Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Norwich City' started by DUNCAN DONUTS, Dec 18, 2020.
I don't know much about pearls but Robbie posts alot of Rocky mountain oysters
"How good a chance was that?" And how good are you at judging it?
For a bit of fun, below is a video of the highlights from our away match against Stoke, in which 5 goals were scored. The challenge is to rate each chance on a scale of 1 to 10, where the higher the value, the better the chance. For comparison, I’ll post xG values for the goals later (Sunday).
Goal 1 — Buendia
Goal 2 — Pukki
Goal 3 — Pukki
Goal 4 — Campbell
Goal 5 — Collins
As for the thread, there's a simple solution for those who aren't interested; just ignore it and let those who are get on with it. The funniest thing of all is that posters who keep saying what rubbish it all is apparently can't tear themselves away from it!
He surely has no other life. To construct his numerous and laborious and lengthy posts must use up a serious % of his waking hours. Thankfully I, and most, if not all, of the rest of us, have other pursuits to occupy our waking hours/
You're not often right and you're wrong again. Far from ' can't tear myself away from it ' the first time I had read the thread was when I made my comment and the only reason I am here now is because of a note in my email box referring to your reply making, apparently, a biblical quote but there again don't get me going on religion!!! Stats which produce facts are invaluable but irrelevant unnecessary stats used to justify a pre-conceived point of view are a menace. When I went to University all those years ago I took a degree in Applied Mathematics which in todays terms was a degree covering Pure Mathematics and Business Finance which also meant that when I moved into work I was classed as a qualified Accountant. A lot of the course dealt with Stats and the misuse of stats to justify an argument and I distinctly remember lectures dealing with how misleading stats can be used to try and overturn facts using historical cases as an example. Historical evidence proves that the Battle of the Somme in WW1 was a stalemate with no winners. He produced papers setting out irrelevant stats on shell usage, human resource, etc one of which ' proved ' that Germany won the battle and the other that the Allies won. He also produced a paper of misleading stats to prove that Germany actually won WW2. In my years working in Company insolvency I was often presented with statistical analysis by the Company to prove that the Company could survive but it was always based on misleading stats. My decision had to be based on fact. Did the Company have any further borrowing capability? What were the assets? What were the debts and liabilities?
It is the same with football. The team that scores the most goals wins the game. The team that wins the game gets 3 points. The team that wins the most points in the season wins the league. The team that wins the league is the best team in the league. All of these are facts and are not changed by meaningless stats on attempts, running distances, passes made etc. I accept that such stats might be used by the coaching staff to improve certain aspects of performance but to the rest of us they are of no use whatsoever and to use those stats to try and prove that the team that won 1-0 on the day was not the best team is twaddle. The best team is the one that wins by scoring most goals - fact!!
League tables, match results, points etc., and which club is "best" (defined in those terms), matter only in so far as one supports this club or that. I'd be astonished if anyone who contributes to this forum were to claim that his (or her) interest in football extends no further than that. It's a fascinating game, with a complexity that defies easy understanding. Coaches don't just use statistical data (and the kind of analysIs such data make possible), to "improve certain aspects of performance"; even the best coaches in the world use it to improve their own detailed understanding of how the game works, how different teams play, and what's happening on the field as a match progresses. It's from insight gained that improvements in performance stem. Why wouldn't one want to improve, as far as possible, one's own understanding of the game in that way?
The frightening thing is that I think you are being serious. Since I was first taken to Carrow Road in 1950 I have been hooked on the game. I watch it because I enjoy it, find it entertaining and because every match is different. Even though I now live in France I have got access to Sky Sports, BT Sports, Amazon Prime and a very tolerant wife who prefers to pursue other hobbies - each to their own. I watch as many games as I can but have never felt the need to carry out a detailed statistical analysis of why I missed the games I didn't watch. Last night I watched Man City play Brighton. I enjoyed, for example, watching the artistry of Foden and De Bruyne and the effort and defensive organisation of Brighton but after the game I felt no overwhelming need to establish whether Foden controlled the ball more often with the inside of his left foot or the outside of his right foot or whether De Bruyne improved his passing accuracy before or after he adjusted his jock strap. Unfortunately my whole life has been devoid of such statistical information. I have never used a stopwatch to time myself between foreplay and orgasm to see if I performed better on hot or cold days nor do I keep notes to establish whether I fart more after eating sprouts or cauliflower. I obviously suffer a severe character deficiency another one being that I tend to take the piss out of subjects and people that I think deserve it. A further fault I have is that I get bored quite easily so my interest in the subject and this thread is at an end.
Stoke City 2:3 Norwich City (24/11/2020)
xG (rounded to the nearest whole number)
Goal 1 — Buendia 3/10
Goal 2 — Pukki 1/10
Goal 3 — Pukki 5/10
Goal 4 — Campbell 3/10
Goal 5 — Collins 1/10
I don't know how he comes up with these stats, I think the fact he finds them is often more impressive than the stat itself!
Cromer, that is not a stat, it is a fact.
True, but as we don't have a 'Facts' thread......
Where's Mike when you need him.
Mike would put in capitals: FACT!!!
please log in to view this image
Nice graphic example of what Kenny offers vs Rupp. At least by this metric, we have quite the selection of CMs for the Championship.
True. Vrančić is pretty close behind Kenny and Skipp makes 4 in the top quadrant.
The trouble with that type of bald number is that it provides no indication about what happened next, i.e. the productivity of the run or pass. In the case of progressive passes, for example, how many are successful? Or in the case of progressive runs, how many lead e.g. to loss of possession. Wyscout, on whose data the graphic is based, have a metric for % progressive pass success; it would have been useful to have that info for each player named.
That's one of the limitations of stats, as you should also factor in where passes are made. For Skipp that would be mainly in midfield, whereas McLean and Vrančić make many more in attacking areas where success is far more difficult.
More precisely, of the freely available stats. We live off the scraps provided by those who have access to a wider range and the software for analysing them. Re. pass location (indeed location generally), that data is now standardly collected by Statsbomb, Opta and other football data companies.
Going back to the graphic, DH is rightly cautious about drawing any conclusions, saying only that it provides an example of "what Kenny offers vs. Rupp". What chiefly interested the guy who tweeted it, was what NCFC having 4 in that quadrant implied about Farke, rather than anything about the individual players.