How Important are Stats in the modern Game

_blank_

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Or are we going down the Johnny Giles route of "Stats don't mean anything Bill?"

Absolute lol.

Stats can mean whatever you want them to.

You can pull stats from anywhere to make your argument.

Someone who resorts to "stats" is an imbecile who can't form their own opinion.

LuckyLloyd

LZ5by5 wrote: »

So what do you Des? Argue without facts or stats?

Of course! That's what real football fans do.

_blank_

wtf? who mentioned facts?

I can see the facts for myself when I watch a game, form an opinion on them and give my opinion.

Who cares, for instance, if Player A made 77 "Complete Passes" if every one fo them was a sideways, three yard pass. Good at keeping posession? Or a waste of space on the picth?

You can only know that by watching the game.

Example. In one CL match last season Scholes had a bloody nightmare, but when that was stated on-thread, the stats-monkeys were out and on about "passes made" or "passes completed". Absolute bollox. He had a bad game, you could see that from watching the game.

_blank_

wtf? who mentioned facts?

I can see the facts for myself when I watch a game, form an opinion on them and give my opinion.

Who cares, for instance, if Player A made 77 "Complete Passes" if every one fo them was a sideways, three yard pass. Good at keeping posession? Or a waste of space on the picth?

You can only know that by watching the game.

Example. In one CL match last season Scholes had a bloody nightmare, but when that was stated on-thread, the stats-monkeys were out and on about "passes made" or "passes completed". Absolute bollox. He had a bad game, you could see that from watching the game.

LuckyLloyd

Des wrote: »

wtf? who mentioned facts?

I can see the facts for myself when I watch a game, form an opinion on them and give my opinion.

Who cares, for instance, if Player A made 77 "Complete Passes" if every one fo them was a sideways, three yard pass. Good at keeping posession? Or a waste of space on the picth?

You can only know that by watching the game.

Example. In one CL match last season Scholes had a bloody nightmare, but when that was stated on-thread, the stats-monkeys were out and on about "passes made" or "passes completed". Absolute bollox. He had a bad game, you could see that from watching the game.

You don't get to watch every game in full though. As such, it is the above attitude that leads to the extremely low quality of professional (and non professional) analysis of football relative to punditry in other sports.

LuckyLloyd

Des wrote: »

wtf? who mentioned facts?

I can see the facts for myself when I watch a game, form an opinion on them and give my opinion.

Who cares, for instance, if Player A made 77 "Complete Passes" if every one fo them was a sideways, three yard pass. Good at keeping posession? Or a waste of space on the picth?

You can only know that by watching the game.

Example. In one CL match last season Scholes had a bloody nightmare, but when that was stated on-thread, the stats-monkeys were out and on about "passes made" or "passes completed". Absolute bollox. He had a bad game, you could see that from watching the game.

You don't get to watch every game in full though. As such, it is the above attitude that leads to the extremely low quality of professional (and non professional) analysis of football relative to punditry in other sports.

Mr Alan

While i agree with the essence of what Des is saying...that stats can paint any picture you want them to, they should not be ignored & are important too.

Example being Dirk Kuyt, a lot of people rate him as an awful footballer because often he is not the most eye catching.

However, people who watch him week in week out recognise him as one of the best players in the premier league last year...so in that instance his stats simply back up the claims that you are making on the strength of watching him week in week out.

Mr Alan

While i agree with the essence of what Des is saying...that stats can paint any picture you want them to, they should not be ignored & are important too.

Example being Dirk Kuyt, a lot of people rate him as an awful footballer because often he is not the most eye catching.

However, people who watch him week in week out recognise him as one of the best players in the premier league last year...so in that instance his stats simply back up the claims that you are making on the strength of watching him week in week out.

_blank_

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

You don't get to watch every game in full though.

Why?

Your average EPL fan of ManU, Liverpool could be watching every game their team plays.

It's when people won't criticise any player on their team, for any reason, and start to lash out the "stats" to back up their ludicrous claims, is when it gets annoying.

Every United fan on here watched that CL game last season, Scholes was shíte in it, and people still defended him using "stats".

It was facepalmish to watch, tbh.

Split this into a "Stats are shíte" thread, it's off topic here.

_blank_

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

You don't get to watch every game in full though.

Why?

Your average EPL fan of ManU, Liverpool could be watching every game their team plays.

It's when people won't criticise any player on their team, for any reason, and start to lash out the "stats" to back up their ludicrous claims, is when it gets annoying.

Every United fan on here watched that CL game last season, Scholes was shíte in it, and people still defended him using "stats".

It was facepalmish to watch, tbh.

Split this into a "Stats are shíte" thread, it's off topic here.

LuckyLloyd

Des wrote: »

Why?

Your average EPL fan of ManU, Liverpool could be watching every game their team plays.

It's when people won't criticise any player on their team, for any reason, and start to lash out the "stats" to back up their ludicrous claims, is when it gets annoying.

Every United fan on here watched that CL game last season, Scholes was shíte in it, and people still defended him using "stats".

It was facepalmish to watch, tbh.

Split this into a "Stats are shíte" thread, it's off topic here.

They won't be watching every game their rivals play though, or won't be watching every game of every fixture window to gain some perspective.

So we get analysis along the lines of your above post: the building of a sweeping argument on the basis of a specific incident, or narrow range of data.

Dub13

I have split this from the LFC super thread as I think it merits a thread on its own.

_blank_

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

the building of a sweeping argument on the basis of a specific incident, or narrow range of data.

Sweeping argument?

Scholes had a bad game that night. I remember it so clearly because of this very argument. It was so obvious.

But still, the stattos used the stats to try to disprove that.

And it happens time and again on this MB

Johnny Utah

Not important and often inaccurate. The best though is the km travelled in a game- he could be running round the corner flag like a headless chicken for all I know

eZe^

Stats obviously don't tell the whole story, but to relegate them to being useless is retarded. People here seem to be arguing about certain stats rather than stats as a whole. I mean, to relegate the stat about Ronaldo scoring 42 goals a few seasons ago would be ludicrous. Pass completion stats can be misleading of course, but when you couple it with ball retention, involvement in build up play, and killer attacking passes it becomes a stat that will help in rating a top quality attacking midfielder...

The Muppet

The importance of stats in the modern game lies somewhere between the Stats mean everything and stats mean nothing camp.

It's not true to say that you can prove/disprove anything with stats.

Where the problem arises with stats is when they are manipulated. An example of that would be comparing stats for 2 players strike rate, one players rate being calcualted using minutes on the pitch Vs the other player whose rate was calculated using number of appearances.

Overall I think they can be beneficial to a discussion once they are used properly but they do not give the complete picture as Des's example of Scholes last year displays.

Johnny Utah

Greece had awesome passing stats in Euro 2008!

ScholesyIsGod

Des wrote: »

Absolute lol.

Stats can mean whatever you want them to.

You can pull stats from anywhere to make your argument.

Someone who resorts to "stats" is an imbecile who can't form their own opinion.

The person who makes a statement like that is probably more suited to the imbecile tag then the person who uses a stat or two to back up thier arguement.

Iago

Stats are hugely important in the modern game for two reasons.

Firstly it allows teams to prepare better in terms of the opposition they face. They form patterns of play, and if patterns can be recognized they can be exploited. If you know that the tricky winger you're playing next week cuts inside almost all of the time then that can prepare you to deal with it.

It's no different to what we as individual players do when we play a match, you spend the first 5-10 minutes figuring out your direct opponent. What does he like to do when he gets the ball? is he a dribbler or a passer, does he play a first time pass or like to have it fully under control, what kinds of runs does he make off the ball, does he like to drop deep and run or get the ball with his back to goal etc. then you spend the rest of the game trying to exploit that and nullify his threat. He's doing the exact same thing with you. Having those stats over dozens/hundreds of games is a vital part of pre-match preparation at a professional level (or at least I'd assume it is)

Secondly, it can also pinpoint where your team is going wrong. You've set them up to play a certain way and yet you're losing games, why? Maybe you're centre midfielders are both getting caught up the pitch too often. Maybe your passing in the final third is too intricate and time consuming. Maybe your players aren't choosing the right option with their shots/passes. Again this can all be analysed and brought into training sessions and briefings.

They will never give the full picture of course, but they will help to be better prepared with more effective and targeted training sessions and tactical overviews on a team by team basis.


So on that note I fully expect Des to hire a couple of people with clipboards to start tracking the Boardeaux games...fail to prepare, prepare to fail and all that

Bubs101

Of course stats are useful in an argument and everyone resorts to them no matter how basic the stats are. Take the calls for Defoe to start ahead of Heskey. They're using the stat of how many goals he gets to make their case. The only way to defend Heskey is by pointing out all his benefits and if stats are needed then so be it.

Now if someone wants to use stats to make the case that Aaron Hughes was the best right back in the Premiership last year by all means tell them to **** off

_blank_

Great post Iago.

But the thread title misrepresents my argument.

Iago wrote: »

So on that note I fully expect Des to hire a couple of people with clipboards to start tracking the Boardeaux games...fail to prepare, prepare to fail and all that

Clipboards? Don't need them when my assisitant manager has an encyclopædic knowledge and memory of every game we've ever played.

He even told me to drop you based on stats :eek:

Iago

Des wrote: »

Clipboards? Don't need them when my assisitant manager has an encyclopædic knowledge and memory of every game we've ever played.

He even told me to drop you based on stats :eek:

Ahem, yes well, that's exactly why stats are so unimportant in the modern game. Have to go with your gut feeling, give it a touch of the old intuition and so forth ahemm, can't be reading too much into things etc.....

stovelid

Even skeptics must admit that knowing the speed at which shots and free kicks travel has advanced the understanding of the game no end.

Paul Tergat

I think that Eze and The Muppet were right, with the actual use of them being in the middle. They should be used and the proper analysis of them can help you gain a real edge BUT I hate on this site the overuse of them. Someone thinks they can just post 1 or 2 stats and thats the argument over. People need to watch more football and form an overall opinion.

_blank_

stovelid wrote: »

Even skeptics must admit that knowing the speed at which shots and free kicks travel has advanced the understanding of the game no end.

Look, I'm not arguing that stats have *no* place in the game, of course they do.

But, when clowns start defending a player who had a bad game by producing stat after stat of "passes complete" or "yards run" or whatever else, when it was as plain as day that the player had a shocker, it's then that they become an utter nuisance.

Of course, players are judged on certain stats. Striker, how many goals. Defender, how many clean sheets.

But, in my opinion, the best way to judge a player's performance, is to watch them playing. Anyone can see if a player is playing well or not, with their own eyes. The performance doesn't need to be broken down and analysed.

In my Paul Scholes example above, the stats actually lie.

stovelid

Des wrote: »

Look, I'm not arguing that stats have *no* place in the game, of course they do..

Was being sarcastic.

_blank_

p_larkin99 wrote: »

I think that Eze and The Muppet were right, with the actual use of them being in the middle. They should be used and the proper analysis of them can help you gain a real edge BUT I hate on this site the overuse of them. Someone thinks they can just post 1 or 2 stats and thats the argument over. People need to watch more football and form an overall opinion.

This.

This is what I mean.

Thanks.

Clowns spouting "but the stat says NO!"

The Muppet

Des wrote: »

This.

This is what I mean.

Thanks.

Clowns spouting "but the stat says NO!"

"Stat Say's No OOH OOO"


Nice one , I must remember that.

