Inability to convert corners?

[Snowball]

How many games have we played? Why are you only using ten of them? Even so your stats are looking at being down 100% per game going on the figures above....I can see why people might question their accuracy with that margin for error!

What are you talking about?


We have played ten league games, exactly half-way between 9 games and 11 games.



Jeez, all you have to do is look at the table!

If you were to use the cup games (Gylfi didn't play) we
won one 1-0 and drew the other 3-3 AET and that would
IMPROVE the non-Gylfi statistics.

[Snowball]

How many games have we played? Why are you only using ten of them? Even so your stats are looking at being down 100% per game going on the figures above....I can see why people might question their accuracy with that margin for error!

I know you're desperate but switching to
a language other than English, that's a bit extreme.

[Millsy]

Snowball you are rainman AICMFP

[Hoop Blah]

How many games have we played? Why are you only using ten of them? Even so your stats are looking at being down 100% per game going on the figures above....I can see why people might question their accuracy with that margin for error!

What are you talking about?


We have played ten league games, exactly half-way between 9 games and 11 games.



Jeez, all you have to do is look at the table!

If you were to use the cup games (Gylfi didn't play) we
won one 1-0 and drew the other 3-3 AET and that would
IMPROVE the non-Gylfi statistics.

I think you're getting your threads mixed up snowball, this isn't the for non-Gylfi stats, this is the one about corners and free kicks isn't it?

So why were you only using the league games then? So we've played 12 not 10 games then? Another 20% to add to your sample which I didn't know why you'd ignored so asked the question.

[Hoop Blah]

How many games have we played? Why are you only using ten of them? Even so your stats are looking at being down 100% per game going on the figures above....I can see why people might question their accuracy with that margin for error!

I know you're desperate but switching to
a language other than English, that's a bit extreme.

Your made up stat using 'reported highlights' suggested we had 1 attacking free kick per game. Your next suggestion in response to mine said perhaps 2.

2 - 1 = 1, that's 100% more than your original stat which I'd suggest is quite a large margin for error!

[Snowball]

Your made up stat using 'reported highlights' suggested we had 1 attacking free kick per game. Your next suggestion in response to mine said perhaps 2.

2 - 1 = 1, that's 100% more than your original stat which I'd suggest is quite a large margin for error!

I was quoting, parodying YOUR "stat"

Hmmm, 3 to 5 but it might be high, so could be 2 then, or it might be low, so could be 6 then, so you now have a range of 300%


And the stats on free-kicks are NOT "made-up". They are a best-effort based
on reports, without actual official stats being available.

And I only produced those because someone (Ian) asked the question

[Snowball]

Just noticed that though neither corner was a good one,
we have already had two goals from corners taken by Harte.

Goes well with his penalty and his scored free-kick in just six games.

[Hoop Blah]

And the stats on free-kicks are NOT "made-up". They are a best-effort based
on reports, without actual official stats being available.

And I only produced those because someone (Ian) asked the question

They're fundementally flawed because you have no idea of how accurate they are so they are basically made up, not plucked out of thin air, but made up all the same.

Just noticed that though neither corner was a good one,
we have already had two goals from corners taken by Harte.

Goes well with his penalty and his scored free-kick in just six games.

So his ability to put in poor corner after poor corner is now a positive contribution?

For the record I think his delivery is generally good and I'd expect the last couple of games of poor delivery to be a minor blip.

[Snowball]

So his ability to put in poor corner after poor corner is now a positive contribution?

For the record I think his delivery is generally good and I'd expect the last couple of games of poor delivery to be a minor blip.

I don't care what is good or bad if it results in a Reading goal.

Fact he has scored a penalty and a free-kick

Fact we have two goals from his corners

Not bad in just six games, is it?

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

And the stats on free-kicks are NOT "made-up". They are a best-effort based
on reports, without actual official stats being available.

