Depends on what you call interception?
A classical interception, by Whoscored where the main defensive skills are:
1. tackles
2. interceptions
3. clearances with headers
4. and blocks
Regarding the part where you say: Arthur will pressure an opponent, an opponent will be be forced to make a bad pass, Rakitic will come and intercept the pass and get all the glory.
I posted an Occam's razor principle a few days ago.
Here you have 2 solutions:
1. Arthur is actually awesome in defending, but 1000 things happen in between and it always somehow end up that all his teammates (Coutinho included) have more interceptions at the end of the day than him
2. or, the other, simplest solution: Arthur just sucks in interceptions.
About the eye test, I posted in Arthur's first weeks, before I was able to know these poor defensive stats since there was no stats about his defensive play yet since he just came: when I watched him defend, I have said:
1) he is good in tackles, but imo, you have 2 types of tackles:
a) first type: let's say Raki has the ball in Espanyol's half and makes a bad pass around their box.
A player 1 from Espanyol takes the ball, and 2-3 of our players try to make classical Pep's pressure on an opponent right away.
In these situations Arthur is good, and on my eye test (and stats will confirm the same), he has a nice amount of tackles, especially these "attacking/pressure" tackles in the opponent's half when we try to return the ball back immidiately. So, he is good in these "attacking tackles".
b) but then, you have another type of tackles. WHEN an oppponent is having possession in OUR HALF, around our box.
Let's say RM/City is passing the ball in our half and we are defending deep around our box.
In these type of planned and organized actions, you can't make "a fast tackle" like in the previous example.
Here, you need to be patient, close down the opponents all the time, not lose your position and eventually, in the right moment, make a tackle or INTERCEPTION of their passes.
Imo, on my eye test, Arthur is quite meh in this part, when the opponents are playing an organized, slow, action in our half.
Further, imo, majority of interceptions are happening in these times also.
We are sitting deep in our half, and we need to wait, read the game and anticipate.
So, my personal eye test said this after a few matches: Arthur is good in fast/pressure tackles IN THE OPPONENT's half.
But is weak in tackles in OUR HALF against organized attacks and in INTERCEPTIONS in our half, again against organized attacks.
And now, after 40-50 matches, stats from Whoscored are confirming exactly what my eye test has seen in autumn.
And look, if my eye test, these stats and my theory are true, that doesn't mean that Arthur is bad.
It just means that he is a weaker defender than some other guys.
In matches where you don't need defense, he is still a better option due to things which he can offer (possession) than defensive guys.
But what pisses me, is that majority of guys act offended if you dare to say that Arthur has a flaw, lol.
Look, Messi is a GOAT, and yet he has lot of flaws like: causing tactical problems for our 3 man attack, someone has to babysit for him, he is lazy in defending, he is sulking sometimes, he doesn't want to rest.
Does that mean that Messi is a bad player?
No. He is still a Goat. But with his flaws...
The same about Arthur or any other player, since 90% of people are posting only about good things, there needs to be some posts about negative things and flaws to bring people down to Earth.
Further, something related to this, there is a story about one musician who had his new album released and out of 10 reviews in random magazines, 9 reviews were good and singing praises about him.
And there was one bad review.
A musician said: I didn't even bother to read good reviews about my new album. What can I learn from those reviews? Absolutely nothing.
People will just write: you were so good, the album is so good, everything is good, everything is perfect.
I can't learn or gain ANYTHING from those overly positive reviews.
On the other hand, BAD REVIEWS are what am I interested in.
Some of those are a pure garbage, but in some I can learn really valuable things about my flaws and they give me a lot of things to think about in the future.
So, you see, Arthur or any other player, if everyone will be licking his ass and saying: everything is good, he will never improve.
If someone will actually tell him: dude, your defending sucks currently, try to improve and learn.
Or, dude, your stamina is weak. You need to work on it during this summer and try to change your diet, you will be a better player.
Or, dude, your passing game is good, but don't come into Busi's area, try to play a little faster and try to play more direct passes and through balls, even if it means losing possession, it doesn't matter.
You see, if no one (fans, friends, coaches) will point to flaws, a player will never think about it, learn and improve further.
Or regarding Dembele.
Is it better for him and his career to have friends like that Maxim4 user around him, who will reply: you are good, everything is good, people are idiots=to every problem.
Or guys like me, who will whine about his diet, playing playstation, being late on trainings, having horrible decisions and similar.
Only if you'll shit on player's flaws, a player or someone around him will tell him to improve those things.
I am not saying that fans are responsible for player's improvement, but you get the point.
1. majority of posts on this forum are miles away from reality and people act as if they are living on some clouds, creating some false, overhyped reality of our young players
2. plus, as said: with that type of posts and behavior with licking their asses, you will never force your darlings to actually improve and become twice as players as they are now
So, don't be so emotional about negative remarks, especially if they make sense.