Sweet Square
ˈkämyənəst
Still feels very strange watching him in the dug out yesterday and Ronaldo back at Old Trafford
Don't get me wrong. I love stats. And I think they're really really useful. But I think people who don't understand where they come from and the models underneath can often misuse them, with complete confidence bordering on arrogance. And I think footballing journalism is rife with such cases.
Still feels very strange watching him in the dug out yesterday and Ronaldo back at Old Trafford
Well no. Raw data is raw data. Interpretation is what makes it information that can be used and applied in meaningful ways.
So often what people call "facts" are data that people have already interpreted, often implicitly. Because, well, raw stats don't mean anything - they're just numbers. For example, take the xG stat. If a team has a higher xG - it is a fact that that team has a high xG. Nothing more and nothing less. What exactly that high xG means in relation to the team's performance is something layered with tons of interpretation of things like "what kind of chances are we trying to create?", "how clinical are we expecting our strikers to be", "what is our quality of players" etc. so the same stats may mean completely different things in different contexts. So to use such stats across teams to make predictions and judgements about different teams is fraught with danger and ripe for misuse via lack of understanding. And often the people that use them wrongly come armed with solid confidence in their stance based on their implicit interpretation of the stats.
Well no what?
Your idea that stats are factual. Facts is raw stats + proper interpretation.
So if I pick a statistic out of the air, say that we scored 4 goals against Newcastle, you’re telling me that isn’t factual?
I feel these two points are very overlooked. Its very difficult and kinda embarrassing to change your hyperbolic and over-the-top takes when it comes from those origins rather than actual nuanced criticisms.People just become over critical of our game and just praise other teams without watching them on a regular basis. Like if anyone had watched the Chelsea game yesterday would tell you Villa literally bossed them in the first half and should have been leading them. Mings gifted them a goal and Villa lost 3-0. But people without watching much will say "look how good tuchel is". Why isn't his wins termed "lucky" or called "individual brilliance".
Always felt people troll Ole to look cool. A narrative has always been made that he cannot coach and is just as a PE teacher. I myself have doubts with Ole and have criticized his tactics but I don't think we will be where we are with someone who doesn't know how to coach. It is just impossible. I hope we win a trophy or two as his work definitely deserves one.
You're taking a fairly simple stat so in such cases the interpretive layer is very thin and often implicit in the stat. But to differentiate crudely, "4" is the stat, and "goals scored" is the interpretive layer. Combined they give us the "fact" that 4 goals were scored. Of course we all understand what "goals scored" means. But if you replace that with a more complicated and nuanced stat like xG or attempted pressures, or key passes, then that interpretive layer becomes thicker and there's more room for incorrect or misguided interpretations to lead to incorrect "facts".
For example, people will sometimes point to possession stats between different teams and say that team dominates the ball more. But that may not be true based on what exactly the two teams are trying to achieve and the way they go about dominating the ball.
So if I pick a statistic out of the air, say that we scored 4 goals against Newcastle, you’re telling me that isn’t factual?
These signings feel very different from the ones under Van Gaal and Mourinho who felt like they were coming here for some big money and some easy winsI can’t imagine Varane, Sancho and Ronaldo would come here just for the pay check. Ole has done a great job to make us a team worthy of attracting such talents, convincing thrm we are a team capable of winning silverware.
Nah it's not that important to me personally I just tend to avoid the place, a lot of posters do. Y'all can carry on... I'm just making an observation. It's tedious, boring and turns people off.Yeah fine and you are the hundredth person to say that. At some point, you should realize, that this won't come by telling others that you think, they should do. I am sorry, I do not see the issue to the extent, some of you see it. Over the top criticism has always been there it belongs to football like it does to every sport. If you really want to do something against negativity, talk to the mods, think of ways to keep that in check. This constant appealing is obviously not working - try another approach, try to ignore the bullshit, use the ignore function of this very platform, create threads that are "safe-zones" if you feel that is necessary for your mental "health".
If you want positivity, the internet isn't the right place for you. I don't love that fact as well, but it is what it is. Either accept that and make your peace with it or do yourself a favor and stop visiting certain threads.
This is quite an interesting discussion. In my opinion xG is not a statistic it is an interpretation of various statistics. The XG is not a “fact” but there may be various facts behind it, such as how many shots, where they came from etc. The raw data is the factual element. The way the facts are interpreted is pretty much always open to question.You're taking a fairly simple stat so in such cases the interpretive layer is very thin and often implicit in the stat. But to differentiate crudely, "4" is the stat, and "goals scored" is the interpretive layer. Combined they give us the "fact" that 4 goals were scored. Of course we all understand what "goals scored" means. But if you replace that with a more complicated and nuanced stat like xG or attempted pressures, or key passes, then that interpretive layer becomes thicker and there's more room for incorrect or misguided interpretations to lead to incorrect "facts".
