Wenger's Record - Is it really that Bad?

[ToledoTrumpton]

wriggling out of a daft 'big-head' remark you made, with nothing to back it up...

I would have thought you would just keep quiet seeing it was your "daft big-head" comment that started this.

Originally Posted by Bergkamp a Dutch master

bollocks - stats is about liklihood with a view to past performance.

Eight years ago stats would have said Arsenal to win the League 4 times in the next 8 years.

[Bergkamp a Dutch master]

OK Mr Stats - you win. I cannot be arsed to wait for you to substantiate your nonsense.

[PNEawf]

In order to prove that I was talking rubbish you would need to disprove my statement.

All I said was that making a definitive statement such as saying that Arsenal would win 4 out of 8 was not something that a statistition would say because it had an element of certainty no statistition would claim. My statement was far more moderate and as you well know was based on an opinion. It is your wild statement that shows a lack of knowledge about statistics, not my more moderate statement.

You are using an argumentitive tactic to distract the reader away from the obvious statistical conclusion that can be drawn from the data.

The FACT is you have no logical ground to challenge the statement so you go after me personally. That is why, quite rightly, you get banned from the forum on occasion.

No, it is up to the person making the statement to show it is true. Think about it. Any statement that is impossible to disprove, such as disproving a negative, would automatically have to be considered true!!!

[ToledoTrumpton]

[QUOTE=PNEawf;2254941]No, it is up to the person making the statement to show it is true. Think about it. Any statement that is impossible to disprove, such as disproving a negative, would automatically have to be considered true!!![/QUOTE

That was actually the point I was making.

[Bergkamp a Dutch master]

.

[PNEawf]

[QUOTE=ToledoTrumpton;2255192]

No, it is up to the person making the statement to show it is true. Think about it. Any statement that is impossible to disprove, such as disproving a negative, would automatically have to be considered true!!![/QUOTE

That was actually the point I was making.

Sorry, but it really wasn't. You were saying the opposite and claiming he would have to prove you wrong:

In order to prove that I was talking rubbish you would need to disprove my statement.

Jayram and him showed you that his statement was in fact perfectly correct, and anyone who knows anything about stats will also tell you that his statement is perfectly valid. That is what stats are about

Why am I bothering?

(Do you have another account under the name 'Thefanwithnoname'?

[ToledoTrumpton]

[QUOTE=PNEawf;2255679]

Sorry, but it really wasn't. You were saying the opposite and claiming he would have to prove you wrong:



Jayram and him showed you that his statement was in fact perfectly correct, and anyone who knows anything about stats will also tell you that his statement is perfectly valid. That is what stats are about

Why am I bothering?

(Do you have another account under the name 'Thefanwithnoname'?

Honestly, I haven't a clue what you are talking about. Someone came on here and said "Eight years ago stats would have said Arsenal to win the League 4 times in the next 8 years". I said that making a definitive statement like that showed a lack of knowledge about statistics and suddenly I am under fire and being insulted.

If that is the reason you lot are upset with Wenger and Arsenal, because you really believed this, and so decided to support Arsenal, then that is the funniest thing I have read on here yet. Yeah, you are absolutely right and you know what, I have a lottery ticket with last week's numbers on it, and looking at last week the statistics say that it will win this week. I'll sell it to you for a million quid, that will mean you make a huge profit!

[PNEawf]

[QUOTE=ToledoTrumpton;2256282]

Honestly, I haven't a clue what you are talking about. Someone came on here and said "Eight years ago stats would have said Arsenal to win the League 4 times in the next 8 years". I said that making a definitive statement like that showed a lack of knowledge about statistics and suddenly I am under fire and being insulted.

If that is the reason you lot are upset with Wenger and Arsenal, because you really believed this, and so decided to support Arsenal, then that is the funniest thing I have read on here yet. Yeah, you are absolutely right and you know what, I have a lottery ticket with last week's numbers on it, and looking at last week the statistics say that it will win this week. I'll sell it to you for a million quid, that will mean you make a huge profit!

