• 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

Set Pieces

scaramanga said:
I don't think that opinion holds when @Pirate55 is cherry picking in that way. He's restricting this to only goals that are scored directly from a set piece or where the next touch is s goal.

So we could have scored 0 under his definition, but 20 from situations just after set pieces. Other teams could have scored 10 directly under his method of counting but 0 in the touches shortly after. In which case, trying to emulate those other teams would lessen our chances of scoring.
Click to expand...

In fairness to him. I seem to remember on the many "Crossing is useless" threads people doing the same thing, posting studies that counted goals from crosses only if they were directly from the cross or the next touch.
 
billyiddo said:
I know it has been your opinion but I always assumed you were basing it something concrete - last season i seem to recall you using our relatively low position on the set piece goals table as proof of our poor set pieces but now this season we are quite well placed on that table you seem to be dismissing it...
Click to expand...

We did quite well from set pieces last season. P55 was cherry picking a different set of data then and ignoring anything that contradicted it.
 
Pirate55 said:
As Scara and others know, I don't have much faith in stats - as the underlying sources/definitions must be thoroughly interrogated before any reliance at all is placed on them. This healthy scepticism comes from having studied Statistics as part of my course at Cambridge.

You will no doubt have seen my critique of SteveAwols two posts in the Gooner thread showing two very different xG results from that game. He agreed the methodology still needs to be tightened up and that it was a "blunt instrument".

It again demonstrates that those that use stats in football to argue a particular point can equally be misled. The only stats that can be definitively relied upon in my opinion are those that are factual - i.e. numbers of goals, corners, free-kicks. Those are totally objective and verifiable. Others such as possession, xG, accuracy of pass are subjective and reliant on someone's opinion to make a judgement. It may or may not be based on some arbitrarily laid down "rules" but in the final analysis, it is not, repeat, not based on actual facts.

Be truthful now, how many of the goals identified above by Nayim as coming from corners or free-kicks would you call as actually having been directly created from that dead-ball situation? You still haven't identified for me the five goals you put forward by Who.scored ?
Click to expand...

Pirate55 said:
You accept it like an uncritical lemming if you wish, others have a more intellectual approach to how statistics are derived.
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying and tend to agree with a lot of it. Stats are a tool and can be handy, but they are neither useless or a without question, unfortunately there are those on here who do both. Those that swear that they are infallible are just as foolish as those that disregard them all together.
 
Pirate55 said:
As Scara and others know, I don't have much faith in stats - as the underlying sources/definitions must be thoroughly interrogated before any reliance at all is placed on them. This healthy scepticism comes from having studied Statistics as part of my course at Cambridge.

You will no doubt have seen my critique of SteveAwols two posts in the Gooner thread showing two very different xG results from that game. He agreed the methodology still needs to be tightened up and that it was a "blunt instrument".

It again demonstrates that those that use stats in football to argue a particular point can equally be misled. The only stats that can be definitively relied upon in my opinion are those that are factual - i.e. numbers of goals, corners, free-kicks. Those are totally objective and verifiable. Others such as possession, xG, accuracy of pass are subjective and reliant on someone's opinion to make a judgement. It may or may not be based on some arbitrarily laid down "rules" but in the final analysis, it is not, repeat, not based on actual facts.

Be truthful now, how many of the goals identified above by Nayim as coming from corners or free-kicks would you call as actually having been directly created from that dead-ball situation? You still haven't identified for me the five goals you put forward by Who.scored ?
Click to expand...

Pirate55 said:
You accept it like an uncritical lemming if you wish, others have a more intellectual approach to how statistics are derived.
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying and tend to agree with a lot of it. Stats are a tool and can be handy, but they are neither useless or a without question, unfortunately there are those on here who do both. Those that swear that they are infallible are just as foolish as those that disregard them all together.
 
Modric THFC said:
In fairness to him. I seem to remember on the many "Crossing is useless" threads people doing the same thing, posting studies that counted goals from crosses only if they were directly from the cross or the next touch.
Click to expand...
If we were measuring our ability to score from crosses vs other teams that would matter. But we were comparing crosses to other types of assists - such a through ball and cut backs.

These are all measured in the same manner and are comparable to each other.

If you're not convinced by that, just look at the percentage of a team's attempts/key passes/goals that come from crosses against their average league positions.
 
milo said:
In their defence, I think that a lot of politicians and journalists are ignorant of how to interpret and use statistics. They get away with it because the majority of the public are too.
Click to expand...

Ignorant and stupid, a lot from all sides of the house do not know the difference between our national debt and our defecit.
 
parklane1 said:
I hear what you are saying and tend to agree with a lot of it. Stats are a tool and can be handy, but they are neither useless or a without question, unfortunately there are those on here who do both. Those that swear that they are infallible are just as foolish as those that disregard them all together.
Click to expand...

When it comes to a discussion comparing our return from a certain type of play against other clubs they are unavoidable.
 
scaramanga said:
Your mum doesn't know the difference between our national debt and our defecit
Click to expand...

As she is dead and has been for 15 years she does not know anything. Not that she was a particularly clever or interested in the world sort of person anyway. Good heart on here except for the Catholic thing.

More importantly our elected leaders and opposition do not understand basic economics that even someone like me understands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back