• 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

The Stats Thread

milo said:
There's an interesting article in Computer Weekly on Leicester's use of data analytics

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/...r-City-FC-won-Premiership-with-data-analytics
Click to expand...
Whilst I always encourage the use of fact-based decision making, I'm not convinced by the article itself.

The author starts off by celebrating the great work done in analytics but then follows it up with verbatim support of cryotherapy - an alternative treatment for which there is absolutely no evidence of efficacy. He also states a load of technology used by Leicester without having checked to see if other clubs do the same - I'd be very, very surprised if most teams aren't doing everything he mentions in the article.

Shame really - there's a good cause behind some fairly shoddy journalism there.
 
Players who have hit the goal posts/woodwork the most in EPL this season :

1.Romelu Lukaku (Everton) = 7 (Goals=18)
2.Harry Kane(Tottenham) = 6 (Goals=25)
3.Jamie Vardy(Leicester) =6 (Goals=24)
4.Ross Barkley(Everton) =5 (Goals=8)
5.Nathan Redmond(Norwich) = 5 (Goals=6)
6.Virgil van Dijk(Southampton) = 5 (Goals=3)

http://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2016/05/1...ukaku-is-the-premier-leagues-unluckiest-play/

-------------------------------------------

So, Kane hit the posts 6 times this season. Wonder if that means he was plain unlucky or should have been more clinical in front of goal. Also, not sure if the chance he had against Leicester when his shot was deflected on to the post by the goalie is included as a hit on the post or a save by the goalie.
 
Spurs7891 said:
Players who have hit the goal posts/woodwork the most in EPL this season :

1.Romelu Lukaku (Everton) = 7 (Goals=18)
2.Harry Kane(Tottenham) = 6 (Goals=25)
3.Jamie Vardy(Leicester) =6 (Goals=24)
4.Ross Barkley(Everton) =5 (Goals=8)
5.Nathan Redmond(Norwich) = 5 (Goals=6)
6.Virgil van Dijk(Southampton) = 5 (Goals=3)

http://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2016/05/1...ukaku-is-the-premier-leagues-unluckiest-play/

-------------------------------------------

So, Kane hit the posts 6 times this season. Wonder if that means he was plain unlucky or should have been more clinical in front of goal. Also, not sure if the chance he had against Leicester when his shot was deflected on to the post by the goalie is included as a hit on the post or a save by the goalie.
Click to expand...
I'd be interested to see it as a proportion of shots taken.
 
Spurs7891 said:
EPL top eight mini-league 2015-16

1. West Ham: 25 points (+8 GD)
2. Manchester United: 22 points (-3 GD)
3. Southampton: 21 points (+3 GD)
4. Leicester: 21 points (+2 GD)
5. Tottenham: 20 points (+8 GD)
6. Arsenal: 19 points (+1 GD)
7. Liverpool: 14 points (-4 GD)
8. Emirates Marketing Project: 7 points (-15 GD)

In contrast, we have a poor record against the top 10 teams, getting just 26 out of 54 points and winning just 6 out of 18 matches. But we have done better against the bottom 10 teams, getting 44 out of 57 points and winning 13 out of 19 matches.

It is clear we have to improve our record against the big teams next season if we want to fight for league title again.
Click to expand...
I agree that we should aim to improve our record against every sort of opposition, but we are above all the usual suspects bar MU, and are 1 point worse off than the Champions, so it's not like we have thrown it away vs the top teams!
 
scaramanga said:
Whilst I always encourage the use of fact-based decision making, I'm not convinced by the article itself.

The author starts off by celebrating the great work done in analytics but then follows it up with verbatim support of cryotherapy - an alternative treatment for which there is absolutely no evidence of efficacy. He also states a load of technology used by Leicester without having checked to see if other clubs do the same - I'd be very, very surprised if most teams aren't doing everything he mentions in the article.

Shame really - there's a good cause behind some fairly shoddy journalism there.
Click to expand...

Articles like that always come out when something a little out of the ordinary happens in football. I remember reading one about how revolutionary Swansea and Gary Monk's training methods were because they finished the previous season off fairly strongly. We all know how that turned out.

As you say, I'd say 99% of the teams in the league do everything that Leicester are doing, including the cryotherapy. Even though it's not proven to work, it does no harm to do it anyway.
 
Millsy_Yiddo said:
Articles like that always come out when something a little out of the ordinary happens in football. I remember reading one about how revolutionary Swansea and Gary Monk's training methods were because they finished the previous season off fairly strongly. We all know how that turned out.

As you say, I'd say 99% of the teams in the league do everything that Leicester are doing, including the cryotherapy. Even though it's not proven to work, it does no harm to do it anyway.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately it might. People have died, others have had horrific injuries from this. We know nothing whatsoever about the longer term effects or even medium term for that matter. We know as much about the harm this can/may do as we do about its benefits (ie - nothing).

As with all medical treatments, we need to consider risk vs benefit. If there is no evidential benefit then there is no acceptable level of risk.

