Having t's dotted and eyes crossed according to Baz's twitter feed. Or something like that. Apparently it's not a computer game.
Tufan has more goals than assists for us. Does that make him a striker? If it does your head in, you know where the ignore button is. I make use of it.
He's certainly playing like one and looking like one, so at what point are we allowed to refer to him as one? I certainly wouldn't try to pigeon-hole him as a centre-mid as he's hardly played as one for us and he's proving most effective as a false 9. Were Peter Swan or Steve Claridge centre-halves or strikers? Did it depend on which position or club they were playing in/for at the time? They could be adept at both ( Claridge more - so than Swan obviously - sorry Swanny if you read this ****e... ) Oh, and is that ignore button part of that magnanimity you were on about the other day when you're proven wrong?
When Seri's there and in position, he's actually very underrated defensively. He does tidy up really nicely at times, it's just that you can run past him as if he's standing still and that gets targeted. It really doesn't help that you can do the same to Slater mind.
seri 5-6 years ago was very mobile theres a reason he was linked with barca now though, he's about as mobile as rover tiger
I seem to remember from the very little bit I saw of him when he played for Nice that he played higher up. I certainly remember him scoring more regularly
Wouldn’t take it too serious Syd he used passing accuracy to back up his point. De Bruyne has a **** passing accuracy because he tries the hardest passes. Would anyone say he’s not the best passer in the world?
Yes, pretty conclusively. But Mika is just a complete joke in that department. The stats go back a decade ago to when he was in Portugal and he's averaged a pass success rate of 88.9%. So then you'd think he's just playing safe, simple balls but then his key passing stats are ridiculously good too. KDB's pass completion is still higher than Tom's.... yet he makes the hardest passes and is a chance creation machine. His key passes are also off the charts.
Who the **** cares what his pass success rate is and how does that make such a subjective discussion so conclusive?
First, you'd need to set the parameters in order to define 'better' then establish the relevant data which would prove or disprove a null hypothesis... From what I remember of my uni days... Generally speaking though, the validity of statistical interpretation generally depends on a sound methodology, which nerding on footie sites and making far over-reaching conclusions based on a clear, pre-determined bias certainly isn't. My issue with xG is precisely that as a concept it is inherently subjective - and there's no standard, nor is it even possible to statistically define a 'good chance' so there never can be an actual standard. Stats are often a pretty blunt instrument and inherently limited in what can be extrapolated from them. However, what you can do is point to the 4th best defensive record ( goals conceded) and 10th on form (points accumulated relative to the competition) over 28 games of a season and rebuff the idea that it is rational to predict a bottom half finish based on the manager in question's prior record at the club over an extended run of games. You can also rebuff the idea that someone is a championship ready 'ball winning DM' based on worse ball winning (successful tackles) stats in the championship whilst attaining fewer senior minutes than a spangly 19 year old winger who only signed from non-league 7 months ago. One can often make quite broad assumptions, but stats by their very nature will never be qualitative. The only team stats that really matter in football are goals for, goals against and points accumulated over a significant number of games. Basically, the stats the league table is built on.
