• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

I liked Erik Lamela before it was cool

Gazzasrightboot said:
That's exactly what Brentford are doing so we will be able to see just how successful that is.

My own personal opinion is that you need to use both. Stats alone could lead to some spurious answers, likewise just relying on scouts but that's where the people that interpret the stats are so important and probably why people like Mitchell are not getting paid quite a lot of money. Transfers are huge financial committments, so it stands to reason that these are not left just on the say so of a couple of scouts and perhaps the manager. There needs to be more science behind it and other sports with similar transfer fees have used statistics to good effect in player recruitment.

Clearly and very simplistically, when buying a striker you will look at their goal-scoring stats. So why should the logic change for any other position. Sure, the stats that you need to analyse would be different and perhaps in conjunction with other stats but the fact remains.

Now, with regards to the Lamela debate. It is clear he has a lot of assists. That is a fact. So for all those people saying he is useless, he is useless but has the most assists of all of our team. He also creates quite a few chances. Sure, some of this is muddied by the fact he takes corners or what not. However, I say this to you all. If he was so useless, just how does he still manage to get picked for his country. It's not just Spurs therefore that think there is a player there.

I'm not saying he is a great player, nor am I saying he is a good player. I'm just saying he's not ****. But this argument has only started because of a difference of opinion between those who think Lamela is a waste of space/useless player versus those who think he's better than that. The argument put forward for him not being useless were the stats showing assists and chances created plus the fact he is picked for his country. The argument put against is "use your eyes", "stats are cobblers" and "he's just appalling". At least that's my summary so correct me if I've got that wrong.
Click to expand...

Sums it up, stats are a tool to be used but they only tell half a story in most cases.
 
Mumorn said:
no matter how **** he is, i think id rather have kept him then loaned him out anyway. we dont benefit from loaning him out.
Click to expand...

loan fee and maybe wages paid too, also if he performs well it attracts others into buying him
 
scaramanga said:
In a case such as this one when two people have seen the same thing going and are arguing different points, the stats backing up one of the arguments pretty much seals it for me
Click to expand...

Well that is your opinion ( and of course you are entitled to it), but I worked with stats with football players during my work and they were never seen as a fool proof point for or against as a conclusion on any debate on a players strengths or weakness.
 
parklane1 said:
Well that is your opinion ( and of course you are entitled to it), but I worked with stats with football players during my work and they were never seen as a fool proof point for or against as a conclusion on any debate on a players strengths or weakness.
Click to expand...
Was that before or after the enlightened era?
 
parklane1 said:
Sums it up, stats are a tool to be used but they only tell half a story in most cases.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. It's the people interpreting the stats because they are factual bits of information about a player. Baseball, NFL, NHL and NBA use stats in determining their purchases and also whether they keep players. Why? Because they are a method of removing bias from a decision.

People here have joked about the black box and algorithms, but this is a source of competitive advantage. The better your interpretation of stats, the better the decisions you are going to make. There are literally thousands and thousands of players out there. What stats will allow you to do is to perform an assessment of a player that you may have missed. By its very nature, it will give you much more reach than you otherwise would have had.

I'm interested to see what happens with the Brentford experiment. It's a great case of someone putting their money where their mouth is. If you think that the stats they are using just relates to goals scored, assists or key passes, then I think you are over simplyfying what they are actually doing. If their system works, then they could sell it for hundreds of millions.

Personally I think that you need both. Use statistics to identify targets, scout them and then buy them, then use stats to assess the success of that transfer. The Brentford experiment if it works as they think it will, can completely turn it on its head. People will point towards failures of "black box signings" but really every so called failure will be used to improve the interpretation which is no more than understanding why the transfer failed.
 
Gazzasrightboot said:
Absolutely. It's the people interpreting the stats because they are factual bits of information about a player. Baseball, NFL, NHL and NBA use stats in determining their purchases and also whether they keep players. Why? Because they are a method of removing bias from a decision.

People here have joked about the black box and algorithms, but this is a source of competitive advantage. The better your interpretation of stats, the better the decisions you are going to make. There are literally thousands and thousands of players out there. What stats will allow you to do is to perform an assessment of a player that you may have missed. By its very nature, it will give you much more reach than you otherwise would have had.

I'm interested to see what happens with the Brentford experiment. It's a great case of someone putting their money where their mouth is. If you think that the stats they are using just relates to goals scored, assists or key passes, then I think you are over simplyfying what they are actually doing. If their system works, then they could sell it for hundreds of millions.

Personally I think that you need both. Use statistics to identify targets, scout them and then buy them, then use stats to assess the success of that transfer. The Brentford experiment if it works as they think it will, can completely turn it on its head. People will point towards failures of "black box signings" but really every so called failure will be used to improve the interpretation which is no more than understanding why the transfer failed.
Click to expand...


Without a doubt stats are important and they can tell you what to expect from a player, but only to a point. You have to watch and see a player to find out if the stats are realistic in what skills you are looking for in a player. Stats can ( and have been) wrong and can be misleading. As you say there are several ways of judging a player, stats are a tool to help you do that but in real time anyone who uses stats as definite way of proving a point are likely to have made the wrong decision.
 
parklane1 said:
Without a doubt stats are important and they can tell you what to expect from a player, but only to a point. You have to watch and see a player to find out if the stats are realistic in what skills you are looking for in a player. Stats can ( and have been) wrong and can be misleading. As you say there are several ways of judging a player, stats are a tool to help you do that but in real time anyone who uses stats as definite way of proving a point are likely to have made the wrong decision.
Click to expand...

I agree with that premise. Brentford are challenging that, so I am very interested to see how that will work out for them because they are quite literally testing the theory.
 
Hey, if he's still here, no biggie. I still think he's got talent we haven't seen, and I'd like to see Poch give him one more season to display it. Although, looking at our net spend, it does mean that we'll either see two cheap additions tomorrow for the CF and DM positions (perhaps Pato and a Stambo-clone), or just the one expensive addition (Berahino, or perhaps, perhaps, Witsel o_O ). And even those possibilities are dependent on shifting at least two of Lennon, Carroll, Fazio and (perhaps) Townsend.
 
Gazzasrightboot said:
I agree. I think with more movement ahead of him, both he and Eriksen will flourish. If Poch has blocked it, it's obvious that Poch sees something in him.
Click to expand...

Yep, I am gobsmacked that there are a few fans who are starting to question the ability of Eriksen, we have so little movement from our attacking players and is one of the reasons why we keep going side to side, hopefully our two new forward recruits will change that and we will see the best of Eriksen and hopefully Lamela as well.
 
Gazzasrightboot said:
I agree. I think with more movement ahead of him, both he and Eriksen will flourish. If Poch has blocked it, it's obvious that Poch sees something in him.
Click to expand...

I hope it's because Poch wants to persevere with him. The other possibility is that we've simply given up on securing Berahino/another player to occupy a wing-forward slot, and thus need Lamela around for numbers, if nothing else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back