This only goes to show that you neither understand statistics nor probability.

[theHotHead]

In answer to the original question - no not for the first 8 years, but yes for the last 7 years

[ToledoTrumpton]

[QUOTE=PNEawf;2257135]

This only goes to show that you neither understand statistics nor probability.

Please don't start that again...

[Bergkamp a Dutch master]

I repeat you insisted that statistics showed a replacement for Wenger would not do as well in the PL.
I countered that rubbish by saying if you relied on immediate previous data, Arsenal would have won 4 titles during the last 8 years.....
Since those posts you have never explained the point you made. I also pointed out that many replacement managers do far better than those they succeeded.
over to you.

[theHotHead]

I'll add to this: How many replacement managers in the past 3 years have taken the club backwards ? I can't think of many, probably only Hodgson at Liverpool but he wasn't even given a season so ... who knows how they would've turned out. You can't argue that King Kenny didn't make a massive differece, and again you can't argue that Hodgson didn't make a big difference at Fulham. Then you have Pardew at Newcastle, Allardyce at West Ham, Hughes at Fulham, Mancini at Citeh ... etc etc

[The Magic Man]

Kean?
AVB?

Hughes? How many games?
Kenny - They are still **** after spending shed loads.
Allardyce - Championship.

[Bergkamp a Dutch master]

Hothead : I wasn't going to bother with FACTS - but thank you for evidence instead of unsubstantiated rubbish.

[theHotHead]

Magic Man, if I had the time or inclination I could go through all the managerial transfers during the past 3 years and there would be far more managers that turned things around than those that didn't. Very few managerial changes end up taking the club backwards.

[Bergkamp a Dutch master]

the exception might be AVB

[theHotHead]

Kean?
AVB?

Hughes? How many games?
Kenny - They are still **** after spending shed loads.
Allardyce - Championship.

Kean I will accept, AVB I won't. He has been tasked with changing the cloub totally and rebuilding it so of course that will take time.
Hughes took Fulham forward. Allardyce has taken West Ham to the top of the table and they should be promoted. Hughton took Newcastle straight back to the Premiership. Kenny's team is above us AND in a final. Progress from Hodgson I think you can agree.

[Bergkamp a Dutch master]

we beg to differ over AVB - even the Ruskie is supervising training now ..

[ToledoTrumpton]

Magic Man, if I had the time or inclination I could go through all the managerial transfers during the past 3 years and there would be far more managers that turned things around than those that didn't. Very few managerial changes end up taking the club backwards.

So if Man City win the league and sack Mancini anyway, you would put all your money on the next manager finishing better than 1st?

[ToledoTrumpton]

I repeat you insisted that statistics showed a replacement for Wenger would not do as well in the PL.
I countered that rubbish by saying if you relied on immediate previous data, Arsenal would have won 4 titles during the last 8 years.....
Since those posts you have never explained the point you made. I also pointed out that many replacement managers do far better than those they succeeded.
over to you.

The difference between statistics in high school an statistics in the real world is that when you use statistics to justify an investment or a business decision, you must represent those statistics fairly and be more moderate in your claims.

I realise that this is a forum and being right is secondary to winning the argument, but my moderate claim that "But replacing him is statistically far more likely to result in us finishing out of the top 4, than in it." Is not saying catagorically that something will happen based on statistics. This is how statistics are used. I'll maintain my assertion that this shows a lack of understanding of statistics on your part, and how they are used in the real world.

As Wenger has a perfect record of finishing in the top 4, my claim is not very hard to make. Winning 4 out of 8 as a certainty is not a conclusion that someone who works with statistics for a living would come to, because it is not .

Now please stop this attack on me,because it is totally without merit. I will admit I was rude, but if you will be rude to me then you have got to expect it to be handed back.