The Summer clearout / Coming in thread. Updated 27/8

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

Do we have the stats that show that the pairing results changed last season when BR left? Or in this instance is the whole season to be used, including the very poor start.

[ZacNaloen]

Presumably you sat at Wembley calculating probabilities as opposed to enjoying the game then?

[floyd__streete]

I know you come from a scientific background and can be a little anal at times but really that's a load of bollocks Zac.

It's a game of football, played by flawed human beings, with far too many complicated and non measurable and comparable variables. Opinion is what it's all about in the real world.

I'm really glad scientists don't think that way.

So scientists spend a lot of time analysing football, do they?

[ZacNaloen]

[Ian Royal]

....because opinion isn't evidence.

I know you come from a scientific background and can be a little anal at times but really that's a load of bollocks Zac.

It's a game of football, played by flawed human beings, with far too many complicated and non measurable and comparable variables. Opinion is what it's all about in the real world.

I'm really glad scientists don't think that way.

You can't rely solely on a scientific method for something where you can't possibly hope to quantify the majority of variables and when you are talking about something inherantly subjective anyway.

This isn't a scientific debate.

Do we have the stats that show that the pairing results changed last season when BR left? Or in this instance is the whole season to be used, including the very poor start.

I could do this season for you fairly quickly, but I don't have the data for last season , which obviously makes the comparison fairly difficult. I don't know what websites reliable record assists for a season and in which game and at what time they were made.

Not that it matters as it's only a small part of what performing well is.

[ZacNaloen]

You might actually get somewhere if it was

[SCIAG]

Snowball- how many goals did we score in 09/10 as a result of Bertrand overlapping McAnuff, cutting inside and being fouled? I can think of at least one, and I have a feeling there were two or three. I also think Harte has only set up one goal from open play and hasn't scored from open play.

You also need to factor in McAnuff's games on the right under Rodgers (usually with Tabb behind him, a few times with awful Cummings) and under McDermott (with the slightly more attacking Griffin or the much improved Cummings overlapping him).

We were definitely better going forward with Bertrand in the team, but that wasn't just because Bertrand was better going forward than Harte, it was also because Sigurdsson could receive the ball from Kébé and give it to McAnuff.

[Mr Angry]

How is it that a topic thats supposed to be about the Summer clear out/ who is coming in has been utterly and totally banjaxed into some anal discussion about whether scientists make good footbal fans and the role of "statistics" in determining whether player x or player y is better suited to playing with player z??

Oh thats right - Snowball comes steaming in with reams and reams of utterly vvank "stats" that prove f**k all cubed!!

And its all irrelevant cos there isn't any way that Betrand will come to Reading (or any other Championship side on loan) as he is on the verge of challenging Chelsea's aging existing left back for the first team spot. IF he does go out on loan anywhere, it will be to another Premiership side, as at this stage of his career, he has to get Premiership experience under his belt to push him to the next level.

[Hoop Blah]

I'm really glad scientists don't think that way.

Football's an art not a science though, and I'm equally glad that the likes of Friday, Little and Sigurdsson played with talent and flair and not the percentages that science and the likes of Charlie Hughes might tell you is statistically proven to be more effective.

[Snowball]

Snowballs point however is that eye witness accounts are the worst sort of evidence in any situation.

Totally correct and proven in thousands of serious tests.

This list is a perfect example. We regularly get one poster picking X as MotM and someone else saying he was shite.

That's "opinion" and totally, utterly useless.

I have a book on my shelf called "Evaluting Eye-Witness Statements"
and basically EYS are virtually useless yet given great credibility.



Throw in RTG v STGs or people disliking a player (Harte being a classic example)
and "judgment" (ho-ho-ho) goes out of the window.

[Snowball]

Snowballs point however is that eye witness accounts are the worst sort of evidence in any situation.

Where there is other evidence to use, yes, it is poorer. The point being however, that nothing that he used is actually relevant to the point and worst evidence > irrelevent evidence.

And just because eyewitness evidence can be poor, does not make it always poor and mean it should be completely discounted just because someone can think of some numbers to use that may or may not have any relevance what-so-ever.

if you knew any of the research into eye-witness testimony (even when unbiased and not a football fan's)
you would know that it Is useless.


However, you and others have still not actually said HOW McAnuff played better last year.

Not his goals, or assists, or tackling back, so what?

[Snowball]

The difference is though Zac, the stats that are being reported as evidence of something show a tiny proportion of what makes a good or bad performance.

No, in this case they are the ONLY evidence being presented, and it's CLEAR evidence at a minimum SUGGESTING that McAnuff was better this year.

Now, you say, Goals, shots on target, assists ARE ONLY A TINY PROPORTION OF WHAT MAKES A GOOD OR BAD PERFORMANCE.

And I say that is bollox.

(It's only opinion, after all)

So WHAT ARE THE FACTORS? Nothing to do with statistics. If you say "McAnuff is more valuable than Kebe" (or the other way around) I can say but Kebe has scored 21 goals versus 7 (in less games) and is almost identical on assists per game. If you STILL disagree, surely you should have to EXPLAIN, otherwise you're just blathering.

How many ways does a winger show his worth? Shots, goals, assists, secondary assists, tackling back, tackles made,"covering", running off the ball to pull defences about... BUT WHAT ELSE?

If the argument put forward was that McAnuffs output in terms of assists and goals was better alongside Bertrand than Harte then it
might (if split out to only include when he played in tandem with each - which it hasn't) then the evidence would be more relevant.

Once again you miss the point.

I have never said this is the only way to judge. You or others said "McAnuff played better with Bertrand"
and I have said, "If he did it wasn't goals, shots, shots on target, assists, secondary assists, crosses,
tackling, covering the FB" because all of these he's done more of THIS season.

I have asked, "Why do you say that? Where is the justification? What is your evidence?"

Playing well or not is totally a subjective opinion based on what the viewer wants and expects the player to do.
Different opinions are totally acceptable because not only are those factors prone to variation but so is the perception of the players performance against them.

That is utter hogwash.

So if we "expect" Marcus Williams to be awful and
in fact he is "OK" we should say he had a brilliant game.

A player's quality is measured in how well he executes his task. The wingers Kebe and McAnuff are clearly tasked with getting-in crosses, putting the ball to other attackers who score (assists) or getting shots away (shots) preferably on target (shots on target) and at least occasionally scoring (goals). They are also expected to do defensive work, and in McAnuff's case, take corners.

[Snowball]

The difference is though Zac, the stats that are being reported as evidence of something show a tiny proportion of what makes a good or bad performance.

If the argument put forward was that McAnuffs output in terms of assists and goals was better alongside Bertrand than Harte then it might (if split out to only include when he played in tandem with each - which it hasn't) then the evidence would be more relevant.

Playing well or not is totally a subjective opinion based on what the viewer wants and expects the player to do. Different opinions are totally acceptable because not only are those factors prone to variation but sonis the perception of the players performance against them.

I wouldn't actually say Snowballs record isuch different than most of the more thoughtful posters. He makes sure he rams each correction that comes through and moves the goal posts on those that don't to hide the fact.

The only problem with Snowballs argument is that he his stats don't show what he thinks. They actually don't show anything in this case. He's massaged some numbers that are very close together to come up with ratios that make them sound much larger than they are. You are not going to convince Snowball that his opinion is wrong until you convince show him why he has interpreted the stats wrong. Until that happens he can just waive them in your face and ignore the rest of your points because opinion isn't evidence.

ZAC, my point was NOT to prove McAnuff was better this season
but merely to illustrate that the contention that McAnuff was BETTER LAST SEASON
has no credible evidence in its favour.


If McAnuff had 5 goals last year, Bertrand 5 and they had 10 assists each,
those stats would be trotted out as "proof" of the contention


I repeat. I am not trying to prove McAnuff was better this year.
I'm saying there is zero evidence that he was better last year

Better last year but scored less goals
Better last year but only half the shots on target
Better last year but not more assists
Better last year and yet the side shipped a lot more goals
Better last year and yet the side scored less goals.

So how did this "better" manifest itself?

[Snowball]

Monstermunch, I am NOT being negative about McAnuff. I LIKE the player.

If I am arguing anything it's that he IMPROVED this year compared to last.

Search this thread and point out where anybody has given any serious evidence
that McAnuff played better last year, other than saying,
"I saw him play better, but I can't explain what I mean"

[Snowball]

Do we have the stats that show that the pairing results changed last season when BR left? Or in this instance is the whole season to be used, including the very poor start.

The original statement being refuted was simply that McAnuff played better last season

It wasn't broken down into Rodgers/McDermott or Home/Away

[floyd__streete]

6 posts in a row from Snowball, all packed full of self-importance and utterly devoid of entertainment value or interest. As Reading fans we surely suffer enough without this boring, obsessive man spamming us.

[Snowball]

It may be difficult for you to understand (but try)


I posted, I was out for ten hours. I replied to replies. Complicated huh?

My mind is not set in pantomime mode.



McAnuff was better!

Oh NO HE WASN'T.

Oh Yes he was.



Discussion using evidence and actual argument as opposed to mere assertion
is a novel idea, I grant you, but it is known that (occasionally) football fans
can actually engage their brains.

Go on, try.

[weybridgewanderer]

No, in this case they are the ONLY evidence being presented, and it's CLEAR evidence at a minimum SUGGESTING that McAnuff was better this year.

Now, you say, Goals, shots on target, assists ARE ONLY A TINY PROPORTION OF WHAT MAKES A GOOD OR BAD PERFORMANCE.

And I say that is bollox.

(It's only opinion, after all)

Way way way way way off topic, but

How about we start with

Passes completed
Tackles made
Passes intercepted
Fouls commited

are these not also part of what makes a good performance?

[Agent Balti]

Why the fascination with Bertrand? Why factor any player into it? If we're going to factor any player in, why not throw Sigurdsson into the mix...could HE have had some bearing on any perceived 'form' for McAnuff? I don't see why any one players form could be attributed to the player behind him or next to him and be the ultimate arbiter in it all. There's 10 outfield players and it's the mix of all of them that defines it, not just one or two.

[Royalwaster]

Can we maybe rename this thread and start a new one with the proper discussion about comings in/leaving players and keep the speculation about Bertrand to the UR&S board?