Millenniumram Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 27 minutes ago, TexasRam said: Some of the stuff on this forum is hilarious, but this is coming close to the best one I’ve read ????? Why? If I shoot straight at the goalkeeper, and my mate hits the inside of the post, then his shot is a more threatening one. Think we can all agree on that. But my shot is the one on target. Using shots on target as a definitive measure of attacking effectiveness isn’t a good idea normally - it doesn’t tell the full story and can exclude certain chances that really should be seen as examples of good attacking play. However, as I say, in this instance the difference in the stats from the last couple of days compared to a couple of months ago is so stark that I would argue the statistics in this case are legitimately telling us something. And that something is that our attacking play has got better since the new year roughly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 1 hour ago, Millenniumram said: Why? If I shoot straight at the goalkeeper, and my mate hits the inside of the post, then his shot is a more threatening one. Think we can all agree on that. But my shot is the one on target. Using shots on target as a definitive measure of attacking effectiveness isn’t a good idea normally - it doesn’t tell the full story and can exclude certain chances that really should be seen as examples of good attacking play. However, as I say, in this instance the difference in the stats from the last couple of days compared to a couple of months ago is so stark that I would argue the statistics in this case are legitimately telling us something. And that something is that our attacking play has got better since the new year roughly. Haha I can’t believe you’re trying to back it up with a response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philmycock Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 At home we're the dog's danglies, away we're bamfords Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Ram Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 Bamfords danglies ? Bit harsh that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millenniumram Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 30 minutes ago, TexasRam said: Haha I can’t believe you’re trying to back it up with a response. Haha I can’t believe you’ve not actually put an argument forward against what I’m saying... Ive spent circa 300 hours of my life the past two years learning about probability statistics, I’m pretty sure that I know what I’m talking about. Pretty much any statistic has its limitations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 The goals/assists have been coming from all over the pitch during the past 3 games. Bogle ⚽️?️ Wisdom ⚽️ Forsyth ?️ Malone ?️ (and followed up on Marriott’s goal) Holmes ⚽️?️?️ Rooney ⚽️⚽️⚽️?️ Waghorn ⚽️ Lawrence (won the penalty) Marriott ⚽️ Martin ⚽️⚽️?️ Clarke also scored from a Lawrence corner vs Hull, Knight also scored after a Lawrence pass vs Boro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 32 minutes ago, Millenniumram said: Haha I can’t believe you’ve not actually put an argument forward against what I’m saying... Ive spent circa 300 hours of my life the past two years learning about probability statistics, I’m pretty sure that I know what I’m talking about. Pretty much any statistic has its limitations. Nice one, I’m a six sigma black belt And have been for the past 10 years so if you need to know anything on statists or making numbers sing and dance give me a shout. I also have a little common sense which tells me your statement is a corker ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millenniumram Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 9 minutes ago, TexasRam said: Nice one, I’m a six sigma black belt And have been for the past 10 years so if you need to know anything on statists or making numbers sing and dance give me a shout. I also have a little common sense which tells me your statement is a corker ? Go on then, indulge me. What makes shots on target the literal definitive statistic for attacking effectiveness? What makes it such a reliable barometer that it can be trusted with 100% confidence and all other statistics can be ignored? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 Never said it was definitive, however and moreover it’s a significant variable that shows you are on the offensive, hence attacking. Also there is a high probability the more shots you have on target the more goals you will score, in fact I would say there is a positive and probable statistical correlation in that.....put it through mini tab and come back to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannable Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 1 hour ago, TexasRam said: Haha I can’t believe you’re trying to back it up with a response. I don’t get why you’ve taken such exception to a comment that had little baring on his point anyway. Three bottled one on ones are better opportunities than ten shots ‘on target’ from 30 yards out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 We missed a hatful last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 7 minutes ago, cannable said: I don’t get why you’ve taken such exception to a comment that had little baring on his point anyway. Three bottled one on ones are better opportunities than ten shots ‘on target’ from 30 yards out. three on target shots from three one on ones are better than three bottled of target one on ones. You can twist it anyway, it’s a nonsensical statement and made me chuckle thats all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millenniumram Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 1 hour ago, cannable said: I don’t get why you’ve taken such exception to a comment that had little baring on his point anyway. Three bottled one on ones are better opportunities than ten shots ‘on target’ from 30 yards out. Exactly... I've never said that it’s a useless statistic, only that it’s not always the best way of looking at things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 9 minutes ago, Millenniumram said: Exactly... I've never said that it’s a useless statistic, only that it’s not always the best way of looking at things Said exactly the same the other day. Shots on target as a single statistic doesn't give you the full story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 8 hours ago, Uptherams said: The biggest variable is the manager who hasn't played or managed in England. This squad is full of experienced players. The only difference now is attacking more, creating chances and shots at goal. Nothing else has changed. So my understanding is that you think these players were not implementing this and now are? It doesn't take 6 months to implement this. From a bunch of players that have done it previously. It happens instantaneously if you request it. I think you're on to something with Rooney though. I'd imagine he's had more than one tough word about our lack of threat. 5 goals in 8 before he started playing for us and 16 in 8 since his first game. The philosophy is playing out from the back. This involves the back 5 plus midfield working together in a way that beats the inevitable press. Rooney is showing midfield how to present for and deal with the ball in that situation. Wisdom has become very good at it. Perhaps surprisingly Matt Clarke is getting much better (didn't Cocu recently say that he needed to learn how to do it as he hadn't played that way too much prior). Yes I think the staff have been consistant and the players are now, collectively, just getting starting to do it well. Why from your point of view do you feel a guy and a staff who have played and coached at the highest level dont know how to deal with championship football? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimmu Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 8 hours ago, rynny said: Said exactly the same the other day. Shots on target as a single statistic doesn't give you the full story. Would I open Pandora's box if I dare to claim there is way better statistic in individual xG? ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 8 hours ago, rynny said: Said exactly the same the other day. Shots on target as a single statistic doesn't give you the full story. I agree in principle, however gather poster quoted “shots on target is not a good indicator of attacking football” he/she didn’t mention it as a single stat, just said it isn’t a indicator of attacking football. Which in itself is pretty much an oxymoron, I would say the amount shots on goal wether on target or not is a fairly good induction on whether you’ve been attacking or you haven’t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 24 minutes ago, TexasRam said: I agree in principle, however gather poster quoted “shots on target is not a good indicator of attacking football” he/she didn’t mention it as a single stat, just said it isn’t a indicator of attacking football. Which in itself is pretty much an oxymoron, I would say the amount shots on goal wether on target or not is a fairly good induction on whether you’ve been attacking or you haven’t. I read @Millenniumram post to mean shots on target on it's own doesn't give a good indicator for attacking football. People get hung up on the stat (especially fans that weren't at the game and rival fans). 34 minutes ago, Dimmu said: Would I open Pandora's box if I dare to claim there is way better statistic in individual xG? ? Whilst it could be a good indicator, it is flawed as it doesn't take into consideration who is shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 Just now, rynny said: I read @Millenniumram post to mean shots on target on it's own doesn't give a good indicator for attacking football. People get hung up on the stat (especially fans that weren't at the game and rival fans). Whilst it could be a good indicator, it is flawed as it doesn't take into consideration who is shooting. I couldn’t really give a hoot about stats other than the goals scored and conceded in a game. Just statements like this from this new breed of football intellectuals who love the stats and dissecting them make me giggle that’s all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millenniumram Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 1 hour ago, TexasRam said: I agree in principle, however gather poster quoted “shots on target is not a good indicator of attacking football” he/she didn’t mention it as a single stat, just said it isn’t a indicator of attacking football. Which in itself is pretty much an oxymoron, I would say the amount shots on goal wether on target or not is a fairly good induction on whether you’ve been attacking or you haven’t. No I didn’t, I said it isn’t always a particulary good indicator. I never said it was entirely rubbish, in fact my whole post was me using shots on target to make a point about the increase in our attacking effectiveness. I merely meant to indicate that it doesn’t always tell the full story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.