*Official* English Football Season 2009-2010

[sledger]

Can we all talk about who's gonna get the SWA job instead please?

The one with the best pass completion rating, obviously.

 

[Ikki]

Nah, stats are a cop out. Because football places a uniquely high premium on scoring stats like pass completion and interceptions are ultimately next to meaningless; the only one that matters is the sledger pointed out.

It depends entirely on the context. If a CM has a passing completion rate in the high 80s, you cannot possibly call him a poor passer of the ball. If you are referring to mistakes he made that led to a goal, in spite of such a successful rate, then you have to point to those exact instances. It's not enough to say he had a few poor passes...because EVERY player is bound to make a few poor passes.

And to simplify a game into a score is what is actually meaningless. It may be the most important stat, but it is the most useless as it tells you less about the game - less so than any cricket scorecard could do.

That's why football, IMO, is so beautiful. You can give another team a shellacking and through some freak occurrence lose the match. Does that mean that the defenders on the losers were worse than those on the winners? What if one team hits the post several times or has legitimate goals ruled out incorrectly...does that mean the defense that didn't concede/won is better? It's still the defense that made the most mistakes.

 

[GIMH]

"The first thing I do when I assess a game is take the goals out of it."

First prize goes to whoever can name the unemployed Jamaican who coined that particular quote.

Ikki, are you him?

 

[Ikki]

"The first thing I do when I assess a game is take the goals out of it."

First prize goes to whoever can name the unemployed Jamaican who coined that particular quote.

Ikki, are you him?

Haha, well, I think you guys sacked him too early.

 

[Agent TBY]

Haha, well, I think you guys sacked him too early.

AWTA, poor sod could've boosted his "Games managed" stat up.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm not a fan of using stats excessively in cricket debates anyway (especially with bowlers) but as you say Brumby, it doesn't work in football.

Worse than that, it sucks the joy out of the sport. Quantifying things like (say) Cryuff turns is meaningless, but when one sees one executed perfectly (especially live) it's special. Bergkamp's goal against Argentina in the 98 QF was something no stat will ever do justice to.

 

[GIMH]

Haha, well, I think you guys sacked him too early.

Yeah, I think that's what the other teams near the bottom of League One think tbh

 

[Ikki]

Worse than that, it sucks the joy out of the sport. Quantifying things like (say) Cryuff turns is meaningless, but when one sees one executed perfectly (especially live) it's special. Bergkamp's goal against Argentina in the 98 QF was something no stat will ever do justice to.

Funny enough, they do quantify successful dribbles and it is a useful stat - that is if you are a coach or are analysing the game. But not quantifying certain aspects (like possession, free-kicks given, etc) is like not taking into account strike-rate or average in cricket. If you think putting importance on the latter example also sucks the life out of a game, then fair enough. We just disagree, I guess.

 

[GIMH]

Stats like corners and shots obviously tell you something about a game, but I don't think individual player stats work, stats will never take things like off-the-ball movement into account, for example, yet this is a key component of the game which is often overlooked by fans.

 

[Pothas]

Funny enough, they do quantify successful dribbles and it is a useful stat - that is if you are a coach or are analysing the game. But not quantifying certain aspects (like possession, free-kicks given, etc) is like not taking into account strike-rate or average in cricket. If you think putting importance on the latter example also sucks the life out of a game, then fair enough. We just disagree, I guess.

Do you actually enjoy Sport? Or is it entirely a mathematical exercise?

 

[Ikki]

I agree. But if you're talking about a player making mistakes, giving away balls or free-kicks, you'd think the relevant stats that do take them into account would give weight to an argument.

 

[GIMH]

Must have been one of their own fans who threw it onto the pitch, must be mad at themselves about now

 

[Ikki]

Do you actually enjoy Sport? Or is it entirely a mathematical exercise?

I enjoy sport a lot my friend; I have to commit to football, cricket, volleyball...anything all year round otherwise I go nuts.

But if I am going to analyse a game, aside from my subjective analysis I am going to weigh in the relevant stats. It bothers me to no end when fans say "x player is so lazy and has no heart" when the stats may show he was in the top 3 players for distance covered. Or other things like "x player misses too many chances" where there is an actual stat for goals per chances that may disprove that. It's simple non-sense that can be refuted with a few clicks.

