Ratings v Bremen

[gibbs131]

Modric and Palacios have had a couple of poor games away from home, but then so has every combination we've tried. At home they played in the 3-1 wins against Blackburn and Fulham (cup). And the poor games aren't always down to Palacios out of the pair, Modric was shocking at Sunderland and everyone was shocking for the first 20 min against YB on the shitty astro. Both games the opponents came at us like banshees (perhaps having worked out that we are often slow out of the blocks).

The point is, as you saw last night - if you were watching without your blinkers - Palacios gives the ball away less than Huddlestone but still sets up chances and gets about the opposition better than anyone else we have and we have lacked this tenacity in central midfield lately.

Don't worry. Viva la Tottenham is just covering his ass because he laughed at the idea that I would have Palacios and Kaboul in my starting 11.

Palacios played a blinder and Kaboul scored so he's licking his wounds on that one.

Apparently he is toying with us because we are a playful toy he will pwn then cast aside.

I know as Modric scored (as I predicted he would get a goal/assist), Kaboul scored, and Palacios tackled with precision, VLT got that sinking feeling in his belly that ole Gibbsy called it again. Or Gimpy as he calls me.

I think he is starting to realize what he got himself into.

 

[sloth]

I'd be interested to hear who you guys think is the most reliable supplier of in-game stats. I know that I ignore the BBC's possession stats because they are often way out.

Tbh there aren't that many, basically PA Sport are the main player and then others White Label them and in some extra content repackage and resell, that's what OPTA do for instance (though my knowledge is from two years ago so may be out of date by now). They were all realiable enough for broadcast and print media purposes, because they don't need them to be deadly accurate, just not rubbish, if you wanted to base any kind of meaningful analysis, such as we did for betting purposes, then you'd be in trouble.

There is a German group called R Ball who may have data, but it'll be expensive and that's as far as my knowledge stretches.

Don't worry. Viva la Tottenham is just covering his ass because he laughed at the idea that I would have Palacios and Kaboul in my starting 11.

Palacios played a blinder and Kaboul scored so he's licking his wounds on that one.

Apparently he is toying with us because we are a playful toy he will pwn then cast aside.

I know as Modric scored (as I predicted he would get a goal/assist), Kaboul scored, and Palacios tackled with precision, VLT got that sinking feeling in his belly that ole Gibbsy called it again. Or Gimpy as he calls me.

I think he is starting to realize what he got himself into.

You're incorrigible mate!

 

[diegooners]

To all people arguing about strongest teams blah blah blah, last night's performance was entirely irrelevant as that Werder team was worse than any premier league team we have played this season. They had almost their entire first team out and played from the outset like a team who knew they were going to lose. I'm glad Wilson's finding form again, ditto with Lennon, but that match often resembled a training game to be honest so I don't think its hugely helpful.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I think if you used the stats from several games to say this player's pass completion was x then you'd get an accurate enough idea of his pass completion record (which of course says nothing about the quality of the passes; for the truth of that consider the CB and the attacking midfielder: the CB always knocks it two yards side-ways to his mate, the AM spends his time trying to thread killer balls through the eye of the needle. Who has the better pass completion stats? What do we learn from them?), but in a single game mistakes can easily be uneven.

I refer you to my previous answer. I use the stats correctly, in a way that is even and also make allowances for what they do and don't cover with anecdotal and narrative description.

If you feel otherwise then feel free to take each individual use on it's own merit and question the validity accordingly, but I repeat, passing stats are pretty uniform and a perfectly valid method of comparing a simplistic like for like - or even when comparing non exact like for like as long as the suitable caveat's are included - players/positions.

All I did above was compare two CM's passing stats in two CL home games. Not entirely sure why you felt the need to remind me - again - of your qualifications, as impressive as they are.

 

[brendanb50]

Gibbsy, you're either Marty Mcfly or Mystic Meg - How do you predict the outcome to almost everything? Modric goal/assist, Kaboul/Palacios playing at the same time!

Sports almanac? Crystal balls?









Bollocks more like :wink:

 

[Bus-Conductor]

crystal bollocks ?

 

[brendanb50]

crystal bollocks ?

Yep, i think he's got a couple.

They're more valuable as a pair.

 

[double0]

The sort of game we'd have lost back in the day, coming off a good win.

Gomes-7 Nothing to do, clean sheet good for confidence.

Hutton-6 Please Harry put Corluka back Absolutely poor defensively its not funny.

Gallas-7 World class still. Arsenal were silly letting him go.

Kaboul- 7 Goals from a centre back, solid quick improved.

Assou-Ekotto-6 Few moments where concentration failed lucky we were playing a poor team/low on confidence.

Lennon-7 Two assists. Seriously though unhappy with the lack of service Lennon receives, noticed we play constantly to the left, Modric left centre IMO did not switch play enough.

Modric-8 Ran the show but thought he could have given Lennon better service.

Jenas- n/a

Bale-7 What can you say, unfortunate with free kick hitting cross bar, annoyed we/he did not react quickly for penalty rebound...something Arry should point out to him, it's not over till it's over...(hard but think he needs reminding to become the very best must be ruthless)

Crouch-8 Excellent display from Crouch scored too, give him the ball and he'll do something sensible with it.

Pavluychenko-6 has become a luxury player, better coming off bench.

Subs:
Palacios- 7 Good to see him have an extended run, needs more games.
Defoe- 7 Happy his back...is a yiddo.

 

[gibbs131]

You're incorrigible mate!

(monocle falls into lap, spits out my tea)

 

[gibbs131]

Gibbsy, you're either Marty Mcfly or Mystic Meg - How do you predict the outcome to almost everything? Modric goal/assist, Kaboul/Palacios playing at the same time!

Sports almanac? Crystal balls?








Bollocks more like :wink:

I predicted Modders having a poor game against Arsenal.

I hope it does not wear off, because I also pegged him for getting a goal or an assists vs Liverpool.

Only mystic Sid has channeled more Spurs energy through the dark arts than ole Gibbsy.

 

[gibbs131]

To all people arguing about strongest teams blah blah blah, last night's performance was entirely irrelevant as that Werder team was worse than any premier league team we have played this season. They had almost their entire first team out and played from the outset like a team who knew they were going to lose. I'm glad Wilson's finding form again, ditto with Lennon, but that match often resembled a training game to be honest so I don't think its hugely helpful.

How funny was that air shot their striker attempted?

Holy shit he was having a mare.

But lets not just focus on the other team. it was sheer technique and form with Kabouls finish.

And they did have a world class player that Galas embarrased.

And holy shit...Hutton absolutely RAPED his opposite number. He swallowed the soul of the curly dark haired freak. Flying in, sneaky elbows etc.

 

[brendanb50]

I predicted Modders having a poor game against Arsenal.

I hope it does not wear off, because I also pegged him for getting a goal or an assists vs Liverpool.

Only mystic Sid has channeled more Spurs energy through the dark arts than ole Gibbsy.

I think you need you're own predictions thread - like the Lawro one.








:doh: *Bemoans self for encouraging ole gibbsy

 

[Viva la Tottenham]

Don't worry. Viva la Tottenham is just covering his ass because he laughed at the idea that I would have Palacios and Kaboul in my starting 11.

Palacios played a blinder and Kaboul scored so he's licking his wounds on that one.

Apparently he is toying with us because we are a playful toy he will pwn then cast aside.

I know as Modric scored (as I predicted he would get a goal/assist), Kaboul scored, and Palacios tackled with precision, VLT got that sinking feeling in his belly that ole Gibbsy called it again. Or Gimpy as he calls me.

I think he is starting to realize what he got himself into.

:lol: comedy gold you are gimp131

Anyone who thinks one game against the worst team we've played all season proves anything is deluded beyond belief. Licking my wounds more like laughing my arse off at your superiority complex.

Kaboul has a knack for scoring from set-pieces, it sure as hell doesn't mean he can play in your mystical defensive midfield sweeper position :rofl: he's turning into a top defender and old gimpy wants to move him to midfield in a made up position. Nobody played a blinder buddy you have to get out of first gear to do that.

 

[gibbs131]

:lol: comedy gold you are gimp131

Anyone who thinks one game against the worst team we've played all season proves anything is deluded beyond belief. Licking my wounds more like laughing my arse off at your superiority complex.

Kaboul has a knack for scoring from set-pieces, it sure as hell doesn't mean he can play in your mystical defensive midfield sweeper position :rofl: he's turning into a top defender and old gimpy wants to move him to midfield in a made up position. Nobody played a blinder buddy you have to get out of first gear to do that.

So a sweeper isn't a defensive role? :wink:

My superiority complex? Mine?

Here are some posts of yours directed to me. These are from various seperate threads/discussions. Emphasis on superiority ok?

I don't feel like getting into this again especially with another one of SCs notorious blinkered muppets. For starters the Hudd Modric partnership played a big part in the run in to our top 4 finish. To try and dumb down there influence in the BIG victories in question is laughable at best.

oh goodie more blinkered bollox for me to pick through

Your whole the squad kicked him out of all his positions is fucking blinkered beyond belief and makes you look like a retarded fool.

That's the difference between someone who actually plays football and someone who just watches it, you get the feel for certain situations far better.

The fact that in your Crottenham thread you've got Kaboul and Palacios there is funny beyond belief. I'm sure you were thinking Vieria and Petit when typing it but there's a substantial gulf in quality when comparing the 2 units not to mention intelligence. Kaboul is a CB or RB so he'd probably end up dropping back into defence and Palacios would be all over the place pressing leaving us very exposed. Don't get me started on what would happen when we had the ball Kabooooomm.

gimp131 how you can break my post down and still not do anything but aimlessesly ramble on about aload of bullshit is a skill I would expect you to possess in abundance. Like I said the intelligence of Modric on a football pitch is obviously something that goes flying so far over your head it's uncanny.

There's more than one type of deep lying midfielder just to let you know and we play a different style to the gooner team you've been referencing to and I really couldn't be arsed breaking it down into simple child understanding terminology for you. Love the comparison with Zokora too it's quite amusing to say the least. Have a good day buddy I can't really debate with you as your understanding of the game is pretty blinkered to say the least and I've got better things to do than go round in circles with a moron all day.

Eek

 

[Raxscallion]

Kaboul has the ability to play the Sammer role.

But it would be a daft idea, because that style of football got found out a long time ago. It just doesn't work these days.

 

[Mr Pink]

Of course, but if we assume that the passing stats for example are fairly uniformly accurate or inaccurate - in a small way (ie the odd pass) - for all players then they are still a fairly good indicator, as long as you only use one supplier for all and don't mix and match to suite your purpose.

Which is what I try to do. Unless I say otherwise, I always use the telegraph stats, and unless you are saying to me that you know for certain that there is a better (more accurate) readily available source then I will continue for general purposes.

I think we all appreciate that things like passing stats are merely a useful indicator of volume and efficacy, no more, no less, but a pretty fair one.

Which is why I also described some of the passes Palacios made (like the through ball for Defoe), because I know there a lazy muppets out there that will continually trot out cliches like yeah Palacios passes more accurately but (or Jenas) he only pass sideways, whereas Huddelstone passes forwards, and other such utter nonsense.

This is also where the guardian chalkboard comes in, very useful as an indicator as to the nature (direction, distance etc) of passes during a game.

After every game, are you going to mention Huddlestone? You're obsessed.

I thought Palacios was good last night and he did play a good ball through for Defoe and made some excellent tackles - thats more like it, albeit Bremen were pretty pathetic but credit to Wilson, he was impressive.

Looking foward to him starting against Pool.

 

[sloth]

I refer you to my previous answer. I use the stats correctly, in a way that is even and also make allowances for what they do and don't cover with anecdotal and narrative description.

If you feel otherwise then feel free to take each individual use on it's own merit and question the validity accordingly, but I repeat, passing stats are pretty uniform and a perfectly valid method of comparing a simplistic like for like - or even when comparing non exact like for like as long as the suitable caveat's are included - players/positions.

All I did above was compare two CM's passing stats in two CL home games. Not entirely sure why you felt the need to remind me - again - of your qualifications, as impressive as they are.

Or my lack of qualifications in fact... which is, as you know, my whole point. You think you're qualified in the same way a politician thinks he's qualified and while both you and he may be factually correct in reporting the bold statistics you've no idea the degree of confidence you can place firstly on the statistics themselves and the chain of inferences they lead to thereafter. The inferences are problematic not merely because they are usually born of false confidence in the statistical evidence, but also because this is where subjectivity worms it's way in again.

Here's an example of what I mean. I roll a dice 240 times and faithfully record each outcome. I get 35 ones, 35 twos, 40 threes, 38 fours, 45 fives and 47 sixes.

Here are some random factual statements I could make:

Ones and twos occurred only 75% as frequently as sixes.
Numbers >3 occurred 55% of the time
Odds occur with exactly the same frequency as evens

Here are some inferences:

The probability of throwing a one is only 75% that of throwing a six.
The chance of throwing a number greater than three is 55%.
I can expect to throw odd numbers as often as even ones.

So my question is do those throws fall within the normal distribution of expected results? In other words what's the Standard Deviation of the result?

And so what degree of confidence can we place in the assumption that what actually happened fairly reflected of the true probability of it occurring?

Another question, how many throws of the dice would we have needed to make to be reasonably confident that what happened is a fair reflection of the true probability of it happening.

Then what if I told you that I wasn't paying very close attention to the dice when I was throwing it and that my past record suggests I'm only accurate to a +/- 3% rate?

And then I pointed out that was an average over all the times I threw a dice 240 times? That I might in other words be very accurate sometimes a not at all others, or I might get it evenly wrong on each toss or just on some numbers?

But anyway onto the inferences.

If for instance, you just wanted to use and report the results because you have a hypothesis that the dice was bent, then you'd be able to make a factual statement on the frequency of each number which without context would apparently support your hypothesis.

But this is with something very basic like rolls of a dice where we also happen to know the true probability of throwing a single number. In something like a possession stats there are far more variables to consider. How many passes must a player make for us to be confident to any degree that's his true pass statistic? Can we even rate players like this? How does the passage of time effect the statistic? What about the season? The team he's played against? The specific opponents he faced? The players he played with? His role within the team? The attention he's given? His age? His personal relationships? Of course I could go on and on.

Now perhaps some of these variables can be locked down, others excluded and we could look at a player's pass stats over several months or years, but then if you wanted to do that for it to be meaningful you'd have to explain the limits, why the exceptions, the SD of the results, the issues with the data, all that stuff... But I can't do that and neither can you and so the use of statistics in the wrong hands becomes worse than useless, worse, because at least useless doesn't mislead. This is the truth about the oft-quoted phrase "There are lies, damned lies and statistics!", it's not that stats are meaningless, it's that people unqualified to do so try and employ them all the time and get it wrong.

And that's my only point about football stats. They're fine for a bit of fun and can reveal stuff in the very general sense, but when it comes down to this player or that player having better pass stats by some small fraction or another either in a particular game or even over a season they're not telling you anything at all. Much better to just use your eyes and just argue your view.

 

[Viva la Tottenham]

So a sweeper isn't a defensive role? :wink:

My superiority complex? Mine?

Here are some posts of yours directed to me. These are from various seperate threads/discussions. Emphasis on superiority ok?

Eek

A sweeper plays behind the back 4 not in front of it, who said it wasn't a defensive role. Sweepers aren't DMs though not by a long shot. If you want Kaboul as a sweeper your crottenham formation would be a 5131 :duh:

yes your superiority complex, ffs you frequently refer to yourself in the 3rd person only saddos of the highest order stuck up their own arse do that

how about you take your sad arse out and play abit of footy and then get back to me, it's obvious from the shite you post you wouldn't know your arse from your elbow on a football pitch.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Or my lack of qualifications in fact... which is, as you know, my whole point. You think you're qualified in the same way a politician thinks he's qualified and while both you and he may be factually correct in reporting the bold statistics you've no idea the degree of confidence you can place firstly on the statistics themselves and the chain of inferences they lead to thereafter. The inferences are problematic not merely because they are usually born of false confidence in the statistical evidence, but also because this is where subjectivity worms it's way in again.

Here's an example of what I mean. I roll a dice 240 times and faithfully record each outcome. I get 35 ones, 35 twos, 40 threes, 38 fours, 45 fives and 47 sixes.

Here are some random factual statements I could make:

Ones and twos occurred only 75% as frequently as sixes.
Numbers >3 occurred 55% of the time
Odds occur with exactly the same frequency as evens

Here are some inferences:

The probability of throwing a one is only 75% that of throwing a six.
The chance of throwing a number greater than three is 55%.
I can expect to throw odd numbers as often as even ones.

So my question is do those throws fall within the normal distribution of expected results? In other words what's the Standard Deviation of the result?

And so what degree of confidence can we place in the assumption that what actually happened fairly reflected of the true probability of it occurring?

Another question, how many throws of the dice would we have needed to make to be reasonably confident that what happened is a fair reflection of the true probability of it happening.

Then what if I told you that I wasn't paying very close attention to the dice when I was throwing it and that my past record suggests I'm only accurate to a +/- 3% rate?

And then I pointed out that was an average over all the times I threw a dice 240 times? That I might in other words be very accurate sometimes a not at all others, or I might get it evenly wrong on each toss or just on some numbers?

But anyway onto the inferences.

If for instance, you just wanted to use and report the results because you have a hypothesis that the dice was bent, then you'd be able to make a factual statement on the frequency of each number which without context would apparently support your hypothesis.

But this is with something very basic like rolls of a dice where we also happen to know the true probability of throwing a single number. In something like a possession stats there are far more variables to consider. How many passes must a player make for us to be confident to any degree that's his true pass statistic? Can we even rate players like this? How does the passage of time effect the statistic? What about the season? The team he's played against? The specific opponents he faced? The players he played with? His role within the team? The attention he's given? His age? His personal relationships? Of course I could go on and on.

Now perhaps some of these variables can be locked down, others excluded and we could look at a player's pass stats over several months or years, but then if you wanted to do that for it to be meaningful you'd have to explain the limits, why the exceptions, the SD of the results, the issues with the data, all that stuff... But I can't do that and neither can you and so the use of statistics in the wrong hands becomes worse than useless, worse, because at least useless doesn't mislead. This is the truth about the oft-quoted phrase "There are lies, damned lies and statistics!", it's not that stats are meaningless, it's that people unqualified to do so try and employ them all the time and get it wrong.

And that's my only point about football stats. They're fine for a bit of fun and can reveal stuff in the very general sense, but when it comes down to this player or that player having better pass stats by some small fraction or another either in a particular game or even over a season they're not telling you anything at all. Much better to just use your eyes and just argue your view.

Looks like someone is missing there old job a little too much ?

No, not just in the general sense. Pass completion stats may not be exact to the pass but they are good enough and fair enough to give you a very accurate picture of a players actual ability to complete passes on a game by game or per minute basis.

The problem with just trusting your eyes is that to many people, as is clearly evident on here, eyes don't just deceive, they down right bullshit their arses off to the point where we get "Palacios can't pass" "Jenas only passes sideways" "Huddlestone is the best player for retaining possession".

What happens is people watch football with clear bias towards certain players, stats don't. They don't tell the whole picture, but what they do tell is the truth as best as it is possible to tell. As long as we are intelligent enough to use this correctly and apply the right caveats they are perfectly valid and informative.

That's where the fairly simplistic pass completion stat is useful. It show's the utter fallibility of peoples visual perception. Stats don't care what a player looks like, if his face doesn't fit or if he's flavour of the month.

I agree that many stats are less reliable on a sliding scale of usefulness, but the passing stat is a very reliable indicator of simple things like how many attempts (how much a player touches the ball) and how accurate those attempts are (how much he gives it away) and is probably the most reliable and informative statistic for simply determining the aforementioned.

 

[Midostouch]

I voted for Palacios though at the time I really didn't think anyone stood out. We were, as a team, infinitely better than Werder -we didn't really even need to break into a sweat and I can't remember a recent game where I have never once felt that we were going to concede a goal.

But I chose Wilson because he was something like the player we all knew and loved before his tragedy. Long may his resurgence continue.