What are all the columns?
Is there anything which shows starts and sub appearances there, as I think it would be interesting to see a comparison of how frequently a player is in a position to score as well as what his conversion rate is like. Are penalties included as goals & chances?
Harte Signs
Ian Royal What are all the columns?
Is there anything which shows starts and sub appearances there, as I think it would be interesting to see a comparison of how frequently a player is in a position to score as well as what his conversion rate is like. Are penalties included as goals & chances?
All Shots-On Target-Off Target-Hit Woodwork- Goals- Chances need for 1 goal
Haven't done the starts (subs) "games" yet
I'm PRESUMING that a penalty is a chance (it doesn't say) and if scored goes down as a goal, if missed....
-
Wycombe Royal
- Hob Nob Addict
- Posts: 6682
- Joined: 14 Apr 2004 19:31
- Location: Churchdown, Glos
Snowball please remove the penalties from those stats. "Deadliness" as you call it is distorted when a free shot from 12 yards is included.
-
Ian Royal
- Hob Nob Legend
- Posts: 35156
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004 13:43
- Location: Playing spot the pc*nt on HNA?
Wycombe Royal Snowball please remove the penalties from those stats. "Deadliness" as you call it is distorted when a free shot from 12 yards is included.
Inclined to agree, and it shouldn't be too hard for the majority either I wouldn't have thought (possibly quite time consuming). Goals scored as pens are recorded as such and I believe pen misses are also recorded in some places.
-
Wycombe Royal
- Hob Nob Addict
- Posts: 6682
- Joined: 14 Apr 2004 19:31
- Location: Churchdown, Glos
Also deadliness is pretty irrelevant anyway when comparing players in different positions and different roles.
Take a striker, alot of their chances are inside the penalty area where accuracy should be higher. A player like Gylfi who takes pot shots from outside the area when no other options are available is going to have a lower scoring rate from shots taken. That is just common sense, but stats don't allow for common sense.
Ian Harte on the other has a higher proportion of penalties than most and also direct free kicks where he is taking an unchallenged shot at goal. I would EXPECT his rate to be higher as he doesn't get in many shots from open play.
But of course Snowball won't agree, will post a load of stats in an attempt to force his point across in the hope that they original argument gets lost and he can claim he is right.
Take a striker, alot of their chances are inside the penalty area where accuracy should be higher. A player like Gylfi who takes pot shots from outside the area when no other options are available is going to have a lower scoring rate from shots taken. That is just common sense, but stats don't allow for common sense.
Ian Harte on the other has a higher proportion of penalties than most and also direct free kicks where he is taking an unchallenged shot at goal. I would EXPECT his rate to be higher as he doesn't get in many shots from open play.
But of course Snowball won't agree, will post a load of stats in an attempt to force his point across in the hope that they original argument gets lost and he can claim he is right.
Wycombe Royal Snowball please remove the penalties from those stats. "Deadliness" as you call it is distorted when a free shot from 12 yards is included.
Gylfi's Fan Club won't be very pleased, will it?
How about Doyle's pens?
How about pens by others?
And BTW, if you want to remove the pens from the stats, please feel free to trawl through every
season from 2004-5 and check every single goal by Kitson, Doyle, Lita, Long, Hunt, Kebe, because
the stats on line don't distinguish between goals in open play, penalties, headers from set-pieces,
shots from direct free kicks etc etc etc.
But removing pens will make Shane (New Contract) Long look quite a bit better!!
Ian RoyalWycombe Royal Snowball please remove the penalties from those stats. "Deadliness" as you call it is distorted when a free shot from 12 yards is included.
Inclined to agree, and it shouldn't be too hard for the majority either I wouldn't have thought (possibly quite time consuming). Goals scored as pens are recorded as such and I believe pen misses are also recorded in some places.
Feel free to do the work. I've never found such stats.
The only way I know to do it is to trawl through every match report for the last six years
be my guest
Is that right, Shane's contract has been extended? But he's USELESS, right?
Wycombe Royal Also deadliness is pretty irrelevant anyway when comparing players in different positions and different roles.
Take a striker, alot of their chances are inside the penalty area where accuracy should be higher. A player like Gylfi who takes pot shots from outside the area when no other options are available is going to have a lower scoring rate from shots taken. That is just common sense, but stats don't allow for common sense.
