New Contracts

[CentiaRoyal]

I'm not wrong Wycombe.

The problem is you seem incapable of holding two facts in your head at the same time


Winger - 20 assists 00 goals very good. Write that down.

Winger - 20 goals 00 assists very good. Write that down.

Winger - 10 Goals and 10 assists very good.

Winger - 3 goals and 9 assists. Ordinary = McAnuff

Winger - 4 goals and 8 assists. Ordinary = McAnuff 2010-11

Winger - 9 goals and 7 assists, pretty damn good = Kebe 2010-11

Winger - 12 goals and 7 assists, pretty damn good = Kebe 2009-10

Winger - 20 assist and 7 goals, amazing = Stephen Hunt 2008-09

Winger - 14 assists and 5 goals, very very very good = Little 2005-06

Winger gets the ball in his own penalty area, runs the length of the pitch getting past many players. He cuts the ball back to striker 1. Striker 1 fluffs his shot into the path of striker 2 and striker 2 buries the ball into the back of the net. This happens 20 times over the season. At the end of the season the stats read like this: Winger 0 assists. Striker 1 20 assists. So statistically the winger is useless. However the supporters, having watched the games, know that the winger is immense and striker 1 is actually useless. Stats don't prove everything....

[Snowball]

I saw Kebe's run too. That's why you can have "secondary assists"


But McAnuff doesn't cause mayhem like Kebe (even when Kebe doesn't get the assist)

[Snowball]

Winger gets the ball in his own penalty area, runs the length of the pitch getting past many players. He cuts the ball back to striker 1. Striker 1 fluffs his shot into the path of striker 2 and striker 2 buries the ball into the back of the net. This happens 20 times over the season. At the end of the season the stats read like this: Winger 0 assists. Striker 1 20 assists. So statistically the winger is useless. However the supporters, having watched the games, know that the winger is immense and striker 1 is actually useless. Stats don't prove everything....

Yeah like this happens 20 times a season.

Stats don't prove things, but they are evidence in support of a view (better than "I just know 'ees good"...)

McAnuff (who I like) is a solid but unspectacular player who is a lousy, wasteful shooter.

HRK got 6 goals and 2 assists in 37% of the time McAnuff was on the pitch

That equates to 16 goals and 6 assists in 47 games.

That compares well with McAnuff's 4+10 and HRK is a kid still playing a bit-part role

[urz13]

What you have to remember is 90% of McAnuffs shooting is from outside the box; he cuts inside then shoots from 25 yards and its either an easy save or it goes wide. surely If he only shot inside the box his goals ratio would be better?

[Snowball]

[quote="urz13"]What you have to remember is 90% of McAnuffs shooting is from outside the box; he cuts inside then shoots from 25 yards and its either an easy save or it goes wide. surely If he only shot inside the box his goals ratio would be better?[/quote]


But he doesn't.

In the last 2 seasons he has had 127 shots for 7 goals, a goal every 19 shots.

Does that sound like him shooting from distance is a very good choice?

[Ian Royal]

What you have to remember is 90% of McAnuffs shooting is from outside the box; he cuts inside then shoots from 25 yards and its either an easy save or it goes wide. surely If he only shot inside the box his goals ratio would be better?

His shots going in is an unexpected bonus. They keep defenders honest and guessing about what he's going to do, go outside and cross, cut into the box, go inside and shoot, put in a through ball....

McAnuff is good because what he does is so varied. Defenders can't just show him one way and contain him easily. With a pacey fullback to overlap it would give him yet another option as well and make it harder for the defenders to double up on him.

And I think you're right about being in the box, weren't his goals this season mostly / all from inside the box? The thing about being a winger though, is that he's not actually going to be in the box that often. Certainly in a 4-4-2.

The long shot comes when its the more available option than getting into the box himself, or slipping the ball into someone else. There's always the chance it'll go in or be spilt by the keeper.

[Snowball]

Two seasons, 7 goals. About 140 shots...

Say that was from seven HUNDRED shots. Would you then say he's wasteful?

If his shots going in is an "unexpected bonus" WHY BOTHER TO SHOOT?
Why not plough on looking for a penalty, or a pass to a striker who scores
1 in 4, or simply to get closer so you have a better chance of scoring?

[glass half full]

I saw Kebe's run too. That's why you can have "secondary assists"


But McAnuff doesn't cause mayhem like Kebe (even when Kebe doesn't get the assist)

I am delighted that I can keep the record of Kebe's 90 yard run for as long as I want. It stands firm in Reading FC's folklore, along with Jobi's mazy run against Liverpool (also recorded somewhere). Neither of these, sadly, will appear on a list of statistics.

[urz13]

What you have to remember is 90% of McAnuffs shooting is from outside the box; he cuts inside then shoots from 25 yards and its either an easy save or it goes wide. surely If he only shot inside the box his goals ratio would be better?

The long shot comes when its the more available option than getting into the box himself, or slipping the ball into someone else. There's always the chance it'll go in or be spilt by the keeper.

Maybe be he should start practicing them ready for next season then
And he's nearly there with them, when he doesn't shoot at the keeper he shoots narrowly wide so if he can get that sorted and hit the bottom corner 7 times out of 10 he'll score a LOT more

[Snowball]

I saw Kebe's run too. That's why you can have "secondary assists"


But McAnuff doesn't cause mayhem like Kebe (even when Kebe doesn't get the assist)

I am delighted that I can keep the record of Kebe's 90 yard run for as long as I want. It stands firm in Reading FC's folklore, along with Jobi's mazy run against Liverpool (also recorded somewhere). Neither of these, sadly, will appear on a list of statistics.

Just to remind you, McAnuff FAILED TO SCORE. In reality, exciting as it was, it was worthless.

And of course they are "logged' ("as a statistic"). They are logged by you,
fans, the coaching staff, just as the times when Jimmy forgot the ball
or tackled himself are "logged".

Your opinion of players is 100% statistical. You just don't call it that.

You have a set of criteria for judging a player. Work-rate, guts, skills,
shooting, passing, tackling. Cards received, dumb cards, goal-line
clearances, whatever. The you will "factor in" petulance, or going missing
or a V-sign whatever.

You probably would never say "Jimmy gets X assists, hold the ball for X%"
but your judgment of him IS based on successes v failures etc.

[RoyalX]

Since Snowy seems incapable of accepting any sort of logical argument put against him (or just ignores it), here's something he can't argue with:

Games lost with McAnuff in the team: 7/40 = 18%
Games lost without McAnuff in the team: 2/6 = 33%

It's pretty easy to manipulate stats to suit your POV.

So Snowy, would you rather have Rasiak or McAnuff on the wing?

[Plymouth_Royal]

Since Snowy seems incapable of accepting any sort of logical argument put against him (or just ignores it), here's something he can't argue with:

Games lost with McAnuff in the team: 7/40 = 18%
Games lost without McAnuff in the team: 2/6 = 33%

It's pretty easy to manipulate stats to suit your POV.

So Snowy, would you rather have Rasiak or McAnuff on the wing?

Is that really a fair reflection based on the fact that one stat has significantly more data than the other i.e. 40 compared to 6!!!

However, Jobi does contribute a lot to the team with his work rate and his pace going forward. He's so quick and when he cuts in side he'll either try and pass to someone in a forward position or shoot. I don't think he's better than Kebe when they are both at their best but I do think you would get more consistency out of Jobi based on overall performance IMHO.

Also, why do people take it so seriously when Snowball comes out with Stats to show a different opinion? It's just a different way to show a point of view and I would think he's not trying to say you're wrong and here's why.

[RoyalX]

Since Snowy seems incapable of accepting any sort of logical argument put against him (or just ignores it), here's something he can't argue with:

Games lost with McAnuff in the team: 7/40 = 18%
Games lost without McAnuff in the team: 2/6 = 33%

It's pretty easy to manipulate stats to suit your POV.

So Snowy, would you rather have Rasiak or McAnuff on the wing?

Is that really a fair reflection based on the fact that one stat has significantly more data than the other i.e. 40 compared to 6!!!

Of course it isn't! This was kinda my point.

Also, why do people take it so seriously when Snowball comes out with Stats to show a different opinion? It's just a different way to show a point of view and I would think he's not trying to say you're wrong and here's why.

That is precisely what he does. I actually agree with some of the things he says, but the arrogance with which he says them grates. Also, he can be downright rude.

[Snowball]

I'm never rude twat-head.

































joke...

[Snowball]

Since Snowy seems incapable of accepting any sort of logical argument put against him (or just ignores it), here's something he can't argue with:

Games lost with McAnuff in the team: 7/40 = 18%
Games lost without McAnuff in the team: 2/6 = 33%

It's pretty easy to manipulate stats to suit your POV.

So Snowy, would you rather have Rasiak or McAnuff on the wing?

Easy to argue with that.

McAnuff played in 80% of our defeats, and was subbed in two of them because it wasn't working

or

McAnuff "manages to be injured" to avoid playing the likes of QPR/Swansea (those 2 non-Mac defeats)

or

When McAnuff didn't play we lost very narrowly (1-0) to two promoted sides, but when he PLAYED we managed to lose to two RELEGATED sides,
(and also drew at the third relegated side) and to (at the time) crap side Boro who had over 60% of possession.

It isn't stats that's the problem, it's their interpretation.

People say McAnuff is extra good" without real justification. They just "know he is"

His assists (8) is not that special for 47 games.
His goal-rate is poor (4 in 47). (3 in 44 if you ignore the POs)
His shooting is abysmal (scores 1 in 19 shots. That is WASTES 60 shots a season.)
His tackling back is decent but not GREAT and in the first half of the season was often lacking

[andrew1957]

One of the downsides of being a prudently run club is that we tend to offer shorter contracts than many of our competitors (this is not a criticism but an observation). This does give the players huge control over the decision as to where they end up playing.

The club has allowed the contracts of Long, Mills, McAnuff and Kebe to run down to a year. If they refuse to sign new contracts then they can all walk away on frees at the end of next season – but there is no chance of the club allowing them to do this if they can be sold. So realistically it is up to the player if they want to go or not. McAnuff might choose to stay as he is matey with Leigertwood - but if it is true that there are offers on the table for the other three, then we could see them all going.

We could have a very different starting 11 on August 7th.

[RoyalX]

Since Snowy seems incapable of accepting any sort of logical argument put against him (or just ignores it), here's something he can't argue with:

Games lost with McAnuff in the team: 7/40 = 18%
Games lost without McAnuff in the team: 2/6 = 33%

It's pretty easy to manipulate stats to suit your POV.

So Snowy, would you rather have Rasiak or McAnuff on the wing?

Easy to argue with that.

McAnuff played in 80% of our defeats, and was subbed in two of them because it wasn't working

or

McAnuff "manages to be injured" to avoid playing the likes of QPR/Swansea (those 2 non-Mac defeats)

or

When McAnuff didn't play we lost very narrowly (1-0) to two promoted sides, but when he PLAYED we managed to lose to two RELEGATED sides,
(and also drew at the third relegated side) and to (at the time) crap side Boro who had over 60% of possession.

It isn't stats that's the problem, it's their interpretation.

People say McAnuff is extra good" without real justification. They just "know he is"

His assists (8) is not that special for 47 games.
His goal-rate is poor (4 in 47). (3 in 44 if you ignore the POs)
His shooting is abysmal (scores 1 in 19 shots. That is WASTES 60 shots a season.)
His tackling back is decent but not GREAT and in the first half of the season was often lacking

I don't think McAnuff is "extra good". I just think I would rather have him on the wing than Hunt or another striker. I don't think playing strikers as wingers works very well on the whole. Unless it's a 4-3-3.

[Ian Royal]

People have gone into a fair bit of detail using examples of why McAnuff is "extra good". They just haven't used numbers collated from any official source to justify it.

[Snowball]

I wouldn't choose top play a known striker as a winger
but allegedly Waghorn is both, and in the case of Hunt
he played a lot of games on the wing at Dundee U.

[Snowball]

People have gone into a fair bit of detail using examples of why McAnuff is "extra good". They just haven't used numbers collated from any official source to justify it.

They haven't. They've just said, "He's extra good." Just not in terms of goals or assists... just "something ethereal".