BaZmO*

Jeez, I thought I was going mad when everyone kept repeating themselves in the thread, in the thread.

I was actually just thinking about the use of stats in football the other day. It's a fairly recent thing, but I remember back in the 80's when American Football was first shown on Channel 4 and I was amazed at the amount of stats they had for everything, never thought I'd see the day when they'd be doing the same in Football.

I think over a long period of time Stats are useful but to use it to prove your point for one game is just stupid.

If you play Fantasy Football you'll generally see the best players over a season are always in the top part of the stats league.

Although you need to be careful how you use the stats.
It's like Andy Johnson a few years back in the Premier League, you could say at the end of the season that Wow he scored a lot of goals, and indeed he did, but if you look closer a lot of those goals were from penos and a lot of them were very dubious.

flahavaj

What would the more irritating members of this board be left with if they didn't have their little lists of stats that they found on wikipedia to trot out with monotonous and nauseating regularity?

Mr Alan

BaZmO*

But 85% of people know that already

Draupnir

This topic reminds me of Egil Olsen (Norwegian who used to manage Wimbledon).

Wasn't his entire tactical approach based around statistics and probability, as in he studied previous matches and where the goal scoring opportunities were likely to come from and then set his teams up tactically to maximise the amount of these scenarios that could occur in the game?

It was pretty unsuccessful in his time at Wimbledon but I remember seeing a documentary about him and his approach and it was very successful in his other jobs.

For what it's worth, I think statistics are a very useful aid to the coaches and managers of any club for the purposes of training and tactical set up (stats can help gauge weakness in opponents as well as strengths). Also, in terms of recruiting players, statistics help to evaluate obvious weaknesses in your own squad.

Statistics for any single match are largely useless however as the sample size is too small to give any real truthful picture of the team as a whole. The amount of silly variables that can swing statistics wildly in one match is huge.

Stats like: Liverpool won 8 games last season when Steven Gerrard wore black boots and Xavi Alonso didn't play. Useless.

Stats like: Chelsea score from 88% of crosses generated on the right wing and only from 52% of crosses on the left wing over the course of an entire season. Very useful.

Paul Tergat

Des wrote: »

This.

This is what I mean.

Thanks.

Clowns spouting "but the stat says NO!"

yup, i hate the wikipedia football fans. I try to stream as many games as possible and generally try not to form too strong an opinion without having seen a player play too many times.

To pick up on your example, very few players from UTD played well in the CL league final but im sure you could manipulate stats to show that they didnt have too bad a game. Most of our team played pretty bad that night, partly down to Barca being great too.

Watch the match and form an opinion people rather than waiting for the table to come up showing how many corners we've had and then claim 'we dominated':mad:

(note, im not saying stats are redundant though!)

Quint

I hate the "shots on target" stat. People love using it to make a team look rubbish. They could have hit the post 3 times, had the keeper come out and smother two 1 on 1's, had a load of shots just over/wide that the keeper had no chance of saving. But someone will always come out with the useless stat "they had no shots on target for the first half" thinking that they're proving that the team were terrible up front. Where a team that hit a few dribblers that trickled in to the keepers arms are somehow superior
If you're using shots as a stat, count them all!

The Muppet

flahavaj wrote: »

What would the more irritating members of this board be left with if they didn't have their little lists of stats that they found on wikipedia to trot out with monotonous and nauseating regularity?

I give up. what would you use in their place?;)

Neil3030

Some people interpret games and player contributions intuitively from observation and experience, others rely on data. In my opinion, some of the available data is valid at describing and predicting player performance (examples have already been given) and some are spurious, handy for nerds who want to nail their colours to the mast but have never played or watched a full game in their lives.

But pretty much everything will be mathematically calculable some day. Who'd have thought 200 years ago we could have stats on phenomena like the speed of the nervous system, depression or personality traits.

