How bad were we?

[Viking Don]

I chuckled quietly at scientologist but I just woke my damn kids up pissing myself at George Carlin and his 'stuff' - Cheers MM! 

[MachoMadness]

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.

I'm pretty good at spotting wit. You'll have to let me know if you plan to try using it in the near future.

[mjdgreg]

Just stop posting, BillyStubbsTears. 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? BillyStubbsTears, 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.

I agree. I on the other hand believe what I post and do not bait anybody. I merely put forward a logical explanation of stats that can be backed up 100%. Compare what I have posted to what Billy tried to do.

Any open minded person would agree with me that Billy is a right WUM and I handled it very deftly without patronising him. He on the other hand was very rude to me. He tried to bait me but I rose above it. Hopefully he will see the error of his ways and apologise and we can all then move on in a sensible manner.

[mjdgreg]

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

Look, I've been accused of not having a photographic memory and cutting and pasting. I've decided not to do anything that might reinforce that totally misguided view.

Let me make it clear. I do not use Google when making points on this forum. I purely rely on my photographic memory. So I have no intention of googling that phrase. There is no need, because I and many others already know what it means.

[MachoMadness]

I chuckled quietly at scientologist but I just woke my damn kids up pissing myself at George Carlin and his 'stuff' - Cheers MM! 

Was just watching his views on fat Americans myself:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLRQvK2-iqQ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLRQvK2-iqQ</a>

The guy is just brilliant, always was even into old age. Coruscating wit indeed.

I agree. I on the other hand believe what I post and do not bait anybody. I merely put forward a logical explanation of stats that can be backed up 100%. Compare what I have posted to what Billy tried to do.

Any open minded person would agree with me that Billy is a right WUM and I handled it very deftly without patronising him. He on the other hand was very rude to me. He tried to bait me but I rose above it. Hopefully he will see the error of his ways and apologise and we can all then move on in a sensible manner.

OH SNAP, you slightly edited my post so it looks like I'm talking about BST! Well, that certainly told me, I shall have to be careful in future if this is the kind of fearsome intellect that I'll be dealing with! I'm off to the burn ward right now Mick, 'cos you're on fire!

[Viking Don]

Haha Funny As F**k mate, was just watching another from the same show (telephone one). I can only recommend Wall-E for the kids (disney) and Cloud Atlas for the grown ups (David Mitchell) - a grim view of the future from both perspectives if life carries on as it  does.

[wilts rover]

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.

Ah yes, silly me, I was confusing your coruscating wit with bulls**t - easily done I'm afraid.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Ok Mick. So you won't enlighten us with the real meaning of "Exception proves the rule". I understand, because you'd make yourself look a right f**king tit if you did.

So. Back to the original question. What about this IDE with so much possession and so many shots. All the stats better than Tranmere's. What do you reckon about their results Mick.

Easy enough question. Just tell us what your predictive model says.

[mjdgreg]

So. Back to the original question. What about this IDE with so much possession and so many shots. All the stats better than Tranmere's. What do you reckon about their results mjdgreg.

Easy enough question. Just tell us what your predictive model says.

Look, we can all find one example that may suit our own particular view (the exception that proves the rule). All I am saying is that in general, more possession will mean more shots – but it’s not always the case. I fully accept that it is not always the case.

Possession can also be used as a defensive tactic to play out time when a side is ahead, and can be used to tire the opposition, before attacking more directly later on.

Anyway here's some graphs that make the point nearly as well as I do:

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2012/05/04/the-relationship-between-possession-and-shots/

Game, set and match.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick.

Brilliant. We are finally getting somewhere.

We'll leave aside the fact that you have demonstrated your ignorance of what "Exception proves the rule" means. It's a common mistake so I'll not push it. Unless you insist.

We now have clear what you have been wittering on about for weeks. That there is evidence that more possession results in more efforts on goal. Excellent.

But that's not the point is it Mick? The question is, does more possession and more shots on goal lead to more success?

Easily checkable. Here's a graph from last season's League 1, showing the final league position against the toal number of shots on goal that each team had.



Do you see any meaningful correlation there Mick?

What you would expect to see, if your theory had any validity, is a clear, tight trend moving from top left to bottom right (more shots equals better finishing position). If you screw your eyes up really, really tight, you might just convince yourself that there is possibly, just maybe a trend in that direction. But the amount of scatter on that graph demonstrates that trying to use number of shots as a predictor of success is meaningless.

So can we now, finally, put this whole facile nonsense to bed?

[jonnydog]

I'm pretty sure if you did a dot-to-dot on that chart you could get the DRFC symbol.

[Filo]

Mick, I reckon BST has given you another right battering, time for you to do the following

[mjdgreg]

We now have clear what you have been wittering on about for weeks. That there is evidence that more possession results in more efforts on goal. Excellent.

But that's not the point is it mjdgreg? The question is, does more possession and more shots on goal lead to more success?

Easily checkable. Here's a graph from last season's League 1, showing the final league position against the toal number of shots on goal that each team had.

I feel I must make a clarification. My viewpoint is that a team with more possession will usually but not always be more successful than a team with less possession. Now Billy what you are trying to say is that I believe more possession means more shots which means more success. I don't believe this.

Also you completely forget about headers. Shots are not the only thing that makes up an attempt on goal! Also, a graph that only shows shots does not truly represent the amount of possession that a team has, so it's far too simplistic to draw that conclusion. In effect you're trying to say that the amount of possession that a team has, directly corresponds to the number of shots it has. You don't believe this and neither do I. So in conclusion I would say your graph is pretty meaningless and I have dished out another battering to you.

[hoolahoop]

Did anyone else understand the above post  ? 

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick.

In effect you're trying to say that the amount of possession that a team has, directly corresponds to the number of shots it has.

No Mick. I am not saying that there is direct correspondence. I am saying that possession is a very good indicator of number of shots. YOU yourself made that point by linking to those very useful graphs earlier. Very helpful to the discussion.

Those graphs show a clear and tight correlation between shots (and stop obfuscating for once - the term means "efforts on goal" as you well know) and possession. There is spread, of course there is. There will never be direct 1-to-1 correlation. But the spread is rather limited. And if the correlation is poor, why the f**k did you present those graphs in the first place?

I have demonstrated that there is no clear correlation between shots and league position.

So.
A (possession) is a very good predictor of B(efforts at goal).

B (efforts at goal) is a very poor predictor of C(League success).

Therefore A is a very poor predictor of C.

Which was the issue that we have been trying to establish all along.

If you do not accept that basic logical connection, then what, precisely IS the point of your endless drivel on statistics?
And if you DO accept that logical connection, precisely IS the point of your endless drivel on statistics?

[wilts rover]

Did anyone else understand the above post  ? 

Yes, what he is saying is that the bollax stats he has been trotting out for what seems like the past millennia are indeed that - unreliable and boll....ks.

But i used less letters to do it.

[hoolahoop]

BST your A* on how to be as argumentative as Mick is in the post. Jeez I can't believe I've read this inane argument between the 2 of you. 

[mjdgreg]

Right let's just nail this once and for all. Billy you make the mistake of completely ignoring how efficient sides are in possession. Last season the 5 most efficient sides in possession out of 98 in the German, Spanish, English and Italian top leagues were 1 Man City (champions) 2 Real Madrid (champions) 3 Spurs (very successful season) 4 Juventus (champions) 5 Chelsea (Champions League Winner).

Possession is not the be all and end all. It's what you do with possession that counts. These 5 sides averaged 1 attempt on goal for every 3% of possession. That's very efficient. They also used their possession to protect a lead and to tire the opposition thereby making their possession in the latter stages of games even more effective.

Saunders on the other hand appears happy to let the opposition dominate possession which then has the knock-on effect of limiting our attempts on goal, and we get tired towards the end of games. This is going to spell disaster (again). If we ignore the first game of the season we are only averaging 1 goal scored a game. So it's obvious our possession efficiency is also poor. The least efficient teams in the above leagues had a possession efficiency of around 5%. Rovers current possession efficiency is 6%. No wonder I'm worried.

[pubteam]

Why can't folk just accept that mjdgreg/Mick is a troll and just ignore him?

He signed up for the forum on September 23rd 2011 (under his old username madmick50). I wonder why that particular date? Can't be because that was the day SOD was replaced by DS can it?

In my opinion, he's just a Wrexham fan who hated Saunders, or a relative of SOD, or Paul Elliott or something. He probably signed up to get a laugh out of winding people up for a while, but people have continued to bite for the best part of a year which has kept him going.

[Wild Rover]

Right let's just nail this once and for all. Billy you make the mistake of completely ignoring how efficient sides are in possession. Last season the 5 most efficient sides in possession out of 98 in the German, Spanish, English and Italian top leagues were 1 Man City (champions) 2 Real Madrid (champions) 3 Spurs (very successful season) 4 Juventus (champions) 5 Chelsea (Champions League Winner).

.
What that actually shows is that if the club has lots of money and spend it, they get the best players, best players tend to be able to "pass the ball around". Thats called "Buying sucess".
DRFC cannot do that, therefore the posession stakes will be naturally lower, so will the "Chances" stakes ( or attempts if you wish ). But, at the end of this season DRFC may well be a success.

[neil grainger]

Why can't folk just accept that mjdgreg/Mick is a troll and just ignore him?

He signed up for the forum on September 23rd 2011 (under his old username madmick50). I wonder why that particular date? Can't be because that was the day SOD was replaced by DS can it?

In my opinion, he's just a Wrexham fan who hated Saunders, or a relative of SOD, or Paul Elliott or something. He probably signed up to get a laugh out of winding people up for a while, but people have continued to bite for the best part of a year which has kept him going.

At last, amidst this whole crock of s**t, a sensible and erudite comment.

Thank you pubteam.

Many former posters who made interesting and entertaining contributions have abandoned this forum, and threads like this are the reason why.

I have enormous respect for BST because all of his posts are worth reading. They entertain and enlighten and almost all make me either think, or laugh, or both.
He is clearly trying to grind this pathetic troll into submission, but he is engaged on Mission Impossible.

mjdgreg is currently in danger of ruining this site. I can hardly find a thread which is not blighted by his inane and self-obsessed ramblings.

I'm all for healthy debate but this is getting ridiculous.

[RobTheRover]

Dont worry Neil, the moderators of the site know who Mick is, as well as his accomplices.

[mjdgreg]

What that actually shows is that if the club has lots of money and spend it, they get the best players, best players tend to be able to "pass the ball around". Thats called "Buying sucess".
DRFC cannot do that, therefore the posession stakes will be naturally lower, so will the "Chances" stakes ( or attempts if you wish ). But, at the end of this season DRFC may well be a success.

So have DRFC ever been able to buy success? According to you the  'pass the ball around culture' under SOD  must have cost us a fortune buying the best players. I think you'll find that SOD had a 'pass the ball around culture' with very limited resources. You have just shot yourself in the foot big time.

[Wild Rover]

What that actually shows is that if the club has lots of money and spend it, they get the best players, best players tend to be able to "pass the ball around". Thats called "Buying sucess".
DRFC cannot do that, therefore the posession stakes will be naturally lower, so will the "Chances" stakes ( or attempts if you wish ). But, at the end of this season DRFC may well be a success.

So have DRFC ever been able to buy success? According to you the  'pass the ball around culture' under SOD  must have cost us a fortune buying the best players. I think you'll find that SOD had a 'pass the ball around culture' with very limited resources. You have just shot yourself in the foot big time.

Speaking in relative terms yes DRFC have, ok DRFC never spent tens or hundreds of millions, but how do you think wages reached over 9 million a year, how do you think DRFC could "Buy" BS, How do you think some of the "Loan" players were afforded.

[mjdgreg]

Speaking in relative terms yes DRFC have, ok DRFC never spent tens or hundreds of millions, but how do you think wages reached over 9 million a year, how do you think DRFC could "Buy" BS, How do you think some of the "Loan" players were afforded.

The thrust of your argument was that you could only play possession football if you bought the best players in the world. Wrong. SOD did this very successfully with players of much less ability. Also in relative terms to other teams in the Championship his budget and wage bill was very small. So you are wrong again.

[mjdgreg]

mjdgreg is currently in danger of ruining this site. I can hardly find a thread which is not blighted by his inane and self-obsessed ramblings.

I'm all for healthy debate but this is getting ridiculous.

You're the one that has just made a ridiculous statement. Currently there are 27 'live' threads on the first page of threads. How many have I posted in? Just 1. So please explain how you can't find a thread which I have not blighted. Talk about exaggerating. I disagree with you 1 million per cent.

[Filo]

Your Photographic memory has missed something Mick!

[Wild Rover]

Speaking in relative terms yes DRFC have, ok DRFC never spent tens or hundreds of millions, but how do you think wages reached over 9 million a year, how do you think DRFC could "Buy" BS, How do you think some of the "Loan" players were afforded.

The thrust of your argument was that you could only play possession football if you bought the best players in the world. Wrong. SOD did this very successfully with players of much less ability. Also in relative terms to other teams in the Championship his budget and wage bill was very small. So you are wrong again.

No, you are the one that is wrong, very wrong, i never said you could only play posession football with "Best players in the world", what i said was it helps if you can afford the better players. since you have brought up O'driscoll just check the stats for his last 50 games in charge, it might surprise you that the average posession stat for that period is only in the 40% range, the number of "attempts" comes in at less than 8, on target averages less than 5 per match for DRFC. ( thats very very similar to Saunders games average ).

[mjdgreg]

No, you are the one that is wrong, very wrong, i never said you could only play posession football with "Best players in the world", what i said was it helps if you can afford the better players. since you have brought up O'driscoll just check the stats for his last 50 games in charge, it might surprise you that the average posession stat for that period is only in the 40% range, the number of "attempts" comes in at less than 8, on target averages less than 5 per match for DRFC. ( thats very very similar to Saunders games average ).

In the context of the Championship, we couldn't afford the better players but SOD still managed to play possession football. You make the mistake that Billy does of being selective with your data to make your point. Why didn't you include the games before the last 50?

The last 50 games make my point because we couldn't afford the better players to cover for the appalling injury list and so our possession stats suffered. What happened after this? We collected less points and eventually SOD was sacked and we got relegated.

You inadvertently make my point about possession being important. Does not the fact that Saunders is performing the same as SOD's last 50 games make you think? I'll spell it out. We need to improve in this area or Saunders will eventually get sacked and we'll get relegated.

[Rupee92]

 

That's all i see whenever Mick posts.