For example, people will sometimes point to possession stats between different teams and say that team dominates the ball more. But that may not be true based on what exactly the two teams are trying to achieve and the way they go about dominating the ball.
This is quite an interesting discussion. In my opinion xG is not a statistic it is an interpretation of various statistics. The XG is not a “fact” but there may be various facts behind it, such as how many shots, where they came from etc. The raw data is the factual element. The way the facts are interpreted is pretty much always open to question.
Possession stats do tell you which team “dominated” possession. Big possession advantages such as 80-20 rather imply that one team dominated the other, don’t you think? But of course the quality of possession is important; or should I say the number of goals scored is important. Which leads me back to facts - number of points scored over a long period is the only one that really matters. The ones you can’t argue with are goals for, goals against, wins draws losses. The significance, merit or whatever of all the other facts is an academic debate, I think.
How man management has been elite. Martial one of the rare examples of players who have struggled
Nothing wrong with being flexible. The issue arises, when you are not able to create good chances against Westbrom, Sheffield, Turkish side and for example Newcastle last year, what happened there, why is a team full of players of that quality not able to create anything of note?
I don't think, you will find many people who just want to switch to rigid patterns but rigid patterns might help more of our players than you think. I am not denying that Oles way is bringing out the best of Fernandes, maybe also the best out of Pogba as well, lets see. But we have many players who might benefit big time from having clearer instructions about what to do and how.
It is no coincidence, that we so often are described as being slow, ponderous in passing, take too many touches. This is a result of our players having to assess all options in every situation. With more instructions, players could be relieved of that - "if the LB gets the ball, one of the CMs comes short, the CB will always make sure to be a passing option, LW will make a run, Bruno will make himself available". We are doing this on the fly and it is great to watch, when it comes off but last year it didn't come off in a reliable way. That is the issue many have. You just have to watch how comfortable teams like Brighton or for example Villareal are with the ball, they move it around, move as units. Imagine what might be able with players like ours when this is possible with players of Brightons quality!
You are all are right, other teams are also not having field days every matchweek. Of course the scrutiny is bigger after watching 90min of football than after watching a 3min summary. All is completely correct, but one factor needs to be kept in mind with all that: up to now, we were never able to win the big games, this might change this season, lets hope so, but lets not act, as if last season did not have some very disappointing moments. In the big picture, these moments might not stick out for some of you, but they do for others.
And, last season is great to have a look at one thing: with all the talk of Ole and Klopp, Pep and Tuchel - If you look at the xG (and xGA) for each match, these teams are very good in creating chances and in stopping opponents to create chances. Of course this is only a fraction of the whole picture, but it is an undeniable part of it. This year, we already had one of those matches, against Wolves and we could have easily lost that. That isn't a stick to beat Ole with, but it is an indicator of something, that should be engaged with as it isn't a new issue. It was clear last year, we would need extra coaching for set pieces, we got it in the summer, I hope, we can be a bit more proactive engaging with such things.
Sure, be assure that such statements are tedious, boring and turn a few people off.Nah it's not that important to me personally I just tend to avoid the place, a lot of posters do. Y'all can carry on... I'm just making an observation. It's tedious, boring and turns people off.
No debate about the bold part. Taking these 4 games to draw some conclusions is indeed pretty pointless. Taking the whole of last season as a sample size isn't. You mentioned Liverpool and their inability to score, I haven't checked it but what I talked about their xG so their ability to create goal chances. Liverpool, for all their injuries and other troubles, managed to create more chances than we did. In fact, we are forth behind City, Pool and Chelsea (even though Chelsea just a fraction). We outperformed our xG over the whole season and we are continuing this trend at least until now. That means, our issues weren't that we missed a goal scorer, we were pretty good at that, what we are lacking in comparison to our competitors is the ability to create chances. Again, I am not trying to make that look as a stick to beat Ole with, all I am saying is that our closest competitors have been better at that over a whole season.But every team struggles at times. Even well drilled "system" sides like City and Liverpool struggle to create from time to time. Liverpool last season had about a 10 game streak where they hardly scored, and even City look pretty toothless in individual games. Cherry picking games means you can draw whatever conclusion you want to. Our big game record was poor last year, but very good the year before that. Wolves and Soton was pretty bad, but they were also sandwiched between two very good performances. Point it that individual games prove very little and if you want to look at a managers influence you have to look at a much bigger sample size
I don't understand what you mean with philosophy. If you mean, Ole has to look for players who thrive in a more freedom based system, then yes of course. And he made had one hit by getting Bruno. The rest of the acquisitions are pretty difficult to evaluate in that context, wouldn't you agree?Im sure there are players in our squad who would benefit from a more structured tactical approach. VdB being the obvious one, but Ole simply isnt that kind of manager and its much easier to find players who fit into your philosophy than it is to find a philosophy that fits your squad, in fact thats probably impossible
Well unfortunately, we can't really know that. I'd love to agree with you but to often, I am puzzled how out of sync we look during games. Obviously, this can be caused by an infinite number of reasons but still.I agree that there are things we can improve. Our short passing can be pretty sloppy at times and our build up play through the middle is often lacking. That does not mean it cant get better or that the coaches are not working on it.
I’m sure they are used but mostly it is a matter of debate how much they can be relied upon to form meaningful judgments. For example a journalist may back up a point with a “fact” but we can easily argue that the facts have been misinterpreted or even misrepresented. But no-one can argue about how many points were won or goals were scored. On this forum (and elsewhere of course) the number of points we won under Ole is often pushed aside and replaced with arguments about how many we should have won but the latter is pure fancy.Not merely academic though as those stats are used in the industry for recruitment and in journalism for judgement. They work well for the most part, but sometimes they also pigeonhole and miss the woods for the trees.
Regarding the bolded bit, you're right. I meant comparing average possession over a long term between two teams. Like 60% average possession vs 65% average possession over a season. In this scenario the other factors you mention become more important.
I don't think, it is just an academic debate. You are right, points, goals for and against have more substance but all stats can help you to identify strength and weaknesses of your own team or the opponent, or on a player level. Surely it is needed to fully understand what a stat means and what it doesn't mean and you also have to factor in other stats, sometimes stuff you can see on the pitch but where no stats exist yet.This is quite an interesting discussion. In my opinion xG is not a statistic it is an interpretation of various statistics. The XG is not a “fact” but there may be various facts behind it, such as how many shots, where they came from etc. The raw data is the factual element. The way the facts are interpreted is pretty much always open to question.
Possession stats do tell you which team “dominated” possession. Big possession advantages such as 80-20 rather imply that one team dominated the other, don’t you think? But of course the quality of possession is important; or should I say the number of goals scored is important. Which leads me back to facts - number of points scored over a long period is the only one that really matters. The ones you can’t argue with are goals for, goals against, wins draws losses. The significance, merit or whatever of all the other facts is an academic debate, I think.
I don't think it is pushed aside at all. I'd argue that 95% of critics aren't about results but performances.I’m sure they are used but mostly it is a matter of debate how much they can be relied upon to form meaningful judgments. For example a journalist may back up a point with a “fact” but we can easily argue that the facts have been misinterpreted or even misrepresented. But no-one can argue about how many points were won or goals were scored. On this forum (and elsewhere of course) the number of points we won under Ole is often pushed aside and replaced with arguments about how many we should have won but the latter is pure fancy.
Nah it's not that important to me personally I just tend to avoid the place, a lot of posters do. Y'all can carry on... I'm just making an observation. It's tedious, boring and turns people off.
It is pushed aside. We finished second last year because we got more points than everyone but City but people want to dispute the value of that and, instead, fixate on arguing that we should have won more games.I don't think, it is just an academic debate. You are right, points, goals for and against have more substance but all stats can help you to identify strength and weaknesses of your own team or the opponent, or on a player level. Surely it is needed to fully understand what a stat means and what it doesn't mean and you also have to factor in other stats, sometimes stuff you can see on the pitch but where no stats exist yet.
All stats are flawed somehow, you can have a lucky period, winning dodgy by VAR and ref decisions which effects the points stats, there are own goals, penalties whatsoever to effect goals scored for and against. This makes dealing with stats way more challenging than it appears on first sight but I think, with more and more people sharing their knowledge about it, the base level of supporters goes up more and more which at least makes for interesting discussions.
I don't think it is pushed aside at all. I'd argue that 95% of critics aren't about results but performances.
If reading opinions on an internet forum makes you feel like that, I would heavily advise you to seek help. Professionals are there to support. Or maybe take a walk. Or go off the internet for a few days.Honestly, you just have to either
a) ignore it and make higher quality posts
B) point out how absurd and stupid they’re being.
It does drain you though. It’s just not a fun place to be is it.
If reading opinions on an internet forum makes you feel like that, I would heavily advise you to seek help. Professionals are there to support. Or maybe take a walk. Or go off the internet for a few days.
Isn't there a way to create an "Ole Performance thread" where only people can post, you have approved of? Seriously though, I feel some kind of guilty conscience...I'd bet, most critics do not put enough effort into their criticism as you do feeling bad because of it.
