• 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

James McCarthy

Finney Is Back said:
I could have mixed things up but I'm sure I read an article somewhere where Pochettino was interviewed and he said that he wasn't that bothered by stats and preferred to judge with his own eyes?
Click to expand...

I remember that as well, as I said early I know from experience that most good coaches/managers use stats as a tool not as a way of defining if a player is any good or not. Unfortuately there are many fans who believe they are the number one thing in judging a player.
 
parklane1 said:
Listen I have worked in pro football on the coaching side and I can assure you that stats very rarely tell the whole/true story, they are a tool to be used but no one who has any idea about coaching in football use them as a definite.

Stats can be used to show whatever the user wants to show but as I say can be used to TRY and prove whatever they are pushing, they are not always the real answer.
Click to expand...
I once worked in an office where to produce any kind of paperwork you had a whole floor if about 20 women getting paid to type all day. I'd be a retread if I suggested we throw away the one computer that replaced them and fill the office again.

Technology changes and will, in part, replace the flakey, unreliable human element. I can understand reluctance to accept this as part of that human element but that reluctance will only hold you back.
 
The pro footballers i know and the one side met always talk about how their stats are used for and against the to tailor their training and also now to identify when there tired!!! The only coach who didn't was Harry Redknapp and he didn't coach apparently

Stats aren't Prefect but there factually based (unless omelet thinks their made up) and they demonstrate characteristics of a player. Hence why you would expect a defender to have better defensive stats than a striker

When comparing two players like for like you can use opinions and there all subjective or you can add data driven factual informatIon such as stats and also physical characteristics such as height to get a more quantities factual position
 
Bedfordspurs said:
The pro footballers i know and the one side met always talk about how their stats are used for and against the to tailor their training and also now to identify when there tired!!! The only coach who didn't was Harry Redknapp and he didn't coach apparently

Stats aren't Prefect but there factually based (unless omelet thinks their made up) and they demonstrate characteristics of a player. Hence why you would expect a defender to have better defensive stats than a striker

When comparing two players like for like you can use opinions and there all subjective or you can add data driven factual informatIon such as stats and also physical characteristics such as height to get a more quantities factual position
Click to expand...
I think I've sussed it... you're using voice recognition (Siri) to "type" nowadays aren't you? The thing about omelettes and there their they're... replacing "ones I'd" with "one side"...
 
Stats, what a player did or achieved under a certain set of circumstances, not what a player is going to do in a different environment.
Stats are only as good as who is interpretating them. Even then all guess work.
It's only another tool to loosen the boards purse strings.
 
scaramanga said:
I once worked in an office where to produce any kind of paperwork you had a whole floor if about 20 women getting paid to type all day. I'd be a retread if I suggested we throw away the one computer that replaced them and fill the office again.

Technology changes and will, in part, replace the flakey, unreliable human element. I can understand reluctance to accept this as part of that human element but that reluctance will only hold you back.
Click to expand...


How foolish of me not to see the similarity between working in a office and the coaching of Pro footballers, talk about flimflam :rolleyes:
 
glasgowspur said:
Stats, what a player did or achieved under a certain set of circumstances, not what a player is going to do in a different environment.
Stats are only as good as who is interpretating them. Even then all guess work.
It's only another tool to loosen the boards purse strings.
Click to expand...

Heretic ;)
 
parklane1 said:
How foolish of me not to see the similarity between working in a office and the coaching of Pro footballers, talk about hogwash :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Technology pervades and improves just about everything. It's perfectly natural as a competitor to that technology to resist it - that's been happening since the early 19th century.

Within a decade or two, managers that work on "gut instinct" and other such heavily fallible methods will be thought of like doctors who used leeches because it seemed like a good thing to do.

There was an excuse for that kind of nonsense before we had better alternatives, now we have them there isn't.
 
scaramanga said:
Technology pervades and improves just about everything. It's perfectly natural as a competitor to that technology to resist it - that's been happening since the early 19th century.

Within a decade or two, managers that work on "gut instinct" and other such heavily fallible methods will be thought of like doctors who used leeches because it seemed like a good thing to do.

