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

[Hoop Blah]

Not that it actually makes any difference over hwo the stats translate into good play (or better play) but you've not even limited the the samples to games McAnuff played in the same team as Harte or Bertrand let alone the number of games played in tandom with them down the left wing.

You seem to be failing to consider the games McAnuff played in the middle and on the right. It really discredits your already poor analysis.

[JimmytheJim]

When you play a right footed winger on the left wing you NEED a left footed left back who will overlap for it to be effective. Harte just doesn't do that but Bertrand was brilliant at it. Currently we have a situation where Jobi tries to cut inside onto his right every time and there is no second option, apart from pump it backwards to the halfway line where Harte is waiting. Stick a proper left-footed full back in there who will get forward and Jobi will be freer to be more effective.

Still, he's been pretty good despite that disadvantage this season, just means our left wing is very one dimensional.

Obviously goalscoring isn't impacted but thats hardly a judge of how good a winger has been. Dyer has scored two goals for Swansea this season and was their Player of the Year compared to Sinclair on the other wing with 26 goals or so...

Goal-scoring was IMPROVED. One third more goals.

He plays with Bertie and scores 3. Bertie gets 1. Total 4
He plays with Harte and scores 4. Harte gets 11. Total 15.

Agreed, so goal-scoring is not the factor. How about assists?

9 versus 8... so not assists, either.


So not goals and not assists. What then?




PLEASE explain where "it's obvious" McAnuff played better with Bertie.

from watching the games not staring at the stats.

oxf*rd me you are tedious.

[AthleticoSpizz]

oxf*rd off snowball, everyone other than you agree that Bertrand is younger, fitter, and generally better, than Harte who is about ten thousand years old.
I'll concede that Harte has surprised us all with his number of goals, however when it counted the most he left us exposed and it SINGLE HANDEDLY cost us.
On several occasions he cost us, including in the playoff final.
The guy is just 20% below average due to his age and lack of pace/stamina, and that is just not good enough if you want promotion.

Harty would've been proven to be good enough had we won on Monday

But ...don't worry

You would've been deluded to think that he would've had a team place next season had that been the case....in any case

[Snowball]

Not that it actually makes any difference over hwo the stats translate into good play (or better play) but you've not even limited the the samples to games McAnuff played in the same team as Harte or Bertrand let alone the number of games played in tandom with them down the left wing.

You seem to be failing to consider the games McAnuff played in the middle and on the right. It really discredits your already poor analysis.

Bollocks. How many games did McAnuff start as a central midfielder? Hardly any.

In fact I can't remember him EVER starting s a central midfielder


I think he's a decent (but limited) player. He's a journeyman, even if a good one.

But I was answering the (erroneous) statement that he got better results paired with Bertrand.

I don't need to do microscopic analysis to prove he did not.

[Snowball]

When you play a right footed winger on the left wing you NEED a left footed left back who will overlap for it to be effective. Harte just doesn't do that but Bertrand was brilliant at it. Currently we have a situation where Jobi tries to cut inside onto his right every time and there is no second option, apart from pump it backwards to the halfway line where Harte is waiting. Stick a proper left-footed full back in there who will get forward and Jobi will be freer to be more effective.

Still, he's been pretty good despite that disadvantage this season, just means our left wing is very one dimensional.

Obviously goalscoring isn't impacted but thats hardly a judge of how good a winger has been. Dyer has scored two goals for Swansea this season and was their Player of the Year compared to Sinclair on the other wing with 26 goals or so...

Goal-scoring was IMPROVED. One third more goals.

He plays with Bertie and scores 3. Bertie gets 1. Total 4
He plays with Harte and scores 4. Harte gets 11. Total 15.

Agreed, so goal-scoring is not the factor. How about assists?

9 versus 8... so not assists, either.


So not goals and not assists. What then?




PLEASE explain where "it's obvious" McAnuff played better with Bertie.

from watching the games not staring at the stats.

oxf*rd me you are tedious.

BUT YOU FAIL TO EXPLAIN, REASON? YOU ARE WRONG AND CAN''T EXPLAIN.

[Snowball]

oxf*rd off snowball, everyone other than you agree that Bertrand is younger, fitter, and generally better, than Harte who is about ten thousand years old.

I agree. Bertrand is younger, fitter, than Harte

BUT THE DISCUSSION IS NOT ABOUT BERTRAND v HARTE

it's about McAnuiff, and the absolute facts are

1. McAnuff did not get more goals when paired with Bertrand

2. The "pair" McAnuff and Bertrand got a lot less goals.

I'll concede that Harte has surprised us all with his number of goals, however when it counted the most he left us exposed and it cost us.
On several occasions he cost us, including in the playoff final.
The guy is just 20% below average due to his age and lack of pace/stamina, and that is just not good enough if you want promotion.

Lucky, then that we got promotion with Bertrand playing.


Oh.

[Snowball]

oxf*rd off snowball, everyone other than you agree that Bertrand is younger, fitter, and generally better, than Harte who is about ten thousand years old.
I'll concede that Harte has surprised us all with his number of goals, however when it counted the most he left us exposed and it SINGLE HANDEDLY cost us.
On several occasions he cost us, including in the playoff final.
The guy is just 20% below average due to his age and lack of pace/stamina, and that is just not good enough if you want promotion.

Harty would've been proven to be good enough had we won on Monday

But ...don't worry

You would've been deluded to think that he would've had a team place next season had that been the case....in any case

Well said.

Harte was (arguably) PARTLY responsible for ONE goal out of four.


Zurab was responsible for two and (at a minimum) 50% responsible for a third


Griffin was clearly responsible for the fourth

[Hoop Blah]

Bollocks. How many games did McAnuff start as a central midfielder? Hardly any.

In fact I can't remember him EVER starting s a central midfielder

It doesn't matter where he started, it just matters where he was playing during those stats you quoted. How many of the assists from each year were from the right of midfield or in the middle?

For the record, McAnuff started a number of games in a central position in behind the long forward. I think he did so under both Rodgers and McDermott but with little positive effect. He's started quite a few over both samples (the two seasons you quote) on the right.

But I was answering the (erroneous) statement that he got better results paired with Bertrand.

I don't need to do microscopic analysis to prove he did not.

This is where you totally miss the relevance and use of stats yet again. The original point was that McAnuff played better with Bertrand behind him than Harte. You've turned that into getting better statistical returns from made up samples.

[Ian Royal]

Bollocks. How many games did McAnuff start as a central midfielder? Hardly any.

In fact I can't remember him EVER starting s a central midfielder

Ipswich and Swansea at home last season for sure, he was poor against Swansea there. He also finished quite a few games shifting into the middle.

Totally agree Hoop, McAnuff is better with an option going outside him. Far harder for defenders to double up on him if that happens. More options = less predictable = greater chance of doing something.

[Snowball]

Bollocks. How many games did McAnuff start as a central midfielder? Hardly any.

In fact I can't remember him EVER starting s a central midfielder

Ipswich and Swansea at home last season for sure, he was poor against Swansea there. He also finished quite a few games shifting into the middle.

Totally agree Hoop, McAnuff is better with an option going outside him. Far harder for defenders to double up on him if that happens. More options = less predictable = greater chance of doing something.

and yet the figures show he clearly DIDN'T do better with Bertrand

[ZacNaloen]

Guys snowball is right here,

About the effect on Mcanuff.

He didn't actually create more, or score more either way in a statistically relevant way. So it's not really relevant whether he personally had someone going outside of him or not.
What is relevent to this discussion is which TEAM was better at stopping us conceeding and creating more goals.
If as a pair they create more from the left with someone going round the outside whilst conceeding less then that is what we should be aiming for.

Taking Hartes free kicks out of the equation.

Which pair created more and which pair conceeded less. Then compare the results to see which pair was most effective.

And no I don't care enough to work it out myself.

[Ian Royal]

Lots of other variables to interfere with looking at it statistically. It's just too simplistic to try and measure it by saying which partnership got the most goals / assists and conceeded the fewest.

[ZacNaloen]

That's just short hand for I'll ignore the facts and go with my gut.

Playing with Bertrand had no effect on Mcanuffs productivity.

If you want to convince anyone that it was a better partnership you need to prove it. My own gut feeling is that the difference is negligable and it frankly just doesn't matter who Mcanuff has behind him as long as they competent at defending.

[Ian Royal]

That's just short hand for I'll ignore the facts and go with my gut.

Playing with Bertrand had no effect on Mcanuffs productivity.

If you want to convince anyone that it was a better partnership you need to prove it. My own gut feeling is that the difference is negligable and it frankly just doesn't matter who Mcanuff has behind him as long as they competent at defending.

So you're saying the manager, form and other 9 players don't affect it?

It's acknowledging that you can't simplify it to that level and realising that ultimately it comes down to subjective opinion. I doubt there is a great deal in the statistics either, I just don't think that necessarily proves anything.

[Snowball]

That's just short hand for I'll ignore the facts and go with my gut.

Playing with Bertrand had no effect on Mcanuffs productivity.

If you want to convince anyone that it was a better partnership you need to prove it. My own gut feeling is that the difference is negligable and it frankly just doesn't matter who Mcanuff has behind him as long as they competent at defending.

EXACTLY! I have no axe to grind either way but people "just saying it" doesn't make a thing true.

The combination of Harte-McAnuff had as many assists and a mere ELEVEN extra goals
and at the same time the Harte-McAnuff team were 77-51 (GD +26) with 77 Points
while the Bertrand-McAnuff team were 68-63 (GD +5) and managed just 63 points.

So with Bertrand, McAnuff scores less, doesn't get more assists.
His full-back scores ten less goals.
The team score 9 less goals and concedes 12 more goals.
The team finishes 4 places but in truth a hundred miles lower
McAnuff has 56 shots with Bertrand (25 on target, 2 hit woodwork), 71 playing with Harte (48 on target - twice as many - and one hit woodwork)

Yet, despite not more goals, not more assists, a lot fewer shots, a lot fewer shots on target, a team with a worse attack and a worse defence... Nevertheless "he was better with Bertrand".

No he damn well was NOT.

[Snowball]

It's acknowledging that you can't simplify it to that level and realising that ultimately it comes down to subjective opinion.
I doubt there is a great deal in the statistics either, I just don't think that necessarily proves anything.

But people ARE simplifying it and saying McAnuff played better with Bertrand

He just scored less
Had less assists
Had only 51% as many shots on target
The side conceded a lot more goals
The side score 9 fewer goals
The side got 14 points less
The side finished lower.


But it's "obvious" that McAnuff played better with Bertrand.


Of course it is.

[Snowball]

Playing with Bertrand had no effect on Mcanuffs productivity.

Interesting that playing with Harte McAnuff got TWICE the number of shots
on target as playing with Bertie... but Harte scored 11 goals as well!

[ZacNaloen]

Snowball you need to discount Hartes goals scored from Free kicks.

[Royalee]

For all his goals, Harte costs us just as many if not double the amount of goals through being utterly inept defensively. How anyone can put him in the same class as Bertrand is beyond me.

[PEARCEY]

Harte was probably the least culpable of the back four.
Kish was at fault for the first although Kebe lost the ball inside his own half in the build-up.
I'd argue Kish was mainly responsible for the second goal having completely sold himself to Dobbie's forward run. We know Harte is slow and he sure as well was slow in not being able to tackle Dobbie but there have to be question marks against Feds for not getting a stronger hand onto the cross and for Griffin's positioning as well.
The third goal was resultant from Dyer getting his cross in which McAnuff failed to stop followed by Kish's far too casual flicked clearance.
The fourth goal started with a poor pass out of defence by Mills followed by Griff's ridiculous challenge.