Must have been one of their own fans who threw it onto the pitch, must be mad at themselves about now

It was, there was a video of it.

 

[Pothas]

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

 

[BoyBrumby]

It depends entirely on the context. If a CM has a passing completion rate in the high 80s, you cannot possibly call him a poor passer of the ball. If you are referring to mistakes he made that led to a goal, in spite of such a successful rate, then you have to point to those exact instances. It's not enough to say he had a few poor passes...because EVERY player is bound to make a few poor passes.

And to simplify a game into a score is what is actually meaningless. It may be the most important stat, but it is the most useless as it tells you less about the game - less so than any cricket scorecard could do.

That's why football, IMO, is so beautiful. You can give another team a shellacking and through some freak occurrence lose the match. Does that mean that the defenders on the losers were worse than those on the winners? What if one team hits the post several times or has legitimate goals ruled out incorrectly...does that mean the defense that didn't concede/won is better? It's still the defense that made the most mistakes.

Jesus, where to start?

Butch Wilkins was a central midfielder with a high completion rate; my point was that his passes were very rarely crucial. I'd guess his % stat of "successful" passes was higher than (say) Beckham's or Fabregas's are, but the balls they distribute are more likely to change games and/or create chances.

& it's precisely because "freak occurances" do often change games that football is best understood by watching it. If one sees a stat that said Rio Ferdinand had intercepted 24/25 balls that came his way one might conclude he'd played well, but if the one ball/tackle he missed leads to a goal (like it did against Holland, Citeh & The Ukraine) it's a nonsense to say he's been effective.

 

[GIMH]

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.

 

[GIMH]

Jesus, where to start?

Butch Wilkins was a central midfielder with a high completion rate; my point was that his passes were very rarely crucial. I'd guess his % stat of "successful" passes was higher than (say) Beckham's or Fabregas's are, but the balls they distribute are more likely to change games and/or create chances.

& it's precisely because "freak occurances" do often change games that football is best understood by watching it. If one sees a stat that said Rio Ferdinand had intercepted 24/25 balls that came his way one might conclude he'd played well, but if the one ball/tackle he missed leads to a goal (like it did against Holland, Citeh & The Ukraine) it's a nonsense to say he's been effective.

Aldo used to do nothing all game, bar score, give me him over Craig "oh but he runs his socks off" Curran any day

(or any other striker, anywhere, ever, tbh)

 

[fredfertang]

I don't need a load of jumbled up letters and numbers to know that Robin Friday was the greatest footballer who ever lived

 

[Ikki]

Jesus, where to start?

Butch Wilkins was a central midfielder with a high completion rate; my point was that his passes were very rarely crucial. I'd guess his % stat was higher than (say) Beckham's or Fabregas's are, but the balls they distribute are more likely to change games and/or create chances.

You're comparing oranges with apples though. Players that keep the ball well but are not playmakers are mainly holding midfielders. If you compare like-midfielders then you can use the same stats.

I didn't quote Carragher's (a CB) 96% to show he is a better passer than Xavi Hernandez (a CM), I quoted it to show you he didn't give much away (turnovers) in that game. In fact, he only gave away one where there was any possibility of it being dangerous inside his own half - you can know this if you check out the chalkboard in Guardian, for example.

& it's precisely because "freak occurances" do often change games that football is best understood by watching it. If one sees a stat that said Rio Ferdinand had intercepted 24/25 balls that came his way one might conclude he'd played well, but if the one ball/tackle he missed leads to a goal (like it did against Holland, Citeh & The Ukraine) it's a nonsense to say he's been effective.

You learn more if you watch it and analyse it later. For football on TV is merely taking into account only where the ball is and only the most overt actions. Also, no one has a photo-graphic memory and cannot possibly be that accurate in analysing the game just off by looking at it.

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

If you are referring to mistakes he made that led to a goal, in spite of such a successful rate, then you have to point to those exact instances. It's not enough to say he had a few poor passes...because EVERY player is bound to make a few poor passes.

 

[sledger]

Haha, sucking the enjoyment out of it indeed. Dire.