2019-20 season assessment.

[Ellafella]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

That’s not a fact. That’s an opinion based on putting a weighting system on yellows, reds, and two yellows and a red. Wigan has more yellows and reds than us (based on the wrongful dismissal of Sibley), whereas several teams picked up more cards in total than us. 

It’s a fact based on the EFL system of determining discipline in this way. Therefore we have to abide with it, because we play in the EFL. It may not be a fact elsewhere but we have to adhere to the context of the League we are in. We finished bottom of the discipline table as defined by the EFL system. That is the FACT that matters. 

[Ellafella]

1 hour ago, Jram said:

No no I don’t think you understand 

I’m not saying the club should investigate because I don’t think they should, it’s madness to draw conclusions from this data 

all I was saying is, if you wanted to investigate further and gather more data , go for it and maybe draw conclusions from that if it’s meaningful 

I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t believe this will repeat next year because I doubt there is any narrative that we can learn from the data above re discipline this season

 

This is just getting daft now. You can believe what you like. I strongly suspect it will be a concern for PC and he and his coaches will be mindful of improving this position next year. Will we get to know this? Possibly not but if you ran a survey of most Championship managers, they would have concerns if it was their team. 

[Ellafella]

54 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Team game, players may rally together to get over one weakness. Refutation.

But less likely. Puts more strain on players and some player’s absence may be detrimental in particular eg Lawrence’s absence after his sending off clearly weakened our left side offensive capability. 
The whole point of red and yellow cards is to neutralise foul play so to suggest otherwise is really counter-intuitive: across a season those who consistently seek to gain advantage through foul play will be disadvantaged by the disciplinary system. 

[Ghost of Clough]

25 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

It’s a fact based on the EFL system of determining discipline in this way. Therefore we have to abide with it, because we play in the EFL. It may not be a fact elsewhere but we have to adhere to the context of the League we are in. We finished bottom of the discipline table as defined by the EFL system. That is the FACT that matters. 

Sibley's wrongful red makes a big difference. Take those disciplinary points off and we're better than Wigan, Sheffield Wednesday and Charlton.

In what way do we have to "abide by it" or "adhere to it"? It's just a method of measuring discipline and has zero material impact on any clubs. Surely the FA's fair play table matters more? Even with Sibley's false red we finished 3rd in that one and improve by 1 position without it.

[Ellafella]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Sibley's wrongful red makes a big difference. Take those disciplinary points off and we're better than Wigan, Sheffield Wednesday and Charlton.

In what way do we have to "abide by it" or "adhere to it"? It's just a method of measuring discipline and has zero material impact on any clubs. Surely the FA's fair play table matters more? Even with Sibley's false red we finished 3rd in that one and improve by 1 position without it.

You mean the FA’s Fair Play Table that we finished bottom of with 426 points? I won’t bother with addressing your other spurious points because I’m now bored with your arguing for argument’s sake, 

[Ghost of Clough]

3 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

You mean the FA’s Fair Play Table that we finished bottom of with 426 points? I won’t bother with addressing your other spurious points because I’m now bored with your arguing for argument’s sake, 

No, this one...

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/discipline/fairplay

[Tyler Durden]

15 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

No, this one...

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/discipline/fairplay

That's the same table which is alluded to by @Ellafellawhere we are bottom of the entire league with 426 disciplinary points.

Or am I missing something

[Ellafella]

18 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

No, this one...

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/discipline/fairplay

 

1 minute ago, Tyler Durden said:

That's the same table which is alluded to by @Ellafellawhere we are bottom of the entire league with 426 disciplinary points.

Or am I missing something

Thanks @Tyler Durden. That's the one which puts us bottom of the league with 426 points. 

[Sparkle]

8 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

If we're fair we'll be truthful. Lawrence and Holmes give the ball to our own players much more often than the opposition. Marriott only just favours the other team (not too unusual for a forward like him).

Marriott
Accurate passes = 163
Inaccurate passes = 56
Fouls = 18
Offside = 5
Shots (minus goals) = 41
Unsuccessful dribbles = 7
Lost possession = 48
Does he give the ball away more than he gives it to our own? Yes (difference of 12 occasions)

Holmes
Accurate passes = 881
Inaccurate passes = 219
Fouls = 38
Offside = 2
Shots (minus goals) = 28
Unsuccessful dribbles = 28
Lost possession = 107
Does he give the ball away more than he gives it to our own? No (difference of 459 occasions)

Lawrence
Accurate passes = 968
Inaccurate passes = 220
Fouls = 58
Offside = 7
Shots (minus goals) = 80
Unsuccessful dribbles = 42
Lost possession = 148
Does he give the ball away more than he gives it to our own? No (difference of 413 occasions)

I suspect you may have assumed I was being a tad harsh but I never mentioned passes progressively forwards

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, Tyler Durden said:

That's the same table which is alluded to by @Ellafellawhere we are bottom of the entire league with 426 disciplinary points.

