Just a general point, but it wouldn't be the first time that a statistic has been presented and assumed to be true without being checked. It's done all the time even by reputable broadcasters. And don't get me started on the number of times I hear a financial cost of something given without reference to whether it's for a particular period or in total. Lots of times it doesn't make a difference as it can only mean the total, but many times it could easily be for a period of time instead.
Very true, VH. I'm getting very sick of hearing how much money we've spent on players in the summer, as it's always a gross figure given and it completely ignores our sales. We made a profit. It's completely incomparable with Chelsea's net spend of about £80m or the £40m and £30m that the two Manchester clubs parted with. I think that there are actually only a couple of clubs who spent less than we did, yet we're being held up as a big spender.
I can't entirely disagree, although that may be easier said than done, depending on circumstances. It still seems to me that if you withdraw all your major outlets, and potential attacking threats, you simply invite more pressure, as the opposition has little fear of being hit by a counter attack.
I can understand that, i.e. taking Defoe off and leaving Ade on may have been better as he can hold the ball up well. The counter to that is leaving Defoe on who can hit them on the counter better, thus pushing their defenders back.
The negative substitutions is one thing, its the timing that bugs me. If we're trailing and need to change something then fine, but subbing when we're winning with over 20mins to go invites pressure, and gives the opposition time to adjust. Surely our players are fit enough to do 80 minutes, which is another thing...they don't! We look knackered at the end of games, so again there's a training issue...laying at the feet of the manager.
Watching the interview yesterday I thought AVB was beginning to look and sound more like a winner. Come on son,show them they were wrong,I have to say that you're doing ok.
For me, what really needs to be analysed is how he was clean shaven for the kick off - but had his stubble back in time for the post match interviews. Just how fast does his stubble grow?
Apologies guys, I was out of the country not long before I wrote that post, and then again since, hence my lack of contribution to the conversation. I take some of the comments that my opinion piece was repetitive of previous threads and media coverage, again I'm going to blame this on my lack of presence in the country. Some interesting thoughts, some of which I agree with, some I don't. We can only analyse what is in front of us at the time of expressing opinion, and that is where I based my thoughts. The stat was given to me by what I consider a reliable source, but I understand these can often be made up. The important thing for me is we are behind where we were last year, whichever way you look at it. The team haven't been playing anywhere near as well and we have a lot of work to do IMO. HOWEVER before the glass half empty comment returns, I think (as mentioned in my original post) there is definitely light at the end of the tunnel. A couple of good signings, and if we can pick up more points in some of the key matches (Chelsea, City, Arsenal, Newcastle, Everton) then I think we will finish in the top 4.
The key points for me that have been made in this thread are: 1 - 8 changes in first XI since last year 2 - new manager 3 - close, or under zero spent (net) 4 - 4th in the table My verdict: Well done AVB so far.
I'd only add "severe injury problems," including losing our top three, and 4/5 of our best defensive mids/playmakers. And that we've only lost one and drawn one when Dembele started (and the losing goals came after he was subbed). I interpret this as "with anything like a squad in decent shape, AVB has won, what 80% of the time?" So: well done. Maybe even very well done--so far. But sixteen games means nothing. Everyone will judge AVB by how the season ends, not how it began.
Is that If games finished after 80 minutes you would be top stat true? I'f it is that must be pretty frustrating
It's probably not far off, if it is wrong. Not only have we thrown away a number of points late on in games, but those above us have nicked them, too. Very annoying.
Apparantly it is true, but as games last for 90 minutes, it has to be one of the most pointless stats ever.
What about the stat for teams that would be top for games that lasted 0-40 minutes and then 50-90 minutes, as its not fair when teams score before and after half time.
