The article manages to be factually correct while still missing the point entirely, because he conflates uncertainty (randomness) with pointlessness, and the ability to describe something probabilistically with reducibility to mere randomness.

When two chess grand-masters meet, the odds of the outcome may be sufficiently close to 50/50 that you could obtain a similar statistical distribution of wins/losses with a coin flip. But I think almost everyone would agree that the content of a chess match is profoundly more interesting than a coin toss.

Soccer, although I'm not a fan personally, is exactly the same. Sure, you can say "there's a X% chance that a goal shot will go in", and that's true as far as it goes. But for each particular shot, for each particular block, it was interesting because of specific human interactions. The stats were never intended to tell the whole story.

Similarly, regarding his conclusion - Sure, I think almost any fan would agree that the proxy of "winning a game" is a poor indicator for the overall skill level of a team, particularly in close matches. But that's not what matters - what matters to players and to fans is who played better, who was 2 inches more accurate on that day, at that time.