How bad were we?

[Monkcaster_Rover]

Its quality not quantity. Balls to your stats mjdgreg.

[Standanista]

Agreed.

Using the BBC as your stats source is akin to getting Ronald McDonald in as Secretary General of the United Nations.  A great idea on the face of it, but rather limited in its scope or usefulness.

Didn't we have Kofi Annan on the books at some point during the Willie McKay experiment?

[mjdgreg]

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.

There is one crucial point that you and the others have missed. I've waited a while to see if anyone would spot it but I have waited in vain. Good jod I'm around to expand all of your football knowledge. Here it is. Now believe me, I haven't checked this, but I am super confident that I will be right.

Whilst Tranmere may have had similar attempts on goal and corners to Rovers, I would be prepared to bet my house on it that the opposition has had less attempts and corners on the Tranmere goal than what Rovers have had on their goal. Why am I so confident? It's because Tranmere have had the ball more than the opposition so they haven't had as much opportunity to attack Tranmere's goal! Simple really when you think about it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

Why not check the stats?

Tuesday night
Tranmere vs Bury
Possession 50-50
Shots on 4-3
Shots off 2-7
Corners 3-5

So that one, top vs bottom is scarcely a ringing endorsement of your theory.

Last Saturday
Tranmere vs Coventry
Top vs relegation zone

Possession 50-50
Shots on 4-1
Shots off 2-6
Corners 3-2

Another evenly matched set of stats. Apart from the scoreline.

Week before

Last Saturday
Crewe vs Tranmere
Mid table vs second

Possession 51-49
Shots on 2-3
Shots off 6-7
Corners 3-2


Had enough or do you want some more.

I'll repeat, there is no correlation whatsoever between shots and success. None at all. And there is no correlation whatsoever between BBC possession stats and match or season outcomes. None at all.

I'm sure you will still regale us with this pointless bullshit every week. Your choice. As with everything else you post, it is of no importance and has no grounding in fact.

[mjdgreg]

BST, with your scientologist background I expected better of you. I knew I didn't need to check, but due to you trying to make the stats fit your argument, I feel I have no option but to make you look foolish (again). I have only used the first six games as Tranmere have played one more than us. So here is the damning evidence.

Rovers first:

Opposition attempts     10.33     6.33
Opposition corners        6.33      4.20

While I'm at it lets look at goals scored and conceded.

Rovers first:

Goals scored (total)        8        13
Goals conceded (total)    5         2

There you have it. Conclusive proof that Tranmere have contained the opposition much better than Rovers by having more possession. Fact. Game set and match.

[dickos1]

But we've already identified the bbc stats aren't valid haven't we? They stated we didn't have a corner on Tuesday when we did.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Thank you Dickos. It doesn't seem to matter how many times we demonstrate that the BBC stats are not worth a bucket of warm piss, we still end up with Mick presenting some theory based on them. We've seen that even according to the BBC's stats, Tranmere have not been having more shots on goal than their opponents, not more corners. And yet they've still been trouncing them. According to the BBC stats, ignoring the first match of the season which was a bizarre 75-25 split that stretches credulity to breaking point (Tuesday was as one-sided a game possession wise as I can ever remember, than that was only 61-39 according to the BBC) then their possession figures are PRECISELY 50-50 this season. So, Mick's theory about possession being crucial is immediately shown to be nonsense.

And THAT is even assuming that you can believe the BBC possession figures, which, as several of us have shown over the last few weeks, are frequently logically impossible.

And yet old Micky boy keeps coming back with yet more theories about what he can read into these figures.

So Mick, I've got one for you. Since any predictive theory is only as good as it's ability to predict, what do you reckon about the following team in our division, chosen entirely at random (I'll do more for you if you like...).

According to the BBC stats, they have had considerably more possession than their opponents in every game so far, bar one which was 50-50. Their average is 56-44, which is a pretty resounding advantage.

It gets better. They have had 110 shots in the first 7 league games and their opponents have had just 76.

I reckon they must be flying in terms of results Mick. What do you reckon?

[mjdgreg]

But we've already identified the bbc stats aren't valid haven't we? They stated we didn't have a corner on Tuesday when we did.

I've already stated that they are not 100% accurate, but they do give a broad brush idea of what's going on.

[mjdgreg]

We've seen that even according to the BBC's stats, Tranmere have not been having more shots on goal than their opponents, not more corners. And yet they've still been trouncing them. According to the BBC stats, ignoring the first match of the season which was a bizarre 75-25 split that stretches credulity to breaking point (Tuesday was as one-sided a game possession wise as I can ever remember, than that was only 61-39 according to the BBC) then their possession figures are PRECISELY 50-50 this season. So, mjdgreg's theory about possession being crucial is immediately shown to be nonsense.

