I never thought

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="king canary"]@TC

This paragraph is just sums up the problem some people have with stats though.

"Norwich were ahead 9-6 on shots, 5-4 on shots on target, 6-1 on corners and possession was 70-30. It was never a 3-0 half."

I mean, it is ludicrously simplistic. What relevence does having more corners have? How important is 70% possession if it is all harmless passing in front of a packed defense? How was it ''never a 3-0 half'' when one team scored 3 goals and the other scored 0?[/quote]That''s because you don''t subscribe to Saddo.comWhat values have 3 goals against how fast a player has run and how many yards he has scored. What about the distance of goals kicks, the number of throw ins on on the left side of the pitch in your half and the passes made by left footed players.Your way of looking at the game (watching) is so last week (or Tuesday night actually) you need to get with the numbers, Daddio.

[westcoastcanary 173]

king canary wrote: "There is nothing more boring than someone claiming a chance you saw with your own eyes isn''t a good chance because ''xg says that is only scored 1 in 8 times".

The question isn''t whether or not the claim is boring but whether it is true or false. How do you define a "good" chance? Part of the point of xG values is to offer a more objective evaluation of goal scoring chances. The thread about Vrancic''s miss against Arsenal sees it labelled everything from "easier to score than miss" (e.g. an "atrocious" effort) through "decent" to "good" etc. That variation reflects the subjectivity of the individual judgements. If someone labels a chance "good" that xG rates as only scored 1 in 8 times, one is well entitled to ask what they mean exactly by "good". "It was a good chance, I saw it with my own eyes" isn''t an answer. You saw it and evaluated it as a "good chance". OK, what made it a good chance, as opposed to e.g. a decent chance or quite a difficult chance, etc., etc.?

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="westcoastcanary"]king canary wrote: "There is nothing more boring than someone claiming a chance you saw with your own eyes isn''t a good chance because ''xg says that is only scored 1 in 8 times".

The question isn''t whether or not the claim is boring but whether it is true or false. How do you define a "good" chance? Part of the point of xG values is to offer a more objective evaluation of goal scoring chances. The thread about Vrancic''s miss against Arsenal sees it labelled everything from "easier to score than miss" (e.g. an "atrocious" effort) through "decent" to "good" etc. That variation reflects the subjectivity of the individual judgements. If someone labels a chance "good" that xG rates as only scored 1 in 8 times, one is well entitled to ask what they mean exactly by "good". "It was a good chance, I saw it with my own eyes" isn''t an answer. You saw it and evaluated it as a "good chance". OK, what made it a good chance, as opposed to e.g. a decent chance or quite a difficult chance, etc., etc.?

[/quote]Good post, you make a decent point.

[Mr Apples 1,315]

"Good post, you make a decent point"I remain to be convinced until I''ve seen the stats on that particular post.Apples

[westcoastcanary 173]

Thank you TC. I should add that it might be that in fact a chance that is scored 1 in 8 times IS "a good chance", since that probability of scoring is a lot better than e.g. 1 in 20, or 1 in 100. The point is a general one independent of the figures that KC used by way of illustration.

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="Mr Apples"]"Good post, you make a decent point"I remain to be convinced until I''ve seen the stats on that particular post.Apples[/quote]Quite right Apples. What exactly does TC mean by "decent" post? [;)]

[nutty nigel 7,506]

Independently compiled stats will always have more value than relying on what people see. Each of us probably thinks we''re totally objective in describing what we see but our posts tell a different tale.

[hogesar 9,611]

Great posts Bethnal and Westcoast!

[Red Rufus 56]

The management team would no doubt discuss the stats in a formal meeting meaning that in conjunction with what they see in games and training they should come up with an agreed objective view of a given player / performance as opposed to us supporters! It is obvious that how far they run and pass completion is irrelevant if used in isolation. For example a defensive midfielder who gets and gives short 5 metre sideways passes will have a better completion rate than a Maddison or Wes who will be attempting more difficult defence splitting passes. Likewise a centre half will cover less ground if playing against a static target man.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Red Rufus"]The management team would no doubt discuss the stats in a formal meeting meaning that in conjunction with what they see in games and training they should come up with an agreed objective view of a given player / performance as opposed to us supporters! It is obvious that how far they run and pass completion is irrelevant if used in isolation. For example a defensive midfielder who gets and gives short 5 metre sideways passes will have a better completion rate than a Maddison or Wes who will be attempting more difficult defence splitting passes. Likewise a centre half will cover less ground if playing against a static target man.[/quote]" irrelevant if used in isolation."And given that this nonsense is always given in isolation it is worthless.There is NO context whatsoever. Tip tapping the ball to play out the game is equally measured against long punts up field when a team is losing.Maddison''s goal against the binners was mad eadier because the bin defender left him unmarked. That does not show up on Saddo.com. Neither would a run off the ball to allow a player more time to shoot, or a defender slipping when attempting to block a shot.They don''t show that Maddison''s finish was still superb and that he had two defenders trying to close him down and block his shot - which was superbly placed to avoid both of them.Why do you think scouts go to watch games rather than just sitting at home looking at numbers - similarly the coaching staff watching the game. If Saddo.com was correct then these numbers should give them all they need to know how the game is going ?

[Red Rufus 56]

Yes, I agree stats in isolation are pretty meaningless, when used together with actually watching the game, taking into consideration the very valid points you make they can be a useful aide.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Red Rufus"]Yes, I agree stats in isolation are pretty meaningless, when used together with actually watching the game, taking into consideration the very valid points you make they can be a useful aide.[/quote]Still meaningless, that is why the game is watched.That is why there are replays rather than these nonsensical idiociesAs stated there are far too many variables that cannot be factored in to assume that this stuff has any meaning what soever.eg player A is asked to track player B... therefore much of what happens will be determined by player Byet the gormless somehow imagine irrelevent numbers some how explains how either player playedabsolute nonsense from first to last

[Guest]

I only said I was warming to Farke and then it turned into a snore fest.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="Red Rufus"]Yes, I agree stats in isolation are pretty meaningless, when used together with actually watching the game, taking into consideration the very valid points you make they can be a useful aide.[/quote]

They''re probably more useful when used along side the stats for the opposition. A lot of it probably nullifies itself but as I said on an earlier post a player who can absorb, retain and understand the stats he''s given would have an advantage. But yes, even that comes down to players ability and a good player who also has that would be a great asset.