I agree with the rest of the post, there's a concerning number of journalists that just copy press releases (or, in this case, corporate adverts) verbatim and don't do any source checking or due diligence.
 
scaramanga said:
Unfortunately it might. People have died, others have had horrific injuries from this. We know nothing whatsoever about the longer term effects or even medium term for that matter. We know as much about the harm this can/may do as we do about its benefits (ie - nothing).

As with all medical treatments, we need to consider risk vs benefit. If there is no evidential benefit then there is no acceptable level of risk.

I agree with the rest of the post, there's a concerning number of journalists that just copy press releases (or, in this case, corporate adverts) verbatim and don't do any source checking or due diligence.
Click to expand...

I don't know the facts but I'm assuming those who have died/had bad injuries have done something particularly stupid in order for that to happen. Or should not have been undergoing the treatment (heart issues, old age etc) A pro footballer who's in there with a heart rate monitor and a doctor standing beside him is not the same. Even if the effect is just placebo and the players 'feel' fresher and the benefit is psychological, it's probably worth the risk IMO.
 
Millsy_Yiddo said:
I don't know the facts but I'm assuming those who have died/had bad injuries have done something particularly stupid in order for that to happen. Or should not have been undergoing the treatment (heart issues, old age etc) A pro footballer who's in there with a heart rate monitor and a doctor standing beside him is not the same. Even if the effect is just placebo and the players 'feel' fresher and the benefit is psychological, it's probably worth the risk IMO.
Click to expand...
They did, but that doesn't completely negate the risk.

If we're after a placebo, why not just give them a massive sugar pill? It's much safer.
 
scaramanga said:
They did, but that doesn't completely negate the risk.

If we're after a placebo, why not just give them a massive sugar pill? It's much safer.
Click to expand...

Footballer's are used to putting cold things on injuries and they already believe it helps them heal faster. So the jump from that to cold things helping you recover faster is not quite as big as 'take this magic pill, it will make you recover'. Cryotherapy is also an activity (like stretching and there's bugger all decent evidence for or against that either). Footballers are used to 'doing stuff' as part of their recovery. So the placebo effect is more likely to come about via the cryotherapy than the pill IMO.

Added to that, we 100% know that taking a sugar pill has no marked effect on recovery. We don't know 100% that cryotherapy doesn't or does have one. So when it's a procedure where it's very very unlikely to cause any harm (has there ever been a report of a footballer reporting an injury/problem related to cryotherapy?) for me, it makes sense to take the risk.
 
Teams who were in first place in the league this season :
Leicester = 25 weeks
Emirates Marketing Project = 6 weeks
Arsenal = 6 weeks
ManU = 1 week
Spurs was not in 1st place even for 1 day. It would have been an amazing feeling just to have been top for a week. But I guess no one can call us as bottlers in the title race. It is ManCity and Arsenal who bottled their title race. Remember, ManCity started the season with 5 wins, scoring 11, conceding none and were in first place until the 6th week. But they never regained the first place after that.
 
Spurs7891 said:
Teams who were in first place in the league this season :
Leicester = 25 weeks
Emirates Marketing Project = 6 weeks
Arsenal = 6 weeks
ManU = 1 week
Spurs was not in 1st place even for 1 day. It would have been an amazing feeling just to have been top for a week. But I guess no one can call us as bottlers in the title race. It is ManCity and Arsenal who bottled their title race. Remember, ManCity started the season with 5 wins, scoring 11, conceding none and were in first place until the 6th week. But they never regained the first place after that.
Click to expand...
I think that we were technically on top for 14 minutes when we were ahead against Le Gooners.
 
Ciu6NT8WsAAfLTg.jpg:small
 
Not sure but I think it may hitherto have gone unnoticed that this season we suffered our fewest ever league defeats in the top flight (6).* Even in the Double season we lost seven, albeit from four more games played.

A few other impressive top flight stats:
  • the best goal-difference (34) of any team in the top flight - first time we've achieved this since 1962-3
  • our highest finish for 26 years (since 1989-90)
  • our lowest goals-against total (35) since 1970-71
  • most goals scored (69) since 1985-86

All this whilst generally being recognised as the most exciting, attacking team in the EPL.

*edit: also fewest ever away defeats (3) since election to the Football League in 1908/09.

Well done you Spurs.
 
Last edited:
I've updates my database of Spurs matches, Spurs Since 1882. It now has over 7,200 games and most of the compatitive matches have line-ups, with over 70,000 player appearances.

There are two pages with interactive graphics providing easy access to the data, which can be displayed as season summary, interactive match record or a table of squad appearances. The first allows selection by season and the second allows selection by manager.

The database can be searched for matches in a flexible manner using the search form. You can select the matches by season, date, opponent, competition, managers and players (or combination of players together). The selections can be a mix of all these parameters, e.g. allowing selection of the league games King and Dawson played together under Redknapp.
 
While working on my fantasy teams today, I saw the next expected points/goals chart.
You can make very interesting conclusions seeing it.
For example, while scoring our chances and getting amount of goals we deserve, we're overachieving in defence because of two factors: bad finishing from opposing players/luck and Hugo Lloris.

w6co4joI7eI.jpg


ps: ty mods! <3
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back