The Value of Done - Mark II

Cerberus Blade said:
Come on, all of those who supported this original thread...

Tell us some more about "The Value of Done"?

Tell us how much he adds to the team - with his 2 goals in 50 odd games. And his incessant running around in circles without the ball?

Tell us how much better he is than those ahead of him in the first team?

And quote us some stats on how we won games when he was playing but lost when he wasn't? (But ignore the first 5 games if you want when he played but we didn't win).

He's finished. That's it. End of story. And some of us knew that months ago.
Click to expand...

What you mean the some of us (you) who asserted he should be LWB some months ago? Wasn't finished then according to you was he?
 

Cerberus Blade said:
I earn a living from working with stats. And I don't expect everyone to understand them - because that would be totally unrealistic. But football is full of people quoting stupid stats which just don't add up.
!
Click to expand...

Talking of stupid stats that don't add up... . "Take the number 100. Then take away 0.05 and you have 0.95 remaining. Or if that's difficult, add 0.05 to 0.95 and you should get 100."

You sure?
 
Matty done has been a part of the current jigsaw.
If the season ends up in promotion,then in a few years from now looking back,his piece will be in the box.
He has and still is a part of it.
Utb
 
Cerberus Blade said:
Come on, all of those who supported this original thread...

Tell us some more about "The Value of Done"?

Tell us how much he adds to the team - with his 2 goals in 50 odd games. And his incessant running around in circles without the ball?

Tell us how much better he is than those ahead of him in the first team?

And quote us some stats on how we won games when he was playing but lost when he wasn't? (But ignore the first 5 games if you want when he played but we didn't win).

He's finished. That's it. End of story. And some of us knew that months ago.
Click to expand...
WRONG.....................FAKE NEWS
 
Dublin O'Blade said:
Talking of stupid stats that don't add up... . "Take the number 100. Then take away 0.05 and you have 0.95 remaining. Or if that's difficult, add 0.05 to 0.95 and you should get 100."

You sure?
Click to expand...

Yes.

100 is expressed as 1.00 in this situation and 0.95 is 0.05 below. This is the usual way that statistical analysis is reported.
 
Cerberus Blade
200.gif
 
Cerberus Blade said:
Yes.

100 is expressed as 1.00 in this situation and 0.95 is 0.05 below. This is the usual way that statistical analysis is reported.
Click to expand...

So what you meant to say was ""Take the number 1.00. Then take away 0.05 and you have 0.95 remaining. Or if that's difficult, add 0.05 to 0.95 and you should get 1.00."

It's okay to say you got it wrong - that's what you want from others in this thread, right?
 
Cerberus Blade said:
You may be right - but do you understand statistics? For something to have statistical relevance you have to prove that in 95 times out of a 100 the result would be the same. This is usually expressed as a "p value" of >0.05. Take the number 100. Then take away 0.05 and you have 0.95 remaining. Or if that's difficult, add 0.05 to 0.95 and you should get 100.

I'm sorry to tell you, but you are talking rubbish when you suggest that the games that Done started ended up in better results for the team. They didn't. Not statistically valid at all. You might as well consider what colour socks you wore for those matches.

I know folks don't like admitting they are wrong. It's not nice. But the facts are that all those who supported this guy's inclusion in the team are totally wrong. And when he's gone into oblivion this summer it will be perfectly obvious, although still deniable to most.
Click to expand...

I work professionally with stats and your argument doesn't make sense. The statement "I'd say we at least have a higher goals per game ratio in the ones where Done started compared to when he didn't start (wing back starts definitely don't count because he's as much of a wing back as I am)" is either true or false (I don't know which it is, by the way). It isn't a statement that you can subject to significance testing, which is what you are talking about with all this about p values. Thus, your statement that "I'm sorry to tell you, but you are talking rubbish when you suggest that the games that Done started ended up in better results for the team" might be a load of old rubbish because your are deploying unsuitable analytical tools. He might not be talking rubbish at all, you might be.
 
Teams are all about balance and organisation. Something the current manager has reiterated time and time again to those who want to listen.Throwing eleven good footballers together is no guarantee of success - even if technically they have skills that are superior to the opposition or certain teamates. I had a season ticket in Catalonia for three years, and the obvious decline of that team was in its work without the ball. As soon as getting the ball back morphed from three seconds to six seconds, they got picked apart on the break.Not even Neymar and Messi could consistently save them, as Suarez pressed on his own, ala Sanchez at Arsenal. The epitome of Barca's decline was their defeat to PSG
Our team last year was an absolute joke out of possession, despite the players largely having played at higher levels compared to our current players. Arguably the most in vogue player in the premier league is most noted for his play without the ball. I'm sure you haven't noticed him. Done allowed us to play the high pressing style effectively when our only other options were Clarke, Lavery (with no pre season) and Mcnulty. How you can claim that these three players fit the style better is ludicrous, even if they are better footballers. None can cover ground quickly and relentlessly in order to force opponents to give us the ball back and allow our superlative midfield to destroy the opposition. As Lavery has become fitter and the extremely hard working Hanson has come in, we have replaced most of what Done gives us out of possession and increased the technical quality of our front line when in possession. The link play has improved, the goal threat has improved and we still press the opposition into giving us the ball back. When we don't, we get Fleetwood at home and Walsall away. I'd still like a Didier Drogba or Suarez (Chelsea and Liverpool eras) to really help me ram the point home. On a side note, Duffy, Freeman and Lafferty deserve special praise for effectively carrying out the system. I have to say Duffy is looking a little shattered by this point, which is no surprise as he's our second best presser of the ball...He will also be replaced by someone who presses as well and has better technical skills.
 
Done was a panic buy by Clough on the last day of the JTW. He had played striker for a few months for the first time in his career and he was in the goals. Career goals record minimal. We paid 750k or so, an offer Rochdale couldn't refuse. Scored a few for a while but never really looked like a striker who plays in a team pattern, more a poacher who put a shift in but rarely fitted in build up play. Barnsley pal warned me he was really poor for them as a winger and he has been a poor wing back for us I'm afraid.
 
Cerberus Blade said:
Go back a few weeks and you'll find threads, one in particular, entitled, "The Value of Done", which was defending him at a time when he was contributing absolutely nothing to the team apart from running around like a crazed mongrel. That's why I posted this thread. Because I contested his value to the team at the time and I was one of the few to do so. Most on here thought he was just fab because he chases every ball. I argued against that, saying that we couldn't rely on him, especially as one of the two strikers. Then we got all this shite about the team winning more with him in it. It's all been proved to be nonsense. But some folks just can't say, "I got it wrong" can they?

I got it wrong about Clarke for example. I didn't post any thread about "The value of Clarke" but I did think he'd do a lot better for us than he did - but I was way out on that.

For the record I've also said that:

Coutts should be in the team
Long won't make it
Scougall won't make it

in addition to Done not being good enough.

I think I'm possibly doing ok with my assessment of these players and I'm sorry to make some folk feel uncomfortable because they don't have the same insight, but that's how it is! None of us are right all of the time. But some of us don't mind admitting it!
Click to expand...

See, I don't doubt your stats knowledge but I am doubting whether you have a consistent train of thought in this thread.

So far we've had:
Those who defended Done are idiots
Those who defended Done were talking bollocks
I'm not having a dig at Done
Done contributed absolutely nothing
People only liked him because he ran around a lot
I'm not having a dig at Done, honest
Complaining about posters not admitting to being wrong about arguments nobody made (did anyone ever say they loved that he merely "ran around a lot"?)

This is "old man yells at cloud" stuff, and people are waiting for you to hit a point in the face of the reality that nobody has been calling for the guy to return to the side ahead of the other options up front. Done was in the side when the good form started, he was dropped for better options, can we get away from these abstractions and talk about what anyone actually said and how it's been proven wrong by him not playing? Seems like something a strict empiricist like yourself would want to do. At the moment it seems like you're arguing against nobody.
 
He's just upset because he thought Leon Clarke would be better than Done or Sharp.
 

Cerberus Blade said:
You may be right - but do you understand statistics? For something to have statistical relevance you have to prove that in 95 times out of a 100 the result would be the same. This is usually expressed as a "p value" of >0.05. Take the number 100. Then take away 0.05 and you have 0.95 remaining. Or if that's difficult, add 0.05 to 0.95 and you should get 100.

