*Official* English Football Season 2009-2010

[Ikki]

The stat doesn't tell you how difficult the chances were though; Craig Curran may have only missed two chances on Monday night but he should have scored from both. This is an example of why stats don't work, for me.

If the sample is like 20+ chances, there's little chance that most of them were tough chances. And I am sure there is a certain standard they keep in deciding what would be relatively deemed a chance - however subjective that may be.

 

[GIMH]

What about if we watch football at the ground?

A footballer is never picked on the basis of statistics, aside from things like 'goals' or 'clean sheets'.

 

[Ikki]

But the main point of Sport is emotion and enjoyment is it not?

It's also about winning - which may be a big source of that emotion and enjoyment. And if you want to win, you have to know the facets of the game that you must be good at in order to win. Is it enough to simply know scoring a goal is better than not scoring a goal? That's why tactics are made; it is a difficult thing to do, reliant on several actions by your own players, of which statistics are kept (i.e., passing and shooting accuracy).

 

[GIMH]

If the sample is like 20+ chances, there's little chance that most of them were tough chances. And I am sure there is a certain standard they keep in deciding what would be relatively deemed a chance - however subjective that may be.

On what basis can you say that? And you're in FCA territory when talking about what is termed a 'chance' which is obviously a big flaw with such a stat.

Anyway, going out now.

 

[BoyBrumby]

You bring up the Rio stat; I actually mentioned this kind of situation in my post.

So what exactly are you saying then? A mistake that leads to a goal is irrelevant in assessing a defender's worth? 'Cos that sounds like something quite adjacent to horse poo to me.

 

[sledger]

On what basis can you say that? And you're in FCA territory when talking about what is termed a 'chance' which is obviously a big flaw with such a stat.

Anyway, going out now.

Because his dad played football once, duh.

 

[Ikki]

What about if we watch football at the ground?

A footballer is never picked on the basis of statistics, aside from things like 'goals' or 'clean sheets'.

I think this is a rather naive view. If you want a holding midfielder, you want him to be able to complete passes. If he gives the ball away a lot...then he is a useless holding midfielder. If you want a box-to-box midfielder, you need a fit midfielder to cover a lot of ground.

True, it's probably illustrated that the best goal scorers do whatever they need to do well in order to keep up that rate and you may simply concentrate on the goals they score but not all things are that simple. Otherwise Sledger could be a coach just by looking at who is the top goal scorer and who keeps the most clean sheets .

 

[sledger]

I think this is a rather naive view. If you want a holding midfielder, you want him to be able to complete passes. If he gives the ball away a lot...then he is a useless holding midfielder. If you want a box-to-box midfielder, you need a fit midfielder to cover a lot of ground.

True, it's probably illustrated that the best goal scorers do whatever they need to do well in order to keep up that rate and you may simply concentrate on the goals they score but not all things are that simple. Otherwise Sledger could be a coach just by looking at who is the top goal scorer and who keeps the most clean sheets .

Of course, given that your dad and your uncle once turned out for the dog and duck on a sunday afternoon, you are obviously a lot more well placed to say who would make a good coach and who would not, if Tony Adams has taught us anything, it's that clearly those who used to play football who are the most successful when trying their hand in this field.

 

[Ikki]

On what basis can you say that? And you're in FCA territory when talking about what is termed a 'chance' which is obviously a big flaw with such a stat.

Anyway, going out now.

LOL, well, I guess at the least it is more consistent and specialised than simply a fan saying "he misses great chances" when many others wouldn't consider it a chance at all.

Obviously, if you have a high amount of chances missed, it'd be hard to argue that they were all tough, reliant on there being a sufficient sample. It'd almost be like saying whenever x bowler faced batsmen they were on their day and really confident - hence the big scores - whereas if they've bowled enough you'd begin to seriously doubt that it's such a coincidence.

Anyway, I should be off to bed too.

 

[Ikki]

Of course, given that your dad and your uncle once turned out for the dog and duck on a sunday afternoon, you are obviously a lot more well placed to say who would make a good coach and who would not, if Tony Adams has taught us anything, it's that clearly those who used to play football who are the most successful when trying their hand in this field.

