8 games in - is it too early to get excited?

[IDM]

No they wouldn't, because that "efficiency" measure of yours shows no correllation to how many goals they score, and certainly not to how many they concede, nor to their results.

Look at the league table - win our game in hand and potentially we're up to 3rd place, irrespective of possession, attempts etc...

Yes they definitely would. The problem is that there is no way on this Earth that they could sustain such a low possession efficiency over a sustained period. They simply aren't good enough.

Definitely?  I think not.  For a start those stats of yours show nothing about defence performance and goals conceded so cannot reflect match results.  You don't get points for "possession efficiency".

[dickos1]

The stats you bore us with don't show anything about what u do with possession they just show the stats. After we beat Walsall u complained they had more possession. Thus because we were very efficient.
As I say your starting to realise its nonsense.
Stoke by the way have about 30% possession every week and they are extremely successful at it

[BillyStubbsTears]

For f***s sake Mick, will you once and for all bin this inane b*llocks.

In last week's installments, we established that in this division, there is no meaningful correlation whatsoever between number of efforts on goal over a season and final league position. You then drift even further away from the point by introducing this idea of possession efficiency in an attempt to pull a cloak of erudition around your bullshit.

Let's establish where we now are.

1) The published possession statistics in the lower leagues are frequently and demonstrably physically impossible. They are meaningless kids' amusement stuff.
2) There is no correlation in this league  between number of attempts on goal and league success.
3) You are now telling us that a figure derived from published possession data and number of efforts in goal is an predictor of league success.

Do you see the minor breakdown in the chain of logic that gets you to point 3 Mick?

Do yourself a favour and stop making a public idiot of yourself.
Do the rest of us a favour and put a sock in it.
 

[mushRTID]

Mick is incredibly boring but why keep biting? It just makes him come back with more shite.

[RedJ]

no it isn't too early to get excited

[mjdgreg]

Definitely?  I think not.  For a start those stats of yours show nothing about defence performance and goals conceded so cannot reflect match results.  You don't get points for "possession efficiency".

I refer you to my previous post outlining the 5 most successful sides at 'possession efficiency' in the whole of Europe, possibly the world. Real Madrid, Juventus, Man City, Chelsea and Spurs. If you have such a high 'possession efficiency' as they did, it is incontrovertible fact that you will be extremely successful. Everything else follows from this. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.

[mjdgreg]

For f***s sake Mick, will you once and for all bin this inane b*llocks.

In last week's installments, we established that in this division, there is no meaningful correlation whatsoever between number of efforts on goal over a season and final league position. You then drift even further away from the point by introducing this idea of possession efficiency in an attempt to pull a cloak of erudition around your bullshit.

Let's establish where we now are.

1) The published possession statistics in the lower leagues are frequently and demonstrably physically impossible. They are meaningless kids' amusement stuff.
2) There is no correlation in this league  between number of attempts on goal and league success.
3) You are now telling us that a figure derived from published possession data and number of efforts in goal is an predictor of league success.

Do you see the minor breakdown in the chain of logic that gets you to point 3 Mick?

Do yourself a favour and stop making a public idiot of yourself.
Do the rest of us a favour and put a sock in it.

As it is the Sabbath I would be grateful if you could make your comments without swearing. Not all of us like to read bad language. Thanking you in anticipation of your agreement to my request.

Look, I've done my research. I've analysed matches on Sky with my stopwatches and notepad and have found the BBC stats to be pretty good. Obviously they don't get it as good as me but they are near enough. I've also done lower league games as well and whilst not up to the standard of the Premier League the stats are also pretty good and meaningful.

I take the scientific approach ( not the scientologist one) and can assure you that what I am saying makes perfect sense. I'm beginning to think people on this forum don't want to be educated and informed. Just looking at the scoreline and league position is a very limited way of looking at things. I seriously worry for the lack of open-mindedness around here.

[MrFrost]

For f***s sake Mick, will you once and for all bin this inane b*llocks.

In last week's installments, we established that in this division, there is no meaningful correlation whatsoever between number of efforts on goal over a season and final league position. You then drift even further away from the point by introducing this idea of possession efficiency in an attempt to pull a cloak of erudition around your bullshit.

Let's establish where we now are.

1) The published possession statistics in the lower leagues are frequently and demonstrably physically impossible. They are meaningless kids' amusement stuff.
2) There is no correlation in this league  between number of attempts on goal and league success.
3) You are now telling us that a figure derived from published possession data and number of efforts in goal is an predictor of league success.

Do you see the minor breakdown in the chain of logic that gets you to point 3 Mick?

Do yourself a favour and stop making a public idiot of yourself.
Do the rest of us a favour and put a sock in it.

As it is the Sabbath I would be grateful if you could make your comments without swearing. Not all of us like to read bad language. Thanking you in anticipation of your agreement to my request.

Look, I've done my research. I've analysed matches on Sky with my stopwatches and notepad and have found the BBC stats to be pretty good. Obviously they don't get it as good as me but they are near enough. I've also done lower league games as well and whilst not up to the standard of the Premier League the stats are also pretty good and meaningful.

I take the scientific approach ( not the scientologist one) and can assure you that what I am saying makes perfect sense. I'm beginning to think people on this forum don't want to be educated and informed. Just looking at the scoreline and league position is a very limited way of looking at things. I seriously worry for the lack of open-mindedness around here.

Jesus Christ. The part I highlighted is the funniest thing I have heard this weekend. Oh my aching sides!

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'm done Mick.

If you genuinely do sit there with a stop watch and pad & pencil, you have mental issues.

On the other hand, if you genuinely think that your posts are amusing, you have mental issues.

Let's draw a line under it at that.

[Bristol Red Rover]

First of all, if anyone doesn't want to read this, don't 

Stats can say a lot I'll agree with that, but more so in some sports than others. Eg American rugby lends itself well to them, football doesn't.

If we had more stats on our games eg completed passes, completed forward passes, completed passes in opposition half, successful tackles in opposition half, average territory advantage of passes, distance by which shots off target missed by, possession time within 20 yards of the goal, territory advancement running with the ball, etc etc then we could possibly build a significant picture of the games and assess what is successful against what. But we don't. The basic stats we have available leave way too little for statistical significance.

If you wish to prove me wrong, Mick, then lets see what predictions you can make for next tuesday in our league, with a virtual £100 available to place where you like with reasoning given.

[rover-n-out]

Mick wrote:- Just looking at the scoreline and league position is a very limited way of looking at things. I seriously worry for the lack of open-mindedness around here. :I


I just don't understand why on earth anybody would cream themselves over a bunch of stats.
The only thing you need to know is this......
Come first or second in the league and you get promoted automatically.
Finish the season in the bottom four, and you get relegated.

Anything else is irrelevant.

[mjdgreg]

I just don't understand why on earth anybody would cream themselves over a bunch of stats.
The only thing you need to know is this......
Come first or second in the league and you get promoted automatically.
Finish the season in the bottom four, and you get relegated.

Anything else is irrelevant.

The reason stats are necessary is so that managers can't pull the wool over our eyes and also to indicate where you are heading. Like I said earlier, if you've got a possession efficiency around 3% then you know you are on the right lines and need to carry on the same way. If you're over 5% then you need to make changes or you are heading for relegation. 4% is mid-table/ play-offs territory.

If you don't plan, you plan to fail.

[mjdgreg]

If you wish to prove me wrong, mjdgreg, then lets see what predictions you can make for next tuesday in our league, with a virtual £100 available to place where you like with reasoning given.

You do know that I am a professional gambler don't you? I am happy to take your challenge. Outline what rules you would like and let's go head to head. I'm supremely confident that I will perform better than you.

When I win, I do hope people will stop trying to dismiss my views and start to see the light.

[Bristol Red Rover]

You do know that I am a professional gambler don't you? I am happy to take your challenge. Outline what rules you would like and let's go head to head. I'm supremely confident that I will perform better than you.

When I win, I do hope people will stop trying to dismiss my views and start to see the light.

K, I'll start a new thread on it and anyone can join in. You pick one bookie for the odds and put those odds on here and we'll stick with what they are. People can put their virtual £100 where they like (on from 3 to 12 games) but put no more than £40 on any one game.

Be interesting to hear peoples reasons for the bets, but not necessary except for you

[IDM]

Definitely?  I think not.  For a start those stats of yours show nothing about defence performance and goals conceded so cannot reflect match results.  You don't get points for "possession efficiency".

I refer you to my previous post outlining the 5 most successful sides at 'possession efficiency' in the whole of Europe, possibly the world. Real Madrid, Juventus, Man City, Chelsea and Spurs. If you have such a high 'possession efficiency' as they did, it is incontrovertible fact that you will be extremely successful. Everything else follows from this. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.

You ignored my point about defence or goals conceded.  Sure in general teams with lots of possession and lots of shots will be more successful - we don't need scientific analysys or stats to tell us that - it's common sense FFS!  At least, football can throw some strange results/performances, which makes it INTERESTING rather than meaningless stats, however correct those stats are.  I never doubted your stats accuracy, just question the point of them.

Heading for relegation?  14 points from 8 games, top half of the table with a game in hand to potentially be in 3rd place?  Who has the more meaningful stats then?

[mjdgreg]

You ignored my point about defence or goals conceded.

What you find is that the teams with the best possession efficiency also have the best defensive records. If you think about it, it is obvious. You're hardly likely to be good at possession if you keep giving the ball away to the opposition to score goals.

