[Archived] Sam Allardyce

[S15]

The league table is a table of statistics though.....so does that mean the table DOES lie? Statistics aren't the be all and end all, certainly not. BUT they are very good indicators as to the various attributes of players and teams. Hell, the bookies use them every day! Yet they always seem to get my money (just a pound a week on a few favourites).....bloody stats!

No, the league table is the accumulation of the most and essentially only important statistic. Games won.

All other statistics are useless, you judge if a player is good by using your eyes, not statistics.

[mellison24]

No, the league table is the accumulation of the most and essentially only important statistic. Games won.

All other statistics are useless, you judge if a player is good by using your eyes, not statistics.

So it is therefore a table of stats. It also includes Goal Difference and if all things are even between two teams (such as bookings and other minor stats) it even uses alphabetical order! So it's a table of stats (albeit, as you say, the most important ones). But it doesn't ONLY use 'games won'. If you think I'm being pedantic, then I can accept that, but I do believe the league table IS a table of stats....what you said didn't contradict that. Or did I miss something (I'm not trying to be a d**khead, i promise).

[CrazyIvan]

No, the league table is the accumulation of the most and essentially only important statistic. Games won.

All other statistics are useless, you judge if a player is good by using your eyes, not statistics.

A good manager will do both as he can't possibly watch a player 100% of the time. Neither can you. In fact, I go so far as to say that players often get mistaken for each other in a match by fans watching. So, while you think you're watching a pass from Dunn, it could well be Andrews and vice versa. That's a very basic reason for using, and trusting, statistics to back up your own eyes.

[den]

A good manager will do both as he can't possibly watch a player 100% of the time. Neither can you. In fact, I go so far as to say that players often get mistaken for each other in a match by fans watching. So, while you think you're watching a pass from Dunn, it could well be Andrews and vice versa. That's a very basic reason for using, and trusting, statistics to back up your own eyes.

[broadsword]

No, the league table is the accumulation of the most and essentially only important statistic. Games won.

All other statistics are useless, you judge if a player is good by using your eyes, not statistics.

Luddite.

Statistics in isolation are useless.

Skillful interpretation renders them useful.

[CrazyIvan]

So you think I'm wrong then? At least give your reasons rather than just laugh.

If you think my example is inaccurate, I was sat watching Dunn pass the ball out of play and a number of people groaned and complained about Andrews passing. I could see it was Dunn and so could a number of other people. It quickly got confirmed by the big screen...

[den]

So you think I'm wrong then? At least give your reasons rather than just laugh.

If you think my example is inaccurate, I was sat watching Dunn pass the ball out of play and a number of people groaned and complained about Andrews passing. I could see it was Dunn and so could a number of other people. It quickly got confirmed by the big screen...

Don't be offended, because it's nothing personal, but a reason to use statistics - because otherwise people might get the wrong player is the daftest reason I've heard.

[S15]

So it is therefore a table of stats. It also includes Goal Difference and if all things are even between two teams (such as bookings and other minor stats) it even uses alphabetical order! So it's a table of stats (albeit, as you say, the most important ones). But it doesn't ONLY use 'games won'. If you think I'm being pedantic, then I can accept that, but I do believe the league table IS a table of stats....what you said didn't contradict that. Or did I miss something (I'm not trying to be a d**khead, i promise).

This is exactly why threads turn unbearable.

This is a thread about Sam Allardyce, yet pedantic bullshit about stats starts being the main topic of discussion. I've always advocated threads having sub topics within them, but why is this being discussed?

It started with Robinson's kicking. Is it any good? Well, watch, and judge whether the ball more often than not leads to a Rovers attack, or an opposition attack. End.

[CrazyIvan]

Don't be offended, because it's nothing personal, but a reason to use statistics - because otherwise people might get the wrong player is the daftest reason I've heard.

That's not what I've said at all and you know it. Just in case you didn't get it first time...

A man cannot watch 11 players for 90 minutes and possibly tell you who did what and when for each and every player. Statistics can help and they will improve the judgement also decision making of the manager becasue he can use them to form his view along with what he actually saw.

You could do the same by using statistics.

[den]

That's not what I've said at all and you know it. Just in case you didn't get it first time...

A man cannot watch 11 players for 90 minutes and possibly tell you who did what and when for each and every player. Statistics can help and they will improve the judgement also decision making of the manager becasue he can use them to form his view along with what he actually saw.

You could do the same by using statistics.

I think were going into some kind of parallel universe here. Where are we going?

[CrazyIvan]

I think were going into some kind of parallel universe here. Where are we going?

Oooh, belittlement... Great argument there genius.

[den]

Oooh, belittlement... Great argument there genius.

I'm not trying to belittle you. The arguments have got daft though.

[CrazyIvan]

I'm not trying to belittle you. The arguments have got daft though.

No, the argument was about the relevance of statistics. I think the point has been made that they are very useful for the manager and for confirming what we think of players. That's it.

[Stuart]

Someone else can work out the %, best part of 50% looks pretty good to me.

In order of success...

Keeper / Success Rate

Almunia / 80%

Reina / 75%

Jensen / 65%

Kuszczak / 60%

Given / 57%

Cech / 53%

Fulup / 48%

Robinson / 48%

Sorensen / 47%

Green / 43%

Duke / 43%

Howard / 42%

Gomez / 41%

Jaaskelainen / 38%

Hahnemann / 38%

Freidel / 36%

Schwarzer / 33%

Hart / 33%

Kirkland / 33%

Begovic / 33%

[Tom]

Sams interview in the LET today sums up what I don't like about him, talks about how he would never rush people in and risk ruining their confidence when he did exactly that with Kalinic, ridiculous statement to make imo.

He's the right man for the job still at present but he is too arrgogant for his actual abilities I think.

[Stuart]

Popular opinion is that he hasn't played Kalinic enough. But I take it you are talking about his debut where the MOTD Muppets laid into him...

[Tom]

Yep, I would like to think Kalinic is ready but I'm neither a Premier League manager nor do I see him daily in training, what was obvious to nayone though was he wasn't ready against Sunderland and that possibly set him back.

[Stuart]

To be honest TCO, I can't remember what our striking options were back then. I'm not sure there have really been any adverse affects. Stuck the ball away at OT and is coming into his own recently.

I'm going to give Sam the benefit of the doubt on Kalinic.

[Tom]

Jisty, I agree Kalinic is coming good and will be a good signing and I have no issues with how he's been used I just find it bizarre Sam has come out and said he would never do the exact thing he did.

[Stuart]

He must have forgotten the Sunderland game...!

Or maybe forgot to add "ever again".

[Tom]

How about West Ham?

[Stuart]

C'mon, he only came on for 15 minutes of that one!

I think he's been blooded in the Carling Cup really, with some PL minutes here and there.

[Amo]

Kalinic was hardly thrown into the deep end. Sam brought him on here and there for a taster of first-team action. I'd understand if he was playing 75-90mins every week, but no.

[LeChuck]

Let's face it, Sam can't win on this one.

If Kalinic turns out to be a flop everyone will say "I told you so". If he turns out to be a good signing everyone will say "well why wasn't he played earlier".

There was an interview Kalinic a couple of months ago when he said he had never trained anything like as hard in his whole life as he is doing now. That alone shows he wasn't ready for regular first team football at that point.

[Miker]

Kalinic will be a hit, you can tell he is quality from the past few games he's played in and it's clearly a massive improvement on what he was like against Sunderland. So definitely, Sam should've kept him away from the first team, as he is now slowly developing into a very good player.