parklane1
Tony Galvin
My thoughts as well, but it just goes to prove a point that i have made before, stats can be used falsely to push a point that the user wants to try and make.
-
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
Moussa Sissoko
- Thread starter Jordinho
- Start date
My thoughts as well, but it just goes to prove a point that i have made before, stats can be used falsely to push a point that the user wants to try and make.
The inference in the article is that the inclusion of that midfielder is due to the injuries and unavailability of what was the first choice midfield. The article also states that Sissoko is unlikely to be a part of a possession-based midfield, so it's a fairly short link between the two.
We're not playing possession football because our suitable midfielders are unavailable. We're playing Sissoko because our suitable midfielders are unavailable. Those two statements are not the same but they make the same point.
90291Spur
Paul Walsh
And yet somehow we are in the top four and the final of the CL. Even if that’s despite Sissoko it is with Sissoko. Moussa Sissoko. Oh, Moussa Sissoko! Altogether now! Oh...
monkeybarry
Jack Jull
Fixed
In the top 4 shouldn't be the top end of our ambitions. Our team with the 2016 Dier/Dembele midfield would have run City close for the title IMO.
90291Spur
Paul Walsh
This season it was though . You might not have noticed the actual circumstances of the league this year (with our injuries/WC hangover) due to your painful priapism over M. Sissoko. And our team of 2016 with the Mackay/Blanchflower midfield also would have done so. even if Greaves had picked up a few injuries along the way because Chivers would have come off the bench.
We've spent much of it with Son instead of Kane too. I'm not sure that would lead anyone sane to suggest that when Kane is fit he should not take his place back.
monkeybarry
Jack Jull
likewise I wouldn't expect those people to dismiss Son's ability, progression of his weaknesses and overall benefit to the team because his first season wasn't all that great.
That's because Son's a lot better than Sissoko, which makes me realise I should have used Llorente as the example.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Total straw man and nonsense statement.
Scara isnt even talking about Sissoko as of his first season, but this.
And its an entirely valid point to suggest we have had little choice but to play Sissoko, and to accommodate him/make the best of it we have had to abandon our ball playing ways and switch to a much more direct style of football.
It is also entirely fair to assume we will be planning to return to our tried and tested possession based (and frankly much better) ways at the earliest opportunity.
Neither of which is trying to slate Sissoko, its simple observation.
fernadez
Dean Austin
That's an invalid inference that you have chosen to conclude though. There is a big difference between a valid argument and a true one. You've simply set up a conclusion that draws from premises that suit your argument. You can use valid logical form to argue anything without it being a sound argument. Your argument was that Sissoko is not very good, nowhere either in that article or your inference of the article is that supported.
We have transitioned to a more direct style which is a result of the possession players we had being unavailable. As I said a few posts above, we're not playing the way we do because of Sissoko, we're playing the way we do because we don't have the people who could. If Sissoko could then we would be IMO.
The graph below shows the effect of our change in style on our xG. Now clearly (as we've seen this season) xG doesn't track perfectly with results, but I think it's safe to say that it will level over time and that a negative trend in both xGfor and xGagainst has a bad longer term outlook. That xG change has really been in place since we shifted our playing style:
As we're showing charts, Sissoko's has been updated since the November one I've posted before. I've been told that his improvement this season will make a massive difference to his radar - computer says no. Worth noting that his passing% has had a massive increase since his pass it to the linesman days, but what stands out most to me is that he's not even nearly elite at anything at all - not even in dribbling and tackling, the things he's supposed to be really good at.
For someone in his position, the deep progressions are a worrying figure. For someone in a Poch team, the pressures/regains are terrible.
"Very limited in ball retention" - I'd say that's pretty damning for a midfielder in what aspires to be a top level midfield. Even the part that tries to compliment him can only reach "capable".
Which goes to show that a good enough forward line can carry passengers like him and Milner. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be upgraded at the first opportunity.
papaspur
Kasey Keller
Maybe Sissoko reads this thread and uses scara's post to drive himself into a hulk rage....thaaaat's why nothing was coming down the right second-half, and it was all coming down the left and centre...thanks for clearing that up.
I'd suggest you let it go, but in some perverse universe, your myopia regarding Sissoko is possibly proving talismanic. Thus, carry on!!!!!
glasgowspur
Luka Modric
I don't think there is anybody on this forum saying that we shouldn't upgrade any player when possible.
Roland Beurre
Richard Gough
Man: Is this the right room for an argument?
Other Man
John Cleese) I've told you once.Man: No you haven't!
Other Man: Yes I have.
M: When?
O: Just now.
M: No you didn't!
O: Yes I did!
M: You didn't!
O: I did!
M: You didn't!
O: I'm telling you, I did!
M: You did not!
O: Oh I'm sorry, is this a five-minute argument, or the full half hour?
M: Ah! (taking out his wallet and paying) Just the five minutes.
O: Just the five minutes. Thank you.
O: Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not!
O: Now let's get one thing quite clear: I most definitely told you!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument!
(pause)
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
(pause)
M: It's just contradiction!
O: No it isn't!
M: It IS!
O: It is NOT!
M: You just contradicted me!
O: No I didn't!
M: You DID!
O: No no no!
M: You did just then!
O: Nonsense!
M: (exasperated) Oh, this is futile!!
(pause)
O: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is!
(pause)
M: I came here for a good argument!
O: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument!
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
O: Well! it CAN be!
M: No it can't!
M: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
O: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.
O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!
M: Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'.
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
O: It is NOT!
M: It is!
O: Not at all!
M: It is!
(The Arguer hits a bell on his desk and stops.)
O: Thank you, that's it.
M: (stunned) What?
O: That's it. Good morning.
M: But I was just getting interested!
O: I'm sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes just now!!
O: I'm afraid it was.
M: (leading on) No it wasn't.....
O: I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.
thfcsteff
George Hunt
Man: Is this the right room for an argument?
Other Man
Man: No you haven't!
Other Man: Yes I have.
M: When?
O: Just now.
M: No you didn't!
O: Yes I did!
M: You didn't!
O: I did!
M: You didn't!
O: I'm telling you, I did!
M: You did not!
O: Oh I'm sorry, is this a five-minute argument, or the full half hour?
M: Ah! (taking out his wallet and paying) Just the five minutes.
O: Just the five minutes. Thank you.
O: Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not!
O: Now let's get one thing quite clear: I most definitely told you!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument!
(pause)
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
(pause)
M: It's just contradiction!
O: No it isn't!
M: It IS!
O: It is NOT!
M: You just contradicted me!
O: No I didn't!
M: You DID!
O: No no no!
M: You did just then!
O: Nonsense!
M: (exasperated) Oh, this is futile!!
(pause)
O: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is!
(pause)
M: I came here for a good argument!
O: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument!
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
O: Well! it CAN be!
M: No it can't!
M: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
O: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.
O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!
M: Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'.
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
O: It is NOT!
M: It is!
O: Not at all!
M: It is!
(The Arguer hits a bell on his desk and stops.)
O: Thank you, that's it.
M: (stunned) What?
O: That's it. Good morning.
M: But I was just getting interested!
O: I'm sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes just now!!
O: I'm afraid it was.
M: (leading on) No it wasn't.....
O: I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.
A fantastic summary. To think, I thought this thread was a cheese shop, yet it has simply turned out to be spam spam spam spam...