Wullie Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Makes me cringe whenever I see Moneyball talked about in relation to football. You might as well pop anybody who does on the ignore list tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Makes me cringe whenever I see Moneyball talked about in relation to football. You might as well pop anybody who does on the ignore list tbh. I don't understand how someone can say statistics are not useful in football. They have been fairly effective in basketball, which is also a very fluid game. If you look at managers in the Premiership like Mourinho, Pochettino, Pellegrini, and Lambert, they've all been at their clubs a shorter time than Pardew (in the case of the first two less than six months) and have already given their sides a distinct style and way of playing that is different to what was present before. Even Hughes seems to have imposed himself on Stoke to some degree. The players may not fit their style exactly, but these managers have adjusted and generally made the best out of what they were given. Pardew has managed this team for nearly three years now without an usually high amount of player turnover and still has no idea of how he wants to play, what the best system for the team is, or how to fit players who have been here for quite some time into his systems. What is Pardew's preferred style of play? Listening to his words in the media it seems to be, "fluid attacking football, until something goes wrong and we have to start pumping long ball and sitting back on the 18 yard box because this is the only way to react in such situations". It is thing I dislike most about his tenure here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Makes me cringe whenever I see Moneyball talked about in relation to football. You might as well pop anybody who does on the ignore list tbh. I don't understand how someone can say statistics are not useful in football. They have been fairly effective in basketball, which is also a very fluid game. I never said they're not useful, but simply not in the way they are for baseball, not even close. The initial point made was that "stats are useless without context" which was disagreed with "because Moneyball" - but that's exactly the point. There is almost no context in a batter facing a pitcher, in that moment alone it's essentially an individual sport, certainly from the batter's point of view. In comparison, there are very few points in a football match where a player's contribution isn't directly influenced by what his teammates are doing. It's chalk and cheese. Very much agree with your subsequent point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Amusing seeing people saying "they only won because of a wonder strike" when attempts from distance were the only chances we were interested in having ourselves. Agree, Wullie - I've mostly given up trying to reason with some of the posters on here....almost certain that some of them are Ashley/Pardew trolls because they will do and say anything to justify keeping the status quo...even when its blatantly obvious that the manager and owner/officials are just not up to the job at a club with the support of NUFC. Despite all the possession we had, the ball was mostly played sideways or backwards and the lack of forward running has been a feature of Pardew's sides ever since he arrived and started 'coaching' the team. Build ups are painfully slow and meat and drink to defenders in opposition sides..we rely mostly on long range specials to get results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 I don't know how many of you were around during the 90's when boffin Charles Hughes introduced the idea that the long ball game was the most effective method of football and used stats to conclusively prove it. The FA took that on board and England produced some of the most dire football teams in recent history with disciples like Graham Taylor leading the way. Stats mean f*** all without proper context. Fair enough, Billy Beene of Moneyball fame would say not mind. What he came up with has been hugely influential. Squadron Leader Charles Reep came up with the stats that influenced Hughes and in turn Taylor during the 50s & 60s. I don't know who any of those people are. Did any of them play for Brazil or Barcelona? Moneyball resulted in Liverpool wasting about £100million on absolute s*** that nearly ruined them. "Downing put the 7th most crosses in last year...£20million sounds about right" Really? I always attributed those signings to Dalglish. When he was at Newcastle he had a tendency to buy similar physically imposing, workhorse types with a massive distrust of mavericks like Ginola and Tino. This was only when his budget was restricted...he also bought Hamman, Nobby, Given and Tomasson(who was used badly at NUFC because of Shearer's injury but went on to star for AC Milan).... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Makes me cringe whenever I see Moneyball talked about in relation to football. You might as well pop anybody who does on the ignore list tbh. I don't understand how someone can say statistics are not useful in football. They have been fairly effective in basketball, which is also a very fluid game. If you look at managers in the Premiership like Mourinho, Pochettino, Pellegrini, and Lambert, they've all been at their clubs a shorter time than Pardew (in the case of the first two less than six months) and have already given their sides a distinct style and way of playing that is different to what was present before. Even Hughes seems to have imposed himself on Stoke to some degree. The players may not fit their style exactly, but these managers have adjusted and generally made the best out of what they were given. Pardew has managed this team for nearly three years now without an usually high amount of player turnover and still has no idea of how he wants to play, what the best system for the team is, or how to fit players who have been here for quite some time into his systems. What is Pardew's preferred style of play? Listening to his words in the media it seems to be, "fluid attacking football, until something goes wrong and we have to start pumping long ball and sitting back on the 18 yard box because this is the only way to react in such situations". It is thing I dislike most about his tenure here. There is a famous saying, attributed by some to Disraeli, that there are 3 kinds of lies..'Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics'....Politicians of all kinds LOVE the latter most of all because you can prove anything by manipulating the facts in stats.. The only stat I am interested in - apart from the fact we were one game from relegation on the last day of last season - is that Pardew has been sacked by almost every other club he managed....and usually after a similar time span in the job.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decky Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Amusing seeing people saying "they only won because of a wonder strike" when attempts from distance were the only chances we were interested in having ourselves. Agree, Wullie - I've mostly given up trying to reason with some of the posters on here....almost certain that some of them are Ashley/Pardew trolls because they will do and say anything to justify keeping the status quo...even when its blatantly obvious that the manager and owner/officials are just not up to the job at a club with the support of NUFC. Despite all the possession we had, the ball was mostly played sideways or backwards and the lack of forward running has been a feature of Pardew's sides ever since he arrived and started 'coaching' the team. Build ups are painfully slow and meat and drink to defenders in opposition sides..we rely mostly on long range specials to get results. Was it the West Ham game when we had something ridiculous like 18 shots and none on target? It was painfully obvious then that our game plan relied solely on hit and hopes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufcjb Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 f***ing hell..had a dream reading the BBC Football website and seeing the words 'Alan Pardew has parted company with Newcastle United with mutual consent'.. Woke up and checked the website to check whether it was true or not..meh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Makes me cringe whenever I see Moneyball talked about in relation to football. You might as well pop anybody who does on the ignore list tbh. I don't understand how someone can say statistics are not useful in football. They have been fairly effective in basketball, which is also a very fluid game. I never said they're not useful, but simply not in the way they are for baseball, not even close. The initial point made was that "stats are useless without context" which was disagreed with "because Moneyball" - but that's exactly the point. There is almost no context in a batter facing a pitcher, in that moment alone it's essentially an individual sport, certainly from the batter's point of view. In comparison, there are very few points in a football match where a player's contribution isn't directly influenced by what his teammates are doing. It's chalk and cheese. Very much agree with your subsequent point. Fair enough, I didn't read the whole discussion, your post just stuck out. In a sport like football, that is so dependent on "team" and other intangible things, statistics will never tell the full story, but in 2013 we are able to do many things with numbers that provide deeper information about players and teams. It is just simple things. As I mentioned, they've introduced some simple things in basketball (percentage of time of player is sprinting, shot charts to see where someone is most effective/ineffective, etc) that have been really useful and similar things would work in football. You are right, though, signing someone because they "put in the most crosses" and other such nonsense is a fairly foolish way of using the numbers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikon Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 The next three games will define our season.................. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Not sure about that given we're playing City, Chelsea & Spurs. Even us at our best would struggle there. Extend that to 5 to include the West Brom & Norwich games, then I'd agree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLK Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 I I'd argue all day and night that we didn't deserve lose yesterday, a draw would have been fair. We did play by far the better stuff but just couldn't break them down, the early goal meant we wouldn't be able to counter. Call me a WUM all you like but I'm not going to change my views on the back of one game. They beat us, great strike, fair play to them, but I'm not coming on here to slaughter our players. Spot on. I honestly fail to understand how some people want to blame anyone just off load their frustration. Helloooo, this is called football and sh*t like this can happen to any team. We were unlucky with their wonder goal. We did not deserve to lose because we played million times better than them but that is football for you sometimes the best team on the field don't get the results they deserve. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weezertron Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Sunderland deserved to win because they scored more goals than us. Doesn't matter that it was a wonder goal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Fair play on composing the worst post in this thread thus far, SLK. Considering the competition you've had that was some doing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 It was the "Helloooo, this is called football" that did it like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Slippery Sam Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 'wonder goal'. I despair. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRD Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 It was the "Helloooo, this is called football" that did it like. The 'million times better than them' is another gem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 It was the "Helloooo, this is called football" that did it like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Makes me cringe whenever I see Moneyball talked about in relation to football. You might as well pop anybody who does on the ignore list tbh. I don't understand how someone can say statistics are not useful in football. They have been fairly effective in basketball, which is also a very fluid game. If you look at managers in the Premiership like Mourinho, Pochettino, Pellegrini, and Lambert, they've all been at their clubs a shorter time than Pardew (in the case of the first two less than six months) and have already given their sides a distinct style and way of playing that is different to what was present before. Even Hughes seems to have imposed himself on Stoke to some degree. The players may not fit their style exactly, but these managers have adjusted and generally made the best out of what they were given. Pardew has managed this team for nearly three years now without an usually high amount of player turnover and still has no idea of how he wants to play, what the best system for the team is, or how to fit players who have been here for quite some time into his systems. What is Pardew's preferred style of play? Listening to his words in the media it seems to be, "fluid attacking football, until something goes wrong and we have to start pumping long ball and sitting back on the 18 yard box because this is the only way to react in such situations". It is thing I dislike most about his tenure here. There is a famous saying, attributed by some to Disraeli, that there are 3 kinds of lies..'Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics'....Politicians of all kinds LOVE the latter most of all because you can prove anything by manipulating the facts in stats.. The only stat I am interested in - apart from the fact we were one game from relegation on the last day of last season - is that Pardew has been sacked by almost every other club he managed....and usually after a similar time span in the job.... I think the animosity to numbers and pictures on here is getting silly. When SSN hoy up a manager's WLD record on screen, which they do following EVERY sacking, do the readers on N-O blanket them with emails about "lies, damn lies and statistics"? It's nowt more than a topic for discussion recognised globally as an interesting measure of how a manager did in his time. The corner stat is fucking atrocious and warrants discussion. Last season, being the team that hit more long balls than anyone else warranted discussion. The data on Alan Pardew's Newcastle isn't big enough to make ANY categoric claims whatsoever, but no-one's claiming something like Pardew reversing the number of long balls so this season we've hit less than 90% of the leagues teams makes him in any way a competent manager. It's just another interesting tidbit that clearly says something about a change in his and the teams methods. No-one (maybe CT?) thinks Marveaux should start because he got most assists last season, or that it should make him a big transfer target from other teams applying the moneyball approach. But it is something to note as interesting. To me at least. It warrants discussion, or if not discussion, then at least a mention. Generating discussion is surely what a forum is about, especially (for example) if a poster claims Pardew is still being a hoofball merchant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrettNUFC Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Sunderland deserved to win because they scored more goals than us. Doesn't matter that it was a wonder goal. What a horrible approach to look at football. You conceded more goals then they did, so you deserve to lose. If I’m a neutral watching a game of football and I see a team give it their all in trying to break down a team but then other team break away and grab a late winner, am I fuck giving them any credit for a deserved win. I still refuse to believe Chelsea were worthy winners of the Champions League, they couldn’t ride their luck like that if they tried. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Sunderland deserved to win because they scored more goals than us. Doesn't matter that it was a wonder goal. What a horrible approach to look at football. You conceded more goals then they did, so you deserve to lose. If I’m a neutral watching a game of football and I see a team give it their all in trying to break down a team but then other team break away and grab a late winner, am I fuck giving them any credit for a deserved win. I still refuse to believe Chelsea were worthy winners of the Champions League, they couldn’t ride their luck like that if they tried. It's also the opposite of what people say when Pardew relies on a wonder strike to get something from a game. ...but Poyet was managing his second game. None of those players are his and he's not had any time to instill his system. He still got the tactics and motivation spot on and got an effective point winning performance. Pardew failed on every level except ball