It's all about the center backs........isn't it?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Before everyone gets too fixed on signing center backs as our panacea, this table tells you something about where Clough has gone wrong, tactically.

http://www.soccerstats.com/timing.asp?league=england3

Given our woeful first half position, it's clear that when we've opened up and gone for it in the 2nd half we've clearly done well. This is without changes to the defence.

Take note Mr Clough. It's been glaringly obvious ALL season and you've missed it. The penny has to drop, and soon.

UTB

Can't agree with this analysis at all.

In what sense have we opened up on the second half? If anything I'd've thought that's when we try to shut down.

The second half figures are also heavily skewed by all the very late.goals we scored early in the season.

I imagine you could look at these stats and use them to back up pretty much whatever case you want to make.

Football is not really a statistical game. So much of it is qualitative not quantitative eg 65-35 of possession but losing the game 1-0. There are countless other examples.

Stats have their place in the game but they have to be interpreted very carefully and in context.

Some table of Ability to Keep a 1-0 Lead might be interesting, but hard to usefully compile, and again it'd be cherry-picking.
 



I think its quite simple really........
We played ALL season without two dominant centre halves.
We played until the end of January with no strikers.
We played ALL season with miniature midfield players who cannot physically compete in this Division.
Not really a surprise then that we fu**ed it up, is it. :mad:
UTB & FTP

We played all season without any useful outfielders and still finished fifth?

Clough must be some kind of genius*. Imagine where we'll be if we get some players.

*Howard must have played a big part as well.

UTB
 
Important to a point but when it becomes pedantry for the sake of it to lessen someones point on a forum then it's over the top.

We all have differing degrees of grammatical ability but that shouldn't mean someones point is less thought of because of it.

Text speak however........

*someone's

;-)
 

Football is not really a statistical game.
So much of it is qualitative not quantitative eg 65-35 of possession but losing the game 1-0. There are countless other examples.
.

lots would argue very hard with you on that one, have you ever read soccernomics? Would highly recomend it if you havent but it basically breaks all of football down into stats and shows how teams like PSG or maybe it was Lyon have based their entire business / football model on them to great success.

however the stats from the OP could just suggest that we rested in the first half and let the other teams tire themselves out then when they were tired in the second half we then took advantage.
 
lots would argue very hard with you on that one, have you ever read soccernomics? Would highly recomend it if you havent but it basically breaks all of football down into stats and shows how teams like PSG or maybe it was Lyon have based their entire business / football model on them to great success.

however the stats from the OP could just suggest that we rested in the first half and let the other teams tire themselves out then when they were tired in the second half we then took advantage.

Stats have their place but are wildly overused and misinterpreted in football.

I'm familiar with the Moneyball approach but straight away you're hit with the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Again :-)

How do you know your statistical analysis has caused the improvement?

You're paying very close attention to the team, maybe that's the determining factor - this is generally the case. I think.

PSG? Didn't they spend bucketfuls of money?

What about teams that go for Moneyball approach and it doesn't work?

Charles F*****g Hughes. FFFS.

I'm not a total Luddite wrt stats but they need expert collection and interpretation. And you have to acknowledge their limitations.

Teqm Sky seem to be very good at both aspect of this
 
Stats have their place but are wildly overused and misinterpreted in football.

I'm familiar with the Moneyball approach but straight away you're hit with the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Again :)
but you could run your stats for a decent period before you implement any change and then again after and compare them :)

just had a quick look and it was Llyon not PSG, the stats are more based around things outside of the actual 90 mins of game time but certain things will definatly have a big baring and others wont, I seem to remember a chapter in it about penalties and after all the anaysis the consensus was to not bother researching them and just smash them whichever way you fancy.

This guy on liverpool forum summed up the Llyon thing:

"Here's the 12 main secrets of Lyon:

-- A new manager wastes money; don't let him

The first order of business usually when a new manager arrives is to clear out the deadwood from the club and sells off what are perceived to be undesirable players at a fraction of what they were originally bought.

At Lyon, the brand of football stays the same, the board stays the same, just the players and managers change over time. In fact, Lyon put little to no emphasis on the manager position. Which brings us to ...

-- Use the power of crowds

Not the crowds in the stands, but the crowd of wise football men who can come up with a consensus of what to do to move the club forward. While most English clubs are still stuck with the one-man only type of football management, most clubs around the world have a technical director in charge of player personnel. In fact, I can't think of any other league or sport besides the English Premier League where the manager has so much power in player decisions.