I'm very surprised that with your scientologist background you are incapable of adding up!!! In the first 6 games Tranmere had 53 attempts and their opponents only had 38!!! Tranmere also had more corners!!! I suggest you go to night school and brush up on your basic maths.

I had a good old chuckle to myself about ignoring the first game of the season because it didn't suit your very flawed argument. As any good scientologist will know, you should take the rough with the smooth and average out the inconsistencies. You've made yourself look even sillier now. pmsl.

[wilts rover]

BST, with your scientologist background I expected better of you. I knew I didn't need to check, but due to you trying to make the stats fit your argument, I feel I have no option but to make you look foolish (again). I have only used the first six games as Tranmere have played one more than us. So here is the damning evidence.

Rovers first:

Opposition attempts     10.33     6.33
Opposition corners        6.33      4.20

While I'm at it lets look at goals scored and conceded.

Rovers first:

Goals scored (total)        8        13
Goals conceded (total)    5         2

There you have it. Conclusive proof that Tranmere have contained the opposition much better than Rovers by having more possession. Fact. Game set and match.

How can stats that do not contain a coulmn/row/fact about possesion - EVER show anything at about possession? What the above stats show are that Tranmere are better at defending their goal (or lets say penalty box than Rovers) For all you know from these errr highly intellectual and extensively researched (ahem) selections, the opposition to Tranmere may well have had 75% of the ball but were not able to find a way through their defence. Possesions stats that dont show possession, what a novel context.

[mjdgreg]

How can stats that do not contain a coulmn/row/fact about possesion - EVER show anything at about possession? What the above stats show are that Tranmere are better at defending their goal (or lets say penalty box than Rovers) For all you know from these errr highly intellectual and extensively researched (ahem) selections, the opposition to Tranmere may well have had 75% of the ball but were not able to find a way through their defence. Possesions stats that dont show possession, what a novel context.

You need to concentrate more. The possession stats have already been provided by another contributor in this thread. I have no reason to doubt what they have produced. It's a shame that everything I produce seems to get checked and disputed even though there is no need for this.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And the other team Mick? Even better possession figured than Tranmere. Even more shots. Better ratio of shots for than shots against. How do you reckon they are doing Mick? They must be flying mustn't they? Because if they aren't, you theory must be a bag of shite Mick, mustn't it?

Go on. Have a guess who it is.

[BillyStubbsTears]

If you had ever used statistics professionally Mick, you'd know the importance of questioning outliers.

Take Tranmere's possession stats. When you see six sets of data with a very tight variation around 50/50, and one at 75:25, do you blindly take a straight average, or do you question the validity of the massive outlier. Do you assume that it is valid to include the outlier in your analysis? Because it massively skews the resulting data. Including it gives you an average possession figure of 55-45. Excluding it gives you 50:50. So, do Tranmere as a rule have a healthy domination of possession. Or do they as a rule have 50/50 possession with one very wild outlier?

Important questions Mick.

Although not as important as asking yourself why you waste your life dealing with statistics that are fundamentally f**king shit to begin with.

[BillyStubbsTears]

PS. Do you chuckle to yourself when you type that really witty "scientologist" line?

I'm just trying to build up a mental image of you Mick, and that bit of info would go a long way to filling in the jigsaw pieces.

[mjdgreg]

And the other team mjdgreg? Even better possession figured than Tranmere. Even more shots. Better ratio of shots for than shots against. How do you reckon they are doing Mick? They must be flying mustn't they? Because if they aren't, you theory must be a bag of shite mjdgreg, mustn't it?

Go on. Have a guess who it is.

No need. They are obviously the exception that proves the rule.

[IDM]

The only stat that counts is the final score...

[BillyStubbsTears]

Aye. I was half expecting that answer. Kind of fits the pattern of pig ignorance in that you clearly haven't got the first idea what that phrase means.

Hint: Go and google it.

[mjdgreg]

PS. Do you chuckle to yourself when you type that really witty "scientologist" line?

I do. Sad but true.

[mjdgreg]

Tranmere have not been having more shots on goal than their opponents, not more corners.

Look, do the honourable thing and just admit you made that up, then we can move on.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Tranmere have not been having more shots on goal than their opponents, not more corners.

Look, do the honourable thing and just admit you made that up, then we can move on.

