Deep shit?

[Craig 6682]

5 minutes ago, The Fish said:

Don't you watch Motorsport?

 

Yes, which is exponentially less boring than this inane bollocks. 

[Alex 35083]

2 hours ago, The Fish said:

Yeah, I'm a fan of being right. Shocker.

You must lead a very disappointing life 

Edited March 9, 2022 by Alex

[Alex 35083]

1 hour ago, Ayatollah Hermione said:

  just in general. I can’t even be arsed but the proliferation of stats are useful if you’re an employed data analyst and can hand it off to the manager who can do something about it in actual footballing terms. People parroting this shit without actually watching the players or teams in question have, amazingly, found a new way to talk total shite about football.
 

Joelinton was fucking lazy at times as well. Just because he ran around aimlessly like a lost horse doesn’t mean he was contributing effectively.

I stuck up for Joelinton for being hung out to dry but he definitely hid in some games. I get why, his confidence was shot, playing out of position etc. But you can ‘work hard’ at keeping out of the way sometimes. The stats can’t show this in the way actually being at the game can. 

[The Fish 10857]

8 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

 

Can you give us some stats to prove that then?  That Joelinton was contributing effectively before his change of position? 

 

I think in its simplest form if you use your eyes then compare what you think to  xG stats you'll often come to the same conclusion....

 

I'm not sure I can. It's hard to claim he was contributing effectively, when the team wasn't effective. Especially when he was out of position/role. But he wasn't lazy which was the accusation. In the 20/21 season he had the most pressures out of our midfield and attackers, and the most successful pressures. Without doing a large amount of work that's what I can tell you.

 

8 minutes ago, Craig said:

This is it in a nutshell, like.

Stats should be used to prove an indisputable narrative whereas most often they get used in 'splendid isolation' to support a subjective narrative. I got into a massive debate with someone last year who claimed Dubravka was by far the best keeper in the league because he'd saved the most amount of shots. Making absolutely no reference to the fact he faced significantly more than his contemporaries. 

So shit like xG is boring as fuck. Yes I understand what it is; and yes, it adds fuck all value. 

Only two relevant stats in a game of football  - goals scored and goals conceded. Everything else is just padding for the spreadsheet monkey's to get themselves in a wankfest over.

 

Just because you've 'remembered' some convenient example of someone misunderstanding statistics, doesn't mean statistics are pointless, or boring.

 

Goals scored vs goals conceded gives you the headline, but take Bruce's draw against Everton in 19/20. It was 2-2. What does that tell you about the game? About the performances? That was the same as our 2-2 draw with Southampton this season, right?

 

 

7 minutes ago, Craig said:

 

Yes, which is exponentially less boring than this inane bollocks. 

 is it shite. It's only interesting when it goes tragically wrong. I couldn't give less of a shit if someone is dead good at overtaking, or if someone can change some tyres really really fast.

 

If I want to be impressed by driving ability, I'll watch an 18 wheeler reverse into a parking bay. Now that is good driving.

[Tom 14011]

 

 

[The Fish 10857]

12 minutes ago, Alex said:

You must lead a very disappointing life 

Not with you around alex

 

[Isegrim 9777]

1 hour ago, Craig said:

 

Yes, which is exponentially less boring than this inane bollocks. 

You’ve just increased your xB tbh

[Craig 6682]

1 hour ago, The Fish said:

Goals scored vs goals conceded gives you the headline, but take Bruce's draw against Everton in 19/20. It was 2-2. What does that tell you about the game? About the performances? That was the same as our 2-2 draw with Southampton this season, right?

 

Did we get any more points out of either game on account of the xG  ?! 

No, did we bollocks. Complete waste of time.

[The Fish 10857]

41 minutes ago, Craig said:

 

Did we get any more points out of either game on account of the xG  ?! 

No, did we bollocks. Complete waste of time.

Ah, so Bruce did as well as Benitez did, did he? All that matters, isn't it. Points. Any amount of scrutiny is a waste of time. Performance and competence is for boring nerds, what you really get excited about is the teleprinter.

BrrrBrrrr 2-2.

 

 

Go watch your brumbrums and leave football to the big lads.

[Craig 6682]

The delicious irony here is I'm being massively 'out-nerded' by, Gemmill aside, the one person who's consistently accused me of being a nerd for 17 years. Staggering!

But going back to the specifics of you point. You are no less guilty of using a specific example than I was when I went on about Dubravka so congratulations on invalidating your previous argument. 

 

I don't need an 'expected goals' stat to convince me that Steve Bruce was an inferior manager. You may do so - I'd always afforded you way more credit than that, but if you insist
 

[Meenzer 15531]

I can see both sides here. There's clearly some value in having a set of metrics that can be used to make a point to those who inexplicably don't think Steve Bruce was an inferior manager. On the other hand, anyone daft enough to think that isn't likely to be someone who's swayed by statistics in the first place.

[wykikitoon 20151]

Too funny some people are getting wound up by this  

[The Fish 10857]

43 minutes ago, Craig said:

The delicious irony here is I'm being massively 'out-nerded' by, Gemmill aside, the one person who's consistently accused me of being a nerd for 17 years. Staggering!

But going back to the specifics of you point. You are no less guilty of using a specific example than I was when I went on about Dubravka so congratulations on invalidating your previous argument. 

 

I don't need an 'expected goals' stat to convince me that Steve Bruce was an inferior manager. You may do so - I'd always afforded you way more credit than that, but if you insist
 

 

Essembee says Joelinton is lazy. Stats prove otherwise.

Edwards reckons Bruce did a good job at Newcastle. Stats prove otherwise.

xG is just a more objective way of describing a team's attacking threat than the sometimes inaccurate Shots, or even Shots on Target. So that when some gobshite says Brighton were all over us, there's an irrefutable rebuttal.

 

It removes subjectivity from an objective argument.

 

 

[Isegrim 9777]

31 minutes ago, Meenzer said:

I can see both sides here. There's clearly some value in having a set of metrics that can be used to make a point to those who inexplicably don't think Steve Bruce was an inferior manager. On the other hand, anyone daft enough to think that isn't likely to be someone who's swayed by statistics in the first place.

Of course xG is a useful tool to analyse football games in depth if you are in a professional capacity.

I am a huge football nerd, watching far too many games from stupid countries and stupid levels. I do like looking at tactics and also at stats of players and teams.

But I can’t get my head around people getting excited by xG and using it to get pleasure out of it.

 

I don’t know how this post will affect my xB though

 

Edited March 9, 2022 by Isegrim

[The Fish 10857]

Just now, Isegrim said:

Of course xG is a useful tool to analyse football games in depth if you are in a professional capacity.

I am a huge football nerd, watching far too mang games from stupid countries and stupid levels. I do like looking at tactics and also at stats of players and teams.

But I can’t get my head around people getting excited by xG and using it to get pleasure out of it.

 

I don’t know how this post will affect my xB though

 

 

For me statistics back up what my eyes see. e.g I got shit for saying that a lot of the good work Perez was doing wasn't being appreciated. Pressures and the like. I defended Joelinton's work ethic, when people said he was lazy. I can refute claims that Bruce 'improved our defence' or 'sorted out our attack'. 

 

When my opinion doesn't hold enough weight, I can rely on stats to add some.

[Isegrim 9777]

1 minute ago, The Fish said:

 

For me statistics back up what my eyes see. e.g I got shit for saying that a lot of the good work Perez was doing wasn't being appreciated. Pressures and the like. I defended Joelinton's work ethic, when people said he was lazy. I can refute claims that Bruce 'improved our defence' or 'sorted out our attack'. 

 

When my opinion doesn't hold enough weight, I can rely on stats to add some.

I do still enjoy my subjectivity though and don’t want any objective measures to tell me that I am talking out of my arse.

 

Others are fine to do it though.

[Craig 6682]

16 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

Essembee says Joelinton is lazy. Stats prove otherwise.

Edwards reckons Bruce did a good job at Newcastle. Stats prove otherwise.

xG is just a more objective way of describing a team's attacking threat than the sometimes inaccurate Shots, or even Shots on Target. So that when some gobshite says Brighton were all over us, there's an irrefutable rebuttal.

 

It removes subjectivity from an objective argument.

 

 

 

At the end of the day it depends on what boils your piss I guess.

 

I don't lose any sleep over the opinions the likes of Essembee or Luke Edwards have. They're exactly what they are - their opinions which a) they're entitled to and b) do not have to be proved / disproved. Far too many people these days seem to use complex statistics to define an objective narrative. Enjoying watching football doesn't have to be and more importantly shouldn't be a binary affair. 

I appreciate I was quite facetious in delivery but the point I made still stands in my mind - the only true objective stats relevant in football is the amount of goals scored and conceded - everything else is subjective and open to interpretation. 

Of course, this is all just my subjective opinion but hopefully you get my point.

[The Fish 10857]

1 minute ago, Craig said:

 

At the end of the day it depends on what boils your piss I guess.

 

I don't lose any sleep over the opinions the likes of Essembee or Luke Edwards have. They're exactly what they are - their opinions which a) they're entitled to and b) do not have to be proved / disproved. Far too many people these days seem to use complex statistics to define an objective narrative. Enjoying watching football doesn't have to be and more importantly shouldn't be a binary affair. 

I appreciate I was quite facetious in delivery but the point I made still stands in my mind - the only true objective stats relevant in football is the amount of goals scored and conceded - everything else is subjective and open to interpretation. 

Of course, this is all just my subjective opinion but hopefully you get my point.

No.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Craig 6682]

4 minutes ago, The Fish said:

No.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fucking safety winks ...

[The Fish 10857]

[Howay 12496]

Tell you what, how fucking class is it that Howe is doing such a demolition job on the PL that this thread, once reserved for bed wetting and filling of kegs, is now used for laughing at Evertons hopes of survival and arguing about xG. 
 

Just need to batter Hassenbitch and his gaggle of losers and we will be miles clear of the rubble. 

[Gemmill 44894]

16 hours ago, Craig said:

This is it in a nutshell, like.

Stats should be used to prove an indisputable narrative whereas most often they get used in 'splendid isolation' to support a subjective narrative. I got into a massive debate with someone last year who claimed Dubravka was by far the best keeper in the league because he'd saved the most amount of shots. Making absolutely no reference to the fact he faced significantly more than his contemporaries. 

So shit like xG is boring as fuck. Yes I understand what it is; and yes, it adds fuck all value. 

Only two relevant stats in a game of football  - goals scored and goals conceded. Everything else is just padding for the spreadsheet monkey's to get themselves in a wankfest over.

 

What a fucking genuinely shite post.

 

[Christmas Tree 4725]

Todays the day. Where will we end up?

 

 

Win Defcon 5

Draw Defcon 4

Lose Defcon 3

Edited March 10, 2022 by Christmas Tree

[toonotl 2979]

51 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

 

What a fucking genuinely shite post.

 

 

I'll refrain from judgment until I see the xB of the post.

[strawb 4259]

1 hour ago, Christmas Tree said:

Todays the day. Where will we end up?

 

 

Win Defcon 5

Draw Defcon 4

Lose Defcon 3

This is a genuine question.

 

What is the highest defcon in real life? Does it go down from 5 or up from 1?