Wayne f*cking Rooney

Nalz

He's not worth keeping around

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

It's as if you're happy to create an argument just for the sake of it.

.......

Pro F "Woo Hoo, someone bit, here we go"

lol

sReq | uTeK

Nalz wrote: »

lol

Haha, 2nd time I've spat out my Coffee!

Pro. F

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Based on the before conversation that was implying our league form improved without Rooney, and the fact that both mine and Billy's comments were backing this up in terms of the performance of the team against both Leicester and Stoke.

I'm perplexed, given that you don't feel it was a bad performance why you would even bother replying, not to mention a reply that is obviously intended to undermine the comments around the improved performance based on the the metrics used by Billy.

I replied to point out that the performances against Stoke and Leceister were not significantly better than that against Hull. Does that mean the performance against Stoke was not good, like you thought I had said? No, it does not.

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

It's as if you're happy to create an argument just for the sake of it.

In synopsis

Billy "team has played class without Rooney, chances, possession, etc etc"

Pro F "they're all weak metrics"

Sreq "well not really they would be strong metrics to me, but hey you have me now I've bitten, do you think we played badly then, whats the measure of a good performance, cause it looked pretty ****ing good to me"

Pro F "Woo Hoo, someone bit, here we go"

Ad hominem bollocks.

sReq | uTeK

Pro. F wrote: »

I replied to point out that the performances against Stoke and Leceister were not significantly better than that against Hull. Does that mean the performance against Stoke was not good, like you thought I had said? No, it does not.



Ad hominem bollocks.

It's anything but, you probably think I have an agenda against you. But if you scroll back you'll quickly see that I often thank plenty of your posts and openly admit to being wrong and jump the gun on what you say. I think for the most part you're an excellent poster and the degree of analysis you go into is incredible and I'm sure many people within the forum appreciate the time you take to gather that information and post it up here.

However, as in life there are disagreements, I simply feel in this instance you're doing something you know full well is going to sidetrack the initial discussion and get a reaction.

anyway, that's my 2 cents I'll leave it at that.

Pro. F

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

It's anything but, you probably think I have an agenda against you. But if you scroll back you'll quickly see that I often thank plenty of your posts and openly admit to being wrong and jump the gun on what you say. I think for the most part you're an excellent poster and the degree of analysis you go into is incredible and I'm sure many people within the forum appreciate the time you take to gather that information and post it up here.

However, as in life there are disagreements, I simply feel in this instance you're doing something you know full well is going to sidetrack the initial discussion and get a reaction.

anyway, that's my 2 cents I'll leave it at that.

I don't give a fùck whether you have an agenda against me or think I am gods gift to football discussion.

I pointed out that the performance against Stoke was not significantly better than the performance against Hull. That was very much on topic for this thread and could not have sidetracked the initial discussion, since the initial discussion was about the performance against Stoke and the league form in general.

You jumped the gun and thought that I had said the performance against Stoke was not good. You were wrong.

Then you went off with your paranoid waffle about how you think I am only posting with the intention of causing arguments. It was the definition of ad hominem.

Flint Fredstone

A good option from the bench

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

It's as if you're happy to create an argument just for the sake of it.

sReq | uTeK

Pro. F wrote: »

I replied to point out that the performances against Stoke and Leceister were not significantly better than that against Hull. Does that mean the performance against Stoke was not good, like you thought I had said? No, it does not.



Ad hominem bollocks.

Pro. F wrote: »

I don't give a fùck whether you have an agenda against me or think I am gods gift to football discussion.

I pointed out that the performance against Stoke was not significantly better than the performance against Hull. That was very much on topic for this thread and could not have sidetracked the initial discussion, since the initial discussion was about the performance against Stoke and the league form in general.

You jumped the gun and thought that I had said the performance against Hull was not good. You were wrong.

Then you went off with your paranoid waffle about how you think I am only posting with the intention of causing arguments. It was the definition of ad hominem.

Ad hominem bollocks

Gods gift is a bit of a stretch......it was more a defusing tactic that simply went over your head, olive branch and all that.

I said its "as if" you post with the intention of creating an argument, I'll take your stance and argue semantics at every turn. My point is valid, you purposely cited that chances created with reference to improved performance without Rooney was a weak metric to base a teams overall performance" Of course this is gong to insight a response. Especially when the general consensus is that we're far improved since dropping Rooney in the league. This can seen by Mickys "lol" reference and myself and probably plenty others who just can't be bothered to bring it up with you as they just get bogged down in Sh*t like this that continues on the merry-go-round you create.

The proof is in the pudding, here we are arguing over language and inferences whilst the original debate has been sidetracked, I could probably pick out plenty of these instances in the last week that you're the center of.

Pro. F

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

My point is valid, you purposely cited that chances created with reference to improved performance without Rooney was a weak metric to base a teams overall performance" Of course this is gong to insight a response. Especially when the general consensus is that we're far improved since dropping Rooney in the league. This can seen by Mickys "lol" reference and myself and probably plenty others who just can't be bothered to bring it up with you as they just get bogged down in Sh*t like this that continues on the merry-go-round you create.

So now if someone posts contrary to the general consensus they are only doing so for a reaction? No, it is an opinion put forward on a discussion forum. That is what discussion fora are for. If you don't like discussing opinions that contradict a general consnsus then here is a simple solution - don't discuss them.

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

The proof is in the pudding, here we are arguing over language and inferences whilst the original debate has been sidetracked, I could probably pick out 20 of these instances in the last week that you're the center of.

You are the one who brought up the language and inference topic, in this post. You don't want to discuss language and inference? Well here's a very simple solution - don't bring it up.

You responded to something I didn't say; you questioned why I would even post on the topic and you put forward your theory that I am only posting to get a reaction. You are the one who brought all of the off-topic issues into this discussion.

Nalz

He's not worth keeping around

Wayne f*cking Rooney is not very good lately

There is no way you can draw any conclusions from expected goals, over a sample of 3 games on weather a player being in or out of the team has had an effect. Using a team stats to try and big Rooney up again is someone with an agenda and unwilling to admit they were wrong.

deaddonkey15

He's not worth keeping around

Billy86 wrote: »

Wasn't that the game where we had possibly the most possession, most chances, and most chances on target we've had all season?

Yeah that's it, the one we drew at home in Old Trafford.

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

And played quote possibly the best we've played all season creating more goal-scoring chances in the process.

Don't confuse form with results. That would be changing the goalposts, which you do have a habit of doing.

Lets try to stick to what was originally said by Rasta and myself. Our form has been significantly better since we've dropped Rooney.

You mean shifting the goal posts, and I don't think I've done that before. Regardless, 'form' in terms of football is results.

Billy86

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Yeah that's it, the one we drew at home in Old Trafford.

So you're saying Ireland's results over the last week meant they were excellent performances, understood. Massively disagreed on, but understood.

deaddonkey15

He's not worth keeping around

Billy86 wrote: »

So you're saying Ireland's results over the last week meant they were excellent performances, understood. Massively disagreed on, but understood.

Never said that at all.

bucketybuck

Billy86 wrote: »

So you're saying Ireland's results over the last week meant they were excellent performances, understood. Massively disagreed on, but understood.

Sounds like a strong metric to me.

Billy86

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Never said that at all.

If you're willing to simplify things all the way down to the final result in order to write off the Stoke performance as not being good because we didn't win, then yes, you are calling Ireland's performances against Georgia and Moldova good, because we did win.

Pro. F

Deleted User wrote: »

There is no way you can draw any conclusions from expected goals, over a sample of 3 games on weather a player being in or out of the team has had an effect. Using a team stats to try and big Rooney up again is someone with an agenda and unwilling to admit they were wrong.

So you take no issue with people using the number of chances created stat against Stoke and Leicester as evidence that the team is better without Rooney (you even thank such a post). But when someone points out that the team created a similar number and quality of chances (ie expected goals) with Rooney in the team in a previous game then they are just pushing an agenda. Yep, solid argument you have there. A shining light of objectivity indeed.

deaddonkey15

He's not worth keeping around

Billy86 wrote: »

If you're willing to simplify things all the way down to the final result in order to write off the Stoke performance as not being good because we didn't win, then yes, you are calling Ireland's performances against Georgia and Moldova good, because we did win.

I never said the performance against Stoke wasn't good. I never said anything about Ireland at all.

Liam O

Unsure why he dropped deep at the start of the season when it looked like Zlatan was going to be the deeper of the 2 going into the season. His best moments early in the season were when he was getting into the box, not lurking outside it or sometimes deeper. Good as a central striker and decent enough as a wide forward but doesn't have the silky touch to do well further back at this stage.

Billy86

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

I never said the performance against Stoke wasn't good. I never said anything about Ireland at all.

So you're saying we did play well against Stoke without Rooney, then?

deaddonkey15

He's not worth keeping around

Billy86 wrote: »

So you're saying we did play well against Stoke without Rooney, then?

