Andy Carroll....Local Hero! O̶r̶ ̶J̶u̶d̶a̶s̶?

[trophyshy 6432]

called Newcastle lasses dogs?

[Renton 17627]

5th highest in the country over 15 years. Fact. Only 4 clubs did better and had a higher overall average league position.

 

Have you worked out what they did in their 15 years for the good of the club on and off the pitch yet ?

 

Fucking hell....

 

 

It's only a fact by that method. By absolute league position the average under Shephed was 9.4, Obviously If Norwich finished above us one year and then fucked off we'd have a higher average compared to them over the period but the absolute average remains 9.4

 

Off the pitch apart from the ground they did nothing.

 

On the pitch every decision was short term - signing players for the length of their contracts and sacking managers who are on long contracts is not long term business improvement - its short-termism at its worst.

 

If you want to say that building a team makes good players more likey to sign there's some truth in it - unfortunately that doesn't work anymore because players just go for the money forst of all.

 

 

BTW, average position was 5th highest, however you look at it. Show me the 8 clubs that did better, if you want to say it was 9th highest.

 

How fucking desperate are you to beat them with any stick you can find man. Give yourself a shake. "Off the pitch they did nothing".

 

You're using a modal average rather than a mean average to suit your purposes. It's much more appropriate to use a mean average though, modes are hardly ever used by statisticians, precisley because they have little meaning.

[NJS 3960]

You're using a modal average rather than a mean average to suit your purposes. It's much more appropriate to use a mean average though, modes are hardly ever used by statisticians, precisley because they have little meaning.

 

Glad someone knows the technicalities.

 

According to LM if we finished 10th two years in a row but unlikely as it seems the 9 teams above us were competely different between the 2 years then we would be the best club in the country as no other team had bettered our average. I'd argue our average position was 10th.

[Toonpack 6766]

You're using a modal average rather than a mean average to suit your purposes. It's much more appropriate to use a mean average though, modes are hardly ever used by statisticians, precisley because they have little meaning.

 

Glad someone knows the technicalities.

 

According to LM if we finished 10th two years in a row but unlikely as it seems the 9 teams above us were competely different between the 2 years then we would be the best club in the country as no other team had bettered our average. I'd argue our average position was 10th.

 

Yep.

[LeazesMag 0]

You're using a modal average rather than a mean average to suit your purposes. It's much more appropriate to use a mean average though, modes are hardly ever used by statisticians, precisley because they have little meaning.

 

Glad someone knows the technicalities.

 

According to LM if we finished 10th two years in a row but unlikely as it seems the 9 teams above us were competely different between the 2 years then we would be the best club in the country as no other team had bettered our average. I'd argue our average position was 10th.

 

going by what you say, nobody has an "average position" of 1st, so nobody is 1st unless they finish 1st every year

 

What a dick.

 

Fact - we have the 5th highest average league position in the country between 1993 and 2007" . Get it ? This means only 4 have a higher average position. Average means if you finish 4th one year and 6th the next, your average over 2 years is 5th. Understand. This is our AVERAGE position in the premiership under the Halls and Shepherd. If another club finishes 3rd one year and 11th the next, then their average position is 7th, I hope this 2nd example helps you to clear up your understanding of averages. Only 4 clubs have had a higher average position, this means over those years only 4 clubs have achieved a higher average league position, further emphasised by these clubs being the ONLY 4 clubs who also qualified for europe more than we did during those years, which if you think about if - if you can - actually makes sense and reinforces that extremely difficult - for you - mathematical calculation.

 

How many times did Everton - the club you are casting envious eyes over - finish above us during those years, have you looked it up yet

 

Anyway.

 

Looking at your previous rants, and your comment about "what did they do for the long term future and benefit of the club on and off the pitch", the obvious conclusion is you're on a wind up or you are the thickest person to frequent these message boards, including skunkers and Newcastle Online. Which takes some doing. Nobody, NOBODY is THAT thick to actually ask a question like that and mean it.

 

This thread should be stickied, and so should NJS's comments.

 

I suspected you are on another planet in the past, when you post political stuff, now you are intruding on the footballing side too. Breathtakingly stupid.

Edited May 9, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Guest alex]

You're using a modal average rather than a mean average to suit your purposes. It's much more appropriate to use a mean average though, modes are hardly ever used by statisticians, precisley because they have little meaning.

 

Glad someone knows the technicalities.

 

According to LM if we finished 10th two years in a row but unlikely as it seems the 9 teams above us were competely different between the 2 years then we would be the best club in the country as no other team had bettered our average. I'd argue our average position was 10th.

Perhaps I'm missing something here but if you took a mean average, wouldn't ours be 5th best?

Edited May 9, 2011 by alex

[LeazesMag 0]

You're using a modal average rather than a mean average to suit your purposes. It's much more appropriate to use a mean average though, modes are hardly ever used by statisticians, precisley because they have little meaning.

 

Glad someone knows the technicalities.

 

According to LM if we finished 10th two years in a row but unlikely as it seems the 9 teams above us were competely different between the 2 years then we would be the best club in the country as no other team had bettered our average. I'd argue our average position was 10th.

Perhaps I'm missing something here but if you took a mean average, wouldn't ours be 5th best?

 

correct, it's just too simple for him Alex, and Renton too.

 

of course, if they admit they are just on a wind up, they admit we were the 5th best during that period. So when will their man Ashley put us back in the position of being the 5th best club in the country, in terms of league position and european qualifications. I hope by virtue of selling our best players and finding a Tiotte and a Ben Arfa every season we do better in the long run. Of course.

Edited May 9, 2011 by LeazesMag

[NJS 3960]

You're using a modal average rather than a mean average to suit your purposes. It's much more appropriate to use a mean average though, modes are hardly ever used by statisticians, precisley because they have little meaning.

 

Glad someone knows the technicalities.

 

According to LM if we finished 10th two years in a row but unlikely as it seems the 9 teams above us were competely different between the 2 years then we would be the best club in the country as no other team had bettered our average. I'd argue our average position was 10th.

Perhaps I'm missing something here but if you took a mean average, wouldn't ours be 5th best?

 

correct, it's just too simple for him Alex, and Renton too.

 

As usual you just quote someone who seems to agree with you without actually answering the point.

 

Taking the clubs average against each other is another layer of comparison which I don't think matters:

 

If Stoke finish above us this year and then get relegated does it in anyway shape way or form affect the fact the we finished 12th (or whatever)?

 

I don't care if its Stoke or Man Utd - its the 12th which affects our average position and defines our success or otherwise going forward.

 

Also LM Renton works with stats for a living - do you or is that another secret?

 

Still waiting for a long term business benefit.

[Guest alex]

So fuck if he works with stats tbh. This is fairly straightforward stuff. Fair enough I was being a bit facetious but Leazes also has a point. I do think that looking at the mean average provides a picture of where we finished in the league in that era but at the same time I think it's perfectly reasonable and only fair to compare it to that of other clubs in order to provide a bit of context in that same era.

[Toonpack 6766]

You're using a modal average rather than a mean average to suit your purposes. It's much more appropriate to use a mean average though, modes are hardly ever used by statisticians, precisley because they have little meaning.

 

Glad someone knows the technicalities.

 

According to LM if we finished 10th two years in a row but unlikely as it seems the 9 teams above us were competely different between the 2 years then we would be the best club in the country as no other team had bettered our average. I'd argue our average position was 10th.

Perhaps I'm missing something here but if you took a mean average, wouldn't ours be 5th best?

 

If you have the 5th best average position and said position that equates to the 5th best is actually 9.4th year on year in real finishing position, to finish 10th or above year on year is all that's required to match it.

 

Of course given the games changed and top 4 are a lock-in, near as damn it, finishing with an average real position of 9.4th may no longer be enough to finish 5th best average of the averages. But surely finishing with an actual average league position of 9.4th (or above) in real terms would equal (or surpass it if above 9.4th) the previous record of 5th best average when the real number was 9.4th.

 

Easy really, hope I've cleared that one up

 

Bottom line, 9.4th is the benchmark the other stat is bollocks.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Toonpack

[NJS 3960]

So fuck if he works with stats tbh. This is fairly straightforward stuff. Fair enough I was being a bit facetious but Leazes also has a point. I do think that looking at the mean average provides a picture of where we finished in the league in that era but at the same time I think it's perfectly reasonable and only fair to compare it to that of other clubs in order to provide a bit of context in that same era.

 

So we differ on how to measure success then - fair enough - I accept that that comparison is a way of looking at it but as I said I don't care about the names, only the positions.

 

When LLambias said "we aim to finish top 10 or better every year" he didn't mention who those 9 clubs (taking the bare 10th view) would be - it could be Norwich for the next 5 years or anyone else - I don't think it matters.

[LeazesMag 0]

You're using a modal average rather than a mean average to suit your purposes. It's much more appropriate to use a mean average though, modes are hardly ever used by statisticians, precisley because they have little meaning.

 

Glad someone knows the technicalities.

 

According to LM if we finished 10th two years in a row but unlikely as it seems the 9 teams above us were competely different between the 2 years then we would be the best club in the country as no other team had bettered our average. I'd argue our average position was 10th.

Perhaps I'm missing something here but if you took a mean average, wouldn't ours be 5th best?

 

correct, it's just too simple for him Alex, and Renton too.

 

As usual you just quote someone who seems to agree with you without actually answering the point.

 

Taking the clubs average against each other is another layer of comparison which I don't think matters:

 

If Stoke finish above us this year and then get relegated does it in anyway shape way or form affect the fact the we finished 12th (or whatever)?

 

I don't care if its Stoke or Man Utd - its the 12th which affects our average position and defines our success or otherwise going forward.

 

Also LM Renton works with stats for a living - do you or is that another secret?

 

Still waiting for a long term business benefit.

 

I'm not saying what our average position is numbnuts, as I quoted, using your method nobody is 1st, I'm saying our average is the 5th highest.

 

Any old stick to beat Shepherd with. When do you think we will finish 5th again ? Since your man took over, that average has gone down by the way and there is absolutely no chance of recovering lost ground.

 

1. You admit we actually have the 5th highest average league position and only 4 clubs did better.

2. You are on the wind up

3. You are the stupidest person on any NUFC message board if you don't understand this and still need to be told what the last owners did for the club with long term strategy in mind, both on and off the field.

 

I'm not going to respond until you answer which of these is correct.

[LeazesMag 0]

You're using a modal average rather than a mean average to suit your purposes. It's much more appropriate to use a mean average though, modes are hardly ever used by statisticians, precisley because they have little meaning.

 

Glad someone knows the technicalities.

 

According to LM if we finished 10th two years in a row but unlikely as it seems the 9 teams above us were competely different between the 2 years then we would be the best club in the country as no other team had bettered our average. I'd argue our average position was 10th.

Perhaps I'm missing something here but if you took a mean average, wouldn't ours be 5th best?

 

If you have the 5th best average position and said position that equates to the 5th best is actually 9.4th year on year in real finishing position, to finish 10th or above year on year is all that's required to match it.

 

Of course given the games changed and top 4 are a lock-in, near as damn it, finishing with an average real position of 9.4th may no longer be enough to finish 5th best average of the averages. But surely finishing with an actual average league position of 9.4th (or above) in real terms would equal (or surpass it if above 9.4th) the previous record of 5th best average when the real number was 9.4th.

 

Easy really

 

Bottom line, 9.4th is the benchmark the other stat is bollocks.

 

so who are the 8 clubs with a higher average ?

[Guest alex]

You're using a modal average rather than a mean average to suit your purposes. It's much more appropriate to use a mean average though, modes are hardly ever used by statisticians, precisley because they have little meaning.

 

Glad someone knows the technicalities.

 

According to LM if we finished 10th two years in a row but unlikely as it seems the 9 teams above us were competely different between the 2 years then we would be the best club in the country as no other team had bettered our average. I'd argue our average position was 10th.

Perhaps I'm missing something here but if you took a mean average, wouldn't ours be 5th best?

 

If you have the 5th best average position and said position that equates to the 5th best is actually 9.4th year on year in real finishing position, to finish 10th or above year on year is all that's required to match it.

 

Of course given the games changed and top 4 are a lock-in, near as damn it, finishing with an average real position of 9.4th may no longer be enough to finish 5th best average of the averages. But surely finishing with an actual average league position of 9.4th (or above) in real terms would equal (or surpass it if above 9.4th) the previous record of 5th best average when the real number was 9.4th.

 

Easy really, hope I've cleared that one up

 

Bottom line, 9.4th is the benchmark the other stat is bollocks.

You can try and make it sound more complicated than it actually is but the 9.4th place figure is what was used to calculate 5th best over that period. Like I said, I don't think that's a definitive measure of success but it shouldn't be discounted as a method of measuring it either. Any more than jizzing over potentially turning a profit at some stage is something to get overly excited about.

[NJS 3960]

I'm not saying what our average position is numbnuts, as I quoted, using your method nobody is 1st, I'm saying our average is the 5th highest.

 

Any old stick to beat Shepherd with. When do you think we will finish 5th again ? Since your man took over, that average has gone down by the way and there is absolutely no chance of recovering lost ground.

 

1. You admit we actually have the 5th highest average league position and only 4 clubs did better.

2. You are on the wind up

3. You are the stupidest person on any NUFC message board if you don't understand this and still need to be told what the last owners did for the club with long term strategy in mind, both on and off the field.

 

I'm not going to respond until you answer which of these is correct.

 

1. He's not my man as I keep having to say but you won't listen.

2. Finishing 5th in the next few years is as likely as it was if they hadn't sold in 2007 - negligible.

3. I deliberately separate the time Shepherd was chairman from before that under Hall as that's when the rot set it imo - what are the stats for that 10 years rather than the 14?

4. As I keep saying the other clubs names don't matter - we had too many 10ths and 13ths under Shepherd for it to be considered universally succesfull.

 

I honestly don't see anything they did for the long term benefit of the club apart from the ground - on the pitch is always transitory (unless you appoint a Ferguson or a Wenger) so I don't see what you can do - of course it depends on what you call long term.

 

Off the pitch all they did in total was extort money.

[Toonpack 6766]

You're using a modal average rather than a mean average to suit your purposes. It's much more appropriate to use a mean average though, modes are hardly ever used by statisticians, precisley because they have little meaning.

 

Glad someone knows the technicalities.

 

According to LM if we finished 10th two years in a row but unlikely as it seems the 9 teams above us were competely different between the 2 years then we would be the best club in the country as no other team had bettered our average. I'd argue our average position was 10th.

Perhaps I'm missing something here but if you took a mean average, wouldn't ours be 5th best?

 

If you have the 5th best average position and said position that equates to the 5th best is actually 9.4th year on year in real finishing position, to finish 10th or above year on year is all that's required to match it.

 

Of course given the games changed and top 4 are a lock-in, near as damn it, finishing with an average real position of 9.4th may no longer be enough to finish 5th best average of the averages. But surely finishing with an actual average league position of 9.4th (or above) in real terms would equal (or surpass it if above 9.4th) the previous record of 5th best average when the real number was 9.4th.

 

Easy really

 

Bottom line, 9.4th is the benchmark the other stat is bollocks.

 

so who are the 8 clubs with a higher average ?

 

Irrelevant, it's actual finishing position that is important. Or would you contend that IF (hypothetically) we finished with an average finishing position of say 8th over the next 5 years but that was only good enough for 6th, or 7th or more, best average of averages, we would have a worse league record than the period where the actual average finishing position of 9.4th was good enough for 5th best average of averages ????

[NJS 3960]

I don't think that's a definitive measure of success but it shouldn't be discounted as a method of measuring it either. Any more than jizzing over potentially turning a profit at some stage is something to get overly excited about.

 

Or being on some arbitrary rich list.

[Guest alex]

I don't think that's a definitive measure of success but it shouldn't be discounted as a method of measuring it either. Any more than jizzing over potentially turning a profit at some stage is something to get overly excited about.

 

Or being on some arbitrary rich list.

I quite agree fwiw.

[Toonpack 6766]

You're using a modal average rather than a mean average to suit your purposes. It's much more appropriate to use a mean average though, modes are hardly ever used by statisticians, precisley because they have little meaning.

 

Glad someone knows the technicalities.

 

According to LM if we finished 10th two years in a row but unlikely as it seems the 9 teams above us were competely different between the 2 years then we would be the best club in the country as no other team had bettered our average. I'd argue our average position was 10th.

Perhaps I'm missing something here but if you took a mean average, wouldn't ours be 5th best?

 

If you have the 5th best average position and said position that equates to the 5th best is actually 9.4th year on year in real finishing position, to finish 10th or above year on year is all that's required to match it.

 

Of course given the games changed and top 4 are a lock-in, near as damn it, finishing with an average real position of 9.4th may no longer be enough to finish 5th best average of the averages. But surely finishing with an actual average league position of 9.4th (or above) in real terms would equal (or surpass it if above 9.4th) the previous record of 5th best average when the real number was 9.4th.

 

Easy really, hope I've cleared that one up

 

Bottom line, 9.4th is the benchmark the other stat is bollocks.

You can try and make it sound more complicated than it actually is but the 9.4th place figure is what was used to calculate 5th best over that period. Like I said, I don't think that's a definitive measure of success but it shouldn't be discounted as a method of measuring it either. Any more than jizzing over potentially turning a profit at some stage is something to get overly excited about.

 

See my reply above.

[Guest alex]

That's what I was responding to, TP. I disagreed.

[Toonpack 6766]

That's what I was responding to, TP. I disagreed.

 

Not the meandering half in jest one, this one -

 

Irrelevant, it's actual finishing position that is important. Or would you contend that IF (hypothetically) we finished with an average finishing position of say 8th over the next 5 years but that was only good enough for 6th, or 7th or more, best average of averages, we would have a worse league record than the period where the actual average finishing position of 9.4th was good enough for 5th best average of averages ????

[Guest alex]

That's what I was responding to, TP. I disagreed.

 

Not the meandering half in jest one, this one -

 

Irrelevant, it's actual finishing position that is important. Or would you contend that IF (hypothetically) we finished with an average finishing position of say 8th over the next 5 years but that was only good enough for 6th, or 7th or more, best average of averages, we would have a worse league record than the period where the actual average finishing position of 9.4th was good enough for 5th best average of averages ????

I take your point. However, that hasn't happened nor is it likely to under Ashley.

Edit: Deserves a better answer like:

Finishing position is more important, aye. But the comparison with other clubs provides part of the context needed to make a judgement on that (imo). I'd concede were that to happen though (i.e. the above) it would be a better performance than the 9.4th on average. It won't though

Edited May 9, 2011 by alex

[LeazesMag 0]

Glad someone knows the technicalities

 

According to LM if we finished 10th two years in a row but unlikely as it seems the 9 teams above us were competely different between the 2 years then we would be the best club in the country as no other team had bettered our average. I'd argue our average position was 10th.

Perhaps I'm missing something here but if you took a mean average, wouldn't ours be 5th best?

 

If you have the 5th best average position and said position that equates to the 5th best is actually 9.4th year on year in real finishing position, to finish 10th or above year on year is all that's required to match it.

 

Of course given the games changed and top 4 are a lock-in, near as damn it, finishing with an average real position of 9.4th may no longer be enough to finish 5th best average of the averages. But surely finishing with an actual average league position of 9.4th (or above) in real terms would equal (or surpass it if above 9.4th) the previous record of 5th best average when the real number was 9.4th.

 

Easy really

 

Bottom line, 9.4th is the benchmark the other stat is bollocks.

 

so who are the 8 clubs with a higher average ?

 

Irrelevant, it's actual finishing position that is important. Or would you contend that IF (hypothetically) we finished with an average finishing position of say 8th over the next 5 years but that was only good enough for 6th, or 7th or more, best average of averages, we would have a worse league record than the period where the actual average finishing position of 9.4th was good enough for 5th best average of averages ????

 

jibberish.

 

Only 4 clubs did better than we did, in terms of league positions and european qualifications. This is about context. It means that we were the 5th most relatively successful team in the country during that period, because the same 4 clubs who had a higher average position were also the same 4 clubs who qualified for europe more.

 

Since Mike Ashley came, ALL those averages have decreased and in my humble opinion, he will NEVER qualify for europe even once by virtue of league position. This may suit those who think we are no bigger than the likes of Blackburn or Bolton, and even though you say "the game has changed", it has "changed" for everybody, we are still bigger and should be aiming higher than Blackburn and Bolton, in fact as we have said, even though you say "the game has changed" only Man City and Chelsea have sugar daddies, there is no reason at all why we should not still be aiming to manage the likes of Liverpool and Spurs. The game is the same for those clubs as it is for us, and we have bigger support than both, bigger stadiums, we have been a bigger and better club than Spurs throughout the entire ownership of the Halls and Shepherd. Mike Ashley is doing to us what Alan Sugar did for Spurs, when we were bigger and better than Spurs.

 

If you are going to post a stat which gives the impression 8 clubs have finished higher than us over this period, which is what you are doing, name them.

Edited May 9, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Renton 17627]

You're using a modal average rather than a mean average to suit your purposes. It's much more appropriate to use a mean average though, modes are hardly ever used by statisticians, precisley because they have little meaning.

 

Glad someone knows the technicalities.

 

According to LM if we finished 10th two years in a row but unlikely as it seems the 9 teams above us were competely different between the 2 years then we would be the best club in the country as no other team had bettered our average. I'd argue our average position was 10th.

Perhaps I'm missing something here but if you took a mean average, wouldn't ours be 5th best?

 

If you have the 5th best average position and said position that equates to the 5th best is actually 9.4th year on year in real finishing position, to finish 10th or above year on year is all that's required to match it.

 

Of course given the games changed and top 4 are a lock-in, near as damn it, finishing with an average real position of 9.4th may no longer be enough to finish 5th best average of the averages. But surely finishing with an actual average league position of 9.4th (or above) in real terms would equal (or surpass it if above 9.4th) the previous record of 5th best average when the real number was 9.4th.

 

Easy really, hope I've cleared that one up

 

Bottom line, 9.4th is the benchmark the other stat is bollocks.

You can try and make it sound more complicated than it actually is but the 9.4th place figure is what was used to calculate 5th best over that period. Like I said, I don't think that's a definitive measure of success but it shouldn't be discounted as a method of measuring it either. Any more than jizzing over potentially turning a profit at some stage is something to get overly excited about.

 

It's an odd method to calculate success in my mind, and doesn't really reflect the fact that for the majority of our time under Hall and Shepherd we were in the bottom half of the table (I think this is correct). The fact that most other clubs have done worse than us is not really a measure of success either, and in any case, considering the money we generated and spent you'd still have to say we were punching below our weight. Had the Halls hung around another year and we would almost certainly be sixth on that liost as well with the appointment of Allerdyce for us and O'Neill for Villa as well.

 

Under the previous board we had some great times but we couldn't sustain them, which was also due to decisions made by the board (Keegan leaving, Robson be sacked, and a succession of disatrous mangerial appointments and as well as the timings of those appointments). Bottom line is we won fuck all. I completely accept that things are even shitter now under Ashley but to continually brag about us being '5th best' is a lot more embarassing to me than singing chants about Andy Carroll. Just my opinion like.

 

This is obviously more aimed at Leazes but I need a mediator.

[Toonpack 6766]

jibberish.

 

Only 4 clubs did better than we did, in terms of league positions and european qualifications. This is about context. It means that we were the 5th most relatively successful team in the country during that period, because the same 4 clubs who had a higher average position were also the same 4 clubs who qualified for europe more.

 

Since Mike Ashley came, ALL those averages have decreased and in my humble opinion, he will NEVER qualify for europe even once by virtue of league position. This may suit those who think we are no bigger than the likes of Blackburn or Bolton, and even though you say "the game has changed", it has "changed" for everybody, we are still bigger and should be aiming higher than Blackburn and Bolton, in fact as we have said, even though you say "the game has changed" only Man City and Chelsea have sugar daddies, there is no reason at all why we should not still be aiming to manage the likes of Liverpool and Spurs. The game is the same for those clubs as it is for us, and we have bigger support than both, bigger stadiums, we have been a bigger and better club than Spurs throughout the entire ownership of the Halls and Shepherd. Mike Ashley is doing to us what Alan Sugar did for Spurs, when we were bigger and better than Spurs.

 

If you are going to post a stat which gives the impression 8 clubs have finished higher than us over this period, which is what you are doing, name them.

 

All the 5th best average of average shows is that if you finished 9.4th season on season that was enough for 5th best, which means the other teams must have been crap.

 

As for listing them all it changed season on season BUT our average finishing position was 9.4th incontravertable FACT.

 

There's a BIG reason we can't compete with Leverpool (rarely could) and Spurs currently and that is they are significantly richer than us, you and I differ greatly on why that is, and that's the subject our deal is based upon so I'll say nee more on that one.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Toonpack