There was an excuse for that kind of nonsense before we had better alternatives, now we have them there isn't.
Click to expand...

You seem to be getting confused about what I said ( or maybe just not read all my posts on this), stats are a tool that are used by coaches, they are not the only thing coaches will use to make decisions or the full story. If you believe otherwise then thank GHod you are not a coach/manager.
 
scaramanga said:
Drum up agent fees and collect right backs like they were going out of fashion.

Oh, and try to sell Bale.
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention three relegations ( it would have been four but he did a runner with dodgy knees) and also helping run three clubs into serious money problems.
 
parklane1 said:
I remember that as well, as I said early I know from experience that most good coaches/managers use stats as a tool not as a way of defining if a player is any good or not. Unfortuately there are many fans who believe they are the number one thing in judging a player.
Click to expand...
I think you're building a straw man there.

Nobody has said it's the only method, but when you have two disagreeing opinions on a player, one backed by stats, the other backed by "because I say so" the logical choice is to go with the opinion backed by stats.

If the stats are inconclusive then use your judgement. If the stats are saying the opposite to what you think, it's very likely that your incredibly unreliable memory and heuristic thought process is in the wrong.
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
Technology pervades and improves just about everything. It's perfectly natural as a competitor to that technology to resist it - that's been happening since the early 19th century.

Within a decade or two, managers that work on "gut instinct" and other such heavily fallible methods will be thought of like doctors who used leeches because it seemed like a good thing to do.

There was an excuse for that kind of nonsense before we had better alternatives, now we have them there isn't.
Click to expand...

Still, how useful they are lies in how they are interpretted.

GB recently posted up a video of Comolli talking about how stats are used in recruitment. One of the slides pointed out that Chamakh is very good at making space for other players when he has possession of the football (or something like that). People automatically jump to the conclusion that this mean's he's a good player. It doesn't. It means that when a Crystal Palace player passes him the ball, more often than not, he creates space for other players. That's it, nothing more.
 
Millsy_Yiddo said:
Still, how useful they are lies in how they are interpretted.

GB recently posted up a video of Comolli talking about how stats are used in recruitment. One of the slides pointed out that Chamakh is very good at making space for other players when he has possession of the football (or something like that). People automatically jump to the conclusion that this mean's he's a good player. It doesn't. It means that when a Crystal Palace player passes him the ball, more often than not, he creates space for other players. That's it, nothing more.
Click to expand...
I'm fairly sure nobody did that.
 
This tedious discussion any time someone dares back their opinion up with some stats is wearing very thin.

If you think someone in particular is basing their opinion soley on stats or are presenting them in a way which you disagree with by all means pull them up on it - otherwise let people get on with backing their arguments up however they see fit.
 
Last edited:
Millsy_Yiddo said:
Still, how useful they are lies in how they are interpretted.

GB recently posted up a video of Comolli talking about how stats are used in recruitment. One of the slides pointed out that Chamakh is very good at making space for other players when he has possession of the football (or something like that). People automatically jump to the conclusion that this mean's he's a good player. It doesn't. It means that when a Crystal Palace player passes him the ball, more often than not, he creates space for other players. That's it, nothing more.
Click to expand...

But wasn't that the point. The stats showed that he made space for others. Did Commoli say anything different? (I haven't seen it)

The key with stats it's how you use them not you interprete them. Their actual points of data. Distance run is distance run.

Distance run on a certain point of the pitch may be more useful for a player who is supposed to be a tracking player I guess.. What you can do is then review the data to see if a player is running more due to hard work or poor positioning or something similar. The stats wouldn't demonstrate that without reviewing the games. That why stats don't work in isolation but when comparing two player in the same position/role in similar teams it's a great start and takes away the need for subjectivity.

You could argue for instance that McCarthy makes less tackles as he closes down the space better than Mason for instance but the you would expect his interceptions to be higher!!! Otherwise the ball is being passed around him and he is offering less

The best defensive stat IMO is number of interceptions. Anyone can tackle and anyone can track back, but great defensive players intercept the ball allowing your team to quickly progress onto the front foot

Xavi Alonso was a master at it and so is Carrick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back