MrLogic

Hey man this forum isn’t my life, like it is yours and the twelve other morons who use it, I thought I’d be able to come on here and chat/debate football but it’s just group of 50 year old losers who have nothing better to do with their life other than to sit on this forum and post “memes” that no one else finds funny. I just don’t get it… And anyone new who joins is subjected to “harassment”, like the kind of stuff you mention in your post, by moderators no less (do you not have any power at home big guy? So you like to come on here and pretend like you have some authority or something?), until they get bored and bounce, leaving the same group of idiots high-fiving each other like they’ve accomplished something. So hey, have fun in your little echo chamber fellas.

That's what I thought.

Or the prevalence of stats has come about to get rid of dinosaurs who claim they know what they're on about but don't.

Feel free to quote my argument and tell me where and how I'm wrong. Otherwise we'll just assume I know football.

Make me.

Apparently he's terrible because he doesn't play in the Champions League and because someone's eyes told them...

I'm having trouble with comprehension again? Like the last time when you posted an incoherent sentence? I am having trouble comprehending what you're saying, you make a list of critiques regarding Saint-Maximin that you claimed to have seen with your 'eyes' (Jesus Christ), I then carefully and objectively disprove everything that you claimed using objective statistics and logical reasoning, and your response was what again? Oh yeah, that's right you had nothing to say, you didn't address any of my points and you didn't (couldn't) counter any of my points. Fast forward a couple of nonsense driven responses and we are right back at the start again where you're talking about your 'eyes' again, telling me to do some English 'comprehension' again, telling me that 'percentiles' 'won't change' anything again (despite you experiencing Aphasia when presented with them) and claiming that Saint-Maximin is bad because he doesn't play in the Champions League... That's it, I'm done, I promise, I'm done That's it, I'm sorry (No more) I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I promise I just believe in kicking a man while he's down Eyes...

Tell me why? Is it because of Saint-Maximin? Because that's what you're implying, that's who this discussion is about.

He was at a club challenging for Champions League places at OGC Nice, he actually played against Napoli in Champions League qualifier games, he's played in the Europa League for OGC Nice. Again, he's ranked in and around the top 20 players in the Premier League, he's fully capable of playing at any club in the world... Just to be clear, the argument you're trying to make wouldn't be valid even if he hadn't played for a club competing for Champions League places, Saint-Maximin's ability is not determined by the club he plays for.

I disagree on your brief first paragraph, based on extract below, you, in great detail, explained how unimportant statistics were in regards to scouts: 'Care to suggest a scout at any football club who relies purely on stats though? Because if that were the case they wouldn’t still exist. You’d have data collectors at every match (eg Opta etc) and those who process that data at clubs, scouts would be irrelevant. No one would go and watch a player, it would all be there on a screen and clubs would make their decisions on recruitment like that….football has changed a lot, you can find a lot of hidden points about a player by measurement. But to get a real feel for the player, his actual observable strengths and weaknesses and how he’d fit into a pattern of play he has to be watched.' I would argue Saint-Maximin is effective and consistent as an attacker, over the last 365 days when compared to the forwards competing in the five main leagues and European competitions, he ranked in the 88th percentile for assists, the 94th percentile for key passes, the 94th percentile for shot creating actions, the 85th percentile for goal creating actions, 99th percentile for progressive carrying distance, 98th percentile for carriers into the penalty area and so on. That demonstrates that he's an extremely effective attacker. (All per 90 minutes played) Likewise Giroud is effective, albeit in a different way to Saint-Maximin, for example he ranks in the 96th percentile for goals (he does score)... France have an extremely strong roster of players both in quality and quantity, Saint-Maximin is competing with the likes of Benzema, Mbappe, Diaby, Griezmann, Thuram, Martial, Lemar, Dembele and Ben Yedder, him not being selected for that national squad shouldn't be used as a means to evaluate his ability. Again Saint-Maximin is consistent, if you go and look at the tables I posted previously, in his two and a half seasons in the Premier League, WhoScored have him ranked/rated as the 15th, 25th, and 21st best player in the league (out of ~500 players)... That is consistency, in the best league, for a poor Newcastle side...

That tweet is based on (being rehashed from) an article from a Daily Mail back on 11th November where they stated: 'Newcastle director Amanda Staveley is confident the club will be able to agree new sponsorship deals with Saudi Arabian companies by the end of the month which would also enable them to remove the loathed Sports Direct branding from St James Park.' They have timed it just in time for the end of the month.

I did ask you what I misconstrued previously and you responded by telling me to chill out, ignoring the question. You then post again, claiming I have misconstrued something for a second time (which I believed to be statistics) in a less than coherent sentence, you then accuse me of lacking English comprehension skills, when I point out the grammatical mistake in your comment and ask for clarification you refuse to clarify and claim that if a foreigner can understand your bad English I should be able to as well... Please can we move on from the above... For a third time? What have I misconstrued? And again, for the umpteenth time, no you can not use "eyewitness testimony" or what you (think you) see, in a debate, it's not reliable and can be immediately canceled out by the opposition claiming they saw the opposite. Statistics are objective and factual.

'That's why I suggested the evidence of our own eyes is as least as important as stats, which you completely misconstrued and misrepresented.' Then I have no idea what that means... 'our own eyes is as least as important as stats' 'do some basic English comprehension'

All of that data (pass succession based on pass length and errors leading to goals) is widely available through free platforms (fbref)...