Jammy…. One of two things happens in my view fella. 1. Either we keep playing the way we are, in which case results will turn. Eventually. If our players are as good as everyone says they are - IF they are - we can’t continue to create more chances than the opposition and not start winning games 2. Or the results cause confidence to ebb away and we start playing worse, in which case results won’t change… and we’re doomed. The new manager bounce thing - if the team is good enough - statistically (I know you love stats) it happens whether you change manager or not. Ie you’re just as likely to get an existing manager bounce if you stick with them. Form is cyclical. I’m not saying there aren’t good and bad managers, and that systems and the like don’t make a difference. Just that the stats say most managers get sacked when teams results are below expectations - and due an upturn anyway. There’s an argument it’s mainly about the players and the manager doesn’t really matter as much in the long term as people believe. No one wants to hear this but the research says that generally it’s the unlucky managers who get sacked after a bad run… and the new guy gets the benefit of an almost inevitable upturn. Don’t shoot the messenger. I think managers do matter!
That’s called the Gambler’s Fallacy, expecting things to change because..err..they just will, right? There was an infamous game of roulette played in Monte-Carlo on August 18, 1913, where the ball fell on black 26 times in a row. Gamblers lost millions expecting it to land on red along the way, making "the gambler's fallacy" famous.
yeh Brennan Johnson- when they showed it on tv he looked off.., from that angle it looks a tight call with wober in the middle
well it’s true that no matter what has gone on before - each head or tail is still a 50:50 call. Take our cup away draw run. Our next cup draw is still 50:50 chance of being home or away. However the chances of 13 on the trot going the same way? It’s thousands to one. Back to football - in our last 4 matches our xg has been better than our opponents - the chances of us not winning one of them? Really slim. Does that impact on the next match? … not at all. It’s just that what’s gone on before is an anomaly. Or it could just be that our opponents are better at kicking a ball into a net.
A dejected Bamford told the cameras, “I was saying in the changing room, their CBs only had me to concentrate on, the entire game it was 2v1 so we kind of needed more attackers to run by and drag them out of position”. A player stating in the dressing room why it never worked today, WHY wasn’t Jesse addressing that, everything just keeps pointing and screaming out that Jesse should never be coaching at PL standard. Blatantly obvious that Bamford has zero trust in him
Up to the powers that be to take action now. They’ve lots of material to go on suggesting they should sack him. Hopefully if they do they’ll manage to pick a better coach. And btw the defenders needn’t have worried about Paddy today either as he was more or less hopeless
Very possibly some truth, though we created plenty when he was playing in the first half and most of the match was spent camped in their half… and it’s hard to stretch a side who are camped on their 18 yard line. There is an alternate possibility. Paddy was sh*t and is making excuses and blaming others like he did at Brentford. Rodrigo: goals 10 xg 7 Bamford: goals 1 xg 5
I'm in danger of becoming emotionless, I just expect us to lose. The second half was a non event, I hardly broke sweat watching it, much like many of our players. Our LB position has been a disaster for ages, surely Wober takes the spot once Koch comes back on Wednesday, Struijk just isn't comfortable there.
You're gonna wish you didn't go down this route mate. 10 to 15 years ago I was a semi pro poker player so this stuff is right up my street. I've studied this stuff. Milky has touched on this but here we go. Roulette is purely chance. There's no skill involved. There are 37 numbers and it pays 35/1. A mugs game and should never be played for profit (only for fun if losing money is your thing). In your example it fell on black 26 times in a row. On the first spin of that run you had 18 black beds out of 37 beds in total (36 red and black and the green 0 which gives the house the advantage in odds EVERY SPIN). It was exactly the same chance on every spin in between and has been ever since. There's no skill, the odds are stacked against you every spin, a proper mugs game. I bet Elland plays it (threw that in to see if he's still reading!). On to poker. Poker has a big element of luck short term but over 100's of thousands of hands that element of luck diminishes until its pretty much a 100% game of skill. For example if you require a heart suited card to make your flush (5 hearts in your hand) and there are two cards to be dealt on the table, that gives you around a 36% chance you'll hit your flush (or approx 1 in 3). If there is £100 in the pot and you've only got £25 left in chips then you simply have to go all in as you have a 1 in 3 chance to win but you have 4/1 pot odds. That doesn't mean you win the pot this time, in fact you will lose it more often than you win it but if you consistently make the right mathematical decisions over thousands of hands then when you do win, you win at better odds than you should and there's your profit. It's about making the right mathematical decisions over and over. forza is a **** (just checking youre still there). Football is also a game of skill (Jury still out on Firpo and Struijk) and follows the same path as poker. Its not pure luck