How bad were we?

[Bristol Red Rover]

Does someone need to spell it out? Mick + BBC stats=an effective maggot

[mjdgreg]

Who is this Mick everyone keeps going on about?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Who is this Mick everyone keeps going on about?

Funny. You always usually respond to questions aimed at Mick.

But if it makes you happy, what was the last Rovers match that YOU mjdgreg attended in person?

[Colin C No.3]

Who is this Mick everyone keeps going on about?

A strange question to ask, out of the blue.

Half of me suspects it's you, the other 60 per cent doesn't give a toss.

[mjdgreg]

Half of me suspects it's you, the other 60 per cent doesn't give a toss.

I'd be careful if I were you. You'll have the stats police (BST) after you with bad maths like that.

[mjdgreg]

But if it makes you happy, what was the last Rovers match that YOU mjdgreg attended in person?

At last we're getting there. I get the impression you're trying to paint me as some kind of armchair supporter and I resemble that remark. Due to business commitments I have not been as often as I would like. The last match was the Hull Cup game.

[pigeonhole]

But if it makes you happy, what was the last Rovers match that YOU mjdgreg attended in person?

At last we're getting there. I get the impression you're trying to paint me as some kind of armchair supporter and I resemble that remark. Due to business commitments I have not been as often as I would like. The last match was the Hull Cup game.

So, you support Hull then? 

I did wonder because you sure as hell don't support the Rovers.

[Wild Rover]

Not much different to these throughout this current campaign
Possession. 53.57     
Attempts    7.57
Corners      4.43

Guess which team those stats are from, yes, thats correct, Tranmere, top of league.

It's early days, but as you can see having more possession than the opposition is crucial to success.

Shows nothing of the sort. Shows with less posession DRFC created more chances. A team could have 80% posession, but 50%could be in own half, how does that stack up with your theory.

[mjdgreg]

So, you support Hull then? 

I did wonder because you sure as hell don't support the Rovers.

Lol. I do support Rovers. I'll have you know I even used to go to reserve team games at Belle View (I used to sneak in through a hole in the perimeter at the Rosso end, when that got filled in we'd climb over the perimeter).

What I am not is a sycophant. I refuse to believe everything the club wants me to  without thoughtful analysis. When I think the club needs my advice, I am quite happy to offer it, despite the abuse I constantly receive. Think of me as someone who is the thinking fan's champion.

[Filo]

So, you support Hull then? 

I did wonder because you sure as hell don't support the Rovers.

Lol. I do support Rovers. I'll have you know I even used to go to reserve team games at Belle View (I used to sneak in through a hole in the perimeter at the Rosso end, when that got filled in we'd climb over the perimeter).

What I am not is a sycophant. I refuse to believe everything the club wants me to  without thoughtful analysis. When I think the club needs my advice, I am quite happy to offer it, despite the abuse I constantly receive. Think of me as someone who is the thinking fan's champion.

Proof if there was ever any needed that you`re not a regular Rovers fan, any fan worth their salt would know that it`s Vue

[BillyStubbsTears]

But if it makes you happy, what was the last Rovers match that YOU mjdgreg attended in person?

At last we're getting there. I get the impression you're trying to paint me as some kind of armchair supporter and I resemble that remark. Due to business commitments I have not been as often as I would like. The last match was the Hull Cup game.

I wasn't trying to imply anything Mick. It was an innocent, friendly question. Surprised it took so many attempts to elicit an answer, but there you go.

[mjdgreg]

Proof if there was ever any needed that you`re not a regular Rovers fan, any fan worth their salt would know that it`s Vue

Haha. I'd done this on purpose to see if BST was still being the grammar policeman.

[mjdgreg]

I wasn't trying to imply anything Mick. It was an innocent, friendly question. Surprised it took so many attempts to elicit an answer, but there you go.

If in future you want me to answer any questions it would help if you would call me 'mjdgreg'. Mick is a very common name and I can't always be sure you're referring to me (even though the 'm' of mjdgreg is actually 'Michael'. By the way what was the point of you asking me the question in the first place?

[Filo]

Proof if there was ever any needed that you`re not a regular Rovers fan, any fan worth their salt would know that it`s Vue

Haha. I'd done this on purpose to see if BST was still being the grammar policeman.

b*llocks Mick or is it Michael, you see, you know and I know you`re Mick, I know you talk b*llocks Mick, don`t I?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Course Mick, your comments about business commitments keeping you away from matches don't tally with your oft-repeated claims that you only work 2 days a week and that your business operations run like well-oiled machines.

But I'm sure there's an obvious explanation.

[mjdgreg]

Course mjdgreg, your comments about business commitments keeping you away from matches don't tally with your oft-repeated claims that you only work 2 days a week and that your business operations run like well-oiled machines.

But I'm sure there's an obvious explanation.

There is an obvious explanation. The '2 days' a week are spread out over 7 days. For example I tend to spend most Saturday afternoons doing my 'professional gambling' business as that is the most lucrative day of the week.

If I go to a game, I've not only got the cost of the game but also the financial losses from not gambling. This can run into hundreds of pounds. I was prepared to pay this cost a lot more when SOD was the manager as I enjoyed the football he played. I'd have to be a nutter to give up that kind of an income to watch what Saunders is currently serving up on a regular basis.

The good news is that I can afford to give up every other Saturday, but in future I'm only going to do so if I feel I'm going to be entertained.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Thought so Mick.

Thanks for clearing that up. And for reverting back to the default position of replying to posts aimed at "Mick".

All much clearer now.

Although, there is just one thing. How do you judge the quality of "what Saunders is currently serving up on a regular basis" if you don't see it yourself? I mean, the one and only match that you actually saw with your own eyes this season had us getting 57% of the possession and beating a team from the division above us. Surely that was a display to whet the appetite Mick?

[mjdgreg]

Shows nothing of the sort. Shows with less posession DRFC created more chances. A team could have 80% posession, but 50%could be in own half, how does that stack up with your theory.

You need to be careful. Dickos will be after you. An 'attempt' is different to a chance. For example, a cross could just be missed by the centre forward but would not be classed as an 'attempt' but a 'chance'.

If a team has 80% possession , but 50% is in their own half, then this shows me that the team is comfortable in possession and likes to build from the back. It would suggest they like to slow the tempo in their own half and then catch the opposition out by speeding things up in the opposition's half.

I hope this clarifies matters for you, but should you have any more football related queries I would be glad to help expand your knowledge of the game.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Oh aye. Shots.

That's another stat that I'm struggling with.

See, last year, Portsmouth had more shots than Reading. Peterborough had more shots than Southampton. Chesterfield and Rochdale had more shots than Charlton.

So I'm struggling to see what the relevance of number of shots is. And therefore, I'm struggling to see why you Mick always hammer on about the number of shots in a given game, when there is demonstrably no correlation between the number of shots and the success or otherwise of a side.

[pubteam]

Because he's a troll.

I reckon he's just a Wrexham fan/somebody who's not keen on Dean Saunders full stop. Definitely not a Rovers fan who wants the best for the club anyway.

[MachoMadness]

Even when his threads are locked, we still see this inane, dribbling bullshit stats thread stinking up the forum. It's one thing to keep it confined to those idiotic "stats from today" troll threads, but when it's spreading to genuine threads for discussing the game, then it becomes annoying. Can we not just take this as proof that Mick is either a complete buffoon, or an obvious troll with too much time on his hands to commit to this asinine gimmick every day. Either way, it amazes me he hasn't been banhammered to the centre of the Earth yet.

[acacia94]

I didn't get to the game last so was just going through the posts to gauge the reaction. I really like BillyStubbsTears posts as a general rule anyway but the simple yet majestic phrase 'BBC/PA possession stats are not worth a bucket of warm piss' really is class comedy narrative. Top marks.

[mjdgreg]

Although, there is just one thing. How do you judge the quality of "what Saunders is currently serving up on a regular basis" if you don't see it yourself? I mean, the one and only match that you actually saw with your own eyes this season had us getting 57% of the possession and beating a team from the division above us. Surely that was a display to whet the appetite mjdgreg?

It's easy to judge what Saunders is serving up on a regular basis because I've actually been to more than one game. Hull was the last game I've been to, not the only one.

I can also read you know. There is plenty of information available on this forum and in other places to know what's going on. There is also the statistical analysis that I perform for the good of the forum that also lets you know what's going on.

Forget cup games against weakened sides. They mean nothing. Even in that game I saw enough hoof ball to last me for a season.

[mjdgreg]

I didn't get to the game last so was just going through the posts to gauge the reaction. I really like BillyStubbsTears posts as a general rule anyway but the simple yet majestic phrase 'BBC/PA possession stats are not worth a bucket of warm piss' really is class comedy narrative. Top marks.

You should be thanking me for that as it was me that recommended the humour bypass reversal operation to him. He is still in intensive care, but he's getting there.

[Wild Rover]

Shows nothing of the sort. Shows with less posession DRFC created more chances. A team could have 80% posession, but 50%could be in own half, how does that stack up with your theory.

You need to be careful. Dickos will be after you. An 'attempt' is different to a chance. For example, a cross could just be missed by the centre forward but would not be classed as an 'attempt' but a 'chance'.

If a team has 80% possession , but 50% is in their own half, then this shows me that the team is comfortable in possession and likes to build from the back. It would suggest they like to slow the tempo in their own half and then catch the opposition out by speeding things up in the opposition's half.

I hope this clarifies matters for you, but should you have any more football related queries I would be glad to help expand your knowledge of the game.

Ok. What i will do, when i have a little more time, is conduct an appraisal of games so far of all the top 10 positions  Possession/shots on target etc for League 1. ( or perhaps you would prefer 10 games to pass ).

[mjdgreg]

Ok. What i will do, when i have a little more time, is conduct an appraisal of games so far of all the top 10 positions  Possession/shots on target etc for League 1. ( or perhaps you would prefer 10 games to pass ).

I can see you're coming around to my way of thinking. Well done. Do it now because it will give an early indication that what I'm saying is bang on.

[wilts rover]

Ok. What i will do, when i have a little more time, is conduct an appraisal of games so far of all the top 10 positions  Possession/shots on target etc for League 1. ( or perhaps you would prefer 10 games to pass ).

I can see you're coming around to my way of thinking. Well done. Do it now because it will give an early indication that what I'm saying is bang on.

Its a bit pointless unless you do it for all the teams.

Re last night;s game, this is now the fourth game mdgreg where you have compiled the stats that show the team with the most shots and possesion has not won - yet you insist on the opposite? Hardly the views of a man who takes statistical analysis seriously. But dont let that stop you having a go at Saunders, I find it quite funny actually.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Proof if there was ever any needed that you`re not a regular Rovers fan, any fan worth their salt would know that it`s Vue

Haha. I'd done this on purpose to see if BST was still being the grammar policeman.

The 'expert' can't tell the difference between grammar and spelling. Figures.

*Cue the usual 'I did it deliberately to catch someone else out' b*llocks that nobody believes*

[BillyStubbsTears]

Acacia94.

I'll come clean. I borrowed that phrase from John Nance Garner, FD Roosevelt's Vice President. He used it to describe the role of Vice President. But I think it applies even better to the possession stats.

On the topic of warm piss, did anybody else part with half a week's pay for one of them bottles of Carling at Bramall Lane last night?

[Wild Rover]

Ok. What i will do, when i have a little more time, is conduct an appraisal of games so far of all the top 10 positions  Possession/shots on target etc for League 1. ( or perhaps you would prefer 10 games to pass ).

I can see you're coming around to my way of thinking. Well done. Do it now because it will give an early indication that what I'm saying is bang on.

NO!. Not now, primerily because it would be severly distorted, as an example Tranmere will have played at home/ away to sides in bottom 1/3 of table, whereas majority of DRFC games are against top 1/3. Therefore cannot be like for like.