Miercoles

We've not even scratched the surface on the kind of statistical record-keeping that could be done. Analyzing opponents based on seemingly irrelevant figures. If you can develop patterns, you can expose them. Keepers already study the penalty taking habits of opposing players. That can be greatly expanded. Human beings are creatures of habit. Footballers are no different. But Duece, you can just watch which way it goes when he kicks it! And then jump that direction! In no way would it be useful to have that knowledge before the game, and you certainly wouldn't want to base your tactics and gameplan around the weaknesses revealed by that information, that's just silly.

We're on the verge of developing robust and influential sabermetrics for soccer (soccermetrics). I think it'll take hold in the U.S. before anywhere else, simply because we already heavily quantify our other sports (football to some extent, but primarily in baseball). It has the potential to revolutionize the way in which the game is viewed and played, giving credit to traditionally (as an aside, I think Carrick is a guy whose value would increase immensely from in-depth statistical analysis) undervalued players and exposing flaws among overrated players. It won't work. Why not? Statistics are just a record of how a player plays. How could that possibly not be useful? A player is better at shooting the ball with his right foot, so you show him onto his left foot, that's statistics in action. Ya'll are just Yankee-phobic up in hurr Mint, people have been doing that since the beginning of time anyway. Which is exactly my point. You're saying it's useless, and I'm saying that it is already in use.

Nah, you're just ignoring the statistical analysis that you do see in football, or not recognizing it. You know a certain goalkeeper (I'm looking at you, Reina) is bad in the air, so you use a lot of high crosses to pressure him in that weakness. Showing a player onto a certain foot, like I said before. Using a particular formation that the opposition defense has struggled with earlier in the season. Certain players have a better first touch so you play it into their feet, others have a higher conversion rate on headers so you play it to them in the air. The list goes on and on. You're taking these things as "common knowledge" which to a certain extent they are, but they are common knowledge of the use of statistics. I think you're just missing the point here. When you say that Ferguson doesn't need statistics, what you mean is that he is doing the analysis himself rather than having a company do it (which probably isn't true anyway, I'm sure he has assistants that help him with the analysis of players). Statistics is just the systematic analysis of past performances and if you really think that doesn't have a place in football already, you are just plain crazy. Yes football is fluid, but that doesn't mean that there aren't patterns to analyze, strengths and weaknesses of certain players in certain situations, and ways to keep them in or out of those situations based on that knowledge. It's going to be a harder task for the statisticians than baseball, but it's by no means impossible.

We're on the verge of developing robust and influential sabermetrics for soccer (soccermetrics). I think it'll take hold in the U.S. before anywhere else, simply because we already heavily quantify our other sports (football to some extent, but primarily in baseball). It has the potential to revolutionize the way in which the game is viewed and played, giving credit to traditionally (as an aside, I think Carrick is a guy whose value would increase immensely from in-depth statistical analysis) undervalued players and exposing flaws among overrated players. It won't work. Why not? Statistics are just a record of how a player plays. How could that possibly not be useful? A player is better at shooting the ball with his right foot, so you show him onto his left foot, that's statistics in action. Ya'll are just Yankee-phobic up in hurr

Knock yourself out: http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/2083163/1207915993/name/Michael+Owen+Brochure+2009.pdf Just.... wow...

Wondo's a poacher, nothing more. And he's never shown he can compete on the international level. As much as I'm irritated by Altidore, he's a far better footballer. Give him consistent service and he'll do good things. Completely disagree. Wondo might be a poacher (though I think this is reductive, he offers more, but I'm an SJ fan) and nothing more, but Altidore is just plain nothing. He's had his chances and has squandered all of them, drives me crazy to see him in the shirt.

Wondolowski scored a cracker tonight for SJ. No clue why Lazy Altidore is starting ahead of him for the USMNT

We'll give them a good game (better than we should) which will make the loss harder to take. Seems to be our M.O. - play up to the good teams and lose barely, then play down to the crap teams and barely lose.

She'll be ecstatic til you mention the football game, then --

Brilliant. Because right now, we really need him.

nah, it's because we don't have any good players

Don't worry, Perch can fill in for him and debuchy and haidara

Santon!! Que up the discussion about playing him in midfield... we sure won't miss him on defense, and that was a canny finish to be sure.

can't wait til we go 2-0 down and bring Shola on

.............

Norwegian prison is too good for the c***. Norwegian prison is better than being lower-middle-class in america for f***'s sake

wish I'd slept through this one tbh

Don't bet on it

so frustrating that that cunt won't suffer any consequences for the challenge

aye. that's him done for the season too.

should be a red card

Do we not fucking stretch before games or what??

Very good, but very limited player imo. He is a top notch 5* S-level finisher, but the rest of his game (dribbling, passing, control, etc) is no where near that quality. Not a bad player at all (and I love having him at the club and he seems like a great personality as well) but definitely one who needs to be surrounded by good players in order to shine. He's not a player that can take the team on his shoulders and turn a game around, he is the kind of player who is lethal when we are already playing well.

Also "a black belt" is one of the least meaningful accolades possible. Depending on the school, the system, the instructor, it could mean you're actually worse at "fighting" than someone who hasn't trained a day in their life. Or it could mean you're a killer. So, because the range is so wide, the term is effectively meaningless.

Good point.