I'm sorry to tell you, but you are talking rubbish when you suggest that the games that Done started ended up in better results for the team. They didn't. Not statistically valid at all. You might as well consider what colour socks you wore for those matches.

I know folks don't like admitting they are wrong. It's not nice. But the facts are that all those who supported this guy's inclusion in the team are totally wrong. And when he's gone into oblivion this summer it will be perfectly obvious, although still deniable to most.
Click to expand...

So, let me get this right: if we played a bunch of junior Blades under 10s at Rochdale and lost, you would dismiss the team selection as having any statistical relevance to the result, because we hadn't done it 100 times?

And you say: :"you are talking rubbish if you suggest that the games that Done started ended up in better results for the team". But it's true isn't it? Our points per game with him is better than without him.

The question is: is the reason we are doing better with Done in the side than without him because of Done's presence? I don't know, but if you compare the performances with him up top to those with Clark up top the forwards look more mobile and do more pressing. Maybe that's a factor.

Actually, let's look at this another way. Our results are markedly better with Done starting up front than with Clarke, who you are on record as regarding as better than Done (and Sharp for that matter) starting up front. Why is this? Why are people who supported Done's inclusion because it tended to produce better results totally wrong? Why do we do better with Done than Clarke? If we are wrong, you must know why we are wrong.

(BTW for the record had we had Hanson all season, I would have given him a go, and I support him playing now rather than Done. But the idea that Done was useless does not stand up to serious scrutiny. And I don't see how you can blame people for wanting Done in the side when Hanson was a Bradford player, Lavery was injured, and we never won on the odd occasion when Clarke was actually fit and started).
 
Feel its a shame that Matty Done is getting pelters when all he's done is his absolute best which folk can decide either is or isn't good enough.
He was an integral part of the team that climbed inexorably to the top of the table.
It kind of sticks in the craw to see him picked over like a carcass on the Serengeti when I think of that utter,utter cunt Hammond contravening the Trades Descriptions Act by masquerading as a footballer and genuinely stealing a wage for months.
IF Done is done,he goes with my sincere thanks for never failing to put in a real shift.
 
This thread and the timing of it is bizarre to say the least.

I backed Matt Done earlier in the season and I'll back him now. It was Matt Done, Leon Clark or an unfit Lavery. Don't rewrite history.

I'm happy that we now have an improved squad and good options, but Done should be recognised for the part he has played (and may still yet play).
 
Cerberus Blade said:
Go back a few weeks and you'll find threads, one in particular, entitled, "The Value of Done", which was defending him at a time when he was contributing absolutely nothing to the team apart from running around like a crazed mongrel. That's why I posted this thread. Because I contested his value to the team at the time and I was one of the few to do so. Most on here thought he was just fab because he chases every ball. I argued against that, saying that we couldn't rely on him, especially as one of the two strikers. Then we got all this shite about the team winning more with him in it. It's all been proved to be nonsense. But some folks just can't say, "I got it wrong" can they?

I got it wrong about Clarke for example. I didn't post any thread about "The value of Clarke" but I did think he'd do a lot better for us than he did - but I was way out on that.

For the record I've also said that:

Coutts should be in the team
Long won't make it
Scougall won't make it

in addition to Done not being good enough.

I think I'm possibly doing ok with my assessment of these players and I'm sorry to make some folk feel uncomfortable because they don't have the same insight, but that's how it is! None of us are right all of the time. But some of us don't mind admitting it!
Click to expand...

What a sad little human you must be.
 
Cerberus Blade said:
You may be right - but do you understand statistics? For something to have statistical relevance you have to prove that in 95 times out of a 100 the result would be the same. This is usually expressed as a "p value" of >0.05. Take the number 100. Then take away 0.05 and you have 0.95 remaining. Or if that's difficult, add 0.05 to 0.95 and you should get 100.

I'm sorry to tell you, but you are talking rubbish when you suggest that the games that Done started ended up in better results for the team. They didn't. Not statistically valid at all. You might as well consider what colour socks you wore for those matches.

I know folks don't like admitting they are wrong. It's not nice. But the facts are that all those who supported this guy's inclusion in the team are totally wrong. And when he's gone into oblivion this summer it will be perfectly obvious, although still deniable to most.
Click to expand...
I am totally ignorant on statistics, but always willing to learn. Are you telling us that as Done has not played 95 times this season, we cannot produce statistically relevant stats? Fair enough, but we can still look at what happened, and form opinions partly based on numerical impressions. I (and others on here) have reached the opinion the Billy plays better and scores more goals when he has a partner who is different to him - Done presses the defenders, creates space, forces errors, etc., Hanson attracts 2 markers, draws them away from other players, uses the ball ok, etc. This allows Billy to find that yard of space in the box; he's probably the best at that since Edwards for us. We may be wrong, but please don't call us idiots for having formed that opinion. By all means call me an idiot for not understanding statistics - I plead guilty. The only statistic I am interested in is the league position after 46 games - presumably that is not enough games to convince the statisticians, but it the only relevant stat for fans. Enjoy the journey while it lasts.
 
Who would win in a fight?

250 Matty Dones Or 196 Leon Clarkes?
 
HodgysBrokenThumb said:
I am totally ignorant on statistics, but always willing to learn. Are you telling us that as Done has not played 95 times this season, we cannot produce statistically relevant stats? Fair enough, but we can still look at what happened, and form opinions partly based on numerical impressions. I (and others on here) have reached the opinion the Billy plays better and scores more goals when he has a partner who is different to him - Done presses the defenders, creates space, forces errors, etc., Hanson attracts 2 markers, draws them away from other players, uses the ball ok, etc. This allows Billy to find that yard of space in the box; he's probably the best at that since Edwards for us. We may be wrong, but please don't call us idiots for having formed that opinion. By all means call me an idiot for not understanding statistics - I plead guilty. The only statistic I am interested in is the league position after 46 games - presumably that is not enough games to convince the statisticians, but it the only relevant stat for fans. Enjoy the journey while it lasts.
Click to expand...

He's a frequentist and everyone knows

We are bayesmen, we are bayesmen, super bayesmen....
 
Cerberus Blade said:
Come on, all of those who supported this original thread...

Tell us some more about "The Value of Done"?

Tell us how much he adds to the team - with his 2 goals in 50 odd games. And his incessant running around in circles without the ball?

Tell us how much better he is than those ahead of him in the first team?

And quote us some stats on how we won games when he was playing but lost when he wasn't? (But ignore the first 5 games if you want when he played but we didn't win).

He's finished. That's it. End of story. And some of us knew that months ago.
Click to expand...


He's a limited footballer who worked his nuts off for the team to help us turn the juggernaut around. Now we have better options at our disposal. It seems very strange that you appear to take great delight in his failure to get in our team.

I think he'll be gone in the summer, probably back to Rochdale but he goes with my best wishes and thanks for the part he has played along the way and my respect for always giving his all despite not having a lot in the way of technical ability.
 
Why start such a negative thread attacking one of our own? We've been lucky with injuries this season, you never know we could have needed to call on Done a lot more if things went differently
 
I suspect the answer lies in the number of threads that have ben "brought back" this week.
There was a doozy early season (was it entitled "Sharp and Lavery"?) where our friend Cerberus stated that if Billy Sharp wasn't a Blade he would be being booed off the field every week and he was "past it".
I seem to remember one where he gave him a good slagging for missing penalties as well.
I suspect getting a thread like this going is getting your tackle in first in case someone decides to resurrect those beauties.
 

What a fucking strange OP / thread.

Let's find an empty room and pick a fight.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cheeky Blade
Character.
Replies
28
Views
2K
Eskimo
Eskimo
Coolblade
A few observations from the stats (Soton)
Replies
28
Views
2K
Bergen Blade
Bergen Blade
derfblade.3
The Prince and Kev.....and the new guy's.
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
HillStreet Blade
HillStreet Blade
Slim Man
Is Tom Cannon the most useless striker we've ever had?
2 3 4
Replies
113
Views
5K
Ndiayewillalwaysloveyou
Ndiayewillalwaysloveyou
P
Selles gets another record
Replies
0
Views
309
programmechap
P

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

Back
Top Bottom