• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Ross Barkley

greatwhitenorf said:
As "the legendary NFL coach Bill Belichik famously quipped, "Stats are for losers. Final scores are for winners."

Since that rarely works in Spurs favour, I prefer to operate under the wonderful maxim of the immortal Larry Gormley:

hqdefault.jpg


"Style. Smart thinking. And Showmanship!"
Click to expand...

Really like that Belichik quote. Will have to remember it. Are you reading that Scara, Billy and other stat hounds?
 
billyiddo said:
here's some facts for you then Pirate...

last four seasons

Barkley has played 10,236 minutes in 137 games and has notched up 18 assists and created a 195 chances

Lamela has played 5,603 minutes in 85 games games and has notched up 18 assists and created 159 chances

so having played a total of 4633 minutes (51.4 games) more than Lamela he has no more assists to his name and has only created 36 more chances.

numbers from squawker
Click to expand...
Yes and obviously Barkley would have had more assists if hed been feeding our front line instead of Evertons. Chances created is a better representation IMO....
 
Pirate55 said:
of course it is subjective. As Greatwhite pointed out to you, there are many other factors involved, not least the respective teams that both are playing for. If a 2nd division player had more assists and chances created, would you consider him a better player? Of course not. You are not comparing like with like. Same here. Your "facts" are therefore not facts. They are someones interpretation of what constitutes chances. In the definition of "key pass" that Scara set out, a defence splitting 50 yard crossfield ball to set a wingback into clear space would not be counted under the definition. Modric is thus likely to have a "Key pass" count right down under this definition. Does it somehow make him a worse player?

A two yard tap in ones own half to a team-mate who goes on a mazy run and scores a spectacuar solo goal after dribbling round the entire opposition is called an assist. In the hypotheticals I set out in my response to Scara, under the definitions, some would be considered Key Passes and some would not. It all depends on the compilers subjective decision about what to include. They are therefore not "facts".
Click to expand...

those variables will be true for both players when compiling the stats though - truth is players that consistently rack up high numbers of assists and of chances created/key passes will be widely regarded as good creative players, they are commonly used across the board to show which players are creative and which creative players are doing well in that role - unless you can come up with something more accurate this just screams of 'it goes against my opinion so im going to dismiss it rather than actually think about it' which sadly we see all too often on message boards. It's funny because they are the same stats that made me re evaluate my position on Barkley having written him off before - because im willing to challenge my own thinking and change my opinion when i see things which challenge my perception - too many people in life are unwilling or unable to question their own opinions.
 
Pirate55 said:
That shows me that Lamela has only been fit for half the games that Barkley has! You conveniently left out that Lamela is playing in a free-scoring Spurs side with world class team-mates, compared to Barkely playing for a mid-table, average Everton side. You also conveniently left out the respective goal count of each player - wonder why?
Click to expand...

read further down and you'll see a response to another poster which has the goals scored numbers per season for each club in a vein attempt to pre empt this response - Lamela was absent for our 'free scoring' season last year and the two seasons he played in it's entirety we scored 10 more goals than Everton, which can hardly be described as free scoring (if your inferring that Everton were not free scoring)

harr1984 said:
I know you did, just saying for me I look at that more than assists....
Click to expand...

oh ok - for me i look at both chances created and assists together as it helps give a more rounded idea of the quality of chances being created, but agree on its own assists can be rather misleading. Lamela does trumnp him on chqances created though when you weigh in the minutes played - 30 odd more for Barkley having played almost twice the amount of games.
 
billyiddo said:
those variables will be true for both players when compiling the stats though - truth is players that consistently rack up high numbers of assists and of chances created/key passes will be widely regarded as good creative players, they are commonly used across the board to show which players are creative and which creative players are doing well in that role - unless you can come up with something more accurate this just screams of 'it goes against my opinion so im going to dismiss it rather than actually think about it' which sadly we see all too often on message boards. It's funny because they are the same stats that made me re evaluate my position on Barkley having written him off before - because im willing to challenge my own thinking and change my opinion when i see things which challenge my perception - too many people in life are unwilling or unable to question their own opinions.
Click to expand...

Well done to you for changing your opinion to come round to my way of believing in what I see. However it pleases you to get there, the important thing is that you are there!