I had been looking at the last three games, in which they have had fewer shots, less possession and fewer corners than their opponents, but scored 6 and conceded none.

Now. Have you done that Google search yet?

Once you've done it, we can have a little chat about my example side being the exception that demonstrates that the rule is a bag of shite.

[BillyStubbsTears]

PS. Do you chuckle to yourself when you type that really witty "scientologist" line?

I do. Sad but true.

Thanks for your honesty. It's illuminating.

[mjdgreg]

I had been looking at the last three games, in which they have had fewer shots, less possession and fewer corners than their opponents, but scored 6 and conceded none.

As any empirical scientologist will know, 3 games is not enough data to form a view. So what was all that about ignoring the first game of the season? That was 7 games ago, and you knew I was talking about 6 games. So what you are saying is that my data based on 6 games was nonsense because you had looked at only 3 games? That is shabby research of the highest order.

Lucky for you I am a magnanimous soul  and will accept an abject apology without hesitation. There will be no hard feelings on my part. Following your apology, I would ask the other forum users to dismiss from their memory the post in which you made these mistakes so that your reputation can be restored to what it was previously.

[wilts rover]

I had been looking at the last three games, in which they have had fewer shots, less possession and fewer corners than their opponents, but scored 6 and conceded none.

As any empirical scientologist will know, 3 games is not enough data to form a view. So what was all that about ignoring the first game of the season? That was 7 games ago, and you knew I was talking about 6 games. So what you are saying is that my data based on 6 games was nonsense because you had looked at only 3 games? That is shabby research of the highest order.

Lucky for you I am a magnanimous soul  and will accept an abject apology without hesitation. There will be no hard feelings on my part. Following your apology, I would ask the other forum users to dismiss from their memory the post in which you made these mistakes so that your reputation can be restored to what it was previously.

Hate to point this out to your dear boy (nah I dont really) but by calling yourself an empirical scientologist you are aligning yourself with falsehoods.....hmmmm

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?11522-Empirical-Scientology-The-Scientology-Clam-Experiment

[mjdgreg]

Hate to point this out to your dear boy (nah I dont really) but by calling yourself an empirical scientologist you are aligning yourself with falsehoods.....hmmmm

No way am I calling myself an empirical scientologist. This is what Billy is and I was just referring to his peer group who would be mortified at the way he has done his research. Think of me as a free thinker who puts across the point of view of those less eloquent with words.

[Viking Don]

PS. Do you chuckle to yourself when you type that really witty "scientologist" line?

I do. Sad but true.

I have to admit I just did too. I really should grow up but it's the little things still haha

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts

You've just been exposed to Mick's coruscating wit. He uses "scientologist" as a rapier-like humour weapon in place of "scientist".

I know. Genius isn't it? The greats of the comedy pantheon are shitting half-setters as we speak.





But anyway Mick. How did that Google search go?

[MachoMadness]

Without going into the vast ocean of idiocy that makes up your posts, Mick, I can tell you that the word "scientologist" does not mean what you think it means.

Just stop posting, Mick. You do nothing but talk absolute shite and bait people, and detract from what real discussion there is to be had about Rovers with your asinine, childish bullshit. None of your posts have any redeeming value whatsoever. Is that the joke? Do you piss yourself laughing at the thought of a bunch of strangers thinking you're an imbecile? Do you think that somehow, because you're making a prick of yourself, that the joke's on us? Mick, there's a lot of funny stuff on the internet. I cannot believe, in all the billions of things there are to look at on the web, that the one thing you find most worthy of your time is winding up a fan forum of Doncaster Rovers FC. I was just watching a video of George Carlin on the internet. That was funny. This isn't.

Note that I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you're a troll, and that you don't actually believe the concentrated stupidity that makes up every word you type.

[mjdgreg]

Without going into the vast ocean of idiocy that makes up your posts, mjdgreg, I can tell you that the word "scientologist" does not mean what you think it means.

I refer you to Billy's post, just before yours. You and Wilts are guilty of not being able to spot coruscating wit.

[dickos1]

But we've already identified the bbc stats aren't valid haven't we? They stated we didn't have a corner on Tuesday when we did.

I've already stated that they are not 100% accurate, but they do give a broad brush idea of what's going on.

How on earth do they give a broad idea of what's going on when they can't even accurately get the corner count correct.
If they can't manage that then, how are they analysing possession?
It's obvious they just pick figures out of thin air and distribute them. And you've backed up your whole arguement on these made up statistics for a year.
You must be embarrassed.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Google search Mick? Surely it doesn't take you THAT long to type. You want me to help you?