Of course they are not disputable. I think, most people are very happy with the results of last season (and current season as well). To be second after City is a great achievement but this stance and thinking that we should have won a few additional matches don't have to be exclusive. Plus: maybe a few of the more enthusiastic supporters maybe over-value the value of that second place because that is mostly what we did when Liverpool came 2nd a few years ago.It is pushed aside. We finished second last year because we got more points than everyone but City but people want to dispute the value of that and, instead, fixate on arguing that we should have won more games.
And, yes, they are saying we should have played better and by playing better we should get more points. All manner of stats and facts are put up, together with interpretation of these, in other words, opinions.
The relevance of these stats, facts, interpretations and opinions are disputable whereas the actual points and league position are not.
Just add me to your list of poster you consider yourself a better poster thanI don’t understand why you would ever read my post and reply back to it like that. What a strange person.
Wumminator said:What I do, in a very comical way, is point out how idiotic these posts are.
What an absolute garbage of a post. This is a performance thread of the manager, people will not write only the things you accept, if you dont understand the meaning of an internet forum, then you should close your account.Honestly, you just have to either
a) ignore it and make higher quality posts
B) point out how absurd and stupid they’re being.
It does drain you though. It’s just not a fun place to be is it.
I will not go on about the facts again, been discussed hundreds of times, but I will make it short. He has won zero trophies, nil, nothing despite spending a fortune and he is in his 4th season now, you cant hide forever behind the "process".Opinion based on facts
Perhaps I've missed something but which facts have you presented in this thread?
I don't disagree with you entirely. But, how do you know about the fact that we don't do the same like those managers?As has been mentioned - my doubts with him purely lie with his ability to improve the collective level of the squad through coaching. He's done very well at other aspects, improving the level of the squad, the mentality etc. That being said, given the start to the season - even though the football hasn't been great, he has had a very good start to the season, at the very least matching our title contenders. I don't think the results are sustainable due to the football we play, especially given the coaching detail managers like Pep, Tuchel, Klopp etc. go into with their sides.
As long as we are getting the results though, I can't complain. Whether or not we can maintain the results enough to win some major silverware - we will have to wait and see. There are no more excuses now for him though. Come the end of the season, if we haven't had a competitive season with some major silverware given the quality of this squad, it's a failure imo. He's now had the two things every manager would desperately need, money and time. Now needs to deliver.
This is only true until he does. What happens then? It’s a strange argument to make to be honest.I will not go on about the facts again, been discussed hundreds of times, but I will make it short. He has won zero trophies, nil, nothing despite spending a fortune and he is in his 4th season now, you cant hide forever behind the "process".
But he didnt, It is not like he has been here for a short time , he is entering his 4th season. He did not take a small team from the 2nd division and try to rebuild it. He took over a squad finished with 82 points 6 months before his arrival. This "process" or "project" or whatever you want to call it must have a time limit.This is only true until he does. What happens then? It’s a strange argument to make to be honest.
Yeah, I don’t disagree with the gist of that.Of course they are not disputable. I think, most people are very happy with the results of last season (and current season as well). To be second after City is a great achievement but this stance and thinking that we should have won a few additional matches don't have to be exclusive. Plus: maybe a few of the more enthusiastic supporters maybe over-value the value of that second place because that is mostly what we did when Liverpool came 2nd a few years ago.
Winning one game in the EL final would have changed a lot. Losing against Chelsea or Liverpool instead of drawing would of course be looked at differently than losing to Sheffield or drawing against Westbrom without creating any notable chances.
These things are part of last season just as the great 2nd league place is. This isn't a dig at the manager or the players. It is just an observation.
I don't disagree with you entirely. But, how do you know about the fact that we don't do the same like those managers?
We are hiring coaches for the areas that we need to improve such as set piece coach this season.
We have to understand though that despite buying good players for this window, essentially, they are still new players and the coach staff will need a bit of time to tweak the system(s) with/for them. That's part of the process of building a squad.
Ah, so just the one fact then...I will not go on about the facts again, been discussed hundreds of times, but I will make it short. He has won zero trophies, nil, nothing despite spending a fortune and he is in his 4th season now, you cant hide forever behind the "process".
We've been out of the CL more often than we've been it since SAF left - that's a good 7 year period. If it was as simple as having lower quality opponents then what was LvG and Jose's records to the same extent. And this is before I bring out my favourite stat of Ole's: we've scored 5 or more goals in a game 10 times since Ole got here. The previous three managers combined only did it twice.In fairness, we played CL football every year so would be interesting to work this out when we’re not factoring in hammering teams like Granada or Sociedad and extra EL games.
Regarding your first paragraph: that is fair and I don't think my post denies that either.I strongly disagree. Stats are absolutely spot on for long term observations. Stats are not intended to predict single games or in match events. But they do show a very accurate picture of underlying trends and tendencies.
Another great benefit of data compared to "the eye test" is the elimination of bias, not being able to observe every single player at all times and just not understanding every single action on the field.