nomos

Administrator
6803317392_dea4f0cf60.jpg
 

e/y

Well-known member
^excellent

I think I watched Robin's second goal at least 10 times.

<iframe frameborder="0" width="480" height="255" src="http://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/xp74jv_liverpool-1-2-arsenal_sport"></iframe><br /><a href="" target="_blank">Liverpool 1 - 2 Arsenal</a> <i>von <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/Anatolly7" target="_blank">Anatolly7</a></i>


Young's 2nd today was really good

<iframe frameborder="0" width="480" height="270" src="http://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/xp7tkp_tottenham-h-0-3-manchester-u_sport"></iframe><br /><a href="" target="_blank">Tottenham H. 0 - 3 Manchester U.</a> <i>von <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/Anatolly7" target="_blank">Anatolly7</a></i>
 
Last edited:

paolo

Mechanical phantoms
So, farewell then AVB. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he turns out to be a world class manager in years to come and Roman ends up wishing he'd kept him (they should have kept him)
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
What's "through"?
Anyway, so that shows you that Song is as good as Fabregas apart from the goals? Not that convinced by football statistics to be honest - what counts as a shot on target or a completed pass is so much in the eye of the beholder. I mean, I saw a thing explaining why one of United's reserve keepers was better than Van Der Saar based on the percentage of shots that he'd stopped. His argument was that Ferguson was picking the wrong keeper. My thoughts would be more along the lines of - the most succesful manager of the last twenty years has watched them both and decided that VDS is better and the stats fail to reflect the difficulty of each save rendering them meaningless. And that's assuming that goalkeeping is all about shot-stopping.
 

nomos

Administrator
i'm not one for stats either. my only point was that people were banging on about how shit song was only two years ago but that he's steadily growing into a very impressive player - defensively and offensively. he's not getting a lot of attention because it's always about rvp and the 'one man team.'
 

hucks

Your Message Here
i'm not one for stats either. my only point was that people were banging on about how shit song was only two years ago but that he's steadily growing into a very impressive player - defensively and offensively. he's not getting a lot of attention because it's always about rvp and the 'one man team.'

Is he that good defensively, tho? I know arsenal's back four is a rotating bunch of comedians this season, but the midfield doesn't seem too solid either. Thinking of spurs's goals last week, liverpool's dominance this, the Milan embarrassment...
 
Last edited:

e/y

Well-known member
What's "through"?

a pass that splits the opposition defence and creates a goal-scoring chance.

Anyway, so that shows you that Song is as good as Fabregas apart from the goals? Not that convinced by football statistics to be honest - what counts as a shot on target or a completed pass is so much in the eye of the beholder. I mean, I saw a thing explaining why one of United's reserve keepers was better than Van Der Saar based on the percentage of shots that he'd stopped. His argument was that Ferguson was picking the wrong keeper. My thoughts would be more along the lines of - the most succesful manager of the last twenty years has watched them both and decided that VDS is better and the stats fail to reflect the difficulty of each save rendering them meaningless. And that's assuming that goalkeeping is all about shot-stopping.

very true - statistics are not everything. in your example, perhaps the reserve goalkeeper played in easier games (Carling Cup, etc), and it is likely that he played less frequently than VDS (and, for example, saved two out of two shots against a lower league team or something) and also you have the issue of what sort of shot was stopped, the difficulty, etc.

I don't think the goal here is to say that Song is as good as Cesc, he obviously isn't. however, what I think the Song v. Cesc comparison does (and is convincing b/c it included more than one stat - ie, number of games played, number of passes / success rate, and crucially, the type of pass - ie, 'key passes / game' - so it avoids the possibility of one player doing 100 backpasses to his centre back) is destroy the myth that he is simply a destructive midfielder who, to paraphrase numerous Arsenal fans, ''needs to know his place, stay back and let the more skilled players make do their thing'' (same thing as Yaya Toure - as if big African midfielder = should stay back and break up play).

he has been making key passes like the one this weekend for quite some time, and showing that he is a very complete central player. defensively, he is good too - look at the interception / tackles stats. he does need to improve his concentration as he is somewhat inconsistent, though. and of course there is still room for much improvement, but I think Arsenal's defensive problems are not down to him - not even down to other individual players, but rather systematic - the team does not hold it's shape well, pressing is too spontaneous and not co-ordinated. that's down to approach / coaching, really.

wrt to his performance this w/end - he just got back from Africa from a midweek game and was a doubt before kickoff, so I think that goes some way to explaining the relatively poor performance.

in summary, I <3 Song.
 
Last edited:

IdleRich

IdleRich
"i'm not one for stats either. my only point was that people were banging on about how shit song was only two years ago but that he's steadily growing into a very impressive player - defensively and offensively. he's not getting a lot of attention because it's always about rvp and the 'one man team.'"
Yeah, sorry, went off on a bit of a stats rant there which may not have been necessary. And, to be honest, if I look at the stats of the team I play in on Tuesday (along with a few other people from dissensus in fact) it shows that the most effective player with 13 goals at an average of 1.86 a game is a certain IdleRich - so who am I to complain? Although admittedly we don't compile pass-completion, tackles etc etc so it may not be the full picture.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
a pass that splits the opposition defence and creates a goal-scoring chance.

