No worries. Thansk and apologies for the mis-understanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawnmower
Printable View
No worries. Thansk and apologies for the mis-understanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawnmower
If we're looking purely at first team results, then you might have a point. With one exception, Warnock's team have not produced anything that could be called entertaining yet, but he's got the excuse that he inherited a team in the bottom three that was shaping up for a season long battle against the drop - what was Slade's excuse for the boring football his sides produced for two seasons? I say one exception because the Huddersfield match was a good game of football that was only equalled during Slade's time by the match with Brighton where I'm still trying to work out which of the two teams had been nobbled - maybe they both were?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris
Let's face it, Slade never did anything to suggest that he was interested in what was happening below first team level, whereas Warnock is attempting to shake up an Academy/Development team system which stagnated so much under our Russell. Also, Warnock's only been here about seven weeks and he's already met fans at Cardiff City Stadium, Pontypridd and Maesteg as well as paying a goodwill visit to that a company near Merthyr I believe it was, he's putting Slade (who, as far as I can recall, had just the one meeting with fans in two years) to shame in that department.
Don't judge all Slade critics by the same standards, I was supportive of him when he first arrived and defended him against those who, wrongly in my view, were against him from day one, but, after about six weeks or so, it became clear that all he could offer was a holding operation.
If a manager was only assessed on first team results, then Slade could be said to have done a decent job in testing circumstances, but there's more to it than that and he was either out of his depth or wasn't bothered about things like youth development (he's the worst Cardiff manager I've seen as far as that goes) or being an ambassador for the club - put that together with a transfer record which was mixed at best and it's clear that Warnock is as much in a different league to Slade as the two men's managerial record would suggest.
Average possession per game under Trolls - 45%
Average possession per game under Colin - 37%
Is that an improvement or is the question to complicated for you?
This from opta.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tandy
Opta now record possession in a football match by means of an automated calculation based on the number of passes that a team has in a game. We have two analysts, each monitoring one of the teams and they log each event in a game, totalling between 1600 and 2000 events per match.
Possession stats really mean very little in the grand scheme of things.
A shitload of 5yd passes between the defenders will boost your stats but wont indicate any dominance in a game.
YES
Trolls 11 games in charge and his teams achieved over 50% possession on 6 occasions.
Colin 8 games in charge and his teams have yet to achieve 50% possession on any occasion.
Is that an improvement?
Never mind a shed load of excuses Just answer the question. :facepalm:Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie
No excuse, but if you're going to cling to possession stats to win a debate then you should know how worthless they really are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tandy
Just had a quick look and Swansea had 40% possession against spurs on the weekend and from the result you can see how well that worked out for them.
In my opinion there is an ongoing improvement which will continue through the season, interesting to see what kind of business Warnock can get done in January.
you are trying to push water uphillQuote:
Originally Posted by Charlie
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by TISS
Are you saying that all football statistics are worthless or just the ones that you think are worthless?Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie
Tell us all which statistics you think are not worthless. To lend credibility to your debate.
The only completely worthwhile stat is the final score, all the rest are just dressing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tandy
I grew up watching football before stats were a thing,back then an assist was known as a pass or a cross.
Watching a game will give you a much better understanding of how a game went than umpteen stats telling you info that generally mean nothing.
Its just ,to me that possession stats are particularly worthless as they are judged on number of passes. The Swansea example should tell you that.
The OP is full of stats which you didn't question? Yet when I reply with some stats of my own you render them worthless.
The OP is trying to prove that we are improving under Colin using stats, I am countering is argument using some stats of my own.
I think the possession stat is the most important, you may believe a couple of 5 yard passes are meaningless but we seem to struggle to achieve such a feat.
I haven't looked at the link from the OP as i'm not a lover of stats in football,that's why i haven't made any mention of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tandy
You posted two possession stats and asked a question of them,which i did reply to just to point out how they are arrived at, not to question the validity of them.
If you think they are important,fine. I don't, particularly through knowing how they are calculated.
The more i witness Tandy's inane dribblings the more i'm leaning towards believing it's some nobhead like Barnett
I used to pay a lot of attention to those stats but if you were to check our friends down west, they have higher possession stats than the opposition in virtually every game and they are bottom of the league.:sherlock:Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie
Apart from the Trollopesque performance last Saturday, which was truly dire, I do think that he will get us out of the bottom three - particularly as he will be able to wheel and deal in the transfer/loan market next month.
It's not how long you hang on to the ball but what you do with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie
You are more likely to do something with it the longer you hang on to it. It's not rocket science:facepalm:
Is that a quote from a sex manual.:xmashehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tandy
:xmashehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by jeepster
I got that quote from the book of inane dribblings, written by GRINGO the king of the village idiots.
Can you enlighten us as to why you believe this is important? Slade's teams often veered towards 30% possession yet I can't remember you moaning then, you duplicitous bellend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tandy
Last season's Premier League champions had overall possession stats of 44.8%. Only Sunderland and West Brom had less of the ball. Obviously not keeping possession was a huge problem for the champions. In fact, none of the worst 5 teams in terms of possession were relegated. Leicester also had the 2nd worst pass success rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tandy
This season, Crystal Palace are 9th in the possession stats.
In the Championship, currently only 3 of the top 6 are in the top 3 in terms of possession stats - Birmingham are ranked 22nd. Wigan, 23rd in the table, are 7th in the possession stakes yet are the lowest scorers in the division.
You might want to keep masturbating furiously about possession stats to try and suit your agenda, but the reality is that they mean bugger all in the overall scheme of things. It's a pity you haven't the sense to notice this; actually, maybe not a pity in the sense that virtually everyone else is openly mocking your stupidity.
The top 6 teams in the premiership have the best possession percentages.
Anyone who thinks possession is not a relevant factor is as thick as shit.
We all know Eric is not the sharpest tool he's made a right tit of himself on this one.:xmashehe:
No they don't. Check them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tandy
While you're at it, can you explain Leicester's success without possession, or Wigan's utter failure with lots of it, or are you going to ignore this because it doesn't suit your agenda?