Harte Signs

[Snowball]

I think I'll just leave it that drawing a conclusion and stating it as an absolute certainty from a sample of statistics which take account of zero variables other than one player's appearance in the team (or possibly only starting line up) is about as retarded as anything I have ever seen on here.

It shows a complete lack of understanding of how to make a reliable statistical analysis on even the most basic level.

Please pop your statistics degree in the post

[Snowball]

Ian I said

Perhaps I should be clearer.


WE-ARE-BETTER-OFF-WITHOUT-GLYFI

and I meant it, and I can prove it.

I have also said REPEATEDLY, that this is in terms of points-per-game and GD
and comparing the games-with versus games-without.


I have not at any time said we are prettier, or will get better goals,
or even that, if we had Gylfi with us now (excluding the Harte-Zurab signings)
we MIGHT NOT do even better.

Personally I think we are doing better BECAUSE he is gone. YES.

I think it allowed us to drastically improve the defence
I think it made us more of a team instead of a one-man supporting act
I think it has allowed other players to come through. Karacan, anyone? HRK, anyone?

Had Gyfli been playing one less other player would have had his chance

[Victor Meldrew]

In response to Woodcote's earlier point suggesting that with Harte and Zurab we now have a stronger squad.
Maybe in the very short term we have but I want to see us building a team and not propping it up with older players.
IMHO Armstrong is the best left-back at the club and therefore I see only Zurab as an improvement in our starting eleven and looking ahead he is not our player.
Gylfi has a full career ahead of him and with a bit of luck that could be about 13-14 years whereas Zurab and Harte may well have no more than 5 more years between them.

On the general point about Gylfi the club just had to take the money but let's not kid ourselves that the club is now stronger on the pitch just because we have brought in a couple of oldies,one of whom may now be superfluous with Armstrong fit again
Also, as we are seeing with Bryn and Ivar, Harte at 33 may well prove to be subject to injuries with greater recovery time than for youngsters.

[Snowball]

In response to Woodcote's earlier point suggesting that with Harte and Zurab we now have a stronger squad.
Maybe in the very short term we have but I want to see us building a team and not propping it up with older players.

Short-term is OK if there is a plan. For example, IF we got promoted we'd have the money for 4-5 players.


IMHO Armstrong is the best left-back at the club and therefore I see only Zurab as an improvement in our starting eleven and looking ahead he is not our player.

This IS "the cripple" who would never play for us again?

Armstrong, great bloke, great player, and IF he remains serious-injury free, like a new signing, but 1.5 games so far. Should we wait?
And you write of Harte who is yet to let Reading down, and has scored 2 goals in 6 games. Armstrong has 1, is it, in 2 seasons.


Gylfi has a full career ahead of him and with a bit of luck that could be about 13-14 years whereas Zurab and Harte may well have no more than 5 more years between them.

We were NEVER going to keep Gylfi, long-term. Be sensible.



On the general point about Gylfi the club just had to take the money but let's not kid ourselves that the club is now stronger
on the pitch just because we have brought in a couple of oldies,one of whom may now be superfluous with Armstrong fit again


I agree, let's not KID OURSELVES that we are stronger.
Results CLEARLY SHOW we are stronger as a team.
Which part of 58% win ratio is "cloudy"?


Also, as we are seeing with Bryn and Ivar, Harte at 33 may well prove to be subject to injuries with greater recovery time than for youngsters.


MIGHT. Last season he played 59 games

[Arch]

WE-ARE-BETTER-OFF-WITHOUT-GLYFI

and I meant it, and I can prove it.

No you can not!

[Snowball]

WE-ARE-BETTER-OFF-WITHOUT-GLYFI

and I meant it, and I can prove it.

No you can not!

Oh yes I can, categorically, as previously defined.

That is

We are better off without Gylfi, if "better off" means winning more points per game.

And so far that is absolutely, unchallengeably, a fact.


Are you telling me, that had we gone on a losing run, or scraping a few draws
you lot would NOT have said, "It's because Gylfi has gone!"


Jeez, people were saying we'd be lucky to avoid relegation "because" we'd lost Gylfi.


Y'see we can talk about aesthetics, and remember great goals, and think of the other ten players as "workmanlike"
but in the end, for all the prettiness, what matters is points on the board. WE ARE GETTING POINTS ON THE BOARD.

And in all cases, whatever manager, whatever season, we have got more points in the games where Gylfii DIDN'T play.

[Stranded]

Again Snowball, please can you prove to me that having Glyfi in the team directly caused Federici to hit Karacan with a clearance against Forest causing their equaliser (and dropped points).

How he was responsible for Mills losing his man against Scunthorpe for their winner after he had got us level - for the Pompey goal when his corner later lead to our equaliser - and that's just moments this year that come to mind - because unless you can prove without doubt that these would not have happened with another player in Glyfi's place then it is not possible to say we are better without him based on your stats.

[Snowball]

Our tenth league game last season was home to Preston. We won
Our tenth league game this season was away to Preston. We drew., 12 points off top

18th, 12 points off top, 10 points off second, 6 points off the play-offs, GD -4, 3 points above relegation
07th, 06 points off top, 04 points off second, 0 points off the play-offs, GD +5, 8 points above relegation


01 09 4 0 0 08 1 3 1 1 9 3 +13 22 Newcastle (game in hand)
02 10 3 1 1 09 4 3 1 1 12 7 +10 20 WBA
06 10 2 3 0 11 8 2 1 2 7 6 +4 16 Sheffield Utd
19 10 0 3 2 02 5 2 1 2 7 8 -4 10 Reading
22 10 1 2 2 08 9 0 2 3 3 8 -6 07 Peterborough

01 10 4 1 0 12 0 4 1 0 12 3 +21 26 QPR (No game in hand)
02 10 3 2 0 09 2 3 0 2 7 6 +08 20 Cardiff City
06 10 4 1 0 12 3 0 3 2 3 5 +07 16 Burnley
07 10 3 1 1 09 3 1 3 1 5 6 +05 16 Reading
22 10 2 1 2 06 6 0 1 4 7 17 -10 08 Leicester City

[Snowball]

Again Snowball, please can you prove to me that having Glyfi in the team directly caused Federici
to hit Karacan with a clearance against Forest causing their equaliser (and dropped points).


But I don't NEED to. It's actually irrelevant.

My statement is a simple factual statement which can be tested by looking at the results.
To date, we win 58% of our games when Gylfi does not play, 40% when he does. Is that, or is it not, a FACT?

How he was responsible for Mills losing his man against Scunthorpe for their winner after he had got us level - for the Pompey goal when his corner later lead to our equaliser - and that's just moments this year that come to mind - because unless you can prove without doubt that these would not have happened with another player in Glyfi's place then it is not possible to say we are better without him based on your stats.

STUNNING in your blindness. I am making a simple statement that we get more points without him
and that is over sixteen games so hardly a fluke, is it?

There is no requirement for me to analyse the internal whys. The facts are the facts.
The difference is not minor. 58% win ratio over 16 games versus 40% win ratio over 43 games

There are errors in most games. How about McAnuff's diabolical back-pass last season when we were dominating at WBA and winning 1-0?
They equalised and went on to hammer us. How about the spills Federici made, or his alleged weakness at the near-post? How about chances
missed by others? How about the penalty Gylfi missed when we were fully in the game at Sheffield United and losing 1-0?

How about the EIGHTY-FOUR chances that Gylfi failed to score from last season, more than twice Long's misses, more than twice Church's misses
More misses than Long and Church combined.

[Wycombe Royal]

I also want to know the quality of the opposition played in those samples with and without Gylfi. I asked a couple of pages ago for the average league position of the opposition at the time we played them so that it can be considered alongside the ppg and also the ratio of home and away games.

So come on Snowball where are these stats?

[Snowball]

Stranded, like you I think Gylfi is a BRILLIANT player, fabulous, a match-winner,
special, out-of-the-ordinary, and a good bloke.

I said on these boards that he'd end up at a UK Premiership top-six club.

If we, somehow were about to sign a Gylfi, right now, I would be deliriously happy.


I would FULLY EXPECT that Gyfli to improve our results.

I EXPECTED that Gylfi was personally responsible for a real percentage of our points and we would take time to recover from his leaving.

Watching his goals, and his good-luck-charm abilities, remembering his stumbled-in goal at the last-gasp v Burnley,
his cracker in extra time to win at WBA, his 90th minute penalty at Liverpool, all these things and more make me,
when I don't examine my gut-instinct, give him more credit than perhaps he is due.

Who raves about Church scoring the first goal against Liverpool?
Who raves about Long winning the penalty at Liverpool, from which Gylfi scored?
Who raves about Gunnarson's nutmeg, the sweetest of crosses, and the excellent header by Long, at Liverpool?
Who raves about the defence that held Liverpool to one goal twice or kept out Burnley?
Who bothers to mention that we drew 2-2 with WBA without Gylfi playing?

Who forgets that Gylfi's goal tally, like Stephen Hunt's is INFLATED and unreal?

Hunt took our penalties and corners so had a lot of goals and assists
Gylfi took our penalties and corners and most of the free-kicks so had a lot of goals and assists.

Yes, he's a great player, but his goals column is inflated by being our penalty-taker, our free-kick taker

Funny, isn't it that when I raved about Harte's 18-goals Harte was written off
"because most of his goals are free-kicks and penalties!" Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

[Snowball]

I also want to know the quality of the opposition played in those samples with and without Gylfi. I asked a couple of pages ago for the average league position of the opposition at the time we played them so that it can be considered alongside the ppg and also the ratio of home and away games.

So come on Snowball where are these stats?

I'll let YOU collect them. Do you realise what a pain it is to do that?

You have to check the team-sheet, get the result, then for every game
go to the table FOR THE GAME BEFORE, check the league position.


Then, when you post the facts and it turns out there is no significant "opposition factor"
the nay-sayers merely try another tack.

For there to be an effect you'd need to be arguing that "randomly" when Gylfi was injured or rested,
the opposition just happened to be, on average lower than half-way. That's because Gylfi played
against almost all the other teams (twice) and they were therefore, obviously, on average mid-table. Some high, some mid, some low.

[Hoop Blah]

Yes, he's a great player, but his goals column is inflated by being our penalty-taker, our free-kick taker

Funny, isn't it that when I raved about Harte's 18-goals Harte was written off
"because most of his goals are free-kicks and penalties!" Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

I think you'll find I for one said exactly the same thing about Sigurdsson's goals for us.

Fair play to you for your tenacity here though snowball. In the face of all the logic, good arguments and sensible questioning, reasoning and debate you still fail to see how seriously flawed your analysis is and how wide of the mark you conclusions are when looking at some seriously shaky stats.

Have you ever seen a head doctor to get your condition diagnosed?

Also, could I ask that you stop replying in bold within a quote please? It makes it really difficult to tell which bits are your drivel...

[Wycombe Royal]

I also want to know the quality of the opposition played in those samples with and without Gylfi. I asked a couple of pages ago for the average league position of the opposition at the time we played them so that it can be considered alongside the ppg and also the ratio of home and away games.

So come on Snowball where are these stats?

I'll let YOU collect them. Do you realise what a pain it is to do that?

You have to check the team-sheet, get the result, then for every game
go to the table FOR THE GAME BEFORE, check the league position.


Then, when you post the facts and it turns out there is no significant "opposition factor"
the nay-sayers merely try another tack.

For there to be an effect you'd need to be arguing that "randomly" when Gylfi was injured or rested,
the opposition just happened to be, on average lower than half-way. That's because Gylfi played
against almost all the other teams (twice) and they were therefore, obviously, on average mid-table. Some high, some mid, some low.

Just list the games he didn't play in last season then.........I would assume you already have that to have calcualted the massive amount of stats already presented......

[Snowball]

League games last season (without Gylfi)

Place 02 L 1-3 Away to 2nd Place West Bromwich Albion
Place 03 W 2-1 Away to 3rd Place Preston
Place 03 L 1-2 Away to 3rd Place. Nottingham Forest
Place 13 W 3-0 Home to 13th Place Coventry
Place 13 W 2-1 Away to 13th Place Doncaster (games in hand, fancied to make play-offs_
Place 23 W 2-1 Home to 23rd Place Plymouth (who were on a winning run)



Average league position at the time we played them 8TH

Average league position at end of season 12.67 (2nd, 3rd, 12th, 17th, 19th, 23rd)

Average league position at end of season 12.70 for with-Gylfi games.