like roullette as Man City wouldn't always finish top end of the league if it was luck. With football, it's a little more difficult to ascertain the exact odds of say Sinisterra scoring the first chance yesterday or the odds for Gnonto scoring his chance but I'd estimate that if you gave Gnonto his chance 100 times he'd probably score at least 60 of them. Sinisterra from close range probably the same and the first chance probably 40 out of 100. I'd also say Bamford scores 25 out of 100 when he had his heavy touch. Johnson goal for Forest, with the crowded area in front of him, 25 yards out, on the volley, I'd estimate maybe 10 out of 100. His went in, ours didn't even though statistically our chances carried a greater threat. FWIW the linesman probably gives him offside 50% of the time when Struijk fouled him. Feel free to play with those numbers but I feel even Ristac, the miserable bastard (just checking he's still here), would struggle to juggle those figures in Forests favour. Yesterday was one game though and it's football and that can happen. We could revisit Brentford game where we had one or two opportunities and Brentford had very little. The Villa game. The Arsenal game. When you look back at the games and the stats, we've had the better of quite a lot of them. This is how expected goals is calculated by the way and why my knight in shining armour Milky (he'll defo still be reading this the geek) pushes that **** on us every week. It's tried and tested in other forms (including poker which is expected value) and is pretty accurate (and very profitable tool when used in poker btw, I've seen it and my wife has spent it). So, the faith I have in it turning around isn't blindly in Marsch like most people think. It's founded in tried and tested statistics and analysis that's also the reason the bookies had us as favourites for yesterday's game because guess what they do? They look at things like expected goals and usually come to the conclusion that we are a decent side who usually create more than the opposition. They don't care if we've won 2 out of 18 or whatever. They look at the evidence and say that if Leeds carry on playing the way they are they will win games. I'd rather trust a group of multi billion pound profit earning systems over Billys statues rants about Yanks (he won't be reading, I think I'm on ignore). My problem is that the system I believe in relies on a vast sample size to even out the luck (ever heard of things evening out over the season? I believe that one season is too small a sample size and thats why some very good teams sometimes unexpectedlygo down). We're 20 games in, have 18 left. I'm starting to think that 18 is a very small batch size from here and the matches which have gone before are gone. Having **** decisions, missing chances, opposition hitting goals they don't normally hit can easily carry on for a measly 18 games. However, we seem to still be on top of games and giving up less and less chances as we go. We look decent enough and I believe that as long as confidence doesn't get hit too hard and we keep dominating games that eventually some of these chances will be put away. Everton were coming 2nd best in every game and they rightly needed a change in direction, they weren't unlucky, they were **** and deservedly lost alot of games. On the flip side, look at our cup game at home vs Cardiff, everything we hit that day went in. The statistics probably levelled up a bit that day but we get no points on the board for it, just a load of fans saying "it was only Cardiff so we should win!" but if we had the same conversation rate yesterday as we did in the Cardiff home game we probably win 4-1 and we're all happy today. Any nerds stay with that because I dozed off twice typing it.
If I had read it, I might say it was a very good explanation of the skill/chance relationship in sport… I’d maybe only add that the chance of ‘unfair’ results is exacerbated by the low scoring nature of football… ie the average chances required to score a goal increases the uncertainty v say basketball.
Assuming the lines in the grass are straight it’s deceiving, measure the distance from each player to the line and he is onside, that camera angle favours the defender too. Either way you can analyse every marginal decision, you could go back a bit further and lay blame to the player who gave possession away. We never cleared the ball from the set piece, nobody was marking a player in a dangerous place, was Meslier slightly out of position Bottom line is, we had the better players, their coach utilised his players better over the course of 90 minutes by better utilising his substitutions and crowding out midfield, our coach decided all our attackers need to hug the left touchline Anyway, I’ve woken up this morning convinced Jesse will be out on his arse this week, I’m equally gutted that Armas will be in charge and wish there was a magical answer
I give us a good chance against Scum this week. They will come and attack us. We are good on the counter and the extra space might even give us even clearer chances to score. They are playing well at the moment and we have to defend well (I know). They might even hit us for 6 again if they hit everything right but if they have a game where they miss the odd chance and we capitalise on a couple of mistakes we might just get a few opportunities ourselves.
Sky looked at it side on and it was off on that angle and they all agreed. That's all I know mate, I was busy making a coffee and kicking the wife. I'm not gonna die on this "offside" Hill but it was widely accepted by the numpties on the idiot box.