We did, but not well enough obviously. I'm also saying we've played poorly without him too, like England.

Billy86

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

We did, but not well enough obviously. I'm also saying we've played poorly without him too, like England.

Well this is also true, and don't get me wrong - I'm not saying he is awful or anything. It's a funny double edged sword too, I don't find he gives the creativity I like from a #10, but he does have a knack of finding space and popping up with goals. On one hand, you could say we would have had less chances against Stoke without him; on the other, you can say he might have put one away.

For me there is an advantage to having him on when our other players are struggling to put the ball away, but with everyone hypothetically on form I would not have Rooney in the starting XI. I could be wrong, but have a strong feeling this could be his last season at the club.

Pro. F

Pro. F wrote: »

So you take no issue with people using the number of chances created stat against Stoke and Leicester as evidence that the team is better without Rooney (you even thank such a post). But when someone points out that the team created a similar number and quality of chances (ie expected goals) with Rooney in the team in a previous game then they are just pushing an agenda. Yep, solid argument you have there. A shining light of objectivity indeed.

Such strawman, I dont post to everything Ive issue with and don't presume why I thank a post if you want to know why I did i can pm you, no point responding to the objective bit as you were wrong about why I thanked a post

Also nice retort to my points

glued

A good option from the bench

Wayne Rooney is on the slide but he is being made a scapegoat for the failures of England and Man Utd. He isn't the issue with either side and both sides haven't been much better without him in the team. I hope he recaptures his form but it must be hard when you're being constantly blamed both at club and international level for the collective failure of the players. The criticism of him has gone way over the top the past few weeks.

Pro. F

Deleted User wrote: »

Such strawman, I dont post to everything Ive issue with and don't presume why I thank a post if you want to know why I did i can pm you, no point responding to the objective bit as you were wrong about why I thanked a post

You don't have to post on everything you have an issue with. But if you only dispute the evidence provided from looking at the chances created when it disagrees with your opinion and you thank posts where that type of evidence is used to argue in line with your opinion then you are having a laugh if you accuse others about being agenda driven.

Please do not PM me.

Deleted User wrote: »

Also nice retort to my points

Oh yeah, I forgot about that:

Deleted User wrote: »

There is no way you can draw any conclusions from expected goals, over a sample of 3 games on weather a player being in or out of the team has had an effect.

It's just evidence. It's not conclusive, but it points towards a pattern. That being, that the team has not created significantly more with Mata replacing Rooney at 10. It is early to be drawing conclusions one way or the other, but that hasn't stopped the people who have rushed to claim that Mata at 10 has fixed the attack.

Flint Fredstone

A good option from the bench

glued wrote: »

Wayne Rooney is on the slide but he is being made a scapegoat for the failures of England and Man Utd. He isn't the issue with either side and both sides haven't been much better without him in the team. I hope he recaptures his form but it must be hard when you're being constantly blamed both at club and international level for the collective failure of the players. The criticism of him has gone way over the top the past few weeks.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall and all that.

bucketybuck

glued wrote: »

He isn't the issue with either side .

He is though, or at least one of the biggest and most obvious issues that needs to be addressed before dealing with any of the others.

In a nutshell he makes them play slower when they need to be faster, and neither team will develop properly if they continue to play him in creative positions.

Its obvious to anybody who knows anything about football, **** metrics be damned.

Pro. F

Pro. F wrote: »

You don't have to post on everything you have an issue with. But if you only dispute the evidence provided from looking at the chances created when it disagrees with your opinion and you thank posts where that type of evidence is used to argue in line with your opinion then you are having a laugh if you accuse others about being agenda driven.

.

Already said you were wrong about this and you still using it to back up your point :rolleyes:

Pro. F

Pro. F wrote: »

It's just evidence. It's not conclusive, but it points towards a pattern. That being, that the team has not created significantly more with Mata replacing Rooney at 10. It is early to be drawing conclusions one way or the other, but that hasn't stopped the people who have rushed to claim that Mata at 10 has fixed the attack.

It points towards feck all using a team stat to try tell how one player might be doing better or worse than another over a sample of 3 games against different opposition is pointless...
its laughable you'd try use this to defend Rooney tbh

Pro. F

Deleted User wrote: »

It points towards feck all using a team stat to try tell how one player might be doing better or worse than another over a sample of 3 games against different opposition is pointless...
its laughable you'd try use this to defend Rooney tbh

The point was made by Billy that Mata playing at 10 has caused the team to play better as evidenced by the stats of chances created. I showed some evidence that the chances created have not significantly improved with Mata at 10. If you have an issue with using chance creation stats to determine whether the team plays better with or without Rooney, then you should take it up with Billy.

Billy86

You showed that despite us not being used to Mata playing there, we still created more with him in the spot.

I'm not bothered getting involved in this back and forth with you two. Don't be a coward, and defend your own argument. Thanks.

Pro. F

Billy86 wrote: »

You showed that despite us not being used to Mata playing there, we still created more with him in the spot.

We haven't created significantly more with Mata at 10 than we did with Rooney. Maybe that's because the team aren't used to Mata playing there or maybe it's just because Mata hasn't actually been that much more effective. Time will tell.

Billy86 wrote: »

I'm not bothered getting involved in this back and forth with you two. Don't be a coward, and defend your own argument. Thanks.

Nah, you deal with MJ, I'm too scared.

Pro. F

Pro. F wrote: »

Nah, you deal with MJ, I'm too scared.

Very mature.. Anyways your welcome to your agenda. im out

crkball6

Billy86 wrote: »

So you're saying we did play well against Stoke without Rooney, then?

We've played badly without him and well without him and well with him.

What does this neanderthal approach to football analysis prove?

sReq | uTeK

Pro. F wrote: »

I don't give a fùck whether you have an agenda against me or think I am gods gift to football discussion.

I pointed out that the performance against Stoke was not significantly better than the performance against Hull. That was very much on topic for this thread and could not have sidetracked the initial discussion, since the initial discussion was about the performance against Stoke and the league form in general.

You jumped the gun and thought that I had said the performance against Stoke was not good. You were wrong.

Then you went off with your paranoid waffle about how you think I am only posting with the intention of causing arguments. It was the definition of ad hominem.

I love the way you have a problem with others jumping to conclusions but so long as you have the ability to do so to back up your own agenda its coolbeans

Deleted User wrote: »

Such strawman, I dont post to everything Ive issue with and don't presume why I thank a post if you want to know why I did i can pm you, no point responding to the objective bit as you were wrong about why I thanked a post

Also nice retort to my points

sReq | uTeK

Pro. F wrote: »

We haven't created significantly more with Mata at 10 than we did with Rooney. Maybe that's because the team aren't used to Mata playing there or maybe it's just because Mata hasn't actually been that much more effective. Time will tell.



Nah, you deal with MJ, I'm too scared.

We played better against stoke - Using your "STRONG METRIC" 2.7
We played better against Leicester - Using your "STRONG METRIC" 2.5
We played worse in every other game that Rooney has been involved in in the league. Singling out Hull, and using your "STRONG METRIC" 2.2
I dont have analysis for the others but I'd say its less than 2.5 which has been united lowest with Mata

This is not even taking into consideration that Mata has played a handfull, if that at 10 compared to Rooney who's been sat there for 2 years doing nothing.

Synopsis. Thank you for confirming what we've all been stating the last 18 months.

Pro. F

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

We played better against stoke - Using your "STRONG METRIC" 2.7
We played better against Leicester - Using your "STRONG METRIC" 2.5
We played worse in every other game that Rooney has been involved in in the league. Singling out Hull, and using your "STRONG METRIC" 2.2
I dont have analysis for the others but I'd say its less than 2.5 which has been united lowest with Mata

This is not even taking into consideration that Mata has played a handfull, if that at 10 compared to Rooney who's been sat there for 2 years doing nothing.

Synopsis. Thank you for confirming what we've all been stating the last 18 months.

If you think that 2.7 and 2.5 xG is a significant improvement over 2.2, given the state of the opposition defences, or that Mata will significantly improve with more game time there then good for you. Time will tell.

Pro. F

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

I love the way you have a problem with others jumping to conclusions but so long as you have the ability to do so to back up your own agenda its coolbeans

I didn't jump to any conclusions. I showed how MJ's behaviour is inconsistent on the topic. You on the other hand claimed I had said the Stoke performance was not good, when I had not.

sReq | uTeK

Pro. F wrote: »

I didn't jump to any conclusions. I showed how MJ's behaviour is inconsistent on the topic. You on the other hand claimed I had said the Stoke performance was not good, when I had not.

But as pointed out by MJ your conclusion was wrong....You assumed him thanking a post pertaining to chances created had anything to do with the debate you were having.

I'm sorry, but isn't that the definition of putting 1 +1 together and getting a conclusion of 3?

sReq | uTeK

Pro. F wrote: »

If you think that 2.7 and 2.5 xG is a significant improvement over 2.2, given the state of the opposition defences, or that Mata will significantly improve with more game time there then good for you. Time will tell.

