TRon Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Speaks volumes that nobody will take his bet tbh. UV or Pip? I'd be more inclined to take Pips but neither are entirely dependent on the activity of NUFC so it's f***ing nonsense - last year was widely recognised as an anomalous year for a lot of teams and based on that, if we stick as we are in the market, i reckon we'll end up doing worse despite having some better players on the books I was referring to UV's proposal FWIW. Quite comical watching people try and squirm it into something else. On the contrary I think most of those other people have explained their reasoning very well. UV's shallow point-scoring exercise of counting goals rather than results is petty at best. It says more about those who want to support such a narrow argument than it does about those who are disputing it. To be fair, his bet was targeted at the supposed improved quality of our ATTACK. I would say goals scored is a pretty good measure for this, certainly better than the possession stat nonsense others have been coming up to counter his argument, wouldn't you agree? No I wouldn't. While Carroll is a formidable centre forward, I have never rated Nolan so highly and neither it seems have the rest of the premiership clubs. Carroll and Nolan did provide an effective Stoke-style partnership but it severely limited our passing game due to Nolan's lack of movement. As Baggio pointed out earlier, we scored more goals than Spurs, does that mean our attacking play was more effective than theirs? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Logic Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 It was a simple, straight-forward offer of a bet about how many goals we'll score. I don't see why everyone's getting so worked up about it and offering their own terms instead. If we've improved our side attacking-wise it seems a pretty reasonable assumption that we'll score more goals. Oh, and UV has explained his own reasoning well IMO. Who is getting worked up about it? People place bets on statistical chance. They'll take a bet based on their belief that they might win. I'm quite sure UV is aware, despite his excellent reasoning, that my previous point (which you've ignored) is a significant factor. Scoring more goals is a big ask, last season was a freak one. Bell Curves are very sound tools, last season we were well to the right, as were other teams, it was a freak season in many respects. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 It was a simple, straight-forward offer of a bet about how many goals we'll score. I don't see why everyone's getting so worked up about it and offering their own terms instead. If we've improved our side attacking-wise it seems a pretty decent bet that we'll score more. Since the Premier League became a 20-team league during the 95-6 season, only 8 teams who've finished outside the top 6 have scored more than 56 goals. Unless someone reckons we're going to finish 6th then it's an awful bet man. So what would be your target for goals scored next season bearing in mind our "ambition" of a top 10 finish, and who would score those goals with our current squad (the argument being if we have currently improved attacking wise)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 So we've improved our attacking options and are going to finish higher up the table with more points, yet are going to score fewer goals. ok Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Speaks volumes that nobody will take his bet tbh. UV or Pip? I'd be more inclined to take Pips but neither are entirely dependent on the activity of NUFC so it's f***ing nonsense - last year was widely recognised as an anomalous year for a lot of teams and based on that, if we stick as we are in the market, i reckon we'll end up doing worse despite having some better players on the books I was referring to UV's proposal FWIW. Quite comical watching people try and squirm it into something else. On the contrary I think most of those other people have explained their reasoning very well. UV's shallow point-scoring exercise of counting goals rather than results is petty at best. It says more about those who want to support such a narrow argument than it does about those who are disputing it. To be fair, his bet was targeted at the supposed improved quality of our ATTACK. I would say goals scored is a pretty good measure for this, certainly better than the possession stat nonsense others have been coming up to counter his argument, wouldn't you agree? No I wouldn't. While Carroll is a formidable centre forward, I have never rated Nolan so highly and neither it seems have the rest of the premiership clubs. Carroll and Nolan did provide an effective Stoke-style partnership but it severely limited our passing game due to Nolan's lack of movement. As Baggio pointed out earlier, we scored more goals than Spurs, does that mean our attacking play was more effective than theirs? Yes, it means exactly that. Not sure how you could argue this... May not have been as pleasing on the eye as Barcelona style attacking, but effective it was. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consortium of one Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Not getting worked up over it. I just don't think goals scored is the only way to judge attacking quality /shrug Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Flash Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 This will all be irrelevant when Ameobi/Lovenkrands are forced to start games. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Not getting worked up over it. I just don't think goals scored is the only way to judge attacking quality /shrug Who said it was the "only way"..? It's as good a measure as any, though, and the fact nobody here ridiculing UV is willing to take him up on his bet tells its own story. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shak Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 It's not just as simple as saying that better attacking players = more goals, tbf. Blackpool scored the same number of goals as Spurs did last year, yet it's pretty obvious that one of them has vastly superior attacking players than the other. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 To look at goals scored last season alone I don't think we need to invest in our attacking options. OH WAIT THAT WOULD BE A TAD SHORT SIGHTED YEAH... You must have overlooked the fact we lost our two top scorers.. Easy mistake to make. Howay man they only scored 40% between them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Logic Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Not getting worked up over it. I just don't think goals scored is the only way to judge attacking quality /shrug Who said it was the "only way"..? It's as good a measure as any, though, and the fact nobody here ridiculing UV is willing to take him up on his bet tells its own story. Who is ridiculing UV? We're arguing the bet isn't very sound, and that's why no-one is taking it up. You're arguing with Dave that because no-one is taking up the bet everything UV says must be pertinent and accurate. Meh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Flash Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 It's not just as simple as saying that better attacking players = more goals, tbf. Blackpool scored the same number of goals as Spurs did last year, yet it's pretty obvious that one of them has vastly superior attacking players than the other. DJ Campbell and Harewood probably scored more than all Tottenham's strikers did combined in the league. /guess Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Not getting worked up over it. I just don't think goals scored is the only way to judge attacking quality /shrug Who said it was the "only way"..? It's as good a measure as any, though, and the fact nobody here ridiculing UV is willing to take him up on his bet tells its own story. Who is ridiculing UV? We're arguing the bet isn't very sound, and that's why no-one is taking it up. You're arguing with Dave that because no-one is taking up the bet everything UV says must be pertinent and accurate. Meh. It's not about UV or the bet, it's about the statement frequently bandied around recently that, as it stands, we have improved attacking wise. It's just plain wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consortium of one Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Not getting worked up over it. I just don't think goals scored is the only way to judge attacking quality /shrug Who said it was the "only way"..? It's as good a measure as any, though, and the fact nobody here ridiculing UV is willing to take him up on his bet tells its own story. Blackpool scored 55 goals last year. How would you characterize their attacking players? And FWIW, I wasn't ridiculing anyone so... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Not getting worked up over it. I just don't think goals scored is the only way to judge attacking quality /shrug Who said it was the "only way"..? It's as good a measure as any, though, and the fact nobody here ridiculing UV is willing to take him up on his bet tells its own story. Who is ridiculing UV? We're arguing the bet isn't very sound, and that's why no-one is taking it up. You're arguing with Dave that because no-one is taking up the bet everything UV says must be pertinent and accurate. Meh. Nah, I never said that. I just find it interesting that nobody is willing to take up the bet. Perhaps they don't actually place all that much trust in what they post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishmael Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Dave continuing ignoring the FACTS that indicate that last season had an unusually above normal amount of goals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishmael Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 To look at goals scored last season alone I don't think we need to invest in our attacking options. OH WAIT THAT WOULD BE A TAD SHORT SIGHTED YEAH... You must have overlooked the fact we lost our two top scorers.. Easy mistake to make. Howay man they only scored 40% between them. Irrelevant, just like the statistic I was being sarcastic about... (well not in the bigger picture, just that any discussion about my post isn't really needed because it wasn't a serious post to begin with) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 To look at goals scored last season alone I don't think we need to invest in our attacking options. OH WAIT THAT WOULD BE A TAD SHORT SIGHTED YEAH... You must have overlooked the fact we lost our two top scorers.. Easy mistake to make. Howay man they only scored 40% between them. Irrelevant, just like the statistic I was being sarcastic about... Number of goals scored or losing your top scorers are irrelevant..? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Logic Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Not getting worked up over it. I just don't think goals scored is the only way to judge attacking quality /shrug Who said it was the "only way"..? It's as good a measure as any, though, and the fact nobody here ridiculing UV is willing to take him up on his bet tells its own story. Who is ridiculing UV? We're arguing the bet isn't very sound, and that's why no-one is taking it up. You're arguing with Dave that because no-one is taking up the bet everything UV says must be pertinent and accurate. Meh. Nah, I never said that. I just find it interesting that nobody is willing to take up the bet. Perhaps they don't actually place all that much trust in what they post. Ok, granted you never implied that.. http://s4.postimage.org/4889zq34i/normalcurve.jpg Does that help explain it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-more Mag Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 God, I hate lulls in the transfer window. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 God, I hate lulls in the transfer window. Same. Even worse when there's no (proper) summer tournament. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Someone give me 4/1 that we'll finish in a higher position with more points and we'll score less than last season and I'll put £25 on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Fwiw, the stat that is most predictive about a team's quality is goal difference. We were -1, pretty average last year but better than teams that finished below us, which means that if the season was replayed with the same players, we would most likely finish higher. This is statistics and normal distribution etc. We were better than 12th last year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 That finished above* us Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 WBA and ourselves scored more than Spurs last season, does that mean we both have better attacking teams than them? Wrong tense. If that's the case shouldn't both teams concentrate on buying more defenders if we've got an attack better than the 5th place club?! Wrong tense again, but maybe we should be less blasé about the defence. They've generally been praised (Coloccini, Enrique, and I'll include Tiote here) or deemed as adequate (Williamson, Simpson), but last year I don't remember quite so many complaints about lack of protection from the midfield that we've had for many previous years (as well as Tiote, Gutierrez and Barton are considered as decent at protecting the defence, and Carroll was good at defending set pieces). Yet last year we conceded only 2 less than in our relegation season, and equalled our 3rd worst total in the Premiership years (17 of them). This year we will very likely be losing one of the better members of that defence. But I digress. The fact is, people are getting all excited about how great we're going to be next year with our all new attacking setup. Ben Arfa is going to take to his new position in a new team in a new league like a fish to water as are all the other new signings. Yet noone has any confidence whatsoever that we can actually score more goals than we did last year with only half a season of Carroll, and Nolan slowing us down simply because last year we had some "freak" results which we might not get next year? Of course we might not, then again there may be more "freak" results, but that's why it's a gamble. I fail to see why if people truly believe we have improved as a team so will have more possession, and improved as an attacking force with more scoring options, that it's such an obviously bad bet to take. Are all the other teams spending loads on their defences to stop us scoring next year? Sunderland have spent a bit I guess and we got 6 off them, but it's largely been derided as a bad move, so that can't be it can it? Is what people are getting excited about really just that we'll hopefully have better possession stats? Because I can tell you now that you wont be getting excited watching the game with great possession stats and no goals. I don't even think we were that bad last year in most games possession-wise? If there were somewhere you could get reliable possession stats I might even be tempted to offer up a bet on that. We're supposed to be improving, and moving forward as a team/squad. Apparently you do that by being happy to score less goals as long as you improve your possession stats, and hope your defence (the same defence or potentially weaker) is a lot better at defending teams on the break than teams controlling more of the possession. Until now, it's the first I've really heard of people thinking the team will be better next year because we'll concede less goals tbh. Not convinced. Most of those stats posted above are from years where we finished below mid table btw, so if the aim is to finish above 10th, then we should really be doing better than an average of those. My problem with what you're saying is that you've stripped it down in the most simplistic way possible and yes I do think it's possible to improve our attack, finish higher up the league while scoring less goals and conceding the same amount in the process. Here's another example, if you throw the last game of the season in with the other 5 I mentioned earlier it gives you 27 goals in 6 games, yet in the other 32 games we only managed 28 goals, that just confirms to me what I witnessed this season that a few freakish results have knocked peoples perceptions of our attacking ability compared to the majority of games. 27 in 6 is an amazing stat, yet 28 in 32 is terrible when you think about it and to me this is why our attack hasn't been great or better than Spurs this season, or the Robson 2004 season etc. When it's stripped down like that over 80% of the time we've been poor attack wise. So this season we may only score 50 goals but as long as we average it out better over the season and become consistent scorers then for me we've improved our attack, I also think that by becoming more consistent scorers we can pick up more points in games we've dominated but struggled to break down in the final 3rd. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts