I bet most of us work with numbers. Statistics are something entirely different. That’s about coming to a factual conclusion based on evidence that is supported by the numbers. Statistics cannot be “skewed” like you say. They stand up to scientific rigour. I’m not saying folk don’t try to skew them, they most certainly do, but numerically it is absolutely clear what is factual and what is not.
Take a coin from your pocket. Toss it and see how it lands. Do it 10 times. You may get heads 9 times out of 10. What does that tell you?
(The answer is absolutely nothing btw).
In “football science” that tells you that heads is more likely to turn up than tails. This is what football stats are largely based on.
But in science you’d have to toss that coin at least 100 times and heads (or tails) would have to win at least 95 times out of 100 for it to have any scientific meaning. Otherwise, it’s totally meaningless.
I have no time whatsoever for half-arsed statistics conjured up by football fans trying to prove a point or journalists trying to spark interests in a column.
I’m sorry. I’m not trying to be awkward or difficult. But I do understand the relevance of such numbers and what I’m saying is it means nothing statistically. So you’re far better off taking a wider view of the players overall performance and basing your conclusions on that.
