Point 1 - I agree stats are not just about individuals - I don't think my earlier post says otherwise merely that if you are looking at individuals within a team basis then the stats are likely to be more relevant in cricket than football. Point two yes cricketers do play at other grounds but if 50% of their activity takes place under their home conditions I would take this as statistically significant wouldn't you? The point about Cook was that by changing to Australia (or indeed Pakistan or India or anyone else) he would still perform to a similar standard regardless of the quality of his team mates as opposed to RvP who (in my opinion) would not score as many or get as many asissts if he played for a weaker team as he is reliant upon others to create chances for him whereas Cook controls his own fate. Don't know how you've come to the conclusion that I am unaware of any international cricket other than the Ashes but I can only assume that you've either misread my post (understandable given its length) or just not understood my point (which probably could have been clearer) Happy to have contstructive criticism but I'd prefer it if you actually criticised me for things I've actually said!
My point 1 was simply a response to your first sentence: "Personally I feel that stats are far more relevant to sports where reliance is on the individual rather than their team". You go on to argue that statistics for an individual mean more where performance depends more on the individual and less on the team in which he plays. If you'd said "Stats for an individual are more relevant to sports ..........." I would not have commented as I did. It was the lack of that qualification which prompted the comment. Again, my point about international cricket was a response to your saying "the batting averages of the great Aussie side of the 90s were made to look better than their English [counterparts] as they did not have to face Warne/McGrath but a far less talented English attack." That seemed to me to greatly exaggerate the effect on a players international batting record as such of having to face, or not having to face, Warne and McGrath. If you'd said you were comparing only the Aussie averages and the England averages in Ashes series, I again would not have made the comment I did. Regarding county cricket, yes I can see that "home" advantage could skew statistics which make no attempt to quantify that particular source of error. And I guess that almost certainly means the standard sort of stats that commonly get pumped out. But it needn't be like that and it is not due to any limitation in statistical methods that they are like that; it's just a matter of crudity on the part of those compiling the stats. (The more sophisticated player ranking systems we have now may actually correct for this kind of skewing, but I don't know enough about them to say whether or not they do.) I hope this convinces you that I was indeed commenting on things you actually said! Also, I don't think commenting is at all the same as criticising. My approach is that we are embarked on a common venture the aim of which is to improve our collective understanding and appreciation of football in general and NCFC in particular. Nothing personal in it at all. If "criticism" is an appropriate word to use, it is only in the sense in which one speaks of "literary criticism" or "a film critic".
OK - no offence taken however to clarify: 1. To say something is more relevant to one thing than another does not mean that the other has no relevance, just less (I think I can actually get away with "less" rather than "fewer" for once on this board!). This is what I said and what I believe. If you think differently that's fine, say so and comment on that and we can have a discussion of the relevance of stats in cricket as opposed to football which my post was about. 2. I do think that the Aussie batters in the 90's had inflated averages due to not facing their own bowlers. Take away other nations batters results against Australia during their period of dominance and their averages improve markedly (try Gooch/Hussain/Trescothick/Atherton for example). 3. Re: county cricket - yes, you can add information into a statistical model to make the results more accurate and reflect where the matches are played and against whom BUT the stat's we generally use are simple averages which would mean, as I tried to say, that batters on bowler-friendly pitches will have artidficially lower averages than those who play more often on flat pitches offering no help to the bowlers. Look at recent matches in Sri Lanka where both sides rack up 600+ runs and it peters out in a draw. The batters averages will be significantly better than players regularly playing in New Zealand/England/South Africa where the pitches are generally livlier and scores lower. 4.Opening up your post with "Crikey, I don't know where to begin" does not exactly represent the scientific exchange of opinions to increase our collective understanding you espouse in your more recent post and comes across as smug/critical/I am so clever that tihere is not enough time for me to write down everything wrong with your laughably inane post (or something like that). Don't worry you've not offended me but then I think that life's too short to get wound up by posts on a forum (although clearly long enough for me to try to clarify my original post twice).
@Norfolkbhoy I clearly misunderstood the main import of your post, since I took you to be implying that statistical analysis was of limited application to football, being appropriate mainly when applied to the performance of individuals in team-independant contexts. My Crikey! reflected my reaction to such apparently blanket scepticism, likewise my saying I didn't know where to begin. I certainly didn't intend to appear smug and I apologise unreservedly if I did so.
Robbie - no worries, from your first response I had the impression that you had not got my drift - I am sure I could have expressed it more clearly. As previously stated no offence taken.
ALL HANDS ON DECK! EVACUATE THE ARRRRREEEEAAA!!!!!!!!!!! WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST!!! OH GOOD GOD IT'S ALL ABOUT TO KICK OFF!!!!! Ah no, my bad. Crisis successfully averted.