-- Stars of World Cups and European Champions are more often than not overvalued.

See El-Haji Diouf.

-- Certain nationalities are overvalued.

Let's face it, if you had the chance to sign one of two similarly skilled players and found out they were a Brazilian and an American, most of us would sign the Brazilian. Look at some of the best bargains in the Premier League recently: Wilson Palacios joined Wigan for a nominal fee and then went to Spurs for 12 million pounds. From Honduras.

Antonio Valencia signed for Wigan also for a nominal fee and impressed well enough to join the Mancs for 16 million pounds. Ecuador.

The point being the world is bigger than Brazil, Argentina and Western Europe. If you want to be successful, you must scour all of the world, not just a small corner of it.

-- Older players are overvalued ... as well as younger players

Soccernomics cites Paisiely as an example. As players reached the age of the 30, their value to the club significantly decreases. However, just because a player is young doesn't mean he'll be a success. Lyon tend to buy players in their early 20s, mature enough to adapt to the environment but still nearing their peak of their playing prowess. Investing large sums of cash in an Academy is useless if the player doesn't develop. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule -- one Lionel Messi in terms of younger and unfortunately Giggs and Scholes for the older -- but if you're looking to buy, buy a player in his early 20s.

-- Center forwards are overvalued; goalkeepers are undervalued

I wanted to slap myself upside the head for not realizing this sooner. Of course goalkeepers are more valuable than we think! Think of the longevity of the goalkeeper position. Dino Zoff won the World Cup at the age of 40, still very much at the top of his game. It makes Pepe Reina's transfer ludicrously cheap. Rafa bought one of the top 5 goalkeepers in the world at the age of 23 for 6 million pounds, a player who hasn't even peaked yet and given the club five wonderful years of service. Funny enough, Soccernomics has listed Arsene Wenger as one of the patrons of statistical analysis and yet he hasn't realized this yet.

The book doesn't go much into detail about why Center Forwards are overpriced, but theoretically, it makes sense. What position is seen as the glamour position? Striker. I'm less convinced about this argument, although you might have something there if we see someone like David Ngog develop for the meager tag of 1.5 million and becomes a world-class striker. If you compare his return to say, Robbie Keane, there is some merit, albeit with extenuating circumstances.

-- Gentlemen prefer blondes. Avoid sight-based observations.

No, this is not an observation on Christian Poulsen. Well, actually it might be. In Moneyball, Billy Beane cites one of the reasons why he was able to get players on the cheap was the fact that they never looked the part. Blondes do tend to stand out on the field with their lighter locks and Soccernomics goes into examples of this. Some players -- or managers who happen to be Spanish, slightly chubby and speak in a funny accent -- just don't seem right in a football shirt. And yet they get the job done. Compare that to Poulsen, who stands out with his blonde hair and also stands out with his rather lackluster play.

-- Sell any player if another club offers more than he's worth.

By far, Lyon are a perfect example of this, getting good prices on Essien and Malouda before flogging them on. It's a rather cold, hard fact, but every player has a price. If Real Madrid were to bid 300 million pounds for Gerrard, as much as Stevie has meant to the club, you would be mentally retarded not to sell Gerrard. However, it helps to have a ready-made replacement, which leads us to ....

-- Have your replacement ready before you sell your best players.

A good example of this is at Arsenal where Jack Wilshere is being groomed to replace Fabregas who was groomed to replace Viera when he was sold on. There's no doubt Fabregas within the next couple of years is headed back to Spain and Wenger is getting Wilshere ready for that day.

-- Buy undervalued players who have personal problems

Interesting theory, this. Soccernomics cites the example of Brian Clough and Peter Taylor as the management team that did this often. They would ask a player what his vice was and after finding out, would use the proper management skills or outside help to control it. Man management that allowed Forest and Derby to buy good players for a pittance and be successful.

-- Finally, help your players relocate.

I was shocked to read how clubs just consider their players as merely merchandise. OK, so they make more money in a week than I will in a lifetime. But think about being a young man moving from a different corner of the world to a new foreign land. In this foreign land, your employer does not assist you in buying a house, does not help you get acclimated to life and expects you to be successful because they've paid a huge sum of money.

A good example of how this worked well is Torres. I remember reading about how the club gave him DVDs to get a feel of the tradition and history surrounding LFC. Of course, it helped having established Spanish stars like Alonso and Reina, but every little bit helps."
 
In the words of one of our players I bumped into at 6am this morning in the casino "why da fuck dint he sign a center half man? He fell out with Collins time ago innit"

Said player was in the starting 11 on Monday night
 
but you could run your stats for a decent period before you implement any change and then again after and compare them :)

just had a quick look and it was Llyon not PSG, the stats are more based around things outside of the actual 90 mins of game time but certain things will definatly have a big baring and others wont, I seem to remember a chapter in it about penalties and after all the anaysis the consensus was to not bother researching them and just smash them whichever way you fancy.

This guy on liverpool forum summed up the Llyon thing:

"Here's the 12 main secrets of Lyon:

-- A new manager wastes money; don't let him

The first order of business usually when a new manager arrives is to clear out the deadwood from the club and sells off what are perceived to be undesirable players at a fraction of what they were originally bought.

At Lyon, the brand of football stays the same, the board stays the same, just the players and managers change over time. In fact, Lyon put little to no emphasis on the manager position. Which brings us to ...

-- Use the power of crowds

Not the crowds in the stands, but the crowd of wise football men who can come up with a consensus of what to do to move the club forward. While most English clubs are still stuck with the one-man only type of football management, most clubs around the world have a technical director in charge of player personnel. In fact, I can't think of any other league or sport besides the English Premier League where the manager has so much power in player decisions.

-- Stars of World Cups and European Champions are more often than not overvalued.

See El-Haji Diouf.

-- Certain nationalities are overvalued.

Let's face it, if you had the chance to sign one of two similarly skilled players and found out they were a Brazilian and an American, most of us would sign the Brazilian. Look at some of the best bargains in the Premier League recently: Wilson Palacios joined Wigan for a nominal fee and then went to Spurs for 12 million pounds. From Honduras.

Antonio Valencia signed for Wigan also for a nominal fee and impressed well enough to join the Mancs for 16 million pounds. Ecuador.

The point being the world is bigger than Brazil, Argentina and Western Europe. If you want to be successful, you must scour all of the world, not just a small corner of it.

-- Older players are overvalued ... as well as younger players

Soccernomics cites Paisiely as an example. As players reached the age of the 30, their value to the club significantly decreases. However, just because a player is young doesn't mean he'll be a success. Lyon tend to buy players in their early 20s, mature enough to adapt to the environment but still nearing their peak of their playing prowess. Investing large sums of cash in an Academy is useless if the player doesn't develop. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule -- one Lionel Messi in terms of younger and unfortunately Giggs and Scholes for the older -- but if you're looking to buy, buy a player in his early 20s.

-- Center forwards are overvalued; goalkeepers are undervalued

I wanted to slap myself upside the head for not realizing this sooner. Of course goalkeepers are more valuable than we think! Think of the longevity of the goalkeeper position. Dino Zoff won the World Cup at the age of 40, still very much at the top of his game. It makes Pepe Reina's transfer ludicrously cheap. Rafa bought one of the top 5 goalkeepers in the world at the age of 23 for 6 million pounds, a player who hasn't even peaked yet and given the club five wonderful years of service. Funny enough, Soccernomics has listed Arsene Wenger as one of the patrons of statistical analysis and yet he hasn't realized this yet.

The book doesn't go much into detail about why Center Forwards are overpriced, but theoretically, it makes sense. What position is seen as the glamour position? Striker. I'm less convinced about this argument, although you might have something there if we see someone like David Ngog develop for the meager tag of 1.5 million and becomes a world-class striker. If you compare his return to say, Robbie Keane, there is some merit, albeit with extenuating circumstances.

-- Gentlemen prefer blondes. Avoid sight-based observations.

No, this is not an observation on Christian Poulsen. Well, actually it might be. In Moneyball, Billy Beane cites one of the reasons why he was able to get players on the cheap was the fact that they never looked the part. Blondes do tend to stand out on the field with their lighter locks and Soccernomics goes into examples of this. Some players -- or managers who happen to be Spanish, slightly chubby and speak in a funny accent -- just don't seem right in a football shirt. And yet they get the job done. Compare that to Poulsen, who stands out with his blonde hair and also stands out with his rather lackluster play.

-- Sell any player if another club offers more than he's worth.

By far, Lyon are a perfect example of this, getting good prices on Essien and Malouda before flogging them on. It's a rather cold, hard fact, but every player has a price. If Real Madrid were to bid 300 million pounds for Gerrard, as much as Stevie has meant to the club, you would be mentally retarded not to sell Gerrard. However, it helps to have a ready-made replacement, which leads us to ....

-- Have your replacement ready before you sell your best players.

A good example of this is at Arsenal where Jack Wilshere is being groomed to replace Fabregas who was groomed to replace Viera when he was sold on. There's no doubt Fabregas within the next couple of years is headed back to Spain and Wenger is getting Wilshere ready for that day.

-- Buy undervalued players who have personal problems

Interesting theory, this. Soccernomics cites the example of Brian Clough and Peter Taylor as the management team that did this often. They would ask a player what his vice was and after finding out, would use the proper management skills or outside help to control it. Man management that allowed Forest and Derby to buy good players for a pittance and be successful.

-- Finally, help your players relocate.

I was shocked to read how clubs just consider their players as merely merchandise. OK, so they make more money in a week than I will in a lifetime. But think about being a young man moving from a different corner of the world to a new foreign land. In this foreign land, your employer does not assist you in buying a house, does not help you get acclimated to life and expects you to be successful because they've paid a huge sum of money.

A good example of how this worked well is Torres. I remember reading about how the club gave him DVDs to get a feel of the tradition and history surrounding LFC. Of course, it helped having established Spanish stars like Alonso and Reina, but every little bit helps."

Interesting. Thanks.

I take this to mean that the wisest investment of, say, half a million quid is on a keeper. A keeper at that price tends to improve your squad to a much greater extent than a striker for the same price?

Someone has just started a stats-based thread. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. Will there be agreement on what the raw stats mean?
 
In the words of one of our players I bumped into at 6am this morning in the casino "why da fuck dint he sign a center half man? He fell out with Collins time ago innit"

Said player was in the starting 11 on Monday night

Confused. First paragraph makes me not take this seriously. Second paragraph makes me take it seriously. Is this genuine?
 
In the words of one of our players I bumped into at 6am this morning in the casino "why da fuck dint he sign a center half man? He fell out with Collins time ago innit"

Said player was in the starting 11 on Monday night
I heard Porter was with them!
 
Interesting. Thanks.

I take this to mean that the wisest investment of, say, half a million quid is on a keeper. A keeper at that price tends to improve your squad to a much greater extent than a striker for the same price?

Someone has just started a stats-based thread. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. Will there be agreement on what the raw stats mean?

yep thats pretty much the long and short of it because people remember the striker scoring goals much more than the keeper saving them and so they come to the wrong conclusion about which is better value. Some very good points are made in the book about what happens and what people actualy think happens or what they remember. Part of it goes on about certain managers loving outswinging corners because in their head they remember the goals scored from these as they are usualy spectacular yet the stats prove that a much higher percentage of corners are scored by swinging it into the near post but the goals scored by these are usualy just knocked in by the near post or its a scrapy goal that noone remembers
 
Can't agree with this analysis at all.

In what sense have we opened up on the second half? If anything I'd've thought that's when we try to shut down.

The second half figures are also heavily skewed by all the very late.goals we scored early in the season.

I imagine you could look at these stats and use them to back up pretty much whatever case you want to make.

Football is not really a statistical game. So much of it is qualitative not quantitative eg 65-35 of possession but losing the game 1-0. There are countless other examples.

Stats have their place in the game but they have to be interpreted very carefully and in context.

Some table of Ability to Keep a 1-0 Lead might be interesting, but hard to usefully compile, and again it'd be cherry-picking.
Of all the teams that were promotion contenders, we were the only one to perform so poorly, over an entire season average, in the I first half.

It's not a case of who agrees or not. It's a statistical fact that we have performed significantly poorer in the first halves, and that that is not attributed to our centre backs, or the quality of other players.

UTB
 
Not really to me, on an internet bulletin board. The message is important, not the setting of some spellchecker (or no spellchecker at all in my case) on the other side of the internet.

It's clearly important to some. SEB (and perhaps you) think that I should have had better schooling, I think he's coming across as a pedantic fool.

UTB

Pedant? Possibly. I don't think it's a schooling issue, you are clearly articulate and know your way around the language. So it's either provocative, lazy, or posturing.

Fool? What was it Plato said? Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Plenty of likes for just saying something!
 



Of all the teams that were promotion contenders, we were the only one to perform so poorly, over an entire season average, in the I first half.

