Set Pieces versus Open Play

[Snowball]

I was a bit shocked to realise how few open-play goals we had scored this season.

3 from Kebe, 1 from HRK, the other two from Gylfi!!

5 Corners, 2 penalties and a free-kick make up the balance.


I'm kind of surprised because I find Reading games exciting and intuitively
thought more of our goals had come from open play.

Anyone know what sort of percentages normally apply, dead-ball situation goals v open-play?

[Hoop Blah]

You don't really pay much attention when you watch games do you?

[Starry Blue Hooped Wonder]

Too busy recording all those statistics

[Horsham Royal]

Anyone know what sort of percentages normally apply, dead-ball situation goals v open-play?

If anyone knows, it surely should be you Snowball.
(and I've a strange feeling you may be calculating as I post...)

[Ian Royal]

You don't really pay much attention when you watch games do you?

I'm still trying to work out how on earth anyone who's watched more than a dozen games over a few years could think that a goal came from roughly one in ten corners. Especially given how crap we've always seemed to be at them historically.

[Snowball]

You don't really pay much attention when you watch games do you?

I'm still trying to work out how on earth anyone who's watched more than a dozen games over a few years could think that a goal came from roughly one in ten corners. Especially given how crap we've always seemed to be at them historically.

I don't see any mention of 1 in 10 in this thread, Ian.

You must be scouring the board looking for my posts to quote...

[26-10-06]

You don't really pay much attention when you watch games do you?

I'm still trying to work out how on earth anyone who's watched more than a dozen games over a few years could think that a goal came from roughly one in ten corners. Especially given how crap we've always seemed to be at them historically.

You really are boring!

[Magnus]

Ouch. The insult is bad but the exclamation mark really rams the point home.

[Millsy]

I really don't understand all this negativity towards Snowball.

He is doing the board a massive service by providing the stats.

It provides very interesting reading and generates fantastic discussion.

Yes by no means should we necessarily agree with his (or anyone's) conclusions from the stats but FFS let's give him a bit of respect for the time he takes to produce these stats for us to debate over

It seems to me that a lot of folk here love to hide behind the fuzziness of their unsubstantiated opinions i.e. "I've watched X games and I have a better footballing brain than all of you and from what I've seen I think x, y, z and if you disagree with me you're wrong" and as soon as some hard facts turn up toys start being thrown out the pram.

Keep the stats coming Snowball.

Yep I agree our open play sucks but no surprise given we're counting on wingers and defenders to provide us with goals.

[papereyes]

He is doing the board a massive service by providing the stats.

It provides very interesting reading and generates fantastic discussion.

The main problems are that

a) as shown in this thread, he doesn't really follow the games. The 'stats' are all after-the-fact outcomes. There's no real attempt to think through the processes by which the stats come about, making them really rather one dimensional. If he gave insight into the process rather than the outcome then he might be useful. As it is, he's just a database with all the wit that implies.

b) For a 'statistician', he seems quite happy to take small sample sizes and unequal situations and make no account for the significance of any differences.

c) he really doesn't take counter-arguments well. My main memory is one where he argued a pro-Marek point and someone equally convincingly argued that Marek's presence had made no difference. Didn't take that well ...

He has a place, but don't think these stats are getting near the be-all and end-all.

The best things to hold against him would be ...

*proving that Bristol City couldn't beat us over pages and pages (and then, guess what, they did)

*his 'intuitively' sentence at the start of the thread.

It seems to me that a lot of folk here love to hide behind the fuzziness of their unsubstantiated opinions i.e. "I've watched X games and I have a better footballing brain than all of you and from what I've seen I think x, y, z and if you disagree with me you're wrong" and as soon as some hard facts turn up toys start being thrown out the pram.

I agree with that but I think he rarely actually shows much real insight. Very rarely. Its all about the weight of numbers and strength of bluster.

That said, he's better than 99 % of the board. Sentences and punctuation, for a start ...

[Ian Royal]

He is doing the board a massive service by providing the stats.

It provides very interesting reading and generates fantastic discussion.

The main problems are that

a) as shown in this thread, he doesn't really follow the games. The 'stats' are all after-the-fact outcomes. There's no real attempt to think through the processes by which the stats come about, making them really rather one dimensional. If he gave insight into the process rather than the outcome then he might be useful. As it is, he's just a database with all the wit that implies.

b) For a 'statistician', he seems quite happy to take small sample sizes and unequal situations and make no account for the significance of any differences.

c) he really doesn't take counter-arguments well. My main memory is one where he argued a pro-Marek point and someone equally convincingly argued that Marek's presence had made no difference. Didn't take that well ...