Sadly as two grown-ups Robbie and I appear to have had a difference of opinion, batted it about and resolved our differences without anyone throwing a strop, crying, putting anyone on their ignore list or storming off the board in a huff. Hugely disappointing for those drama-lovers out there I'm sure.
Sorry to correct you NorfolkBhoy, I'd like to grow up but my wife keeps telling me I never have and never will ..............
There's possession, and there's possession The OPTA possession stats for Saturday's game are Norwich 34% : 66% Everton. In a possession sense Everton clearly dominated the game. However, the result was a 2 : 2 draw and the teams ended with 1 point each. Now look at West Ham v Cardiff: possession was WH 44% : 56% Cardiff, so once again the visitors had the better of it possession-wise. But the outcome was 2 : 0 to West Ham, who pocketed all three points. Finally look at Chelsea v Hull: 51% : 49% possession, 2:0 and 3pts to Chelsea. The visitors more or less matched their hosts in possession terms but went away empty-handed. As has often been pointed out, you can enjoy a lot of possession passing the ball back and forth across the pitch in your own defensive third, or back and forth between keeper and back line. But it doesn't get you anywhere. Also you can enjoy a lot of possession in the opposition's half, even well forward, but if you can't break them down it's not much use (think Arsenal, or Barcelona/Bayern v Chelsea in the CL). Successful teams are those which make the most productive use of the possession they have (in terms of goals scored and points won). On that basis: Best use of possession (measured by goals): Norwich 0.058 West Ham 0.045 Chelsea 0.039 Cardiff 0.00 Hull 0.00 Best use of possession (measured by points): West Ham 0.068 Chelsea 0.058 Norwich 0.029 Cardiff 0.00 Hull 0.00 What about entertainment value? I don't know about others, but I found the first half exercise in "defence v attack" absolutely enthralling; and (as Canary Rob said on another thread) a testament to how far we have come since the opening day of last season.
the second half was quite even possession-wise. we hardly touched the ball in the first ten minutes of the game! we did look very solid though, everton were getting so far, but then forced into either giving it away or shooting from distance. where everton did well was that they had lots of possession in our half rather than their own - they were very positive and i think that will ultimately make them a better side than they were last year (if they can keep their best players!)
Interesting analysis RobbieBB. The BBC stats apparently had it as 42%/58%, as did the PL stream I was watching. I think that is closer then the Opta version, but it must only be an approximation at best. Though Everton were very impressive, you also have to remember that City were missing 5 key players and Wes had one of his 'off days'.
Decent read here including a bit on how we defended and nullified much of Everton's attacking style: http://www.eplindex.com/37277/martinez-everton-vs-norwich-tactical-analysis.html
Ha, you know what? That's not very different, if at all, from how I think CH envisages us playing when his squad building is complete.
Not sure who the BBC rely on for their stats. Your PL stream must have been taking them from the same source I would think. They both really ought to say "Stats provided by .....".
Some interesting analysis and probably fair comment about the luck.However I think we saw enough of RvW to suggest that he might turn into the kind of striker that doesn't need a host of chances to score goals.That header was no freak,his placement where no goalie would have a hope of getting to it was calculated.I think that come the end of the season we may be including Saturday's point in our tally of those taken against top six sides.
Why were our goals "lucky" but Everton's weren't? Take Barkley's "great strike": a right footed player hits a left-foot shot from 20 yards which happens to have the only trajectory which would take it past John Ruddy's reach while still ending up inside the right hand post. Let's suppose that same build up and defensive positioning was reproduced 10 times; how many times would Barkley score. I would say fewer than 5 times in ten. There was a deal of fortune in it. Now take Coleman's goal: excellent buildup on the left ending with a fierce shot on goal parried by Ruddy. That parry could just as easily have carried within reach of the closing defender rather than falling straight to Coleman. OK, both goals involved considerable skill also, but so did ours.
Really I meant that we only had the two shots on target and scored with both.Having said that your point about the Barkley goal is a valid one,it could have gone anywhere.Whittaker's shot coming back off the post could be seen as either good luck or bad,because it could have gone in rather than coming back out.When it did come out curling it in from that angle on the run was no mean feat in itself.Still for me the RvW header was the peach.It had sufficient pace but it was the placement just inside the angle that made it such a good goal.It looked as if he meant it to go exactly there.
I was stung by the fact that it was a theme which kept on being repeated, in that eplindex analysis as well as elsewhere.
Stat about Van Wolfswinkel from the Everton game: He had 12 touches all game, made 7 passes and scored. Shows he doesn't need a lot of the ball to make an impact, but also that we really need to get the ball to him more. That probably works out that he took possession once every 10 minutes.