The problem is they aren't "stats". They aren't even estimates. They are figures which are known to be lower than the true figure by an unknown amount, rendering any attempt to draw comparisons virtually meaningless.

To know how accurate our free-kicks around the box are, it's absolutely fundamental to know exactly how many we've had. What you've done is worse than guessing.

It's even more bizarre when you openly declare the results of a study which actually studied a large number a games to be "a bit iffy" because it didn't correspond with your preconceived ideas.

[Wimb]

Snowball in refusing to look beyond the stats non-shocker

Simple fact is this, people get excited about a corner because its nearer the box and OVER THE YEARS of watching football 99% of people can remember goals coming from corners, more then they ever remember a goal coming from a goal kick etc. If you're near the bloody box and have a 'free' cross of course you've got a chance to score and therefore people get excited, stats be damned man, football is about passion and instinct and being irrational

As for the Sig debate, good lord what's the point? Stats can be manipulated and scewed to prove just about any point you want but the whole question boils down to is the team better or worse with the Sig in it and anybody who has actually watched the guy play will tell you it was better with him in it.

Reading had one of their greatest cup runs in the league cup in 95/96 with Simon Sheppard in the team, statistically I could argue that means Simon Sheppard was one of the greatest Reading League Cup goalkeepers in our history.

The problem that posters have with you Snowball isn't with the stats you provide. It's the blinkered and stubborn manor with which you defend them to the point that you won't accept you might be wrong, or the stats might be misleading. Can I take you back to the Shane Long argument whereby I believe your argument was that if Shane had as many minutes on the pitch as the other successful strikers in the past he'd match or surpass them, has that turned out to be true?

I actually enjoy the statistical perspective but if you can't see past those stats then they are pointless.

[Hampshire Royal]

Leave Snowball alone, Wimb. The stuff he posts, his unflinching belief in it, the responses to it and his responses to the responses are the funniest things on this board at the moment. Add this to his pure arrogance ('I have two degrees', 'As I say in a class I take on appreciation of writing' etc) and the way he gets angry like an adolescent whenever anyone even hints at disagreeing with him make the pricking of his arrogance classically funny.

Please don't push him too hard or he may stop posting!!

Where's Strap when you require real interpretation of statistics?

[Snowball]

Simple fact is this, people get excited about a corner because its nearer the box and OVER THE YEARS of watching football 99% of people can remember goals coming from corners, more then they ever remember a goal coming from a goal kick etc. If you're near the bloody box and have a 'free' cross of course you've got a chance to score and therefore people get excited, stats be damned man, football is about passion and instinct and being irrational

DUH, that was exactly my point from the f----- start.

You think, when we get a corner I nip to the loo? Nope I half-expect a goal or at least forcing a save.

That is, my subjectivity, driven by over-exaggerated recall of when we HAVE scored, makes me think,
in-the-gut, that we have a serious likelihood of scoring in the next 20 or so seconds. It's the same syndrome
as gamblers, despite losing steadily, keep doing it, driven on by the times they had big wins.

It's called a fallacy. It's called intermittent reinforcement and it's known to bookies, psychologists and advertisers,
and for that matter, more than a few females.


People here say on the one hand, that football is about being irrational, but then you say "That's why we don't get excited over a Fedders goal-kick.

But doesn't that mean that they have "assessed and logged" the fact that goal-kicks rarely produce goals, so they should wait for a more likely moment?

Is that not rationality?

[Snowball]

Add this to his pure arrogance ('I have two degrees',


Three and a half, actually

and I'm currently doing some A-Levels for fun.



'As I say in a class I take on appreciation of writing' etc)


A class I TEACH on writing

Get it right, Corporal

[Hampshire Royal]

24 carat comedy gold!!

[Snowball]

Can I take you back to the Shane Long argument whereby I believe your argument was that if Shane had as many minutes on the pitch as the other successful strikers in the past he'd match or surpass them, has that turned out to be true?

As usual, a slight twist on my words.