Or am I missing something

 

1 hour ago, Ellafella said:

 

Thanks @Tyler Durden. That's the one which puts us bottom of the league with 426 points. 

You're both looking at all competitions. Try clicking on 'League Matches Only'.

[Tyler Durden]

10 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

 

You're both looking at all competitions. Try clicking on 'League Matches Only'.

But surely that narrows the sampling range, isn't it a more relevant metric to look at the entire number of games played over the course of the season.

What is the relevance of excluding a match if it's classified as a league game or cup game. Am not sure what you're trying to spin here.

[Ghost of Clough]

2 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

But surely that narrows the sampling range, isn't it a more relevant metric to look at the entire number of games played over the course of the season.

What is the relevance of excluding a match if it's classified as a league game or cup game. Am not sure what you're trying to spin here.

Number of games played is the main reason. Different teams played, different level of opposition, etc...

[Ellafella]

32 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

 

You're both looking at all competitions. Try clicking on 'League Matches Only'.

you're just splitting hairs now. 

[Ghost of Clough]

2 hours ago, Ellafella said:

you're just splitting hairs now. 

Still brings us round to the original point. We aren’t necessarily the worst team in the league in terms of cards, but we are one of the worst. 

[Tyler Durden]

2 pages to get to the same conclusion. 

I feel emotionally drained ?

[Mihangel]

21 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

What sampling interval would you then propose would be of an acceptable size to draw robust conclusions from then.

Are you saying we are just unlucky then as all of the other teams in our division who haven't received our number of red cards in the season avoided them due to good fortune, biased officiating etc?

More than that!

I'm not saying anything about luck or otherwise, I'm saying that you cannot draw a conclusion from a single raw statistic. We already know that the data is incorrect, that's not exactly a great start. Any data around a subjective incident needs context, likewise if you take that single piece of data and ignore others. Data is far more useful in greater volume for simple reasons, firstly that it usually becomes more dependable. Secondly, and this really obvious, where that data is so small as 6 (5) incidents, you can actually go and look at each one and consider it in isolation. Then you can sit down and talk to Scott Malone, Tom Lawrence, Martyn Waghorn, Krystian Bielik and Max Lowe about their incidents.

I can make up another stat, out of 31 players used in the league, 26 didn't get sent off, that proves discipline is great right? Of course not, just shows how silly stats are in isolation and without context.

[Mihangel]

22 hours ago, Ellafella said:

Would you climb aboard an aeroplane which had crashed 3 times in 2 years compared with 20 others which had never crashed or would you say the sample size is too small to conclude? Small numbers are not a barrier to statistical analysis. 

That's a fabulous example of why you can uses statistics in isolation? You've leapt from aeroplane crashes to the implied conclusion that that aeroplane model is unsafe without understanding determining factors, for example, was the pilot half cut?

Based on no studies, 99% of analogies don't work, probably.

[Carnero]

2 hours ago, ShoreRam said:

Then you can sit down and talk to Scott Malone, Tom Lawrence, Martyn Waghorn, Krystian Bielik and Max Lowe about their incidents.

I've since seen at least half a dozen incidents similar to Max Lowe's red card for gently touching the ref, and not one of them received a red card.

[Ghost of Clough]

16 minutes ago, Carnero said:

I've since seen at least half a dozen incidents similar to Max Lowe's red card for gently touching the ref, and not one of them received a red card.

At the time I said it's a 'relatively' common action which more often than not doesn't even earn a yellow.

[Tyler Durden]

2 hours ago, ShoreRam said:

More than that!

I'm not saying anything about luck or otherwise, I'm saying that you cannot draw a conclusion from a single raw statistic. We already know that the data is incorrect, that's not exactly a great start. Any data around a subjective incident needs context, likewise if you take that single piece of data and ignore others. Data is far more useful in greater volume for simple reasons, firstly that it usually becomes more dependable. Secondly, and this really obvious, where that data is so small as 6 (5) incidents, you can actually go and look at each one and consider it in isolation. Then you can sit down and talk to Scott Malone, Tom Lawrence, Martyn Waghorn, Krystian Bielik and Max Lowe about their incidents.

I can make up another stat, out of 31 players used in the league, 26 didn't get sent off, that proves discipline is great right? Of course not, just shows how silly stats are in isolation and without context.

It's not a single raw statistic it's an umbrella heading covering a huge range of data points over the season. 

I don't need you to make up another stat as this clearly implies that the statistics in question are fabricated which they are not. 

The whole football world now is based around statistics whether you care to admit it or not, if you choose to discredit this information or the use of them I think myself and all the far more experienced people in the football world are living on a different planet to yourself.