Snowball
No, I think Jimmy has moments of sublime skill and COULD be, if he can be sorted out, awesome.
Personally I'd rather watch players who can do magical stuff even if they often screw up.
Better that than robots.
Super Kevin Bremner! Smith is signing for Reading on Tuesday.
Haven't got a clue what the fee is because I forgot to ask, but exciting news and I'm pleased as punch.
SnowballAgent Balti ...and not all interpretations are valid. So, therefore something is never always right or it's always wrong. It's too 'random'.
Statistics HAVE to be finite, surely? Otherwise, what's the point? (I'm not taking about Long, but any general statistical argument.) Surely, to achieve X then you can't have variables that just throw spanners in the works, no? It's be bendable at a whim!
On this list there will always be people who will move the goalposts. For example, when Shane's goals as a sub were going in that was "only" because defences get tired and it was "much easier" to score in the last 15 minutes.
Of course those arguing that overlooked the fact that DOYLE was playing 90 minutes in almost every game
whereas Noel Hunt was typically only playing 60 minutes and NOT playing against "tired defences"
But Noel matched Doyle on goals per minutes played (almost exactly)... but since "it's easier to score
in the last 15 minutes (and I think Noel only once or twice played in the last 15) then Noel, on that basis,
was the more potent striker.
It's very rarely about an individual, especially with two strikers in a 4-4-2. It's about the combinations. I've lost count of the times I said Doyle-Hunt was the best pairing
Statistic ARE finite, provided the stats the club provides are accurate, but as too many have said...
some criticise me for making "erroneous conclusions". Otheres criticise me for NOT making conclusions.
Snowball On this list there will always be people who will move the goalposts. For example, when Shane's goals as a sub were going in that was "only" because defences get tired and it was "much easier" to score in the last 15 minutes.
SnowballHampshire Royal So you've made your living out of professional writing. What have you had published, and where can I find it?
I've published five crime novels, one was shortlisted for an international award.
Sold UK and US (and including alleged, hard-to-get-accurate-figures sales in China) about 450,000 copies
I've published about three hundred short-stories and articles on creative writing and won 15 First Prizes, two for poetry.
But no way am I coming out with my writing name on this list.
Agent BaltiSnowballAgent Balti ...and not all interpretations are valid. So, therefore something is never always right or it's always wrong. It's too 'random'.
Statistics HAVE to be finite, surely? Otherwise, what's the point? (I'm not taking about Long, but any general statistical argument.) Surely, to achieve X then you can't have variables that just throw spanners in the works, no? It's be bendable at a whim!
On this list there will always be people who will move the goalposts. For example, when Shane's goals as a sub were going in that was "only" because defences get tired and it was "much easier" to score in the last 15 minutes.
Of course those arguing that overlooked the fact that DOYLE was playing 90 minutes in almost every game
whereas Noel Hunt was typically only playing 60 minutes and NOT playing against "tired defences"
But Noel matched Doyle on goals per minutes played (almost exactly)... but since "it's easier to score
in the last 15 minutes (and I think Noel only once or twice played in the last 15) then Noel, on that basis,
was the more potent striker.
It's very rarely about an individual, especially with two strikers in a 4-4-2. It's about the combinations. I've lost count of the times I said Doyle-Hunt was the best pairing
Statistic ARE finite, provided the stats the club provides are accurate, but as too many have said...
some criticise me for making "erroneous conclusions". Otheres criticise me for NOT making conclusions.
But that's the whole point. If people can make 'an' interpretation, and do...but neither view is right or wrong - then it's really a rather defunct exercise. Baseball statistics bare this out - people argue to their hind teeth who is the best in whatever position, it's what people do. But what nobody can do is to argue and succeed that player x is better than player y as there will always be a counter argument (like that, say, Cureton was better than Butler because he scored more but Butler missed more chances. There's no stat for missed chances! But the argument could go that Butler was at least there whereas Cureton was 'missing'.) What I'm saying is that stats HAVE to be absolutely finite and the poster HAS to state which fact/stat they believe in....there are too many angles, least of all personal perception. It's a never ending argument...and if stats are there to prove a finite fact, it's show they prove anything but in some people's eyes...therefore it goes and on...nobody wins.
Southbank Old BoySnowball On this list there will always be people who will move the goalposts. For example, when Shane's goals as a sub were going in that was "only" because defences get tired and it was "much easier" to score in the last 15 minutes.
Wasnt it proven by your stats that it was actually easier* to score goals in the last 15/20 minutes than the rest of the game though?
* or at least that more goals were scored in that time across the league, that might not statistically prove they are easier goals of course
Agent Balti . There's no stat for missed chances!
Snowball Sheesh, I do NOT say "But that's the whole point. If people can make 'an' interpretation, and do...but neither view is right or wrong - then it's really a rather defunct exercise. "
I am saying that "the view"
whether to post stats and make a conclusion from them
OR
to post stats and let the stats speak for themselves
is neither right or wrong.
Get it?
It is not right or wrong to posts stats and make a conclusion from them
It is not right or wrong to post stats and NOT make a conclusion from them
That does NOT mean "any conclusion is valid", which is what you appear to be saying
Royalee 1+1=2
1+2=3
1+3=4
1+4=5
1+5=6
1+6=7
1+7=8
1+8=9
1+9=10
1+10=11
1+11=12
1+12=13
1+13=14
1+14=15
1+15=16
1+16=17
1+17=18
1+18=19
1+19=20
1+20=21
1+21=22
SnowballSouthbank Old BoySnowball On this list there will always be people who will move the goalposts. For example, when Shane's goals as a sub were going in that was "only" because defences get tired and it was "much easier" to score in the last 15 minutes.
Wasnt it proven by your stats that it was actually easier* to score goals in the last 15/20 minutes than the rest of the game though?
* or at least that more goals were scored in that time across the league, that might not statistically prove they are easier goals of course
OK, if you say so. Therefore Noel Hunt is a much better striker than "I play the 90" Doyle.
Snowball Balti, imagine this statistic posted.
Striker "XXXX" over three full seasons has scored twice as many goals per game as any other striker in this league.
Now do you have a problem believing that striker XXXX is the best striker in this league?
Does me writing, "Striker "XXXX" over three full seasons has scored twice as many goals per game as any other striker in this league, and that means he's the best striker in the league." really add anything to the argument?
What is so wrong with posting statistics for people to consider
without me insisting on my own interpretation?
Obviously that stat/argument is blindly obvious as the 'twice as many' is indisputable. But people arguing the toss over Lita vs Long is not one where 100% of people will agree. To post ANY kind of statistic is surely to prove that Lita is much, much better than Long. Otherwise, you're just arguing aimlessly forever. That's my point.
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 74 guests