPSIS method, Int. J. Fuzzy Syst., 25 (2023), 2939–2953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-023-01568-0 doi: 10.1007/s40815-023-01568-0
[38]	S. H. Gurmani, Z. Zhang, R. M. Zulqarnain, S. Askar, An interaction and feedback mechanism-based group decision-making for emergency medical supplies supplier selection using T-spherical fuzzy information, Sci. Rep., 13 (2023), 8726. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-35909-8 doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-35909-8
[39]	R. R. Yager, Pythagorean membership grades in multicriteria decision making, IEEE T. Fuzzy Syst., 22 (2014), 958–965. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2013.2278989 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2013.2278989
[40]	X. L. Zhang, Z. S. Xu, Extension of TOPSIS to multiple criteria decision making with Pythagorean fuzzy sets, Int. J. Intell. Syst., 29 (2014), 1061–1078. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21676 doi: 10.1002/int.21676
[41]	H. Garg, Generalized Pythagorean fuzzy geometric aggregation operators using Einstein t-norm and t-conorm for multicriteria decision making process, Int. J. Intell. Syst., 32 (2017), 597–630. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21860 doi: 10.1002/int.21860
[42]	L. A. P. Dominguez, L. A. Rodriguez-Picon, A. Alvarado-Iniesta, D. L. Cruz, Z. Xu, MOORA under Pythagorean fuzzy set for multiple criteria decision making, Complexity, 2018 (2018), 2602376. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2602376 doi: 10.1155/2018/2602376
[43]	C. Huang, M. Lin, Z. Xu, Pythagorean fuzzy MULTIMOORA method based on distance measure and score function: its application in multicriteria decision making process, Knowl. Inf. Syst., 62 (2020), 4373–4406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-020-01491-y doi: 10.1007/s10115-020-01491-y
[44]	P. Wang, Y. Fu, P. Liu, B. Zhu, F. Wang, D. Pamucar, Evaluation of ecological governance in the Yellow River basin based on uninorm combination weight and MULTIMOORA-Borda method, Expert Syst. Appl., 235 (2024), 121227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121227 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121227
[45]	F. Gocer, G. Buyukozkan, A novel extension of Pythagorean fuzzy MULTIMOORA approach for new product development, Heliyon, 9 (2023), e16726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16726 doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16726
[46]	M. Akram, A. Khan, U. Ahmad, Extended MULTIMOORA method based on 2-tuple linguistic Pythagorean fuzzy sets for multi-attribute group decision-making, Granul. Comput., 8 (2023), 311–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41066-022-00330-5 doi: 10.1007/s41066-022-00330-5
[47]	M. M. Al-Shamiri, R. Ismail, S. M. Qurashi, F. Dilawar, F. A. Shami, Multi-criteria decision-making with novel Pythagorean fuzzy aggregation operators, J. Math., 2023 (2023), 3359858. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/3359858 doi: 10.1155/2023/3359858
[48]	W. Wang, Y. Feng, Pythagorean fuzzy multi-attribute decision making approach with incomplete weight information, Procedia Computer Science, 221 (2023), 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2023.07.034 doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2023.07.034
[49]	R. Chaurasiya, D. Jain, Hybrid MCDM method on Pythagorean fuzzy set and its application, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 6 (2023), 379–398. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame0306102022c doi: 10.31181/dmame0306102022c
[50]	G. Wei, Y. Wei, Similarity measures of Pythagorean fuzzy sets based on cosine function and their applications, Int. J. Intell. Syst., 33 (2018), 634–652. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21965 doi: 10.1002/int.21965
[51]	Z. Hussain, M. S. Yang, Distance and similarity measures of Pythagorean fuzzy sets based on the Hausdorff metric with application to fuzzy TOPSIS, Int. J. Intell. Syst., 34 (2019), 2633–2654. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22169 doi: 10.1002/int.22169
[52]	Q. Zhang, J. Hu, J. Feng, A. Liu, Y. Li, New similarity measures of Pythagorean fuzzy sets and their applications, IEEE Access, 7 (2019), 138192–138202. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2942766 doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2942766
[53]	R. Verma, J. M. Merigo, On generalized similarity measures for Pythagorean fuzzy sets and their applications to multiple attribute decision-making, Int. J. Intell. Syst., 34 (2019), 2556–2583. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22160 doi: 10.1002/int.22160
[54]	M. Sowmiya, A. S. A. Mary, Tangent similarity measures of Pythagorean fuzzy sets, International Journal of Research Publication Review, 2 (2021), 456–462.
[55]	P. Wang, R. Dang, P. Liu, D. Pamucar, Attitude-and cost-driven consistency optimization model for decision-making with probabilistic linguistic preference relation, Comput. Ind. Eng., 186 (2023), 109748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2023.109748 doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2023.109748
[56]	P. Wang, P. Liu, F. Chiclana, Multi-stage consistency optimization algorithm for decision making with incomplete probabilistic linguistic preference relation, Inform. Sciences, 556 (2021), 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2020.10.004 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2020.10.004
[57]	I. C. Onyeke, P. A. Ejegwa, Modified Senapati and Yager's Fermatean fuzzy distance and its application in students' course placement in tertiary institution, In: Real life applications of multiple criteria decision making techniques in fuzzy domain, Singapore: Springer, 2023,237–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4929-6_11
[58]	Y. Yang, Z. S. Chen, R. M. Rodríguez, W. Pedrycz, K. S. Chin, Novel fusion strategies for continuous interval-valued q-rung orthopair fuzzy information: A case study in quality assessment of SmartWatch appearance design, Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cyber., 13 (2022), 609–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-020-01269-2 doi: 10.1007/s13042-020-01269-2
[59]	P. A. Ejegwa, New q-rung orthopair fuzzy distance-similarity operators with applications in investment analysis, pattern recognition, clustering analysis, and selection of robot for smart manufacturing, Soft Comput., 2023 (2023), 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-08799-1 doi: 10.1007/s00500-023-08799-1

