The Summer clearout / Coming in thread. Updated 27/8

[Vision]

Ok I'm not going to labour this because its taking it way off topic but its not a problem for someone to suggest that McAnuff played better in 09/10 when Bertrand was a left back than in 10/11 when Harte happened to be left back.

Listing the free-kicks and penalties Harte has scored or indeed the assists from corners and free-kicks doesn't affect that notion one bit.

Bertrand's (who i actually think is a bit overrated by some on here) contribution to the team was different to Harte's with regard to how they played. In ateam sense what Harte *may* lack in pace he makes up for with his dead ball contribution.

However the way Bertrand played as a left-back suited McAnuff better going forward in open play. That's just my opinion of course and if you wish to counteract with stats that you feel prove otherwise then all power to you. Frankly though, most of the stats you produce have no relevance to the actual discussion going on.

[Hoop Blah]

That's just misunderstanding the conversation Lee.

They aren't discussing if Harte was better than Bertrand, but if Mcanuff played better with Bertrand or Harte.

Over the season, the difference in the available information is negligible so it's really a stupid argument anyway.

I'm not arguing about the facts but the stupidity of the statement.

There is no evidence whatsoever (other than "Yes he did!") to support the contention "Mcanuff played better with Bertrand than with Harte"

There IS evidence to suggest he played better with Harte. Plenty of it.

There is plenty of evidence, you just seem unable to appreciate it because it's not statistical.

The evidence you've supplied doesn't support your claim at all until you look at the on field partnerships when those events occurred let alone discount the set piece deliveries of all concerned because they don't really form part of the 'he's played better' debate.

[Ian Royal]

Snowball once again failing to appreciate that opinion is formed based on the evidence of watching games and therefore evidence, which is exactly where his statistical measurements come from as well.

[ZacNaloen]

Snowballs point however is that eye witness accounts are the worst sort of evidence in any situation.

[Ian Royal]

Snowballs point however is that eye witness accounts are the worst sort of evidence in any situation.

Where there is other evidence to use, yes, it is poorer. The point being however, that nothing that he used is actually relevant to the point and worst evidence > irrelevent evidence.

And just because eyewitness evidence can be poor, does not make it always poor and mean it should be completely discounted just because someone can think of some numbers to use that may or may not have any relevance what-so-ever.

[ZacNaloen]

Where there is other evidence to use, yes, it is poorer. The point being however, that nothing that he used is actually relevant to the point and worst evidence > irrelevent evidence.

It's all relevent. Discount evidence at your peril, you seem to think Snowball has a poor track record with his predictions questionable as his techniques are, his track record is pretty damned good. Which shows that some evidence is certainly better than none at all on this board.

[Ian Royal]

But no one is using no evidence.

I have glanced at Snowball's "evidence" considered it, and dismissed it as of less use than having watched games and knowing how we play and when it was most successful. And that is because using team results to judge the performance of one player in two different partnerships is worthless.

[ZacNaloen]

From my perspective YOU are using no evidence.

You've said "well I saw this and I'm right."


That's what you saw. I saw something else. Snowball saw something else. Hoop Blah saw something else etc etc etc

Why do you think so many people come back from football matches with such wildly differing opinions of what took place?


I just don't trust what you or anyone else saw. Everyone seeing something different makes for great long discussion threads. But it's pretty shit reading.

[Ian Royal]

From my perspective YOU are using no evidence.

You've said "well I saw this and I'm right."


That's what you saw. I saw something else. Snowball saw something else. Hoop Blah saw something else etc etc etc

Why do you think so many people come back from football matches with such wildly differing opinions of what took place?


I just don't trust what you or anyone else saw. Everyone seeing something different makes for great long discussion threads. But it's pretty shit reading.

Of course, that's why it's subjective and about debate. And depending on what people say, how they describe coming to the conclusions they do and how accurate those prove to be are how you weight whether their opinions are worth considering seriously.

Simply spouting a bunch of statistics that are not relevant to the point being discussed, no matter how inaccurate the opinions are, does not trump everything else and prove people wrong.

[Hoop Blah]

The difference is though Zac, the stats that are being reported as evidence of something show a tiny proportion of what makes a good or bad performance.

If the argument put forward was that McAnuffs output in terms of assists and goals was better alongside Bertrand than Harte then it might (if split out to only include when he played in tandem with each - which it hasn't) then the evidence would be more relevant.

Playing well or not is totally a subjective opinion based on what the viewer wants and expects the player to do. Different opinions are totally acceptable because not only are those factors prone to variation but sonis the perception of the players performance against them.

I wouldn't actually say Snowballs record isuch different than most of the more thoughtful posters. He makes sure he rams each correction that comes through and moves the goal posts on those that don't to hide the fact.

[ZacNaloen]

Of course, that's why it's subjective and about debate. And depending on what people say, how they describe coming to the conclusions they do and how accurate those prove to be are how you weight whether their opinions are worth considering seriously.

Simply spouting a bunch of statistics that are not relevant to the point being discussed, no matter how inaccurate the opinions are, does not trump everything else and prove people wrong.

Bloody hell Ian. All the stats are relevant. The only thing up for debate is what they really show.

Prove how the stats don't prove what he thinks they do. Then you'll go someway to actually beating him. I'm actually trying to help you here.

[Ian Royal]

Of course, that's why it's subjective and about debate. And depending on what people say, how they describe coming to the conclusions they do and how accurate those prove to be are how you weight whether their opinions are worth considering seriously.

Simply spouting a bunch of statistics that are not relevant to the point being discussed, no matter how inaccurate the opinions are, does not trump everything else and prove people wrong.

Bloody hell Ian. All the stats are relevant. The only thing up for debate is what they really show.

Prove how the stats don't prove what he thinks they do. Then you'll go someway to actually beating him. I'm actually trying to help you here.

Hoops has already done that.

[ZacNaloen]

The difference is though Zac, the stats that are being reported as evidence of something show a tiny proportion of what makes a good or bad performance.

If the argument put forward was that McAnuffs output in terms of assists and goals was better alongside Bertrand than Harte then it might (if split out to only include when he played in tandem with each - which it hasn't) then the evidence would be more relevant.

Playing well or not is totally a subjective opinion based on what the viewer wants and expects the player to do. Different opinions are totally acceptable because not only are those factors prone to variation but sonis the perception of the players performance against them.

I wouldn't actually say Snowballs record isuch different than most of the more thoughtful posters. He makes sure he rams each correction that comes through and moves the goal posts on those that don't to hide the fact.

The only problem with Snowballs argument is that he his stats don't show what he thinks. They actually don't show anything in this case. He's massaged some numbers that are very close together to come up with ratios that make them sound much larger than they are.

You are not going to convince Snowball that his opinion is wrong until you convince show him why he has interpreted the stats wrong. Until that happens he can just waive them in your face and ignore the rest of your points because opinion isn't evidence.

[MmmMonsterMunch]

Fcuk stats.....those games against Swansea (all 3 of them) showed the utter lack of pace we have at the back.

Bertrand is an obvious choice to replace Harte & get some well needed pace into that back 4. End of. You don't need stats to prove something that is utterly obvious to all.

[ZacNaloen]

Good thing thats not what the discussion is about then...

[Ian Royal]

The difference is though Zac, the stats that are being reported as evidence of something show a tiny proportion of what makes a good or bad performance.

If the argument put forward was that McAnuffs output in terms of assists and goals was better alongside Bertrand than Harte then it might (if split out to only include when he played in tandem with each - which it hasn't) then the evidence would be more relevant.

Playing well or not is totally a subjective opinion based on what the viewer wants and expects the player to do. Different opinions are totally acceptable because not only are those factors prone to variation but sonis the perception of the players performance against them.

I wouldn't actually say Snowballs record isuch different than most of the more thoughtful posters. He makes sure he rams each correction that comes through and moves the goal posts on those that don't to hide the fact.

The only problem with Snowballs argument is that he his stats don't show what he thinks. They actually don't show anything in this case. He's massaged some numbers that are very close together to come up with ratios that make them sound much larger than they are.

You are not going to convince Snowball that his opinion is wrong until you convince show him why he has interpreted the stats wrong. Until that happens he can just waive them in your face and ignore the rest of your points because opinion isn't evidence.

I think history may show that even when you show him why he has interpreted the stats wrong he contiues to ignore you and waive them in your face.

[Hoop Blah]

....because opinion isn't evidence.

I know you come from a scientific background and can be a little anal at times but really that's a load of bollocks Zac.

It's a game of football, played by flawed human beings, with far too many complicated and non measurable and comparable variables. Opinion is what it's all about in the real world.

[MmmMonsterMunch]

The difference is though Zac, the stats that are being reported as evidence of something show a tiny proportion of what makes a good or bad performance.

If the argument put forward was that McAnuffs output in terms of assists and goals was better alongside Bertrand than Harte then it might (if split out to only include when he played in tandem with each - which it hasn't) then the evidence would be more relevant.

Playing well or not is totally a subjective opinion based on what the viewer wants and expects the player to do. Different opinions are totally acceptable because not only are those factors prone to variation but sonis the perception of the players performance against them.

I wouldn't actually say Snowballs record isuch different than most of the more thoughtful posters. He makes sure he rams each correction that comes through and moves the goal posts on those that don't to hide the fact.

The only problem with Snowballs argument is that he his stats don't show what he thinks. They actually don't show anything in this case. He's massaged some numbers that are very close together to come up with ratios that make them sound much larger than they are.

You are not going to convince Snowball that his opinion is wrong until you convince show him why he has interpreted the stats wrong. Until that happens he can just waive them in your face and ignore the rest of your points because opinion isn't evidence.

I think history may show that even when you show him why he has interpreted the stats wrong he contiues to ignore you and waive them in your face.

Ha ha Ian I completely agree. There really are some jumped up little idiots on here who when it comes to the crunch don't like McAnuff. I cannot for the ilfe of me think why. Think he has come to the fore in these play-off games & is one of my favourite players. Furthermore, Snowball's stat attack doesn't consider the difference in management - this must be a huge factor in goals conceded & general performance rather than just simply spouting about a "partnership".

Most people who have a set of eyes would prefer a Bertrand McAcnuff pairing on the left as it has more pace. Yes we'd miss Harte's set pieces but which team wouldn't? His delivery of the ball is fanastic that much is clear, but it should not be the overwhelming factor in deciding a LB. We desperately need more pace in that side & someone ala Betrand would fit perfectly as he has the pace to overlap.

Can't understand the negativity about McAnuff FWIW. Clearly has a set of balls & always performs when it comes to the crunch.

[ZacNaloen]

....because opinion isn't evidence.

I know you come from a scientific background and can be a little anal at times but really that's a load of bollocks Zac.

It's a game of football, played by flawed human beings, with far too many complicated and non measurable and comparable variables. Opinion is what it's all about in the real world.

I'm really glad scientists don't think that way.

[MmmMonsterMunch]

....because opinion isn't evidence.

I know you come from a scientific background and can be a little anal at times but really that's a load of bollocks Zac.

It's a game of football, played by flawed human beings, with far too many complicated and non measurable and comparable variables. Opinion is what it's all about in the real world.

I'm really glad scientists don't think that way.

Presumably you sat at Wembley calculating probabilities as opposed to enjoying the game then?