Thought this might make a few chuckle given recent performances and people's opinions: http://bwinbetting.com/leagues/prem...remier-league-creator-man-utd-sign,50859.html And, with apologies for calling VC out because he's put in some excellent contributions recently, what do you think after our recent discussion?!! (PS - I know it's not the way you were meaning)
If you want a real laugh, read this article from them too! http://bwinbetting.com/cups/fa-cup/norwich-savour-fa-cup-joy-goal-filled-replay-fulham,50796.html
Sturdy Norwich can capitalise on the Cottagers’ leaky backline. Spot two words which need to be juxtaposed for a fair reflection of last night's match.
Snodgrass and Ashley Young in the same team? Sign Suarez and Katie Price and you would have a full front line who go down regularly in 90 minutes!!
And, with apologies for calling VC out because he's put in some excellent contributions recently, what do you think after our recent discussion?!! (PS - I know it's not the way you were meaning)[/QUOTE] Hilarious. Snodgrass a creative genius like Dali? Actually, I think he's more Edvard Munch. When he goes down and then he turns to the ref and looks like The Scream. More seriously, this shows how you can prove anything with statistics if you are determined enough. And why I believe we should follow the evidence of our eyes and our thinking rather than some bloke who's deciding whether a shot is 'on target' or not.
Sorry VC, no offence intended. Re stats, I don't think that's true at all. Stats can be very helpful and Snodgrass undoubtedly creates a lot of "opportunities" one way or another. What's important is that we thoroughly qualify stats - they don't always tell us whether a better decision or opportunity could have been made or created. They also don't tell us the impact the player has elsewhere on the pitch. That's the key. More broadly, take pass completion percentages. They're stats. A pretty reliable measure of how successful a team will be, but you have to qualify with exceptions (e.g. Swansea, who are still a decent team, but not quite to the extent of their completion percentages). Stats are useful, just not only stats. Same with eyes - they can be easily deceived. Often by ourselves. We're too strung along by emotion, stats are too rigid.
No offence taken. And yes, obviously, stats can be very useful and eyes and brain can fail us. It's well accepted that we see what we want to see and what fits into our preconceptions, and good stats can be a corrective to that. I guess I take issue with stats so strongly because so many people seem to approach them naively, as if they are some kind of unmediated reality that is just out there: a brute fact, like the weather. Few people seem to ask who gathered them?, why did they gather them?, how did they organise them?, what did they decide to include and what did they decide to ignore?, and so on, and so on. So I tend to over-react and go to the opposite extreme, which is just as stupid of course.