Ian Harte on the other has a higher proportion of penalties than most and also direct free kicks where he is taking an unchallenged shot at goal. I would EXPECT his rate to be higher as he doesn't get in many shots from open play.
But of course Snowball won't agree, will post a load of stats in an attempt to force his point across in the hope that they original argument gets lost and he can claim he is right.
You're very "easy". Strikers also get far more CHANCES compared to full-backs, centre-backs and defensive midfielders.
NOTICE THIS
244 143 094 7 062 Goals 3.94 Kitson Career 5 and a bit seasons
274 144 124 6 056 Goals 4.90 Doyle Career 4 full seasons
184 101 075 8 031 Goals 5.90 Lita Career
145 078 062 5 031 Goals 4.70 Long Career
143 074 061 8 022 Goals 6.50 Gylfi Career IN JUST 42 (3) Games
Unless Gylfi is better than Messi and Ronaldo combined, something is radically wrong with these figures.
Doyle averaged about 1.8 chances a game, Kitson about the same, Long is similar
Yet Gylfi seems, out of the blue to have averaged almost twice as many. In one full season 42 (3), he managed half of Doyle's chances.
I can only surmise that either he was extremely selfish and went for personal glory
or the whole team was told to constantly "feed Gylfi". His stats are absolutely CRAZY
especially when he missed such a very very high percentage of those chances.
IF the stats are right we must have stopped playing as a team
Are you all going to say Gylfi was TWICE AS GOOD AS Doyle and Kitson at getting chances? REALLY?
244 143 094 7 062 Goals 3.94 Kitson Career 5 and a bit seasons
274 144 124 6 056 Goals 4.90 Doyle Career 4 full seasons
184 101 075 8 031 Goals 5.90 Lita Career
145 078 062 5 031 Goals 4.70 Long Career
143 074 061 8 022 Goals 6.50 Gylfi Career IN JUST 42 (3) Games
Unless Gylfi is better than Messi and Ronaldo combined, something is radically wrong with these figures.
Doyle averaged about 1.8 chances a game, Kitson about the same, Long is similar
Yet Gylfi seems, out of the blue to have averaged almost twice as many. In one full season 42 (3), he managed half of Doyle's chances.
I can only surmise that either he was extremely selfish and went for personal glory
or the whole team was told to constantly "feed Gylfi". His stats are absolutely CRAZY
especially when he missed such a very very high percentage of those chances.
IF the stats are right we must have stopped playing as a team
Are you all going to say Gylfi was TWICE AS GOOD AS Doyle and Kitson at getting chances? REALLY?
-
Ian Royal
- Hob Nob Legend
- Posts: 35156
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004 13:43
- Location: Playing spot the pc*nt on HNA?
It's because he was better than this league, took freekicks and penalties, needed very little space to shoot accurately from range and could easily create that space himself.
He could either drifted off the wing into the middle to find space or when he sat in the "hole", find it by beating a player or he could burst into the box on the end of passes / crosses.
He could either drifted off the wing into the middle to find space or when he sat in the "hole", find it by beating a player or he could burst into the box on the end of passes / crosses.
-
Wycombe Royal
- Hob Nob Addict
- Posts: 6682
- Joined: 14 Apr 2004 19:31
- Location: Churchdown, Glos
SnowballWycombe Royal Also deadliness is pretty irrelevant anyway when comparing players in different positions and different roles.
Take a striker, alot of their chances are inside the penalty area where accuracy should be higher. A player like Gylfi who takes pot shots from outside the area when no other options are available is going to have a lower scoring rate from shots taken. That is just common sense, but stats don't allow for common sense.
Ian Harte on the other has a higher proportion of penalties than most and also direct free kicks where he is taking an unchallenged shot at goal. I would EXPECT his rate to be higher as he doesn't get in many shots from open play.
But of course Snowball won't agree, will post a load of stats in an attempt to force his point across in the hope that they original argument gets lost and he can claim he is right.
You're very "easy". Strikers also get far more CHANCES compared to full-backs, centre-backs and defensive midfielders.