So what does it mean expressed as a percentage? That he plays 31 through balls per 100 games? (I'm assuming here it doesn't mean that 31% of his balls are defence-splitting chance-creating passes. That really would make him by far the best midfielder of all time, except for, it seems, Fabregas.)
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
I think they mean the percentage of potentially defence-splitting passes that worked. Although how you decide that something is potentially defence-splitting I don't know and how defence-splitting it has to be to count as successful I also don't know.
 

e/y

Well-known member
I guess a succesful one is one that gets to a team-mate in a dangerous position, but perhaps more specific than a 'key pass' (ie, like the one against Liverpool, it is one that takes out the defenders).

I know someone who work(ed?) for Opta, and he says there is a lot left for interpretation in noting statistics and since you have lots of different people doing it, there is a certain lack of consistency / exactness.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Well I think it's just a problem in that every pass is different and can't be fitted into a number of boxes. Is an easy defence-splitting pass as good as a difficult one and so on? I don't think that football lends itself to stats so well as more simplistic American games or cricket.
 

Phaedo

Well-known member
any game where one team can completely dominate for the course of the whole match and loose should probably not take statistics too seriously.

people always want numbers to back up there opinions though, it almost seems instinctive
 

Esp

Well-known member
Well I think it's just a problem in that every pass is different and can't be fitted into a number of boxes. Is an easy defence-splitting pass as good as a difficult one and so on? I don't think that football lends itself to stats so well as more simplistic American games or cricket.

We definitely dont have the stats culture in the UK that they seem to have in the US with NFL and MLB. It'll be interesting to see if that changes over time, Im not sure how much of it is a result of culture as opposed to the simplicity of the game though.

Does anyone know of managers trying to use Moneyball techniques in football? A friend told me Downing was bought for Liverpool using Moneyball logic based on Downing supplying Carroll (or at least it played a part in the decision).
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"We definitely dont have the stats culture in the UK that they seem to have in the US with NFL and MLB. It'll be interesting to see if that changes over time, Im not sure how much of it is a result of culture as opposed to the simplicity of the game though."
People seem to be believe that stats can tell you the best players in some US sports (though possibly by intelligent usage of the stats - I think that that is the basis for Money Ball) whereas I don't really accept that they can substitute for watching the game in football. If I've watched a game and seen that someone had a bad game but I'm told his pass-completion rate was great then I won't be swayed, I'll just assume that the passes weren't important.

"Does anyone know of managers trying to use Moneyball techniques in football? A friend told me Downing was bought for Liverpool using Moneyball logic based on Downing supplying Carroll (or at least it played a part in the decision)."
There's also a rumour that he was bought on the basis of a fake skills video on youtube.
 

e/y

Well-known member
Well I think it's just a problem in that every pass is different and can't be fitted into a number of boxes.

that's true, but at the same time a cross or a long ball or a through-ball are distinct enough to be categorised separately in a statistical analysis.

Is an easy defence-splitting pass as good as a difficult one and so on?

I don't think it matters in this context (though obviously I'd much rather watch a pass that takes out 4 defenders and lands in the perfect spot rather than a 5 meter toe poke). Surely the important part is whether or not it leads to the creation of a goal?

wrt to stats and football - obviously they do not tell anything approaching the whole picture* (as they may in American football or baseball, I'm not sure b/c they always bored me so I don't really know much about either). but I think they can compliment an analysis based on watching players / a game - IF used correctly. Zonal Marking and Jonathan Wilson do this well.


*for example - the stat for pass completion does not reflect whether the pass was shit and despite getting to a team-mate put said team-mate in a bad position. neither does it consider that a player could have been dispossessed and lost possession that way.
 
Last edited:

IdleRich

IdleRich
"I don't think it matters in this context (though obviously I'd much rather watch a pass that takes out 4 defenders and lands in the perfect spot rather than a 5 meter toe poke). Surely the important part is whether or not it leads to the creation of a goal?"
I think that it does in the context of assessing a player's ability. Anyone may be capable of doing that toe poke but just have happened to be in the right place to do it (perhaps that's a skill in itself though) so does it deserve to count as much to his stats as someone who has picked out some ridiculous pass?

"*for example - the stat for pass completion does not reflect whether the pass was shit and despite getting to a team-mate put said team-mate in a bad position. neither does it consider that a player could have been dispossessed and lost possession that way."
'zackly.
 

e/y

Well-known member
I think that it does in the context of assessing a player's ability. Anyone may be capable of doing that toe poke but just have happened to be in the right place to do it (perhaps that's a skill in itself though) so does it deserve to count as much to his stats as someone who has picked out some ridiculous pass?

but what counts is if a goal has been scored, right? so if you have a player who is really good at finding space and making an ugly, clumsy-looking toe poke (and I think that is a skill, absolutely, see Inzaghi, a fantastic and unfairly maligned footballer) that results in a shot / goal, and another who is equally good at playing gorgeous 30 meter passes that leave defenders on their backsides, aesthetically I would of course like the latter, but their contribution is, I would argue, the same (in purely practical terms, anyway).

going back to the Song / Cesc thing - again, I don't think it is correct to point at the set of numbers and say ''they are equally good / talented'' (or to serve use them instead of actually watching them). but it does show that they influenced (and contributed to) their team's attacking play in similar ways. then if you take those numbers and couple them with seeing The Song make very difficult passes, go on runs on a fairly regular basis, then you get a fuller sense of what sort of player he is.

anyway, I'm off to watch Meeelan take us apart again :)
 
Last edited:
Top