This article has been cited by:

1.	Zeeshan Ali, Iqra Bibi, Sarbast Moslem, Tapan Senapati, Scaffolding Strategies for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine Applications: MABAC Method and Hamacher Aggregation Operators for Circular q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy Decision-Making Problems, 2024, 12, 2169-3536, 130493, 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3457020
2.	Kaiwen Shi, Juanjuan Peng, An Online Review-Driven Picture Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making Approach for Evaluating the Online Medical Service Quality of Doctors, 2024, 16, 2073-8994, 639, 10.3390/sym16060639
3.	Velichka Nikolova Traneva, Venelin Todorov, Stoyan Tranev Tranev, Ivan Dimov, A Confidence-Interval Circular Intuitionistic Fuzzy Method for Optimal Master and Sub-Franchise Selection: A Case Study of Pizza Hut in Europe, 2024, 13, 2075-1680, 758, 10.3390/axioms13110758
4.	Paul Augustine Ejegwa, Nasreen Kausar, Nezir Aydin, Yuming Feng, Oludolapo Akanni Olanrewaju, A new Fermatean fuzzy Spearman-like correlation coefficient and its application in evaluating insecurity problem via multi-criteria decision-making approach, 2024, 24058440, e40403, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e40403
5.	Kuei-Hu Chang, Hsin-Hung Lai, Bo-Jiun Hung, Combining the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Method with the Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment Method to Address Internet Platform Selection Problems in an Environment with Incomplete Information, 2024, 14, 2076-3417, 4390, 10.3390/app14114390
6.	Anum Manasseh Terna, Paul Augustine Ejegwa, Yuming Feng, 2024, An Enhanced Pythagorean Fuzzy Distance Method with Application in the Selection of Renewable Energy Source via MCDA, 979-8-3315-1702-1, 392, 10.1109/NTCI64025.2024.10776528
7.	Paul Augustine Ejegwa, Nasreen Kausar, Nezir Aydin, Muhammet Deveci, A novel Pythagorean fuzzy correlation coefficient based on Spearman’s technique of correlation coefficient with applications in supplier selection process, 2024, 2452414X, 100762, 10.1016/j.jii.2024.100762
8.	Paul Augustine Ejegwa, 2025, Chapter 11, 978-981-96-0084-7, 217, 10.1007/978-981-96-0085-4_11
9.	Wathek Chammam, Abdul Haseeb Ganie, Maha Mohammed Saeed, Amira M. Sief, Mohammad M. Khalaf, A New Similarity Measure for Picture Fuzzy Sets and Its Various Applications, 2025, 17, 1866-9956, 10.1007/s12559-025-10449-7

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

1.
沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院沈阳 110142

AIMS Mathematics

1.8 3.4

Metrics

Article views(1627) PDF downloads(66) Cited by(9)

Preview PDF

Download XML

Export Citation

Article outline

Show full outline

AIMS Mathematics

A new similarity function for Pythagorean fuzzy sets with application in football analysis

Related Papers:

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Preliminaries

2.1. Pythagorean fuzzy sets

2.2. Extant methods of SFPFSs

3. New similarity function for PFSs

4. Analysis of Liverpool FC during the 2022/2023 EPL season based on SFPFSs

4.1. Liverpool matches for the analysis

4.2. Players' ratings under Pythagorean fuzzy environment

4.2.1. Determination of relationships between goalkeeper and defenders

4.2.2. Determination of relationships among defenders

4.2.3. Determination of relationships between defenders and midfielders

4.2.4. Determination of relationships among midfielders

4.2.5. Determination of relationships between midfielders and attackers

4.2.6. Determination of relationships among attackers

4.2.7. Determination of the most valuable players

4.3. Practical implications of the players' similarity analysis

5. Conclusions

Use of AI tools declaration

Acknowledgement

Conflict of interest

References

This article has been cited by:

Reader Comments

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

Metrics

Figures and Tables

Other Articles By Authors

Related pages

Tools

Export File

Citation

Format

Content

Catalog

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Preliminaries

2.1. Pythagorean fuzzy sets

2.2. Extant methods of SFPFSs

3. New similarity function for PFSs

4. Analysis of Liverpool FC during the 2022/2023 EPL season based on SFPFSs

4.1. Liverpool matches for the analysis

4.2. Players' ratings under Pythagorean fuzzy environment

4.2.1. Determination of relationships between goalkeeper and defenders

4.2.2. Determination of relationships among defenders

4.2.3. Determination of relationships between defenders and midfielders

4.2.4. Determination of relationships among midfielders

4.2.5. Determination of relationships between midfielders and attackers

4.2.6. Determination of relationships among attackers

4.2.7. Determination of the most valuable players

4.3. Practical implications of the players' similarity analysis

5. Conclusions

Use of AI tools declaration

Acknowledgement

Conflict of interest

References