[dickos1]

Why do stoke have a good defensive record yet the worst possession stats by far every season?

[Wellred]

You ignored my point about defence or goals conceded.

What you find is that the teams with the best possession efficiency also have the best defensive records. If you think about it, it is obvious. You're hardly likely to be good at possession if you keep giving the ball away to the opposition to score goals.

So with only two teams with a better defensive record than us it must mean we have the third best possession efficiency record in the league using your way of thinking?
So what's the problem?

[mjdgreg]

So with only two teams with a better defensive record than us it must mean we have the third best possession efficiency record in the league using your way of thinking?
So what's the problem?

It's too early to say if there's a problem. All I'm doing is highlighting possession efficiency as a predictor of where a team will end up at the end of the season. There's plenty of time for us to improve our poor rating at the moment and indeed the last 2 games have shown considerable improvement.

As far as your point about only 2 teams having a better defensive record goes then I think you are missing the point. It is possible to have a good defensive record and a poor possession efficiency rating. All you have to do is play in a very defensive manner and hoof the ball up-field at every opportunity.

What I am saying is that it's much better to do it the other way around. Hold on to possession and use it to create chances. You will then hopefully become possession efficient and because of this the attempts on your own goal will be limited thus improving your own defensive record as you will have less defending to do.

[dickos1]

Still no answer as to why there's dozens of matches every week where the team with more possession loses the match.
Can't be the exception that breaks the rule if there are dozens of exceptions every week.

[mjdgreg]

Still no answer as to why there's dozens of matches every week where the team with more possession loses the match.
Can't be the exception that breaks the rule if there are dozens of exceptions every week.

'Dozens' is a bit of a sweeping statement. How many dozens? Dozens could be 2. So if you are saying that 24 teams out of potentially hundreds win with less possession then I can't see what point you're trying to make.

I've already conceded that some teams with less possession will win games. Even teams with a greater possession efficiency will lose some games. They are the exceptions that prove the rule. However, they will win more than they lose overall. 

[Wellred]

So with only two teams with a better defensive record than us it must mean we have the third best possession efficiency record in the league using your way of thinking?
So what's the problem?

It's too early to say if there's a problem. All I'm doing is highlighting possession efficiency as a predictor of where a team will end up at the end of the season. There's plenty of time for us to improve our poor rating at the moment and indeed the last 2 games have shown considerable improvement.

As far as your point about only 2 teams having a better defensive record goes then I think you are missing the point. It is possible to have a good defensive record and a poor possession efficiency rating. All you have to do is play in a very defensive manner and hoof the ball up-field at every opportunity.

What I am saying is that it's much better to do it the other way around. Hold on to possession and use it to create chances. You will then hopefully become possession efficient and because of this the attempts on your own goal will be limited thus improving your own defensive record as you will have less defending to do.

Much better to do it the other way round to suit your argument you mean?

[mjdgreg]

Much better to do it the other way round to suit your argument you mean?

I thought I'd explained it quite clearly. Not to suit my argument at all. Just to show the weakness in your argument.

[MrFrost]

Are you taking your stop watches to the game tomorrow night?

[RobTheRover]

He was after our first defeat.
Swansea's inefficient possession I'm glad your coming round to my way of thinking mjdgreg.

Excuse me but I didn't start after our first defeat of this season. I started as soon as he was appointed. I have only stopped putting my 'Saunders Out!!!' at the end of my posts because the moderators warned me off.
.

Hang on a minute, old son.  It was a friendly bit of advice that it was beginning to get repetitive and actually detracted from the (few) occasions you made a half decent point.  And it was you that replied that you had done with it, too.

[mjdgreg]

Are you taking your stop watches to the game tomorrow night?

Unfortunately I can't get to the game as I've started up another business that takes up my time on a Monday and Tuesday night from 5.00 - 9.30pm. I would be grateful if you or someone else could do it for me as we need to put this argument to bed once and for all (don't forget a pencil, rubber and notepad). The rubber will be needed to correct any mistakes you may make.

[jonnydog]

 ,

[attachment deleted by cleanup process]

[mjdgreg]

jonnydog. What has a photo of you doing your homework got to do with anything? By the way, a bit of friendly advice. I'd get that hairstyle and specs sorted if I were you. You'd get away with the shirt, but I'd also practice facial expressions, as your study face is very weird.

[MrFrost]

Are you taking your stop watches to the game tomorrow night?

Unfortunately I can't get to the game as I've started up another business that takes up my time on a Monday and Tuesday night from 5.00 - 9.30pm. I would be grateful if you or someone else could do it for me as we need to put this argument to bed once and for all (don't forget a pencil, rubber and notepad). The rubber will be needed to correct any mistakes you may make.

What business have you started?

[RobTheRover]

Anne Summers?