It's not a case of who agrees or not. It's a statistical fact that we have performed significantly poorer in the first halves, and that that is not attributed to our centre backs, or the quality of other players.
UTB

In which case it's down to tactics, or a sodding poor team talk in the dressing room.
 
Confused. First paragraph makes me not take this seriously. Second paragraph makes me take it seriously. Is this genuine?

The first paragraph was just how the player said it. Completely serious. Three of the team where there. All in the squad on Monday although one of them didn't play any part and was still at the table flashing the cash after I had left (£200 up I might add :) ) at 0730 this morning.

Despite two of the lads being very nice and shaking hands and coming out of their way to say goodbye when they left at 5. I didn't appreciate the attitude of "we're meant to be in today but it'll be fine"
 
Pedant? Possibly. I don't think it's a schooling issue, you are clearly articulate and know your way around the language. So it's either provocative, lazy, or posturing.

Fool? What was it Plato said? Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Plenty of likes for just saying something!

Call it lazy for not caring as much as you, and not turning on my spellchecker. Someone shoot me for my crimes.

Now seriously, do one will you? You've made your (ridiculously pedantic) point, now please move on before we fall out.

UTB
 
[/QUOTE]
I agree generally (especially txtspk ...) but it does puzzle me why people get so defensive about it, as if it actually isn't that important.

Who's getting defensive though - the person that let an Americansim slip through, or the person who feels the need to publicly highlight it and take a thread off track?

UTB
 
The first paragraph was just how the player said it. Completely serious. Three of the team where there. All in the squad on Monday although one of them didn't play any part and was still at the table flashing the cash after I had left (£200 up I might add :) ) at 0730 this morning.

Despite two of the lads being very nice and shaking hands and coming out of their way to say goodbye when they left at 5. I didn't appreciate the attitude of "we're meant to be in today but it'll be fine"
I know Baxter likes a flutter.
 
I think its quite simple really........
We played ALL season without two dominant centre halves.
We played until the end of January with no strikers.
We played ALL season with miniature midfield players who cannot physically compete in this Division.
Not really a surprise then that we fu**ed it up, is it. :mad:
UTB & FTP
Those points were all valid in the first and second half. 2nd half form would have seen us challenge for automatic. First half form saw us threratened with relegation.

We can't go into a season thinking if we simply sign some dominant centre backs, our problems will be solved. It was clearly an issue, but not the only one.

UTB
 
Last edited:
however the stats from the OP could just suggest that we rested in the first half and let the other teams tire themselves out then when they were tired in the second half we then took advantage.

Fair point that - though I'd counter that it's not a tactic employed by those who were promoted.

UTB
 
It's not a case of who agrees or not. It's a statistical fact that we have performed significantly poorer in the first halves, and that that is not attributed to our centre backs, or the quality of other players.

So what are the "hypotheses":

1) We try to hang on to 1-0 leads
2) We wait till we go behind and then start attacking
3) Centre halves are not an issue
4) Centre halves are an issue
5) other
 
So what are the "hypotheses":

1) We try to hang on to 1-0 leads
2) We wait till we go behind and then start attacking
3) Centre halves are not an issue
4) Centre halves are an issue
5) other

1. We start very slowly and up the pressure as the match goes on - first priority is to not concede
2. If we score, we try to hang on
3. Hanging on, and in fact everything we do, is undermined by a poor central defence.

That's exactly how I've read the season. Only point 1 is "proven" here.

UTB
 
Those points were all valid in the first and second half. 2nd half form would have seen us challenge for automatic. First half form saw us threratened with relegation.

We can't go into a season thinking if we simply sign some dominant centre backs, our problems will be solved. It was clearly an issue, but not the only one.

UTB
I agree, our tactics stood out like a sore thumb this season and that can only be a bad thing as teams know how to play against you, this needs addressing next season and we have to show our adaptability in the tactics department a lot more than we did this year.
 


Who's getting defensive though - the person that let an Americansim slip through, or the person who feels the need to publicly highlight it and take a thread off track?

UTB[/QUOTE]

I was talking generally and not meaning you in particular
 



Those points were all valid in the first and second half. 2nd half form would have seen us challenge for automatic. First half form saw us threratened with relegation.

We can't go into a season thinking if we simply sign some dominant centre backs, our problems will be solved. It was clearly an issue, but not the only one.

UTB

Don't get it.

We sign CHs. In theory we stop, ok reduce, conceding. That moves us up the first half table, the second half table, and the Division 3 table all at once. Doesn't it?
 

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom