The Bunny

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

That's a bit of an oversimplification of course. The sample sizes we're looking at here are very small, and there are other factors at play too. It's not like these absences were evenly distributed across the season with other variables controlled to remove bias. All we can say is we had an extremely patchy run of form back in Autumn and Josh wasn't present. How much of that was due to Josh's absence is impossible to say, although I'm sure it was a factor.

Underrated - Hernandez He gets so much stick from fans but his ability to open up defences with physicality and skill is second to none - defenders absolutely hate him. Would have a lot more assists without some criminal misses from teammates earlier in the season. If he could actually shoot he'd be unstoppable...

@norwich canary the ball is in your court now. Or should that be balls?

If I was one of the fans who criticised Sainz as a result of this decision, I'd be making apologies right now rather than weaselly justifications.

What a surprise. And as I suspected, half our fans really need to get their eyes tested.

Mark Drury BBC Tees commentator Boro for the first time since the turn of the year have three points at the Riverside. Norwich will be absolutely furious still. Jonny Howson is still chatting a fair amount with his former Norwich teammates, and we all know what that is about. If it were our team we would be furious with that sending off.

You’re hallucinating. There was virtually no contact, certainly no intent

Howson is a disgrace. If we don’t successfully appeal that, I’ll be amazed

I doubt he'll start but I wouldn't be surprised if he's on the bench given our injury situation right now.

I would like this but I didn't have enough reactions.

That's great to hear, thanks Connor. It definitely feels a bit snappier. Hopefully the infamous "bad request" issue is also fixed - I posted a thread a while ago (link) with a diagnosis of that and a workaround, but I struggled to get hold of anyone on the site to take a look at the time.

Timmy had stinker, judging by the highlights https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68420426

As a new player who has barely played, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. I'll reserve judgement until he's had a decent run in the team.

Dimi had a shocker, kept giving the ball away in dangerous areas (which as you say led to the corner that led to the goal). Although tbf, McCallum did the same after he came on at least once too. The whole back four just looked lethargic and constantly invited pressure by not moving the ball quickly enough. Kenny not being present in defence probably didn’t help.

Well this thread aged well...

“I’ve seen nothing to suggest”… The guy has played a handful of minutes. Hardly time to show what he can do in this team. And if he was a bad signing, surely Wagner was involved in that decision somewhere along the line. I start to wonder if this is another Batth.

Grant, Roeder and Gunn. Anyone who thinks Smith has either lost their memory or hasn't been a Norwich fan for long. He wasn't even our worst Premier League manager...

Well it’s a good job we tend to retain possession a lot better when he’s on the pitch.

Sure, if that's really your entire point then I don't think anyone would dispute it. The suggestion seemed to be that we should take that as evidence of future performance, but perhaps not. FWIW, my original post about cherry picking was in response to this from @TIL 1010 A random ten games you say which happens to be getting on for a quarter of a season. That is some sizeable random selection.

This has been repeated a few times. I'm not sure on what evidence; the guy has barely played. But assuming it's true, why do you suppose Webber bought him?

Not to be pedantic, but that is literally the definition of cherry picking: Cherry-picking in data analytics refers to the selective and biased extraction of data or information for analysis. This practice involves choosing specific data points or datasets that support a desired conclusion while disregarding or ignoring other relevant data that may contradict or challenge that conclusion. https://www.institutedata.com/blog/cherry-picking-in-data-analytics/#:~:text=Cherry-picking in data analytics refers to the selective and,contradict or challenge that conclusion.

Selecting a particular range you know is bad just to prove a point is an abuse of statistics. You're deliberately introducing a bias by discounting samples that fall outside your otherwise arbitrary selection. Choosing exactly the last 18 games is probably a little dodgy too (why exactly 18 and not say 20?), but at least we're considering the most recent (a more useful predictor of future performance) and the sample size is larger.

He might have learned some lessons of course. But yeah, it'll be interesting to see how that turns out.

I beg to differ. I don't think you'll find a more indicative statistic of performance at the top level. Obviously, context matters too, but the stat is hardly meaningless.