Surely, so because Tony Adams failed as a manager you should be one too.

G'nite.

 

[Ikki]

So what exactly are you saying then? A mistake that leads to a goal is irrelevant in assessing a defender's worth? 'Cos that sounds like something quite adjacent to horse poo to me.

Sorry, just saw this.

No, not at all. Imagine Rio had not given away the goal and someone claimed that he was shakey and giving away balls. So then, it makes that stat all the more relevant. But if someone is claiming that he had many turnovers then they should be pretty specific - especially as it's a defender - if he has only misplaced 2 passes in the entire game. They should point to a goal or a dangerous chance otherwise they're talking from their backside. It doesn't invalidate that a high percentage in passing is desirable and indicates that a player is not giving the ball away. Obviously, for a defender, it may take 1 pass and that is why any criticism should be so exact.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Bloody hell.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Bloody hell.

Indeed.

 

[Ikki]

Sorry, was closing windows and saw that I had missed this .

So you're happy as long as your expensive players play well then? So yes, who cares how the team does as long as Torres is banging in 30 a season? We'll worry about the 80 going in at the other end later on.

Yes, if we are spending a lot and they are doing well, then how can you criticise the coach for having bought them? The problem is, we don't have enough money to buy near certainties as other clubs do. So we have to punt on 7-10 million pound players that would be squad players for most of the teams challenging for the title.

As for £11m not being a lot of money, take your head out of your arse.

It isn't, if you are competing for the title against the likes of Chelsea, United, Arsenal (who to be frank are awesome with transfers), City, Tottenham and the best teams in Europe. Even the mid-table teams in the EPL afford this amount here and there. It is not a huge amount, especially so if you're buying said player to be one of your main players and are chasing the title.

BTW, bloody hell .

 

[sledger]

Sorry, was closing windows and saw that I had missed this .


Yes, if we are spending a lot and they are doing well, then how can you criticise the coach for having bought them? The problem is, we don't have enough money to buy near certainties as other clubs do. So we have to punt on 7-10 million pound players that would be squad players for most of the teams challenging for the title.



It isn't, if you are competing for the title against the likes of Chelsea, United, Arsenal (who to be frank are awesome with transfers), City, Tottenham and the best teams in Europe. Even the mid-table teams in the EPL afford this amount here and there. It is not a huge amount, especially so if you're buying said player to be one of your main players and are chasing the title.

BTW, bloody hell .

They may well be achieving personal success, but what real tangible success has been had? The thing is, Liverpool have spend extremely comparable amounts with the other top sides in the division, and still have not had the same success, this is the crux of the matter. As I'm sure you will doubtless agree, there is more to being a good coach then just buying players who put in good performances individually, it is a team game after all. I'm sure you aren't suggesting otherwise because that would be absurd, though it's hard to infer anything else from what you just said.

 

[Ikki]

They may well be achieving personal success, but what real tangible success has been had? The thing is, Liverpool have spend extremely comparable amounts with the other top sides in the division, and still have not had the same success, this is the crux of the matter. As I'm sure you will doubtless agree, there is more to being a good coach then just buying players who put in good performances individually, it is a team game after all. I'm sure you aren't suggesting otherwise because that would be absurd, though it's hard to infer anything else from what you just said.

Spending comparable amounts is different to having your squad resemble like values. We can spend 7 million on Bellamy, sell him and spend that 7 million on Riera...but we don't have a player worth that 14 million and we have recycled what we have spent. IIRc, we've spent only 20-30 million more than we've sold under Benitez. Compare that again with the teams I just listed. Torres is doing only what he can do: score. But he is surrounded by, at best, squad players for other top teams. He cannot possibly win the title on his own.

That's why if you add the value of our current squad together it is dwarfed by the likes of City, Chelsea, United and is less than I think even Tottenham. Think about it; since Benitez has been in the EPL the two teams that have won it have by far the most expensive squads. Yes, we may spend more than Everton and Sunderland but we're still quite far away from the likes of the former champions. But Everton and Sunderland have not been champions and aren't expected to be either so the comparison is flawed to begin with. In fact our spending and Tottenham's is very close, do you think anyone is calling for them to win the title or are they disappointed for not winning it?

If our squad resembled anything like the values of those of the former champions, Chelsea and United, and we didn't win the league THEN I would agree with you. But they don't, so anything like actually challenging them is a very good achievement. I was disappointed last year but being realistic it was a fantastic achievement nonetheless.

The reality is, we only have 2-3 players who are superstars and who can put on performances when the team isn't winning/playing well. The best teams in the world who have won championships are those with a good all-round team, but with a handful of stars capable of turning matches when the games are locked or even worse when they are being outplayed. And when Torres and/or Gerrard are out, we cannot replace them so readily, can we? Who do we have? Babel or Kuyt ...players like this that have been bought for ~10 or less million pounds. Essentially, you pay for what you get. Sometimes they blossom into a Xabi Alonso and sometimes they become a Babel and sometimes they more or less hold their value like a Kuyt. When you can afford to buy players in 1 30 million shot, you are more likely to reap dividends, are you not? The players that command these types of fees do so for a reason.

Sorry, I've jabbered on and am extremely tired. I'll see you in the morning.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Bloody hell.

 

[sledger]

Tbh Arsenal's Premiership winning sides were assembled on less than Liverpool have spent over the last few years, on fractions of what Liverpool have spent in fact, at a time where Man Utd were spending a hell of a lot more. So yes, poor old Liverpool, not got the cash to compete at the top, get the violins out.

 

[Ikki]

Tbh Arsenal's Premiership winning sides were assembled on less than Liverpool have spent over the last few years, on fractions of what Liverpool have spent in fact, at a time where Man Utd were spending a hell of a lot more. So yes, poor old Liverpool, not got the cash to compete at the top, get the violins out.

For that I admire Arsenal, but Arsenal are not the rule, they are the exception and in recent seasons even they have been beneath us. So if money is not a factor, what's the problem with Arsenal? As an aside, I think if any coach can win with limited means it is Wenger. His talent-spotting is freakish. But again, he is the exception, not the rule.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Spending comparable amounts is different to having your squad resemble like values. We can spend 7 million on Bellamy, sell him and spend that 7 million on Riera...but we don't have a player worth that 14 million and we have recycled what we have spent. IIRc, we've spent only 20-30 million more than we've sold under Benitez. Compare that again with the teams I just listed. Torres is doing only what he can do: score. But he is surrounded by, at best, squad players for other top teams. He cannot possibly win the title on his own.

That's why if you add the value of our current squad together it is dwarfed by the likes of City, Chelsea, United and is less than I think even Tottenham. Think about it; since Benitez has been in the EPL the two teams that have won it have by far the most expensive squads. Yes, we may spend more than Everton and Sunderland but we're still quite far away from the likes of the former champions. But Everton and Sunderland have not been champions and aren't expected to be either so the comparison is flawed to begin with. In fact our spending and Tottenham's is very close, do you think anyone is calling for them to win the title or are they disappointed for not winning it?

If our squad resembled anything like the values of those of the former champions, Chelsea and United, and we didn't win the league THEN I would agree with you. But they don't, so anything like actually challenging them is a very good achievement. I was disappointed last year but being realistic it was a fantastic achievement nonetheless.

The reality is, we only have 2-3 players who are superstars and who can put on performances when the team isn't winning/playing well. The best teams in the world who have won championships are those with a good all-round team, but with a handful of stars capable of turning matches when the games are locked or even worse when they are being outplayed. And when Torres and/or Gerrard are out, we cannot replace them so readily, can we? Who do we have? Babel or Kuyt ...players like this that have been bought for ~10 or less million pounds. Essentially, you pay for what you get. Sometimes they blossom into a Xabi Alonso and sometimes they become a Babel and sometimes they more or less hold their value like a Kuyt. When you can afford to buy players in 1 30 million shot, you are more likely to reap dividends, are you not? The players that command these types of fees do so for a reason.

Sorry, I've jabbered on and am extremely tired. I'll see you in the morning.

Christ alive, give it a rest.

We got bored of this argument last time.