Manchester United Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread - 2013/14

Jimmy Iovine

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

I was at the Swansea game last week and Januzaj was the only quality (outfield) player on the pitch. Big reinforcements are needed.

Nonsense. I was at it too and Kagawa was brilliant in the second half. He had some superb touches and passes to other players. Movement was excellent.

Rayne Wooney

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug7jf75OiNQ

TheDoc

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Where did I say I was confident?

Its running a lot over with good few United lads on twitter. Not sure if its true or not, but how manty times have we signed him at this stage? Answer is a lot.

@Trilla.

Yeah the summary from media outlets is united as a club are confidentbdeal done. Was running in a few rags this morning along with some as Kew said United focused twitter accounts.

Maximus Alexander

Guys, remind me please. In other transfer windows when the media tell us that the club are confident that the deal is done, does the deal usually end up done?

onemorechance

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Guys, remind me please. In other transfer windows when the media tell us that the club are confident that the deal is done, does the deal usually end up done?

In the overall scheme of things, with all the stories, if there are no quotes from an identified source who has some credence, then 99.999% of the time they are wrong 100% of the time.

Your Airbag

onemorechance wrote: »

In the overall scheme of things, with all the stories, if there are no quotes from an identified source who has some credence, then 99.999% of the time they are wrong 100% of the time.

Vic Vinegar

Where's Homer? he hasn't posted for a while. Did he get banned or bored?

keano2012

with rooney and rvp out of sundays match- i'm not too optimistic. not sure we are capable of winning such a big game away from home without them. in which case the gap to 4th could be too big to bridge. rebuild in the summer.

UnitedIrishman

This must be the longest time this thread has gone without a suggestion of us signing Joey Barton or Charlie Adam or Kevin Muscat or someone in complete desperation. :pac:

Thankfully its a much nicer place around here with genuine discussion.

Unfortunately I can see it returning to a madhouse come Sunday eve!

Re: Garay - must say I was fairly impressed with him the few times I saw him (had a look at the Benfica Chelsea Europa Lge final boy long ago). But judging on the Benfica fans last summer they weren't overly disappointed to see him go.

Pro. F

DaveSuarez wrote: »

Stolen from another forum.

The Cleverly effect

Warning: hard hitting statistical analysis is contained in this post.

I took the trouble to compare (edit: and contrast) utd's fortunes in 2013 with the number of Cleverly appearances on the pitch:





A direct comparison of the two sets of data:



Note the near perfect symmetry on display here - when the red line goes up, the blue line invariably goes down by roughly the same proportion (and vice versa).

A more rigorous treatment is in order. By using the Pearson Correlation Coefficient,





We obtain an R value of -0.933 and an R squared value of 0.87.

Per wiki:

In short, we can confidently assume that 87% of utd's woes are due to Tom Cleverly, while the remaining 13% can be attributed to other factors.

Could you give us a link to the original post? I'd be interested to see what sources he used for the data or anything else the original poster might have had to say.

From what I can see, there are a few errors in the data:

- There's an error in the appearances numbers. Clev made 3 appearances in September, but that chart has him down for 2.

- There are many errors in the stock price chart. If you are going on month-end prices, February, April, May, September and December are all different from this chart(Wall Street Journal). Maybe the writer was going on average price for the month - I don't know where you get that info and I'm not going to work it out myself - but then his April figure of 18.4 is still higher than the monthly high of 18.09.

Aside from errors in the data, you have to question the methods and the point of the whole thing. Appearances are all counted the same, a game where Cleverley was subbed on in the 80th minute carries the same weight as one where he played the full 90. And, finally, why on earth would you investigate the correlation between Cleverley's appearances and the stock price and not the correlation between his appearances and the success of the team on the pitch?

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

While gas, and presumably just a bit of fun, this is what we call correlation. It does not indicate causation. :P

Hierro_4 wrote: »

Correlation does not imply causation.

Statistical analysis can be used to find out if a particular correlation is implying causation. That's what the bit about Pearson Correlation Coefficient in that post is about.

"Causation does not imply correlation" is a valid criticism when somebody just presents two correlating factors and implies causation. But that's not what has happened here, the poster has done the statistical investigation to see if causation is indicated and he reckons it is. I think this might be the first time I have seen a statistical investigation used on data in a football discussion.

Red Crow

Pro. F wrote: »

Could you give us a link to the original post? I'd be interested to see what sources he used for the data or anything else the original poster might have had to say.

From what I can see, there are a few errors in the data:

- There's an error in the appearances numbers. Clev made 3 appearances in September, but that chart has him down for 2.

- There are many errors in the stock price chart. If you are going on month-end prices, February, April, May, September and December are all different from this chart(Wall Street Journal). Maybe the writer was going on average price for the month - I don't know where you get that info and I'm not going to work it out myself - but then his April figure of 18.4 is still higher than the monthly high of 18.09.

Aside from errors in the data, you have to question the methods and the point of the whole thing. Appearances are all counted the same, a game where Cleverley was subbed on in the 80th minute carries the same weight as one where he played the full 90. And, finally, why on earth would you investigate the correlation between Cleverley's appearances and the stock price and not the correlation between his appearances and the success of the team on the pitch?




Statistical analysis can be used to find out if a particular correlation is implying causation. That's what the bit about Pearson Correlation Coefficient in that post is about.

"Causation does not imply correlation" is a valid criticism when somebody just presents two correlating factors and implies causation. But that's not what has happened here, the poster has done the statistical investigation to see if causation is indicated and he reckons it is. I think this might be the first time I have seen a statistical investigation used on data in a football discussion.

It's absolutely fascinating all right. I'd be interested to see all the data at play here so that it could be verified.

Maximus Alexander

Pro. F wrote: »

"Causation does not imply correlation" is a valid criticism when somebody just presents two correlating factors and implies causation. But that's not what has happened here, the poster has done the statistical investigation to see if causation is indicated and he reckons it is. I think this might be the first time I have seen a statistical investigation used on data in a football discussion.

"Correlation does not imply causation" is always a valid criticism. It may be used to indicate that there is potentially a causal relationship, as in this case, but that is all. All the Pearson coefficient does is establish the degree of correlation.

For example, this kind of analysis might show a correlation between ice-cream sales and murder rates. That doesn't mean there is a causal relationship. In reality, both ice-cream sales and murder rates increase in warmer weather.

tallaghtmick

Bombleswizzum wrote: »

Where's Homer? he hasn't posted for a while. Did he get banned or bored?

Was wondering myself.....k guys who killed him!

tallaghtmick

tallaghtmick wrote: »

Was wondering myself.....k guys who killed him!

*Whistles nonchalantly*

<_<



>_>

Mars Bar

Less homer talk please!

The_Kew_Tour

So with no RVP and Rooney whats the team going to be like in yer opinion?

---

De Gea
Rafa-Smalling-Vidic-Evra
Valencia-Feltcher-Carrick-Januzaj

---

Kagawa

---

Welbeck.

Maybe swap Januzaj and Kagawa but this is what I think will start.

onemorechance

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

So with no RVP and Rooney whats the team going to be like in yer opinion?

---

De Gea
Rafa-Smalling-Vidic-Evra
Valencia-Feltcher-Carrick-Januzaj

---

Kagawa

---

Welbeck.

Maybe swap Januzaj and Kagawa but this is what I think will start.

Sick bastard! :eek:

The_Kew_Tour

You get away with FA in this place:pac:

Maximus Alexander

That's why United fans shouldn't be allowed to be moderators. :pac:

Rayne Wooney

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

That's why United fans shouldn't be allowed to be moderators. :pac:

Why what happened?

Maximus Alexander

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Why what happened?

We'd never get away with anything:

onemorechance wrote: »

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

So with no RVP and Rooney whats the team going to be like in yer opinion?

---

De Gea
Rafa-Smalling-Vidic-Evra
Valencia-Feltcher-Carrick-Januzaj

---

Kagawa

---

Welbeck.

Maybe swap Januzaj and Kagawa but this is what I think will start.

Sick bastard! :eek:

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

You get away with FA in this place:pac:

supersean1999

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Why what happened?

Exactly

Rayne Wooney

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

We'd never get away with anything:

:pac:

I read that but kept getting Fletcher lol

Now I see...

Pro. F

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

"Correlation does not imply causation" is always a valid criticism. It may be used to indicate that there is potentially a causal relationship, as in this case, but that is all. All the Pearson coefficient does is establish the degree of correlation.

For example, this kind of analysis might show a correlation between ice-cream sales and murder rates. That doesn't mean there is a causal relationship. In reality, both ice-cream sales and murder rates increase in warmer weather.

If it was always a valid criticism then there would be no other scientific discussion to be had ever. The guy has made the first step in proving his theory - that Cleverley's appearances in the team lower the stock price - the next step is to rule out all the other possible causative factors that follow a similar pattern. Or, much easier to do, examine whether the data he used for his findings is accurate (it's not).

Maximus Alexander

Pro. F wrote: »

If it was always a valid criticism then there would be no other scientific discussion to be had ever. The guy has made the first step in proving his theory - that Cleverley's appearances in the team lower the stock price - the next step is to rule out all the other possible causative factors that follow a similar pattern. Or, much easier to do, examine whether the data he used for his findings is accurate (it's not).

He hasn't shown that though. All he has done is shown a correlation. To highlight why this doesn't work as an implication of causality - the data can just as easily be interpreted such that changes in the club's stock value decide whether or not Cleverley gets to play.

Pro. F

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

He hasn't shown that though. All he has done is shown a correlation. To highlight why this doesn't work as an implication of causality - the data can just as easily be interpreted such that changes in the club's stock value decide whether or not Cleverley gets to play.

Ah tits! You're right. I think I jumped a step ahead. It's years since I've worked with this stuff in college and I see statistical analysis in football discussion so rarely (this being the first time ever!) that I got a bit excited.

What he has done though is the first step. He has shown a strong correlation between the two, so the next thing is to find if there are any other strong correlations that could give another possible explanation. ...Actually now that I think about it, I think he hasn't even shown a statistically significant correlation.

And his data appears to be inaccurate anyway, so it all falls down at the very first hurdle.

Whatsisname

Anderson just posted this on Instagram, fair play to him, wish him all the best.

Rayne Wooney

It's a pity he couldn't give us that 100% dedication, professionalism and quality

dougee19

I have no willy

Kylo Ren

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEfkBFX8Vew

Goodbye Anderson. I'll nearly miss you.

Your Airbag

@ManUtd David Moyes has told MUTV @FellainiM will have a cast removed from his wrist on Monday. "Hopefully next week we'll get him back." #mufc

https://twitter.com/ManUtd/status/424249775056486400

The_Kew_Tour

Have to idea if this guy is Spoofer or A1. Only saw it in retweet.

Fabrizio Romano ‏@FabRomano21 3m Guarin is an idea for Manchester United but no official bid. Inter asks 15M€, Manchester don't want to spend more than 11/12: not easy #MUFC

kryogen

Forgetting that I would hate to see Guarin signed, I hate this ****, you hear a club wants x amount but United are unwilling to match that, instead hitting their ceiling at 3/4 million below the ****ing price.

I know its all ****e, but its infuriating

Your Airbag

It seems to be the new line to wind up UTD fans. Unfortunately a lot of people will lap it up.

supersean1999

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Have to idea if this guy is Spoofer or A1. Only saw it in retweet.

Every post is The Same. Ask 10 utd offer 8 . Ask 20 utd offer 14. Buyout clause 22 wait and pay 27. David gill was a bigger loss than Fergie it seems

supersean1999

That dude has some amount of tweets. . More than barton id say.

The_Kew_Tour

supersean1999 wrote: »

Every post is The Same. Ask 10 utd offer 8 . Ask 20 utd offer 14. Buyout clause 22 wait and pay 27. David gill was a bigger loss than Fergie it seems

Just reading through some tweets. You're on the ball.

bassy

and the stupid song that used to be sang that Anderson craps on fabregas,must be to much drugssssssssssssssssss.

bassy

jose mourhino knows man utd inside out
moyes is safe and will be given years at united,i think that's spot on.
jose aint simple he knows the crack,but he will be fruitfull in our absence from competing

The_Kew_Tour

You OK bassy?:)

kryogen

Drunken posting, how I miss thee

The_Kew_Tour

kryogen wrote: »

Drunken posting, how I miss thee

Who you want to win Super Bowl now lad?

Fancy Denver now

kryogen

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Who you want to win Super Bowl now lad?

Fancy Denver now

Well, being a Pats fan..............................:P

Big ask to go there and win with all the players out, but if anyone can do it Brady and Belichek can.

Beat them already this season, but that was a very different story, it all comes down to how effective our run game can be because I dont think there is enough there for the passing game to be successful. Maybe Dobson will play and give a vertical option but other then that its gonna be 3 small sized slot receivers against a very good D who will just swamp the middle

The are a huge step up also in terms of run D, ranked 8th I believe so will be a proper test of the run game that has looked impressive the last couple of weeks, against on paper, much weaker defences against it.

Both NFC teams look very strong also, if the Pats cant get by the Broncos I will be rooting for whoever they play, but would not begrudge Manning another ring. I like the the qbs for the Hawks and 9ers so would be happy to see either of them win if it wont be the Pats

The_Kew_Tour

kryogen wrote: »

Well, being a Pats fan..............................:P

**** **** dam I forgot you are Pats fan. Im not even drinking:pac:

bryangiggsy

Your Airbag wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ManUtd/status/424249775056486400

Totally unexcited by this news. Do like the quip re Everton. Hypothetical question but if you put Fellani up for sale now would you get 10 million for him?

onemorechance

Extraneously answering, Fellaini's contract is for 5 years, not 5 months. :pac:

keano2012

so what bull are the papers making up today- who we being linked with today!?

Kerrydude1981

keano2012 wrote: »

so what bull are the papers making up today- who we being linked with today!?

Noting much,papers seem to be going with Jose's comments about Rooney's future at Utd and he will only be sold to a club outside the EPL this summer.

http://metro.co.uk/2014/01/18/jose-mourinho-manchester-united-will-finally-sell-wayne-rooney-in-the-summer-4267735/?

dubmick

zzzZZZzz with the Rooney comments + I see we couldn't even sell Anderson

keano2012

dubmick wrote: »

zzzZZZzz with the Rooney comments + I see we couldn't even sell Anderson

ya the rooney thing a bit annoying now.

im not surprised anderson just went on loan was gona be tough to sell him with all his injuries- he wasnt going to play this season for united anyway so good to get him out on loan now and get rid in the summer start over then.