So I'd suggest it's not the use of stats that should be condemned, more that the stats presently being used are insufficient. This will improve with time. New variables will be formulated, new data will be measurable etc. etc. Don't rule out science, remember, we once healed ailments with prayers and witchcraft.

Pro. F

Everybody on this board uses statistics to some extent or another. I think people both complain about stats too much and rely on useless stats too much. Stats aren't some absolute truth. They are simply interpretation of data using maths. And like any interpretation they can be good, bad or indifferent.

Des wrote: »

Look, I'm not arguing that stats have *no* place in the game, of course they do.

But, when clowns start defending a player who had a bad game by producing stat after stat of "passes complete" or "yards run" or whatever else, when it was as plain as day that the player had a shocker, it's then that they become an utter nuisance.

Of course, players are judged on certain stats. Striker, how many goals. Defender, how many clean sheets.

But, in my opinion, the best way to judge a player's performance, is to watch them playing. Anyone can see if a player is playing well or not, with their own eyes. The performance doesn't need to be broken down and analysed.

Stats used in football are usually not investigated well enough and therefore are useless. But that doesn't mean people shouldn't try to find and use useful, representative and meaningful stats. As Neil3030 says, pretty much everything will be mathematically calculable some day. At the moment we are a long way from that though, so stats don't come close to being able to accurately reflect an individual's performance. So yeah, I totally agree - the only way you can really judge a player is by watching him play.

p_larkin99 wrote: »

To pick up on your example, very few players from UTD played well in the CL league final but im sure you could manipulate stats to show that they didnt have too bad a game. Most of our team played pretty bad that night, partly down to Barca being great too.

I think the stat that some people used to argue that United weren't dominated was the possession stat from that game. Iirc it was close to 50/50 overall, which doesn't come close to telling the story of how Barca owned the ball that night.

Iago

Iago wrote: »

Ahem, yes well, that's exactly why stats are so unimportant in the modern game. Have to go with your gut feeling, give it a touch of the old intuition and so forth ahemm, can't be reading too much into things etc.....

Classic

LuckyLloyd

Dishonest manipulation of raw numbers is not a phenomenon solely confined to football alone. It is an unfortunate staple of economic, political, medical, etc, etc debate and discussion. You need to be adept at identifying when people are doing it and be willing to call them on it. Thankfully, when it is done in the arena of sporting argument it isn't really hurting anyone. : /

There will always be chancers who have a fierce desire to just win arguments by any means available. But they don't invalidate the contributions of people who wish to source and back up argument in the most rigorous and honest fashion possible.

daithijjj

The only stats that matter in football are goals scored, goals conceded and trophies won. The rest of it is story telling by numbers and the statastician can tell any story they like.

The real importance of stats is what they do not include, the variables of which are infinite.

_blank_

daithijjj wrote: »

trophies won.

Absolutely irrelevant.

England won the WC in '66, that's over 40 years ago. How does that matter in the game today?

Paul Tergat

Des wrote: »

Absolutely irrelevant.

England won the WC in '66, that's over 40 years ago. How does that matter in the game today?

When I read that I took it as him saying trophies won at the end of the season, which is the most important.

daithijjj

p_larkin99 wrote: »

When I read that I took it as him saying trophies won at the end of the season, which is the most important.

Correct.

Paul Tergat

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Dishonest manipulation of raw numbers is not a phenomenon solely confined to football alone. It is an unfortunate staple of economic, political, medical, etc, etc debate and discussion. You need to be adept at identifying when people are doing it and be willing to call them on it. Thankfully, when it is done in the arena of sporting argument it isn't really hurting anyone. : /

There will always be chancers who have a fierce desire to just win arguments by any means available. But they don't invalidate the contributions of people who wish to source and back up argument in the most rigorous and honest fashion possible.

Of course its not solely confined to football but it doenst make it any less infuriating when people post a stat and theres just nothing else to add. Spotting it isnt difficult but its the fact people think it can settle a debate.