AVB & Spurs Tactics and Formations discussion thread

[Spursalot]

Think we have enough CM's without trying to start shoehorning VDV into it..


Sandro, Parker, Sig, Huddlestone, Livermore, Modric (or replacement), Jenas (if avb likes him)


7 players for three spots seems fine to me..


Edit: Plus any young'uns avb likes the look of.

 

[africanspurs]

Surely that then also depends who we played vdv against? If he played against the top teams and was left out in favour of a second striker against the weaker teams then that would be pretty much the expected result.

really? sounds like allowances are being made here.

you are right that if we only played him against harder opp then numbers would favour us when he didnt play..but do you believe thats what we did? i.e that we just left him out against weaker opposition? then you have to ask yourself what qualifies for weaker opposition i guess

but no, he played against a wide range of teams, i think though that something you mention that is correct is that the people we played two up front against might have been heaveir loaded on playing two strikers. i'll have to check to be honest

 

[Spursalot]

really? sounds like allowances are being made here.

you are right that if we only played him against harder opp then numbers would favour us when he didnt play..but do you believe thats what we did? i.e that we just left him out against weaker opposition? then you have to ask yourself what qualifies for weaker opposition i guess

but no, he played against a wide range of teams, i think though that something you mention that is correct is that the people we played two up front against might have been heaveir loaded on playing two strikers. i'll have to check to be honest

I'm not stating that we did, i was just questioning your analysis of incomplete stats.

You say you have done the PPG, but without it being weighted against the difficulty of the clubs that have been played then it's useless.

It's completely feasible to suggest that for the harder games we decided to use vdv, to gain that extra man in midfield. Whereas against the less difficult teams we played two strikers, because we weren't as concerned about failing to control the possession.

And how is that allowances? You expect us to gain the same number of PPG if we played the three promoted teams in comparison to the top three teams? Or to score as many goals?

Though honestly i can't recall each game and whether or not we did. Which is why i asked.

 

[Kingdawson]

Think we have enough CM's without trying to start shoehorning VDV into it..


Sandro, Parker, Sig, Huddlestone, Livermore, Modric (or replacement), Jenas (if avb likes him)


7 players for three spots seems fine to me..


Edit: Plus any young'uns avb likes the look of.

Livermore is decent and Jenas is a weakling that i'd never want to see in the first X1 again. My VDV idea was in response to Wriggly asking what the team should be should Luka leave and we do not get a replacement. i'd much rather see vdv in that role than Jenas, Livermore and Hudd personally.

 

[NWND]

VDV is a hard worker, but tackling, positioning and the physical side are not his strong-points. Plus he'd be playing too deep most of the time to make use of his best assets.

I think its all about making the most of what you have. VDV in central midfield exposes most of his (few) flaws and reduces his strengths - why would you do it?

I think VDV works best when he's pushed further forward and actually receives the ball in dangerous positions where it isn't essential that he holds his position in central midfield.

VDV in central midfield = massive gaps for the opposition to exploit as you know his forward-thinking instincts will cause him to bomb forward at every opportunity and its not as if he will have the stamina or pace to chase back if we suddenly lose the ball.

Sigurdsson on the other hand has a lot of VDV's forward-thinking instincts, but with enough discipline, work-rate , pace and stamina to drop back quickly when a move breaks down.

 

[milo]

VDV is a hard worker, but tackling, positioning and the physical side are not his strong-points. Plus he'd be playing too deep most of the time to make use of his best assets.

I think its all about making the most of what you have. VDV in central midfield exposes most of his (few) flaws and reduces his strengths - why would you do it?

I think VDV works best when he's pushed further forward and actually receives the ball in dangerous positions where it isn't essential that he holds his position in central midfield.

VDV in central midfield = massive gaps for the opposition to exploit as you know his forward-thinking instincts will cause him to bomb forward at every opportunity and its not as if he will have the stamina or pace to chase back if we suddenly lose the ball.

Sigurdsson on the other hand has a lot of VDV's forward-thinking instincts, but with enough discipline, work-rate , pace and stamina to drop back quickly when a move breaks down.

Excellently put. I'd hope that we'd seen enough football over the years to agree that square pegs in round holes never works in the long run.

 

[africanspurs]

I'm not stating that we did, i was just questioning your analysis of incomplete stats.

You say you have done the PPG, but without it being weighted against the difficulty of the clubs that have been played then it's useless.

It's completely feasible to suggest that for the harder games we decided to use vdv, to gain that extra man in midfield. Whereas against the less difficult teams we played two strikers, because we weren't as concerned about failing to control the possession.

And how is that allowances? You expect us to gain the same number of PPG if we played the three promoted teams in comparison to the top three teams? Or to score as many goals?

Though honestly i can't recall each game and whether or not we did. Which is why i asked.

LOL....no it wasnt weighted, nor should it be when stating a fact. i wasnt looking for drivers, i wasnt building a regression model and i wasnt using factorial analysis to bring out principal components as to why we scored more when or where. Just the PPG and amounts of goals scored as statistical facts (with a bit of bias and rounding up)

one thing that needs to be added is that we definately played him as the man behind the lone striker significantly through the season. we did that about an even 50 / 50 with 2 up front. Plus we played him in that position against a decent range of opposition quality. we just scored more and got more point......(without the opposition quality weighting)

its funny but if you yourself were to weight it...how would you actually do it and what would your criteria be for the weight scheme

 

[Spursalot]

LOL....no it wasnt weighted, nor should it be when stating a fact. i wasnt looking for drivers, i wasnt building a regression model and i wasnt using factorial analysis to bring out principal components as to why we scored more when or where. Just the PPG and amounts of goals scored as statistical facts (with a bit of bias and rounding up)

one thing that needs to be added is that we definately played him as the man behind the lone striker significantly through the season. we did that about an even 50 / 50 with 2 up front. Plus we played him in that position against a decent range of opposition quality. we just scored more and got more point......(without the opposition quality weighting)

its funny but if you yourself were to weight it...how would you actually do it and what would your criteria be for the weight scheme

You'd probably have to weight it against the position the clubs finished the season in.