I SAID, he gets his goals (back then) despite having less time on the pitch
or that he scores more goals per minute on the pitch.

Please find where I actually said, if he plays 90 minutes he WILL get X goals.


What I DID say was that I believe, if he was a regular (IN a 4-4-2, I've said I don't think he suits 4-5-1)
he is "a 10-20-30 goals a season man Premiership, Championship, League 1"

Last season he had 24 starts and 12 as sub, equivalent to 25 x 90 minutes.

he didn't get on the pitch at all for 20 of our games. His minutes on the pitch were about half of Siggy's
and lo and behold he got almost exactly half of Siggy's goals. That's Siggy who took the pens and most of the free-kicks

[Snowball]

24 carat comedy gold!!

We aim to please.

[Wimb]

Can I take you back to the Shane Long argument whereby I believe your argument was that if Shane had as many minutes on the pitch as the other successful strikers in the past he'd match or surpass them, has that turned out to be true?

As usual, a slight twist on my words.

I SAID, he gets his goals (back then) despite having less time on the pitch
or that he scores more goals per minute on the pitch.

Please find where I actually said, if he plays 90 minutes he WILL get X goals.


What I DID say was that I believe, if he was a regular (IN a 4-4-2, I've said I don't think he suits 4-5-1)
he is "a 10-20-30 goals a season man Premiership, Championship, League 1"

Last season he had 24 starts and 12 as sub, equivalent to 25 x 90 minutes.

he didn't get on the pitch at all for 20 of our games. His minutes on the pitch were about half of Siggy's
and lo and behold he got almost exactly half of Siggy's goals. That's Siggy who took the pens and most of the free-kicks

But once again your own stats flaw your argument. During that debate (and I apologise I can't find which of the 100x Shane Long threads it was in ) your point was that Long is a good striker based on that goals to minutes ratio. That's a solid argument on a statistical footing but at the same time folks such as myself were pointing out that if he was playing 90 minutes then chances are he wouldn't get as many goals and therefore your goals to minutes stat based largely on sub appearences had little bearing on if that would translate as a full time 90 minute player.

Low and behold now that Shane is playing 90 minutes a week and his minutes to goals ratio drops. You say that's down to external factors which is correct and that should also prove the fact that stats aren't the be all and end all. Similarly you say his goals extrapolate to the same number as Siggys yet since the start of 08/09 Siggy has scored around 12 goals more then Long despite just 6 more league starts, despite operating deeper. Please don't shout PENSSSS because Long also had his fair share over the last 2 years.

I apologise if I got the wrong side of your corner argument, but my point about football being irrational was separate to my point on corners, I should have phrased that as can be irrational.

In general If you didn't get so defensive and agreed to disagree once in a while it would go a long way.

[Snowball]

I have been saying for about 18 months that Shane won't get goals in a 4-5-1, that he is wasted with his back to goal, rarely uses his speed etc.

In another thread, I have just posted a sample of those statements. I said I thought he would be behind Church AND HENRY if we played 4-5-1.

We should note that it isn't just Long who is not scoring. Church is failing to score, aslo. The whole way we are set up denies the opposition as much space, keeps our goals-against down, but makes for less chances for the striker(s)


I still maintain that Long, IN A 4-4-2, preferably playing in the channels is capable, if playing the bulk of games in a full season, and starting, and playing most of the game (as Doyle did) will get 20 goals a season.


Right now, the manager thinks he's doing a good job, wearing down defenders.

IMO he is getting better in the "1" in a 4-5-1 (but IMO he's a shadow of himself in a 4-4-2) but I also think he's losing his hunger to take a pot at goal. As reported on radio at Preston, he seems to be thinking more about the defender and blocking him than attacking the ball to make a chance for himself.

[Hampshire Royal]

So what subjects are your 3.5 degrees in? Which Uni did you graduate from and in which years? Where do you teach, and in what subject?

What's half a degree, for goodness sake?