Jump to content

Generic small time football blather thread FOREVER


Sonatine
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, PaddockLad said:


I”m comedy angry mate, I know stats are fundamental to the modern game. It’s just my opinion that some of them are fairly pointless….xG can be measured with a pair of eyes, no need to commit data to spread sheets to know that Haaland’s score will be higher than Toney’s.. I suppose what analysts are looking for is some data that goes against the grain, that unearths a hidden gem,  something the stats tell you that general observation of the game can’t. That’s fair enough. I still think xG is bollocks though….

 

See, I don't trust people, people voted for Brexit, people are in favor of the death penalty. I trust numbers. People will say they saw Wilson score from a good chance, 7/10 you'd expect to score from there. But actually it was a really, really difficult chance, closer to a 1/100 chance of scoring. People will say they don't see ASM providing enough output in terms of goals or assists, but the stats show he's the biggest threat in our side. People allow their bias to colour their interpretation of the game. 

 

What is they say about eye-witnesses being the least trusted testimony?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ASM provides assist, it’s just his numbers are shite :lol: It’s actually a terrible argument to defend him with. What’s far more important to the team is his ability to carry the ball, take players out of the game and get us in and around the box. His end product is unquestionably the weakest part of his game, it just shows you how bad the other wingers in the side are when he’s the best

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

See, I don't trust people, people voted for Brexit, people are in favor of the death penalty. I trust numbers. People will say they saw Wilson score from a good chance, 7/10 you'd expect to score from there. But actually it was a really, really difficult chance, closer to a 1/100 chance of scoring. People will say they don't see ASM providing enough output in terms of goals or assists, but the stats show he's the biggest threat in our side. People allow their bias to colour their interpretation of the game. 

 

What is they say about eye-witnesses being the least trusted testimony?

 

 


What are you going to do with that data scenario now apart from add to a discussion on the internet though? Are you going to unearth an underrated player through it? You’re not because xG appears to me to depend heavily on who is in the team with the player in question and the assessment of the difficulty of the chances is completely subjective.  I understand there are a million and one other pieces of data to bring into the equation but a lot of punters going “yah his xG is graate guys” doesn’t bring a single thing to the party that I can’t see with my own eyes. 

 

Xg stats are initially visible observations. How do you think the great teams throughout football history were built? By knowledgeable men watching players play. Mistakes were and are often made. But Clough/Taylor, any member of the LFC boot room and SAF and the scouting team he built from scratch at Man Utd (the one he inherited was next to useless, and post Carr NUFC is fairly likely to be much the same @Christmas Tree ;)  )  made fewer of them than their contemporaries. That’s where the magic lies, in visible assessment and on the training pitch. not in a spreadsheet.  They’re obviously a valuable aid, alone though I can’t see much of a use for them….trust your eyes… 
 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Fish said:

 

See, I don't trust people, people voted for Brexit, people are in favor of the death penalty. I trust numbers. People will say they saw Wilson score from a good chance, 7/10 you'd expect to score from there. But actually it was a really, really difficult chance, closer to a 1/100 chance of scoring. People will say they don't see ASM providing enough output in terms of goals or assists, but the stats show he's the biggest threat in our side. People allow their bias to colour their interpretation of the game. 

 

What is they say about eye-witnesses being the least trusted testimony?

 

 

 

You mean 

Quote

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command

 


I totally get what you're saying BTW Fish.

What were the stats between ASM and Miggy at the weekend on being the biggest threat?  By looking I would say Miggy was.  But what do the stats say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also on a numbers argument.  @spongebob toonpantsknows this.  Mark Cavendish one of the best sprinters of his generation, if not ever.  His power numbers on the bike are apparently shite.  Coaches and even him have said if they want off them alone he wouldn't be a pro cyclist.  However his race craft etc have taken him to 200+ wins and a large amount of the biggest stages of all.

However that's comparing apples and oranges, but it also shows too much can be read into numbers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, wykikitoon said:

Also on a numbers argument.  @spongebob toonpantsknows this.  Mark Cavendish one of the best sprinters of his generation, if not ever.  His power numbers on the bike are apparently shite.  Coaches and even him have said if they want off them alone he wouldn't be a pro cyclist.  However his race craft etc have taken him to 200+ wins and a large amount of the biggest stages of all.

However that's comparing apples and oranges, but it also shows too much can be read into numbers.


Team bosses had to put the correct team around him to get him over the alps etc to exploit his undoubted & huge talent. Why did he fall out of favour before last years tour & obviously this one? 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Meenzer said:

FZxdzEtXEAE0fpz?format=jpg&name=small

 

This is going to be a spunkfest for the xG gang, isn't it? :lol: 


It's a pretty chart, but nothing more than that. It's not like you need a player in your team in every segment. 

I'd be intrigued to know which of the segments The Athletic would put each member of our squad into mind you so you could compare them against the examples they've placed on this chart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Craig said:


It's a pretty chart, but nothing more than that. It's not like you need a player in your team in every segment. 

I'd be intrigued to know which of the segments The Athletic would put each member of our squad into mind you so you could compare them against the examples they've placed on this chart.

There is a whole article explaining and supporting it tbf https://theathletic.com/3473297/2022/08/10/player-roles-the-athletic/

 

If i get bored enough at work tomorrow i might do our squad based on it and see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Craig said:


It's a pretty chart, but nothing more than that. It's not like you need a player in your team in every segment. 

 

:lol:

 

First sentence: wow. Second sentence: it's about player categorisation. No one is saying you need a player from every segment in your team. 

 

It's OK to just say "I don't really understand what this is about". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:


What are you going to do with that data scenario now apart from add to a discussion on the internet though? Are you going to unearth an underrated player through it? You’re not because xG appears to me to depend heavily on who is in the team with the player in question and the assessment of the difficulty of the chances is completely subjective.  I understand there are a million and one other pieces of data to bring into the equation but a lot of punters going “yah his xG is graate guys” doesn’t bring a single thing to the party that I can’t see with my own eyes. 

 

xG is objectively assessing the likelihood of a goal given thousands of data points across years of research. How often does a player score, with that body part, from that position, at that angle, after receiving the ball in that way from that place, when the defenders are there and the 'keeper is there. It doesn't account for who that player is, or who his teammates, or a subjective assessment of the difficulty of the chance. 

 

Wilson's goal was a 0.09 xG. So, if a player was in that position you'd only expect him to score 9/100. Not necessarily Wilson, or Haaland, or Botman or Dubravka, any player in that situation had a 9% chance of scoring.

 

 

39 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

 

Xg stats are initially visible observations. How do you think the great teams throughout football history were built? By knowledgeable men watching players play. Mistakes were and are often made. But Clough/Taylor, any member of the LFC boot room and SAF and the scouting team he built from scratch at Man Utd (the one he inherited was next to useless, and post Carr NUFC is fairly likely to be much the same @Christmas Tree ;)  )  made fewer of them than their contemporaries. That’s where the magic lies, in visible assessment and on the training pitch. not in a spreadsheet.  They’re obviously a valuable aid, alone though I can’t see much of a use for them….trust your eyes… 
 

They're not, it's not do I think that's a good chance, it's how many times did that situation result in a goal. 

 

There's so many intangibles added by a scout watching a player that you cannot find in statistics, that's why more onus was put on personality, character, bravery, etc.  But the margins are now so small, that statistics add objective value to a scouts subjective view. You will never see the likes of Ali Dia again. Or a Nacho Gonzalez. Looks mint on youtube, might look mint in the 2-3 games the scouts turns up for. But if his underlying numbers are bad, they're a better judge of the player's actual ability. 

 

Your eyes lie to you all the time.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

 

:lol:

 

First sentence: wow. Second sentence: it's about player categorisation. No one is saying you need a player from every segment in your team. 

 

It's OK to just say "I don't really understand what this is about". 

 

Like I said it's a pretty chart, no more - offers no more than that in my opinion

I'm fully versed on the virtues and values of infographics and where they work, thanks very much, so your last sentence is unwarranted. There's no need to be a condescending twat about it. :razz:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, wykikitoon said:

 

You mean 

 


I totally get what you're saying BTW Fish.

What were the stats between ASM and Miggy at the weekend on being the biggest threat?  By looking I would say Miggy was.  But what do the stats say?

 

ASM executed more shot creating actions than Almiron, but Almiron produced more key passes, the chances made by Almiron were higher quality, but ASM had a higher chance of scoring himself. 

 

It's close but, statistically speaking, ASM was a slightly bigger overall threat than Almiron. If Almiron had used his right foot, he would have surpassed ASM.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Craig said:

 

Like I said it's a pretty chart, no more - offers no more than that in my opinion

I'm fully versed on the virtues and values of infographics and where they work, thanks very much, so your last sentence is unwarranted. There's no need to be a condescending twat about it. :razz:

 

Your "it's not like you need a player in each segment in your team" comment clearly demonstrates that you have misunderstood the point of the exercise.  It's not condescending to point that out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it doesn't. 

I get the purpose of it and I understand its purpose, I just don't think it adds value or makes detailed information easier to digest which is the whole purpose of an infographic. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gemmill said:

Craig. I get it. You've backed yourself into the stupid corner and you're refusing to be lured out. I'm just gonna leave you there. :lol:

 

 

I'm not the one being condescending and falsely suggesting I don't understand something. Pick your tail up as you move along, eh Scott :lol:

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Monkeys Fist said:

The board is heading for a bigger split than the Great Civilised Stander/Filthy Sitters Rift of 20…wheneverthefuckitwas. 
 

Eyes vs Pies (charts…ish). 
 

:lol:

 

Who fucking stands up for christ's sake :lol:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:


Team bosses had to put the correct team around him to get him over the alps etc to exploit his undoubted & huge talent. Why did he fall out of favour before last years tour & obviously this one? 🤔

 

He won the green jersey last year.  This year a few think its because he rides for a Belgium team and they didn't want him to beat Mercx record

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.