He has a place, but don't think these stats are getting near the be-all and end-all.

The best things to hold against him would be ...

*proving that Bristol City couldn't beat us over pages and pages (and then, guess what, they did)

*his 'intuitively' sentence at the start of the thread.

It seems to me that a lot of folk here love to hide behind the fuzziness of their unsubstantiated opinions i.e. "I've watched X games and I have a better footballing brain than all of you and from what I've seen I think x, y, z and if you disagree with me you're wrong" and as soon as some hard facts turn up toys start being thrown out the pram.

I agree with that but I think he rarely actually shows much real insight. Very rarely. Its all about the weight of numbers and strength of bluster.

That said, he's better than 99 % of the board. Sentences and punctuation, for a start ...

They can certainly be very useful, but as a small part of the total picture, but used in isolation they really arn't a great deal of use. And can lead just as easily to a poor conclusion treated as gospel, as someone who's just watched the game through their own biased filters with no attempt to analyse or be objective.

[Snowball]

Paper, I've never posted stats on Marek

[SLAMMED]

Another pointless thread.

[Snowball]

Another pointless thread.

I see you ducked my challenge to your BS statement

My main memory is one where he argued a pro-Marek point and someone equally convincingly argued that Marek's presence had made no difference. Didn't take that well ...

EXCEPT I HAVE NEVER POSTED MAREK STATS TO SUPPORT HIM.


Wanna try again, or will you admit your error?

[SLAMMED]

Another pointless thread.

I see you ducked my challenge to your BS statement

Didn't even bother reading your post mate. Same old shit, different stats.

[papereyes]

Another pointless thread.

I see you ducked my challenge to your BS statement

My main memory is one where he argued a pro-Marek point and someone equally convincingly argued that Marek's presence had made no difference. Didn't take that well ...

EXCEPT I HAVE NEVER POSTED MAREK STATS TO SUPPORT HIM.


Wanna try again, or will you admit your error?

There is no error.

Also, you've just had a go at SLAMMED when it was me who made that statement.

Given that you can't get it right within a thread, I don't hold out hope over a period of weeks or months.

[Snowball]

Didn't even bother reading your post mate. Same old shit, different stats.

No problem, mate.

I shall treat your future comments with the respect they deserve

[Snowball]

Also, you've just had a go at SLAMMED when it was me who made that statment.

Given that you can't get it right within a thread, I don't hold out hope over a period of weeks or months.

Dear, dear, dear. You know I often use caps for emphasis
and I'm pretty sure you know I wasn't referring to the
gentleman NAMED "Slammed"

[Wimb]

He is doing the board a massive service by providing the stats.

It provides very interesting reading and generates fantastic discussion.

The main problems are that

a) as shown in this thread, he doesn't really follow the games. The 'stats' are all after-the-fact outcomes. There's no real attempt to think through the processes by which the stats come about, making them really rather one dimensional. If he gave insight into the process rather than the outcome then he might be useful. As it is, he's just a database with all the wit that implies.

b) For a 'statistician', he seems quite happy to take small sample sizes and unequal situations and make no account for the significance of any differences.

c) he really doesn't take counter-arguments well. My main memory is one where he argued a pro-Marek point and someone equally convincingly argued that Marek's presence had made no difference. Didn't take that well ...

He has a place, but don't think these stats are getting near the be-all and end-all.

The best things to hold against him would be ...

*proving that Bristol City couldn't beat us over pages and pages (and then, guess what, they did)

*his 'intuitively' sentence at the start of the thread.

It seems to me that a lot of folk here love to hide behind the fuzziness of their unsubstantiated opinions i.e. "I've watched X games and I have a better footballing brain than all of you and from what I've seen I think x, y, z and if you disagree with me you're wrong" and as soon as some hard facts turn up toys start being thrown out the pram.

I agree with that but I think he rarely actually shows much real insight. Very rarely. Its all about the weight of numbers and strength of bluster.

That said, he's better than 99 % of the board. Sentences and punctuation, for a start ...

^^^^ Pretty much, I'll throw in the 'Long is decent because of goals to minutes on the pitch stat' then as soon as he starts playing 90 minutes it's 'external factors are to blame for his lack of goals'

[papereyes]

Also, you've just had a go at SLAMMED when it was me who made that statment.

Given that you can't get it right within a thread, I don't hold out hope over a period of weeks or months.

Dear, dear, dear. You know I often use caps for emphasis
and I'm pretty sure you know I wasn't referring to the
gentleman NAMED "Slammed"

so why did you quote his post when making your comments?