Although then you might also have to take into account whether it was home or away... this affects results...



Yes, you stated a fact. But it is still an incomplete fact.

 

[africanspurs]

You'd probably have to weight it against the position the clubs finished the season in.

Although then you might also have to take into account whether it was home or away... this affects results...



Yes, you stated a fact. But it is still an incomplete fact.

i'm starting to get a clearer picture of how to approach you LOL.

NO rumors allowed without quotes

and all stats must be right down to all the variables explained before getting used

i'm on to you mate

 

[Spursalot]

i'm starting to get a clearer picture of how to approach you LOL.

NO rumors allowed without quotes

and all stats must be right down to all the variables explained before getting used

i'm on to you mate

Rumors are fine, just belief in them is an opinion and shouldn't be forced on others. If you didn't get that after three pages in that thread i can't really help that.


Stats are troublesome. I asked you if you'd checked all the variables, you said no. Therefore there will always be an element of doubt in that, a rather large one in those stats you used imo, which is why i called it out. You will always have an element of doubt in stats yes, but those have a huge gaping hole running through the middle of them, you could drive the Titanic through it.

Calling up PPG and using them to bash 1 player over the head is very dangerous, simply because there are too many other variables that can cause them. Did you take into account whether he was injured during our 'good run' and whether he was fit during our 'collapse'? Did you check the PPG of every other player? Because i am sure you will find the same results for some of them as you have found with VDV. But wait, there are ten other people on the pitch, what if the people who were playing with vdv were different? What if he wasn't fully match fit? What if..? etc


Edit: How to approach me? I asked if you considered everything that could have affected the stats, you said no. I was attempting to get you to read between the stats.

 

[jts1882]

This discussion reminds me of some stats compiled a couple of years ago on our games with and without Ledley. Bizarrely, we actually conceded more goals when he played. However we had a better points per game record with him in the team. So selective quoting of stats could "prove" that Ledley was good or bad for the team.

 

[Spursalot]

This discussion reminds me of some stats compiled a couple of years ago on our games with and without Ledley. Bizarrely, we actually conceded more goals when he played. However we had a better points per game record with him in the team. So selective quoting of stats could "prove" that Ledley was good or bad for the team.

Exactly. I'd also take this opportunity to point out that he hasn't actually posted the stats. Just alluded to the results. Which would be subject to user bias.


Not meaning to cause offence, however i get the feeling african doesn't rate vdv highly. So of course he would pick up on stats that show vdv in a bad light.


Although that is something we are all guilty of from time to time, I can certainly admit i have done it before.

 

[africanspurs]

meh, fudge this..cant be arsed if i'm honest

 

[africanspurs]

and here...gone

 

[africanspurs]

aaaaaaaandd gone

 

[africanspurs]

This discussion reminds me of some stats compiled a couple of years ago on our games with and without Ledley. Bizarrely, we actually conceded more goals when he played. However we had a better points per game record with him in the team. So selective quoting of stats could "prove" that Ledley was good or bad for the team.

but this is the thing, selective quoting will have to be accompanied by a statement or fact or an assumption or hypothesis. but when someone says that it PROVES something, then you can call them up on it

if those figures are accurate , can it be denied that we conceeded more with ledders playing?

 

[Spursalot]

meh, fudge this..cant be arsed if i'm honest

Fair enough, i was having an interesting debate..

 

[africanspurs]

Fair enough, i was having an interesting debate..

good for you, for me personally...no offense...but if i were honest i thought it was flimflam and a waste of both our times , as it was clearly based on a standard and level of acceptability that .0001% can hold up to. it was hypocritical IMO by nature and if i'm honest again..it was irritating LOL LOL LOL..i couldnt handle it to be blunt

this is nothing to do with you personally as a person, just my take on that topic we were discussing

 

[jts1882]

but this is the thing, selective quoting will have to be accompanied by a statement or fact or an assumption or hypothesis. but when someone says that it PROVES something, then you can call them up on it

if those figures are accurate , can it be denied that we conceeded more with ledders playing?

Agreed. Statistics don't lie, people with statistics lie.

At the time (a couple of years ago) it would have been true that we conceded more goals when Ledley played (I don't think it is true any more). But if someone had said the stats proved we were worse defensively with Ledley it would be more ambiguous as we could have being playing better teams when he played.

I get your point on the numbers you mentioned. You were specific in saying that our points per game and goals scored were less when RvdV started as second striker (I assume this means compared to games where he doesn't start and those where he starts on the right). You stated the observation, not in the form of a conclusion (e.g. we were worse). You also added that he was probably the most talented player on the team, so were hardly dismissing him as useless, just too inconsistent.

 

[Spursalot]

good for you, for me personally...no offense...but if i were honest i thought it was flimflam and a waste of both our times , as it was clearly based on a standard and level of acceptability that .0001% can hold up to. it was hypocritical IMO by nature and if i'm honest again..it was irritating LOL LOL LOL..i couldnt handle it to be blunt

this is nothing to do with you personally as a person, just my take on that topic we were discussing

That's fair enough. You are a decent poster that makes quite a lot of good points. My issue with statistics isn't with you, just might have seemed that way, and if it did i apologise.