It's an improvement (which goes back to the original debate, the team is improved without Rooney). They're your numbers........Do you not think its an improvement?
I thought 2.5 > 2.2 and 2.7 > 2.2. Perhaps I wasn't paying attention in maths.

You seem quite happy to post up numbers to show what strong metrics are but quite hesitant to take note of them when it disproves your hypothesis.

The viewpoint many have is the side is improved without Rooney in it, the numbers you have provided prove that. Case closed from my point of view.

Pro. F

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

It's an improvement (which goes back to the original debate, the team is improved without Rooney). They're your numbers........Do you not think its an improvement?

You seem quite happy to post up numbers to show what strong metrics are but quite hesitant to take note of them when it disproves your hypothesis.

The point of this argument is the side is improved without Rooney in it, the numbers you have provided prove that. Case closed from my point of view.

I don't think it's a significant improvement. You do and the case is closed from your point of view. Cool. Let's see how it pans out over the season.

Potential Underachiever

The poll tells a story, Mourinho dropping him tells a story, Southgate dropping him tells a story, a story some don't want to read but it's still telling.

Pro. F

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

But as pointed out by MJ your conclusion was wrong....You assumed him thanking a post pertaining to chances created had anything to do with the debate you were having.

I'm sorry, but isn't that the definition of putting 1 +1 together and getting a conclusion of 3?

I don't believe MJ. The post he thanked was short and all that was in it was concerned with how the team has supposedly performed better without Rooney in two games as evidenced by possession, chances created and chances on target.

You should really drop this by the way. MJ has said he's done with the topic and you are bringing it back up which means it all gets repeated without MJ representing himself.

sReq | uTeK

Pro. F wrote: »

I don't believe MJ. The post he thanked was short and all that was in it was concerned with how the team has supposedly performed better without Rooney in two games as evidenced by possession, chances created and chances on target.

You should really drop this by the way. MJ has said he's done with the topic and you are bringing it back up which means it all gets repeated without MJ representing himself.

Fair point, lets move on.

Nalz

He's not worth keeping around

Wow!

Anyone think Rooney will start vs Liverpool, and if he doesn't and United lose will he start the next league game?

That would be a big message if they lost and he still didn't start the following league game.

Kirby

The groundwork has been laid at this point at both club level and international level....and also with the fans and the media. They arent going to backtrack now.

He wont start. I would wager he wont start any important/tough game unless injuries happen. He will likely be the first or second sub on for some time to come but will only start against lower opposition and in cups.

Fox Hound

A good option from the bench

His aggression is gone. His Speed is gone. he cant seem to pass anymore. I don't understand how he can lose all this in the space of a few years. Ibra is older but plays like a younger man!! the difference is confidence!!

kevthegaff

Gregorym2 wrote:

His aggression is gone. His Speed is gone. he cant seem to pass anymore. I don't understand how he can lose all this in the space of a few years. Ibra is older but plays like a younger man!! the difference is confidence!!

Honestly believe Ibra is on peds or whatever, breaking fitness records... I'd imagine Rooney isn't!

Dempsey

A good option from the bench

Gregorym2 wrote: »

His aggression is gone. His Speed is gone. he cant seem to pass anymore. I don't understand how he can lose all this in the space of a few years. Ibra is older but plays like a younger man!! the difference is confidence!!

The difference is Ibra looked after his body all his career and outside of football he does stuff that improves his fitness levels for his career whereas Rooney treated his body like an amusement park and away from football he was always liable to gain weight because he doesnt treat his body well enough.

One has done everything to ensure his career will last as long as possible, the other hasnt and all those shortcuts he took as a young man have come home to roost.

Also, Rooney's games was heavily based around the fact that he covered alot of ground in games. The decline in that aspect of his game have shown up the shortcomings elsewhere

deaddonkey15

He's not worth keeping around

Dempsey wrote: »

The difference is Ibra looked after his body all his career and outside of football he does stuff that improves his fitness levels for his career whereas Rooney treated his body like an amusement park and away from football he was always liable to gain weight because he doesnt treat his body well enough.

One has done everything to ensure his career will last as long as possible, the other hasnt and all those shortcuts he took as a young man have come home to roost.

Do you know them both personally? Strange how you're so in formed about how Rooney looks after his body away from football.

Dempsey

A good option from the bench

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Do you know them both personally? Strange how you're so in formed about how Rooney looks after his body away from football.

Try reading his book