Yes they do, but the type of chances is also different and that is the issue here. In my day job I am an accountant and to take an example from that you cannot compare various performance ratios from say a mining company and an insurance company - they are in different industries and have different characteristics. This is something you are failing to understand. You are not comparing like for like.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
However I'm sure you will just post 3 or 4 replies in quick succession posting more irrelevant repeated stats that don't actually answer the question (a question which does not require the use of any stats in order to answer it).
What I understand is you lot SQUIRMING.
If Shane or whoever scores goals, then it's "But what about his other contributions?"
If they work their socks off it,s "But he's there to score goals."
If (for example) Shane scores loads of goals for few minutes, it's because it's easy to do that as a sub.
But if Church does it (scores easy sub goals) it's because he's much better than useless Long.
So Harte comes in and is decried as past his sell-by date and slower than a snail
and will get us relegated, we have no ambition. When he starts to score free-kicks more often than Gylfi
it's because he's somehow PRIVILEGED. Harte has scored three free-kicks this season, in 15 games.
He's only had 8 shots, I think.
Gylfi, the free-kick "expert" scored 3 free-kicks in 43 (5) games. He also managed to MISS a total of 111 chances.
Quite simply, there is a bunch of you that simply wriggle and squirm to avoid every admitting a player might actually be good.
If Shane or whoever scores goals, then it's "But what about his other contributions?"
If they work their socks off it,s "But he's there to score goals."
If (for example) Shane scores loads of goals for few minutes, it's because it's easy to do that as a sub.
But if Church does it (scores easy sub goals) it's because he's much better than useless Long.
So Harte comes in and is decried as past his sell-by date and slower than a snail
and will get us relegated, we have no ambition. When he starts to score free-kicks more often than Gylfi
it's because he's somehow PRIVILEGED. Harte has scored three free-kicks this season, in 15 games.
He's only had 8 shots, I think.
Gylfi, the free-kick "expert" scored 3 free-kicks in 43 (5) games. He also managed to MISS a total of 111 chances.
Quite simply, there is a bunch of you that simply wriggle and squirm to avoid every admitting a player might actually be good.
Ian Royal It's because he was better than this league, took freekicks and penalties, needed very little space to shoot accurately from range and could easily create that space himself.
He could either drifted off the wing into the middle to find space or when he sat in the "hole", find it by beating a player or he could burst into the box on the end of passes / crosses.
LOVE IT!!! 131 shots, OK? Six pens, scored 5. so that leaves 125 shots. (Do the sums)
He managed a whole three goals from free-kicks. Now did he MISS 30-40 free-kicks
or did he miss maybe 10 FCs? Out of those 125 chances (club official stats on the OS)
he got just 15 goals, and missed 110 of them.
That is he missed almost as many chances as Long has in 5 years!
So, just as a matter of interest, now you've explained away the most freakish set of shot-stats, probably in history, what about Bellamy, or Chopra or McGugan? They are clearly Prem players....
36 Shots in 14 games - Bothroyd
14 Shots in 08 games - Chopra
13 shots in 06 games - Bellamy
63 shots in 28 games - Total
21 shots in 09 games - Average, this for a side which is top of the league and top scorers, scoring for fun
Note how the best players get about 2+ chances per game on average.
Go and trawl the stats for any striker in this league.
Doyle appeared for Reading 155 times and average 1.7 chances per game. He is a Premiership player, top quality?
Kitson has almost the same average. 1.6 to 2.2 or so is typical... 3.26 (Gylfi) is extremely high, an anomaly, I suspect
14 Shots in 08 games - Chopra
13 shots in 06 games - Bellamy
63 shots in 28 games - Total
21 shots in 09 games - Average, this for a side which is top of the league and top scorers, scoring for fun
Note how the best players get about 2+ chances per game on average.
Go and trawl the stats for any striker in this league.
Doyle appeared for Reading 155 times and average 1.7 chances per game. He is a Premiership player, top quality?
