Jump to content

ChezGiven

Member
  • Posts

    15,760
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. ChezGiven

    Goodbye Again

    Lurking mainly in the COVID / Takeover thread. The COVID stuff on here has been very good. Glad to see many of you are well. It's been a while.
  2. ChezGiven

    Alan Pardew

    I remember reading something very funny about your wife, i may have picked up the wrong end of the stick. She's not dead, is she? God, that would be awful.
  3. ChezGiven

    Alan Pardew

    So. In October it was clear that we played more long balls than anyone else. Pardew was rightly criticized. In the last 3 months we've played less long balls than all but a few teams. I take that as an improvement. But Pardew is still criticised because even though we use much less long balls, those that we do use are poor quality. Your complaint is not about the quantity of long balls but the quality? You don't want him to play on the deck necessarily? Less doesn't mean they are any better, and i dispute your stats, stats mean nothing and for to keep using them toward me is not going to work. They are still aimless punts which we dont win. We have a Cisse, so unsuited to a long ball aimed at him it's untrue, but yet we still persisited. Now i want us to play good football, possession football. That doesn't mean all tippy tappy, a mixture. Like i say, which you and your chums seem to be dismissing, a longer pass is fine, now if Andy Carroll say was up top i've no doubt he would turn a aimless long ball into a decent one. But i want us to play short, fast controlled possession football, with lots of movement. Now this is where you have avoided answering, Pardew throughout his career has never got any of his team to do this, so why should he get anymore time. We are more than two years into his reign and our football has got worse and worse. He isn't going to change, Jesus our set pieces tell you all you need to know about his lack of imagination. If he stays, we will continue to play boring, direct, non possession percentage football. Which might be slightly better if we sign a Andy Carroll type suited to it. But i, as someone who wanted him gone over 6 months ago because if there's anything i hate, it's poor football and that mate is exactly what Pardew gives you. I don't think you have understood my posts. Sorry I've not been clearer. Pardew has recently managed to get his team playing less long balls than almost all other teams in the league. As they have started playing a more passing game results have also improved. Given time, as the new players settle more and Pardew hopefully decides who will play where this interplay will hopefully improve. It doesn't happen from one game to the next. But in putting a stop to the goofball that we were playing the first step has been taken. I accept we may have played less long passes. What you seem to not grasp. In some of those games we had less possession, obviously meaning less passing. Now you have to study every game in detail, for possession, for where that possession mainly was on the pitch. You can't factor that into an overall stat, the ones you are using. In my post Chez, i would say with a hell a lot of arrogance, that i've no doubt i watch our games more than anyone else. I watch them over and over, if you did the same you would know that the stats you are using are just nonsense to what my eyes see and my rather educated football brain tell me. Why add that second bit? An idiot can watch something over and over and still be an idiot. Your arrogance does you down, one thing i know about people is that the more they say they are clever, the less likely it is to be true. Thats the second time i've seen this line or argument in this thread in 24 hours. 'You're wrong because i am cleverer than you'. Take it from me, its not working. It's not about being clever, it's about common sense which you and HF seem not to have (in the watching us sense). You are both simply wrong. You deny what your eyes are telling you, yet want to believe stats that tell you nothing. By the way, there's nothing personal in this, didn't want you to think it was. This is the place to discuss this stuff whatever your views. Simply wrong about what? That the stats dont back up specific elements of the many criticisms that are put forward against Pardew? 'we dont create chances' yes we do, not amazing ones but we do and all teams statistics face the same anomalies so the rank will be preserved. About as factual as you can get. 'we just play it long all the time' - yes we did but the quantity fell (corresponding to a run of better results) which shows we dont play it long as much as we did and now less than other teams. About as factual as you can get. What you got for me apart from how many hours you've left your wife frustrated upstairs whilst you watch re-runs of our game until 4am?
  4. ChezGiven

    Alan Pardew

    Pardew has recently given us our worst home defeat to the mackems since 1978, next home game he delivered our worst home defeat in 87 years. Things are really looking up. If you take those two results out, then things were. They were disgraceful enough to wipe out whatever progress had been made from before Christmas but up to that point it looked like things were improving.
  5. ChezGiven

    Alan Pardew

    So. In October it was clear that we played more long balls than anyone else. Pardew was rightly criticized. In the last 3 months we've played less long balls than all but a few teams. I take that as an improvement. But Pardew is still criticised because even though we use much less long balls, those that we do use are poor quality. Your complaint is not about the quantity of long balls but the quality? You don't want him to play on the deck necessarily? Less doesn't mean they are any better, and i dispute your stats, stats mean nothing and for to keep using them toward me is not going to work. They are still aimless punts which we dont win. We have a Cisse, so unsuited to a long ball aimed at him it's untrue, but yet we still persisited. Now i want us to play good football, possession football. That doesn't mean all tippy tappy, a mixture. Like i say, which you and your chums seem to be dismissing, a longer pass is fine, now if Andy Carroll say was up top i've no doubt he would turn a aimless long ball into a decent one. But i want us to play short, fast controlled possession football, with lots of movement. Now this is where you have avoided answering, Pardew throughout his career has never got any of his team to do this, so why should he get anymore time. We are more than two years into his reign and our football has got worse and worse. He isn't going to change, Jesus our set pieces tell you all you need to know about his lack of imagination. If he stays, we will continue to play boring, direct, non possession percentage football. Which might be slightly better if we sign a Andy Carroll type suited to it. But i, as someone who wanted him gone over 6 months ago because if there's anything i hate, it's poor football and that mate is exactly what Pardew gives you. I don't think you have understood my posts. Sorry I've not been clearer. Pardew has recently managed to get his team playing less long balls than almost all other teams in the league. As they have started playing a more passing game results have also improved. Given time, as the new players settle more and Pardew hopefully decides who will play where this interplay will hopefully improve. It doesn't happen from one game to the next. But in putting a stop to the goofball that we were playing the first step has been taken. I accept we may have played less long passes. What you seem to not grasp. In some of those games we had less possession, obviously meaning less passing. Now you have to study every game in detail, for possession, for where that possession mainly was on the pitch. You can't factor that into an overall stat, the ones you are using. In my post Chez, i would say with a hell a lot of arrogance, that i've no doubt i watch our games more than anyone else. I watch them over and over, if you did the same you would know that the stats you are using are just nonsense to what my eyes see and my rather educated football brain tell me. Why add that second bit? An idiot can watch something over and over and still be an idiot. Your arrogance does you down, one thing i know about people is that the more they say they are clever, the less likely it is to be true. Thats the second time i've seen this line or argument in this thread in 24 hours. 'You're wrong because i am cleverer than you'. Take it from me, its not working.
  6. ChezGiven

    Alan Pardew

    Basically. He was trying to address it but we were still woeful.
  7. ChezGiven

    Alan Pardew

    This is frustrating me too The quality of the long ball doesn't fucking matter! This is one of the dumbest things i've ever heard....well done. You're not following that's why. The point was less long balls were played. I can see how you can mis-read though. It doesn't matter to the point. Obviously.
  8. ChezGiven

    Alan Pardew

    Didnt you suggest Anita as an alternative? I thought HF's point was just that we dont have a striker on the bench of a better quality than Shola, hence pointing to squad depth. Shola seems to come on in response to us playing it long, not the other way round. If that is the case then bringing on Anita would be odd. As for your point about how wonderful the arguments have been on here, surely the end of the season, with all the stats, facts and figures to hand is a good time to reflect on whatever has been said before?
  9. ChezGiven

    Alan Pardew

    This is frustrating me too The quality of the long ball doesn't fucking matter!
  10. ChezGiven

    Alan Pardew

    So Pardew is a better manager than Jol and Pochettino then. Well done
  11. ChezGiven

    Alan Pardew

    So adjusting for that might change Arsenal's ranking. It might not and even if it did, with Arsenal above us it wouldn't change ours so whilst interesting its irrelevant. You'll have to do the playing style of all 20 teams and justify in principle why the relationship differs for each one before we'd want to test how much the ranking changes. Which leaves us with a valid statistic until you do. As i said yesterday, us not creating chances isn't the issue for me and i think the stats posted very much support that. I also agree we look shit for long periods and Pardew has been v poor this season.
  12. ChezGiven

    Alan Pardew

    There's not much of a level of confirmation there at all, though, given the relative absence of any context. True, what else can we add to it? Chez, you know full well that HP would fail a statistics course if he presented his information like he's done in this thread. You need to do proper regressions, have big sample sizes etc. This look at minutes and goals conceded or % of shots taken inside the area to points is such a fundamentally flawed analysis that i just don't know where to start. If you can't even give confidence levels to your conclusion then it's even worse. What he's done in this thread is just confused anyone who doesn't have a background in Maths and used statistics in the worse way to 'back up' his point, by which he means that he's cherry picked stats to prove his points. Here, I'm going to do something similar: List of players in order of appearances: Cisse (34), Jonas (33).... Goals conceded: 67 (third worst in the league) Jonas is shit. I fully agree with that analysis I would add that stats follow known distributions, you need sample sizes and regressions if you want to test that a statistical difference exist between samples from different teams or periods. That's not needed here. When the 'ranking' of the team in terms of shots on target is used to describe our creativity, i've got no problem with it. What i do have a problem with is people saying that 'thats not a good statistic, as it doesnt tell you how many were pathetic grass-cutter shots from outside the box'. That where people are abusing stats because statistical science tells you that the 'shot statistics' for other teams will also include these types of shots and that these factors will be uniformly distributed, perhaps even normally. Hence you could strongly hypothesise that removing these 'shit shots' would preserve the ranking. If you were able to identify and remove the 'shit shots' and then wanted to then test whether the rankings were different, you could in this case use a non-parametric test like the Wilcoxon and therefore not rely on large sample sizes. The data is valid and conclusions can be drawn. You cant assume in anomalies to make your argument work though, you have to assume distributions follow standard patterns. For the record, i'm not a statistician.
  13. ChezGiven

    Alan Pardew

    There's not much of a level of confirmation there at all, though, given the relative absence of any context. True, what else can we add to it?
  14. ChezGiven

    Alan Pardew

    'Our' man. Chill out Wullie, HF goes on a posting spree on here, some people are interested in the debate. I also think the comments like 'you konw nothing about football' etc are ridiculous. Its an important debate and a good one.
×
×
  • Create New...