Shane Long

[Forbury Lion]

Actim index = nice indicator and interesting to look at, but not totally reflective of reality.

A midfielder can pass the ball back or sideways instead of attacking or getting stuck in 40 times in one game and do little else and suddenley they are top of the Actim index for completed passes and hailed as the best passer in the league. Reading fans suggest they do nothing but wave their arms about and somehow we're wrong and the stats are right?

[papereyes]

3 of Doyle, Lita, Kitson & Long scoring 10+ goals in the Premier League far fetched but just about doable.

Just to reiterate Ian, between Man Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal only something like 3 or 4 times in the last 5 or so seasons have any of those teams managed to get three players into double figures for league goals in a season. I remember it being quite a surprisingly low number for the top clubs who all usually out score the rest of the division.

I think the original discussion came about after talk of getting that ellusive '20 goals a season man' when infact it's difficult enough to get a forward to score 10 goals a season in a mid table side let alone 20.

Yup. That's pretty much how I recall it.

In terms of passing, there's two numbers that are meant to be quite instructive. The first is the number of successful passes made and the second is the number of goal scoring chances in which the player was involved (ie more than just assists). I'd suggest that you could use the two together to identify how the player actually plays.

And a 5 yard sideways pass can be, sometimes, the best option.

[Snowball]

Actim index = nice indicator and interesting to look at, but not totally reflective of reality.

A midfielder can pass the ball back or sideways instead of attacking or getting stuck in 40 times in one game and do little else and suddenley they are top of the Actim index for completed passes and hailed as the best passer in the league. Reading fans suggest they do nothing but wave their arms about and somehow we're wrong and the stats are right?

Exactly

[Snowball]

Actim index = nice indicator and interesting to look at, but not totally reflective of reality.

YOU say, based on what knowledge? It's the official statistical measure, but YOU know better

Ok then Snowball, would you like to give us an explanation of how those tables are reached and a defence of how those criteria accurately reflect what makes for an effective footballer?
You know, analyse stats rather than just constantly spout them as self-evidently meaningful?

Nope, why should I?

Why should I need to? These are official stats from a professional organisation,
an organisation that is presumably paid by results.

Most of this list are delude, knee-jerking amateurs.


If, WITHOUT looking, you were to list the best strikers in the Premiership, the best midfielders, the best defenders, and then went to the Actim stats for the Prem...

Midfielders, hmmm, Gerrard, Lampard, Ronaldo, Gareth Barry? Let's look... oh, seeee, the top 4 and Denilson in fifth, a non-sexy" midfieder that many Arsenal fans don't rate

[tlcs]

I can only presume SHunt,s agent used these stats when he negiotated his contract in Jan

Likewise for my mate Jimmy

[Hoop Blah]

Nope, why should I?

Why should I need to? These are official stats from a professional organisation,
an organisation that is presumably paid by results.

Most of this list are delude, knee-jerking amateurs.

Most of the people argueing with you are basing their opinions on what they see and have built those opinions up over a reasonable period of time.

Yes some posts are made in knee-jerk response to particular events, but the majority are considered opinions from fans of the team.

As for a professional organisation getting paid by results, this is the same news group working in the field that gets players names etc wrong on a regular basis.

[Snowball]

Most of the people argueing with you are basing their opinions on what they see and have built those opinions up over a reasonable period of time.

And "what we see" is a very poor measure of actuality.

eg interviews are the WORST method of selecting employees

More than one top manager has said that "his own eyes" are often wrong

[Snowball]

My first degree was in psychology

One example experiment... people are shown a drawing/drawings of an incident on a tube-train between a black and a whiteman

Almost all "see" the knife in the hands of the black man when it's
in absolute and totally clear fact in the hands of the white man.

A Kebe-hater has to learn to stand aside from his prejudices to make an accurate assessment of Kebe

Ditto SHunt, Harper

The manic responses on this list are mostly ridiculous

[Dr Hfuhruhurr]

Dont sit on the fence here, Snowball, are you suggesting that any criticism of Jimmy Kebe is racially motivated?

[brendywendy]

i love the guy

im his numbe4r one fan

i never tire of defending him on here


but even i can see that alot of the criticism is justified


its just not the -hes a pub player, worst player at the club, worst player ive ever seen, kind of stuff i really hate

[working class hero]

A Kebe-hater has to learn to stand aside from his prejudices to make an accurate assessment of Kebe

Ditto SHunt, Harper

Am I to conclude that it is Hunt who carries a knife and not Kebe?????
WTF are you on about.

Sometimes Kebe plays like a hopeless anchor. At other times he terrorises defences. Same with Hunty and Harps, Doyle and Nunt.

We will never have players who are solidly 100% on form 100% of the time. Even Ronaldo can be a muppet at times.... and for the cash we splash we need to accept our team will comprise mere mortals.

[Hoop Blah]

Welcome back Snowball....you never fail to amaze me with your total lack of appreciation for what's infront of your eyes!!!!

[Ian Royal]

Snowball,

I can't be wrong because I'm using statistics, by your own definition of them.

You can post all the numbers you like, and look at all the rankings anyone can come up with, but without quality analysis of the whole - performed by watching matches and everything that happens in them - you have no context with which to put it. Therefore it is fatally flawed.

You are very big on statistics and EXTREMELY light on analysis. You provide commentary on the stats at best.

According to you the stats are all important. If that were the case football managers wouldn't exist, everything wuld be controlled by Computer AI.


To Forbes, I don't know if your post was serious, but I said the Index was a useful tool, but not all important, or words to that effect. In your example, the "truth" is somewhere in the middle ground. You can use the stats to show good pass completion rate, but on it's own that is not going to tell you who is best.

Harper (who I assume you're referring to) is only useful if you have others in the team able to create chances. Harper keeps possession, organises, helps break up opppostion attacks and builds our own, but he rarely creates an actual chance or goal himself. You also really need that other player to be a strong tackler, or two excellent wingers and a strong tackler.

[Snowball]

Dont sit on the fence here, Snowball, are you suggesting that any criticism of Jimmy Kebe is racially motivated?

Not even slightly.

I was making a point that people do NOT see what they think they see

That's why objective analysis is important

[Snowball]

A Kebe-hater has to learn to stand aside from his prejudices to make an accurate assessment of Kebe

Ditto SHunt, Harper

Am I to conclude that it is Hunt who carries a knife and not Kebe?????
WTF are you on about.

I am "on about" the fact that witness testimony is extremely flawed.
I am "on about" the fact that human perception is often wrong
I am "on about" the fact that biases affect belief and perception

[Ian Royal]

And none of that means you just ignore peoples opinions or perceptions because you have a bunch of extremely limited numbers you wish to believe are the sole important thing to consider.

[Snowball]

I can't be wrong because I'm using statistics, by your own definition of them.

That's what you call using statistics, is it?

but without quality analysis of the whole - performed by watching matches and everything that happens in them - you have no context with which to put it. Therefore it is fatally flawed.

You're a numpty. You are not a professional player, ex-player, manager or coach.

You're just a myopic, biased punter.

So what says YOU can make "quality analysis of the whole"?

Answer: nothing

You are very big on statistics and EXTREMELY light on analysis. You provide commentary on the stats at best.

You simply don't get it, do you?

I do not wish to ANALYSE the statistics. The statistics are there, facts. Disprove their validity.

Looking at the top six and a few other teams, Kebe comes out with the third-highest number of assists

Numpties like you will go to the ends of the earth to "disprove them" but you can't.

It's because defenders are doubling up on SHunt and giving him space (Ha-ha)

It's because of the way we play (like other teams don't use wingers) (Swansea, anyone?)

SHunt (pilloried on this list) has 18 assists TWICE the third-best in this league, Kebe beats everyone bar his team-mate and Kightly

The stats are the stats are the stats. I don't need to EXPLAIN them. What the numpties do is find reasons to explain-away the stats.

Of course, if the stats showed Kebe 29th on the assists-listing then the stats would "show" Kebe was crap
and the numpties would be all over them, quoting them

[Snowball]

And none of that means you just ignore peoples opinions or perceptions because you have a bunch of extremely limited numbers you wish to believe are the sole important thing to consider.

I have opinions and perceptions AND I KNOW THEY ARE OFTEN MISPLACED

You have opinions and perceptions and treat them as absolute

You never consider the fact that

(a) They are subjective and fallible

(b) You have no qualifications to suggest they are professionally driven

[Ian Royal]

I can't be wrong because I'm using statistics, by your own definition of them.

That's what you call using statistics, is it?

Your definition not mine. The use of observable evidence gathered by watching games, readig articles and listening to the views of others. I believe I argued that wasn't statistics and you argued it was.

Well done.

[Hoop Blah]

Dont sit on the fence here, Snowball, are you suggesting that any criticism of Jimmy Kebe is racially motivated?

Not even slightly.

I was making a point that people do NOT see what they think they see

That's why objective analysis is important

One question Snowball....how are the Actim stats and the club stats compiled?

Here's a clue for you, people watch the games and feed back what they see.

Objective analysis is important, but your statistics just aren't being applied objectively or with much appreciation of what they represent and how they should be interpreted.