Now all we need is for GB to change his mind on Wanyama!! Have you any stats to help him? ;)
 
Pirate55 said:
My point is (if you had only read what I said) is that the compilation of these statistics is entirely dependent on peoples subjective interpretation of events. What is an assist, key pass or chance created to one person is not a the same as to another.
Click to expand...
No it's not. The definitions of all of those terms are clearly laid out in advance of them being recorded.
 
Pirate55 said:
Well done to you for changing your opinion to come round to my way of believing in what I see. However it pleases you to get there, the important thing is that you are there!

Now all we need is for GB to change his mind on Wanyama!! Have you any stats to help him? ;)
Click to expand...

that's kind of the opposite of what i done but if it makes you happy mate carry on :p
 
harr1984 said:
Yes and obviously Barkley would have had more assists if hed been feeding our front line instead of Evertons. Chances created is a better representation IMO....
Click to expand...
Barkley was feeding Lukaku, a player that ran Harry Kane very close for the golden boot last season.
 
Rorschach said:
I really love a huge debate about stats.
Click to expand...

It does make the time pass quicker for sure, there are some who get caught up in what stats prove or disprove ( to the users eyes) that they miss so many relevent points, ie stats are a tool nothing more nothing less and can me used by most to prove THEIR point that they are trying to push. ( and usually prove nothing). :D
 
How many chances did Barkley create against a tightly set defence of a team that has parked the bus? Or can he just do Hollywood long balls on the break (like his highlights reel suggests)?

Stats won't explain why Siggy couldn't do it for a top team, while he excels for a mid-table one. You need the context of those sort of observations.
 
StephenH said:
Erik can't be that good we haven't hardly missed him at all.
Its not like Hazard missing from the Chelsea lineup, he would be a big loss.
Erik has get back fit and then we can see how things go.
Click to expand...

"Erik can't be that good we haven't hardly missed him at all."

Regardless of feelings as to Lamela's quality, your logic is faulty. Judging a squad by the absence of a player speaks less to the quality of that player than to the strength of depth of the squad.

Trippier filled in admirably for Walker at the end of last season. Same with Davies for Rose. But it's not fair to say that "Walker and Rose can't be that good, we hardly missed them at all."

Similarly, Spurs finished 5th in the PL in Bale's last season - since then, 6th, 5th, 3rd and 2nd. Would you say that Bale can't be that good, as our results in the table have largely stayed the same or even improved since he's gone?

In any case, this ain't the Lamela thread but I agree that he needs to get fit again to see how he would slot into the current squad.
 
Pirate55 said:
of course it is subjective. As Greatwhite pointed out to you, there are many other factors involved, not least the respective teams that both are playing for. If a 2nd division player had more assists and chances created, would you consider him a better player? Of course not. You are not comparing like with like. Same here. Your "facts" are therefore not facts. They are someones interpretation of what constitutes chances. In the definition of "key pass" that Scara set out, a defence splitting 50 yard crossfield ball to set a wingback into clear space would not be counted under the definition. Modric is thus likely to have a "Key pass" count right down under this definition. Does it somehow make him a worse player?

A two yard tap in ones own half to a team-mate who goes on a mazy run and scores a spectacuar solo goal after dribbling round the entire opposition is called an assist. In the hypotheticals I set out in my response to Scara, under the definitions, some would be considered Key Passes and some would not. It all depends on the compilers subjective decision about what to include. They are therefore not "facts".
Click to expand...
That's not how it works, because:

scaramanga said:
None of those hypotheticals matter because that's not how statistics work.

Nobody (at least nobody with half a brain) bases their opinion on a sample size of one. They take a view based on larger numbers that probably include all of those variations and plenty of others too.
Click to expand...

I see why you don't value statistics, it's because (despite my and others on this forum's best attempts) you still don't have even a passing understanding of them.

Single nodes are not data, predefined measurements are not subjective.
 
Gutter Boy said:
How many chances did Barkley create against a tightly set defence of a team that has parked the bus? Or can he just do Hollywood long balls on the break (like his highlights reel suggests)?

Stats won't explain why Siggy couldn't do it for a top team, while he excels for a mid-table one. You need the context of those sort of observations.
Click to expand...

Aha - the old context argument I see. That might just be the most profound thing said on here. Don't let the "stats are everything" people hear you though. That is heresy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back