retention for 20 minute periods in both halves, despite it being his team of 3 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Sunderland deserved to win because they scored more goals than us. Doesn't matter that it was a wonder goal. What a horrible approach to look at football. You conceded more goals then they did, so you deserve to lose. If I’m a neutral watching a game of football and I see a team give it their all in trying to break down a team but then other team break away and grab a late winner, am I f*** giving them any credit for a deserved win. I still refuse to believe Chelsea were worthy winners of the Champions League, they couldn’t ride their luck like that if they tried. So, if by some miracle granted by the Gods of football, we managed to get to the final of a major competition where we played Man U and won by Cabaye hitting one of his specials into the top corner in the 89th minute, despite the fact that they spent 80 of the previous minutes battering us, you would be quite happy to hand over the trophy to Man U on the grounds that 'they played better than us'....?? Don't say you would because you will finally destroy any remaining credibility you still have as a poster. Games are won by scoring goals - one Brian Clough, himself a prolific striker, once said 'it only takes a second to score a goal'..he also said that he scored as many with his backside as his head but it didn't matter because they all count as long as they go in..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarrenBartonCentrePartin Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Sunderland deserved to win because they scored more goals than us. Doesn't matter that it was a wonder goal. What a horrible approach to look at football. You conceded more goals then they did, so you deserve to lose. If I’m a neutral watching a game of football and I see a team give it their all in trying to break down a team but then other team break away and grab a late winner, am I f*** giving them any credit for a deserved win. I still refuse to believe Chelsea were worthy winners of the Champions League, they couldn’t ride their luck like that if they tried. It's also the opposite of what people say when Pardew relies on a wonder strike to get something from a game. ...but Poyet was managing his second game. None of those players are his and he's not had any time to instill his system. He still got the tactics and motivation spot on and got an effective point winning performance. Pardew failed on every level except ball retention for 20 minute periods in both halves, despite it being his team of 3 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrettNUFC Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 They were the home side, they hardly attacked us, just sat back after an early goal, we changed formation after 10 minutes and took control of the game. I don't think either side showed more motivation than the other, we sat back and done the same to Liverpool, it's not motivational, it's just far easier to look like your working harder when you are sitting deep closing down moves, cutting out the space. If a player can't get himself motivated for a derby game, he doesn't deserve to be in football, you shouldn't need a manager for that type of game to get you up for it, you should question your own character if you fail to do that yourself. It's the so called easier games where complacency can set where a manager should get players motivated for, a derby should come natural to their fire in the belly. I’m not moving on my stance that I thought a draw would have been fair, when their second flew in, I felt sick and I felt robbed as up until then I was still in the belief we would be the ones to go on and get the winner, never even contemplated them scoring again. Even the mackem lad I know doesn’t think they deserved to win and is still worried by their performance for being on the back foot so long at home. If they battered us and raped us, i would be tearing in to the players for rolling over and letting them do that but they didn’t, they took the early goal on the chin and went in seek of an equaliser, then a winner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrettNUFC Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Sunderland deserved to win because they scored more goals than us. Doesn't matter that it was a wonder goal. What a horrible approach to look at football. You conceded more goals then they did, so you deserve to lose. If I’m a neutral watching a game of football and I see a team give it their all in trying to break down a team but then other team break away and grab a late winner, am I f*** giving them any credit for a deserved win. I still refuse to believe Chelsea were worthy winners of the Champions League, they couldn’t ride their luck like that if they tried. So, if by some miracle granted by the Gods of football, we managed to get to the final of a major competition where we played Man U and won by Cabaye hitting one of his specials into the top corner in the 89th minute, despite the fact that they spent 80 of the previous minutes battering us, you would be quite happy to hand over the trophy to Man U on the grounds that 'they played better than us'....?? Don't say you would because you will finally destroy any remaining credibility you still have as a poster. Games are won by scoring goals - one Brian Clough, himself a prolific striker, once said 'it only takes a second to score a goal'..he also said that he scored as many with his backside as his head but it didn't matter because they all count as long as they go in..... Course you wouldn't hand the cup over but you would be laughing your tits off that you've just stole the game after being battered Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts