Shane Long
-
Royal Rother
-
Hob Nob Subscriber
- Posts: 21696
- Joined: 13 Apr 2004 23:22
- Location: The handsome bald fella with the blue eyes
You missed out "confirmed paedophile" this time.
-
Terminal Boardom
- Hob Nob Addict
- Posts: 7791
- Joined: 15 Aug 2008 19:50
- Location: No more egodome until the daft old coot leaves
I don't believe it. Wherever I turn, Snowflake is throwing out stats and arguing the toss with anyone and everyone. Can we please have a board purely for statistics and their interpretation thereof? FFS, much more of this and I will go and listen to Leonard Cohen to cheer myself up.
-
Ian Royal
- Hob Nob Legend
- Posts: 35156
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004 13:43
- Location: Playing spot the pc*nt on HNA?
Royal Rother You missed out "confirmed paedophile" this time.
Don't know about confirmed kiddy fiddler, but you definitely are a confirmed catty fiddler.
-
Terminal Boardom
- Hob Nob Addict
- Posts: 7791
- Joined: 15 Aug 2008 19:50
- Location: No more egodome until the daft old coot leaves
Ian RoyalRoyal Rother You missed out "confirmed paedophile" this time.
Don't know about confirmed kiddy fiddler, but you definitely are a confirmed catty fiddler.
Ian, do you mean confirmed or self confessed?
-
Hampshire Royal
- Hob Nob Regular
- Posts: 1188
- Joined: 23 Apr 2004 10:56
- Location: Geneva
I remember the Robin Friday era. He was strong, skillful, entertaining and unpredictable. Almost every time he played, he performed some piece of magic whic just confirmed him as what he was - the only Reading player that I would walk through fire to go and watch play. I really don't know whether statistics would support that - I doubt it, and I wouldn't mind a bet saying that stats show Long as being the better player of the two!!
I'm not a writer, but I know quite a few (I went to school with Ian McEwan, my ex father-in-law was a published writer and Michaerl Hurd was a friend of mine). Apart from the one characteristic they all share, that of seeing themselves as being somewahat more important than us mere mortals, they all have the ability to make us believe whatever it is they are writing. I perform a fair bit in plays and shows and the audience knows that when they enter a theatre they are going to see a fiction. However, a well produced and well acted piece of theatre can make the audience suspend their disbelief and enter into the spirit of the story. It's exactly the same with the written word.
Now, if I, an average amateur actor can make a pantomime seem real, why can't Snowball, a professional writer who, on here, is writing about something very trivial, make people believe what he's saying? There are a few posters on here who, even though you might disagree with what they're saying, put across their point extremely well so that you at least think about what they're saying. Snowball, I'm afraid, just isn't one of them
I'm not a writer, but I know quite a few (I went to school with Ian McEwan, my ex father-in-law was a published writer and Michaerl Hurd was a friend of mine). Apart from the one characteristic they all share, that of seeing themselves as being somewahat more important than us mere mortals, they all have the ability to make us believe whatever it is they are writing. I perform a fair bit in plays and shows and the audience knows that when they enter a theatre they are going to see a fiction. However, a well produced and well acted piece of theatre can make the audience suspend their disbelief and enter into the spirit of the story. It's exactly the same with the written word.
Now, if I, an average amateur actor can make a pantomime seem real, why can't Snowball, a professional writer who, on here, is writing about something very trivial, make people believe what he's saying? There are a few posters on here who, even though you might disagree with what they're saying, put across their point extremely well so that you at least think about what they're saying. Snowball, I'm afraid, just isn't one of them
-
Royal Rother
-
Hob Nob Subscriber
- Posts: 21696
- Joined: 13 Apr 2004 23:22
- Location: The handsome bald fella with the blue eyes
He's not telling a story on here.
He's talking facts, and people, who have grown up seeing football debate as being exclusively subjective where virtually any level of bullshit can be supported by some kind of twisted logic, can't handle facts that aren't just points gained and goals scored / conceded...
He's talking facts, and people, who have grown up seeing football debate as being exclusively subjective where virtually any level of bullshit can be supported by some kind of twisted logic, can't handle facts that aren't just points gained and goals scored / conceded...
-
Ian Royal
- Hob Nob Legend
- Posts: 35156
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004 13:43
- Location: Playing spot the pc*nt on HNA?
Royal Rother He's not telling a story on here.
He's talking facts, and people, who have grown up seeing football debate as being exclusively subjective where virtually any level of bullshit can be supported by some kind of twisted logic, can't handle facts that aren't just points gained and goals scored / conceded...
That just isn't true. You look at the majority of those who actually take/took the time to argue with him and we're generally not the most prone to sweeping generalisations or dismissal/deifying of players. Generally it's people who actually take the time to try and explain their reasoning (even if it isn't always sound). And think about what they're saying.
That's the reason it goes on so long. If it was just people saying "Long's a useless pile of shite and my granny could do better", the argument wouldn't go on very long because a) they wouldn't bother to read through all his drivel and b) they'd just follow up with, but you're wrong, he's shite.
I tend to get into arguments with most people, because I tend to hold the middle ground a lot. Sooner or later that puts me in conflict with everyone. IMO anyway.
And you certainly can't accuse me of not being able to handle facts and stats, seeing as I've posted a fair few myself.
Royal Rother He's not telling a story on here.
He's talking facts, and people, who have grown up seeing football debate as being exclusively subjective where virtually any level of bullshit can be supported by some kind of twisted logic, can't handle facts that aren't just points gained and goals scored / conceded...
Correct, RR. Even if the knob-head disagrees
Exhibits A and B would be the above two responses to RR's post. Which show the best grasp of the use and abuse of reasoning?
Arch Exhibits A and B would be the above two responses to RR's post. Which show the best grasp of the use and abuse of reasoning?
Saying "That just isn't true" means nowt. Its just an opinion.
And it's a fact that IR is a knob-head.
-
Platypuss
- Hob Nob Moderator
- Posts: 8203
- Joined: 14 Apr 2004 21:46
- Location: No one cares about your creative hub, so get your fukcin' hedge cut
SnowballArch Exhibits A and B would be the above two responses to RR's post. Which show the best grasp of the use and abuse of reasoning?
And it's a fact that IR is a knob-head.
That's now two strikes on the wholly unnecessary insults - please cut it out.
-
papereyes
- Hob Nob Addict
- Posts: 6027
- Joined: 14 Apr 2004 18:41
- Location: “The mother of idiots is always pregnant”- Italian proverb
Royal Rother He's not telling a story on here.
He's talking facts, and people, who have grown up seeing football debate as being exclusively subjective where virtually any level of bullshit can be supported by some kind of twisted logic, can't handle facts that aren't just points gained and goals scored / conceded...
I think the issue is that the 'better' posters on the board tend to use the odd statistic to back up a well-written or thought out argument. They use them for illustration and illumination (as one might use a citation in an essay?).
Snowball approaches it from the other end, overloads you with statistics of both dubious provenance and interesting interpretation and then gets rude when people question his numbers, his approach or his conclusion.
I think
Hampshire Royal There are a few posters on here who, even though you might disagree with what they're saying, put across their point extremely well so that you at least think about what they're saying. Snowball, I'm afraid, just isn't one of them
is a very fair comment made here.
-
Dr Hfuhruhurr
- Member
- Posts: 432
- Joined: 20 Apr 2004 11:20
- Location: Feeding the dwarf cheese
A couple of points:
What does bringing on a striker imply by the manager?
1. It is at least neutral (if the striker replaces another striker) but with some probability, it is an attacking option. There, are after all, defenders on the bench for defensive options
2. The formation will often change to (sometimes greatly) favour the strikers.
Therefore adding a team's principal substitute's minutes together and comparing it to a regular strikers minutes is a dangerous game and, to use a statistical term, an 'invalid comparison'.
For instance take a 90 minute period, where in the last 15 minutes the manager brings on the substitute striker. By the definitions above, the last 15 minutes have a greater probability of being favourable to both strikers than the first 75 minutes which only the first choice striker played. Therefore to make a 90 minute to 90 minute comparison, you would have to add 6 favourable segments together for the substitute and compare them to one favourable segment and 5 less favourable segments for the regular striker. Already the statistic is biased, and you can only conclude that you would expect the substitute striker to have a higher goal to 90 minute ratio. (and perhaps more controversially, a much higher goal to ratio to prove he is equal)
What is more, a couple of extra points
3. Conditions will change to favour solely the oncoming striker (by definition some of the remaing game's tactics are designed around bringing on the substitute - otherwise why do it)
4. As mentioned by weybrigewanderer, the substitute has an immediate advantage in terms of conditioning.
Again, biasing any comparison statistics in favour of the substitute. You could argue that given such a bias, an inferior striker could well get a higher goal to 90 minute ratio, providing he is a regular substitute.
You could probably add a few extra differences between the regular striker and substitute striker, but its hard to think of many that favour the regular striker.
As for comparing between substitutes, look at the reality
1. Shane Long is placed on the bench because he is considered inferior to Doyle and NHunt
2. Doyle and NHunt are placed on the bench because of lack of match fitness, recovery from fitness or because the tactics dont suit them.
I doubt either is an exhaustive list of reasons, but they arent a bad summary.
In my memory, Long was favoured only once last year and that was the game after Norwich, which, fairly or unfairly, he failed to keep.
Because, therefore, the reasons for Doyle and NHunt being on the bench are usually 'negative' reasons, you would again expect Shane to outperform them. Also, im a bit surprised to see this comparison made without any consideration of the much larger number of minutes spent on the pitch by Long over Doyle, or the fact that NHunt spent a lot of time last year on the bench recovering from a series of niggling thigh and groin injuries.
It would therefore seem a bit silly to divide one number at the back of a match program by another number and conclude that one player should start ahead of another. Its the role of the statistician not to take things at such face value, otherwise, IMHO, you might as well be a newsreader.
What does bringing on a striker imply by the manager?
1. It is at least neutral (if the striker replaces another striker) but with some probability, it is an attacking option. There, are after all, defenders on the bench for defensive options
2. The formation will often change to (sometimes greatly) favour the strikers.
Therefore adding a team's principal substitute's minutes together and comparing it to a regular strikers minutes is a dangerous game and, to use a statistical term, an 'invalid comparison'.
For instance take a 90 minute period, where in the last 15 minutes the manager brings on the substitute striker. By the definitions above, the last 15 minutes have a greater probability of being favourable to both strikers than the first 75 minutes which only the first choice striker played. Therefore to make a 90 minute to 90 minute comparison, you would have to add 6 favourable segments together for the substitute and compare them to one favourable segment and 5 less favourable segments for the regular striker. Already the statistic is biased, and you can only conclude that you would expect the substitute striker to have a higher goal to 90 minute ratio. (and perhaps more controversially, a much higher goal to ratio to prove he is equal)
What is more, a couple of extra points
3. Conditions will change to favour solely the oncoming striker (by definition some of the remaing game's tactics are designed around bringing on the substitute - otherwise why do it)
4. As mentioned by weybrigewanderer, the substitute has an immediate advantage in terms of conditioning.
Again, biasing any comparison statistics in favour of the substitute. You could argue that given such a bias, an inferior striker could well get a higher goal to 90 minute ratio, providing he is a regular substitute.
You could probably add a few extra differences between the regular striker and substitute striker, but its hard to think of many that favour the regular striker.
As for comparing between substitutes, look at the reality
1. Shane Long is placed on the bench because he is considered inferior to Doyle and NHunt
2. Doyle and NHunt are placed on the bench because of lack of match fitness, recovery from fitness or because the tactics dont suit them.
I doubt either is an exhaustive list of reasons, but they arent a bad summary.
In my memory, Long was favoured only once last year and that was the game after Norwich, which, fairly or unfairly, he failed to keep.
Because, therefore, the reasons for Doyle and NHunt being on the bench are usually 'negative' reasons, you would again expect Shane to outperform them. Also, im a bit surprised to see this comparison made without any consideration of the much larger number of minutes spent on the pitch by Long over Doyle, or the fact that NHunt spent a lot of time last year on the bench recovering from a series of niggling thigh and groin injuries.