Total only 43 because Gylfi played in 3 games as a sub, so not used for stats

So virtually identical quality of opposition last season



This season. League position for the first 1-2-3-4 games is a bit pointless
and even from 5th is a bit "wooly"... so use currrent position (10 games)
for Gylfi games 1-4. YES, the sample is tiny. Combine it with last year!

11th-16th-21st-24th AVERAGE POSITION NOW 18TH (Gylfi games)

Non-Gylfi I can show positions at game, and positions now for fairness

GONE H Palace WON 3-0 (20th, now 23rd)
GONE A Millwall Drew 0-0 (3rd, now 12th))
GONE A Middlesboro Lost 1-3 (17th, now 18th))
GONE H Barnsley WON 3-0 (10th, now 15th))
GONE H Ipswich WON 1-0 (4th, now 5th)
GONE A Preston Drew 1-1 (20th, now 20th)

Average 12.33 at time of game
Average 15.50 current positions

So the games the non-Gylfi team have played were against TOUGHER OPPOSITION!


So yet again, no opposition is weaker argument

Combined both seasons


Overall average is 10th for non-Gylfi games based on actual positions before game
Overall average is 12.5 for non-Gylfi games based on latest or final position)
Overall average is 13th for Gylfi games (based on latest or final position)

So on any measure you like, Gylfi games were easier opposition!!

[Snowball]

Just list the games he didn't play in last season then.........I would assume you already have that to have calcualted the massive amount of stats already presented......

I have, and 2nd-3rd-3rd were toughies, weren't they?

We played against an average of 8TH at kick-off

Didn't the boys DO WELL against that tough opposition?

They won two thirds of those games, that's 66.67%,

remember with Gylfi they averaged a 40% win-rate

And they were leading at WBA until McAnuff's disastrous back-pass, and
though outplayed first half at Forest, easily "won" the second half, missed
a penalty (Howard) and should have got at least a point

[Wycombe Royal]

You seem to have the impression that I was hoping these stats would weaken your argument - that is not the case. I was just interested to see the level of opposition we were playing in those games.

[Snowball]

Have you ever seen a head doctor to get your condition diagnosed?

Good to see you are wobbling, resorting to personal insults now.

Also, could I ask that you stop replying in bold within a quote please? It makes it really difficult to tell which bits are your drivel...

That's easy. MINE are the BOLD bit or CAPS or BOLD CAPS UNDERLINED

[Snowball]

You seem to have the impression that I was hoping these stats would weaken your argument - that is not the case. I was just interested to see the level of opposition we were playing in those games.

Sorry.

I was just replying on auto-pilot, so used to yet another person desperately
looking for an angle to explain away the fact that for some bizarre reason
or combination of reasons we DO do better without Gylfi.

I apologise if I misunderstood you.


PS I'm glad you DID ask the question. I was genuinely surprised to discover we had won 4 out of 6 games, and against not-too-easy opponents. Remember that though Plymouth were almost bottom they had been on a good run (including slaughtering us at their place)

[Snowball]

Do people not get that these stats surprise ME?

I would never have PREDICTED that we'd do better without Gylfi

That's why, separating out subjectivity and looking at hard facts is so good.

Love is blind, remember!




But having discovered the real effect, the clear effect, removed "quality of opposition"
etc etc we then have to consider why this occurred and is still occurring.

We all know that we have not been renowned for a robust midfield for some time. In order to accommodate Gylfi's talents we changed from 4-4-2 to 4-5-1, sometimes playing Gyfli wide just so we could play him. But though we scored goals we leaked more.

Gylfi got 20. Take out his penalties. How many left?
Howard has only missed one penalty in the whole of his career!
He could have taken those pens.

Take out Gylfi's free-kicks. They are BRILLIANT free kicks, yes.
But other players would have scored from SOME of those free kick opportunities.

HARTE scores as many penalties, and from lots of free kicks.
Of course he's not "sexy", just efficient.

And remember, as Gylfi only missed one penalty (I think) his accuracy/lethality for the 20 goals he scored was NOT good for a striker (and I see him as a deep striker)

He had 124 chances for his 24 goals. How many were pens?

So he converted 1 in 8? 1 in 9? Church and Long were twice as lethal