Kitson has almost the same average. 1.6 to 2.2 or so is typical... 3.26 (Gylfi) is extremely high, an anomaly, I suspect
I have found a couple of players with similar stats to Gylfi
143 74 61 08 Gylfi Siggurdson 42 (5) = 3.34
148 68 73 07 Charlie Adam 44 (2) = 3.33
117 53 61 03 Andy Carroll 35 (7) = 3.23
119 59 60 00 Chris Brunt 42 (1) = 2.82
089 54 31 04 Kevin Nolan 47(1) = 1.89
143 74 61 08 Gylfi Siggurdson 42 (5) = 3.34
148 68 73 07 Charlie Adam 44 (2) = 3.33
117 53 61 03 Andy Carroll 35 (7) = 3.23
119 59 60 00 Chris Brunt 42 (1) = 2.82
089 54 31 04 Kevin Nolan 47(1) = 1.89
-
SLAMMED
- Hob Nob Addict
- Posts: 7514
- Joined: 19 May 2008 16:12
- Location: Let's leave before the lights come on
Hit the lottery: 1 of 53,567,422,456.
Shaq's free throw percentage: 53%.
Sex Panther: 60% of the time, it works every time.
Your city will be hit with a Muslim suicide bomber: 1 of 3.
You will read statistics: 1 of 1.
Winners will win: 1 of 1.
Losers will lose: 1 of 1.
67% of people suffer from an irrational fear of gnomes.
30% of people are afraid of gnomes for rational reasons.
The other 3% are gnomes.
Only 33% of women who wear sunglasses are only cute while the glasses are on.
100% of people have been part of at least one statistic.
100% of statistics are based at least one person, or gnome.
Your life will end by having a golf ball jammed in your nose: 1 of 4,027.
People that need Algebra: 1 of 3,053,567,422,456.
99.2% of the time, this will take you to a random article.
86.32% of statistics are made up.
37.98% of people die at some point in their life.
Chance that you will die a rich man, get all of your money stolen, be resurrected, then eaten by a grue: 41.2%
6/4 people have problems with fractions.
9/10 of all humans at this very moment, are running nude, covered in peanut butter.
10/10 of people think that the value of pie is 3.14. Well actually your wrong because it's 0 i've just eaten it.
4/10 people believe aliens exist.
99.995% of people believe in Chuck Norris.
82.67% of all people want to be vampires
1.2401% of all humans will realize the importance of the digits 2401
1 out of every 2 survivors of the end of the world will be reminded to bring a their towel by Ford Prefect.
Shaq's free throw percentage: 53%.
Sex Panther: 60% of the time, it works every time.
Your city will be hit with a Muslim suicide bomber: 1 of 3.
You will read statistics: 1 of 1.
Winners will win: 1 of 1.
Losers will lose: 1 of 1.
67% of people suffer from an irrational fear of gnomes.
30% of people are afraid of gnomes for rational reasons.
The other 3% are gnomes.
Only 33% of women who wear sunglasses are only cute while the glasses are on.
100% of people have been part of at least one statistic.
100% of statistics are based at least one person, or gnome.
Your life will end by having a golf ball jammed in your nose: 1 of 4,027.
People that need Algebra: 1 of 3,053,567,422,456.
99.2% of the time, this will take you to a random article.
86.32% of statistics are made up.
37.98% of people die at some point in their life.
Chance that you will die a rich man, get all of your money stolen, be resurrected, then eaten by a grue: 41.2%
6/4 people have problems with fractions.
9/10 of all humans at this very moment, are running nude, covered in peanut butter.
10/10 of people think that the value of pie is 3.14. Well actually your wrong because it's 0 i've just eaten it.
4/10 people believe aliens exist.
99.995% of people believe in Chuck Norris.
82.67% of all people want to be vampires
1.2401% of all humans will realize the importance of the digits 2401
1 out of every 2 survivors of the end of the world will be reminded to bring a their towel by Ford Prefect.
-
SLAMMED
- Hob Nob Addict
- Posts: 7514
- Joined: 19 May 2008 16:12
- Location: Let's leave before the lights come on
No.
100% of the time I have asked Slammed for MORE! He's at first refused.
-
From Despair To Where?
- Hob Nob Legend
- Posts: 24830
- Joined: 19 Apr 2004 08:37
- Location: See me in m'pants and ting
Wycombe Royal However I'm sure you will just post 3 or 4 replies in quick succession posting more irrelevant repeated stats that don't actually answer the question (a question which does not require the use of any stats in order to answer it).
I would ask you for this weekend's lottery numbers but in hindsight, you were only stating the obvious.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 288 guests
It is currently 26 Nov 2024 09:52