It would therefore seem a bit silly to divide one number at the back of a match program by another number and conclude that one player should start ahead of another. Its the role of the statistician not to take things at such face value, otherwise, IMHO, you might as well be a newsreader.
-
Hampshire Royal
- Hob Nob Regular
- Posts: 1188
- Joined: 23 Apr 2004 10:56
- Location: Geneva
Royal Rother He's not telling a story on here.
He's talking facts, and people, who have grown up seeing football debate as being exclusively subjective where virtually any level of bullshit can be supported by some kind of twisted logic, can't handle facts that aren't just points gained and goals scored / conceded...
All the more reason, then, that he should not have great difficulty in getting his point across. He is, after all, just showing people a view of what the majority of them have already seen. Surely any half-decent writer, let alone one who has been nominated for 'an Internatioal Award' should be able to do that fairly easily.
Dr Hfuhruhurr A couple of points:
What does bringing on a striker imply by the manager?
1. It is at least neutral (if the striker replaces another striker) but with some probability, it is an attacking option. There, are after all, defenders on the bench for defensive options
2. The formation will often change to (sometimes greatly) favour the strikers.
I didn't really read a lot of the rest, but your assumptions are a little wide of the mark.
Sometimes, especially in Long's case, you bring on a forward to help close out the game. One who is so willing to do the doggies and work across the line really can be the first line of attack so Long coming on wasn't always an attacking change for the team.
-
Agent Balti
- Hob Nob Regular
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: 17 Jan 2008 12:39
The trouble is, and I've tried to reason this with Snowball...but he just returns back to 'facts', is that there's much, much more to the make up of a player than just 'what he did when' that is measured. Take Kitson (when he was good), how many times did he track back on the flanks to cut down the angle for the opposing full-back? How many times did he win defensive headers at set pieces? Are there stats on those activities? No.
If you're just talking goals scored/appearances, that's fine...but choose between a player that you like because of his non-scoring abilities, like Kitson, then your judgment is skewed on who is better than who. It's not Top Trumps, it's the whole package that makes up the perception of a player, and that element is missed.
If you're just talking goals scored/appearances, that's fine...but choose between a player that you like because of his non-scoring abilities, like Kitson, then your judgment is skewed on who is better than who. It's not Top Trumps, it's the whole package that makes up the perception of a player, and that element is missed.
-
ZacNaloen
- Hob Nob Addict
- Posts: 7239
- Joined: 13 Oct 2008 13:34
- Location: 'If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.' -Mark Schnitzius
how many times did he track back on the flanks to cut down the angle for the opposing full-back? How many times did he win defensive headers at set pieces? Are there stats on those activities? No.
I think you'll find there are actually...
They may not be publically available, but the club uses prozone. Which basically statistically analysys everything a player does in a game.
-
Agent Balti
- Hob Nob Regular
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: 17 Jan 2008 12:39
ZacNaloenhow many times did he track back on the flanks to cut down the angle for the opposing full-back? How many times did he win defensive headers at set pieces? Are there stats on those activities? No.
I think you'll find there are actually...
They may not be publically available, but the club uses prozone. Which basically statistically analysys everything a player does in a game.
I think the crux there is the 'publically available' bit.
ZacNaloenhow many times did he track back on the flanks to cut down the angle for the opposing full-back? How many times did he win defensive headers at set pieces? Are there stats on those activities? No.
I think you'll find there are actually...
They may not be publically available, but the club uses prozone. Which basically statistically analysys everything a player does in a game.
For an idea of the kind of thing that you can see from ProZone take a look at this little FIFA case study
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/pitchequip/case_study_technical_analysis_351.pdf
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/pitchequip/technical_study2_11163.pdf
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/pitchequip/cs_dutch_technical_study_37436.pdf
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/pitch&equipment/69/37/73/cs_study_canada_37447.pdf
I saw some other ProZone examples somewhere, but can't remember where.
I don't care what stats you show me, Shane Long isn't good enough to be our number 9.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: adambs2000, Four Of Clubs and 257 guests
It is currently 05 Oct 2024 00:20