| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 14:03 - Feb 8 with 1318 views | Davillin |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 12:47 - Feb 8 by Private_Partz |
I think that has what has happened in the past and I suspect this I what we are aiming for in the future. We lost our way under Garry and our passing style was being eroded to such a degree we could not hold on for results as we did last season. The form of the team dropped, we stopped scoring, and as a result and we were in the deep doo doo.
Curt started the revival by encouraging the passing game and lifting the spirits of the players. FG has carried it on. It is not perfect and Frankie knows this and wants to change our formation and increase our pressing game. He realises that this is not the time to develope a new style so he is working with what the players are used to. He has however introduced a higher pressing game and our passing is also improving. We still struggle a bit during the last third of a game but I am sure he is working on this also.
With regards to chances then I do not see the oppo creating masses of them. We are on the other hand, whilst not overrunning teams, have had plenty of opportunities. We have hit the post more than any other team and had lots of bum reffereeing decisions that could easily have cost us 7 points. There is a thin line between success and failure but it is early days yet, no need to panic. I think we going about things the right way now after being in dispair at the point where Huw said no one wants to manage us. [Post edited 8 Feb 2016 12:52]
|
Good post, Private. Too good for just an up-arrow -- first word to last. |  |
|  |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 14:10 - Feb 8 with 1314 views | Davillin |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 00:02 - Feb 8 by JackFish |
See, a lot of those stats are completely pointless because they're based on the premise that Everton created more chances than us because they were better and we were lucky to win. It doesn't take into account the fact that we were winning and didn't need to go forward too much to get another goal. Had it been 1-1, we may well have continued playing further up the pitch as we did in the first half and kept being the better team.
The only thing that matters is that results and performances have both improved since Monk left. |
[Full edit/revision of my earlier post on the same subject.]
Regarding "they were better," that is a subjective statement, whereas statistics are fiercely objective.
Moreover, statistics don't start with premises -- they seek to arrive at objective conclusions. [Perhaps I should have written either "valid statistics don't start with premises," or "good statistics don't."]
Except for your first sentence, the rest of your post has considerable merit. [Post edited 8 Feb 2016 14:12]
| |
| |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 16:20 - Feb 8 with 1231 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 21:50 - Feb 7 by Marottanomics |
I wouldn't say Shelvey is hard-working, nor would I say Cork is. Cork is slow, and gritty but all he does is receive and recycle the ball backwards or sideways.
I think it was wrong to sell Shelvey before a new manager came in and gave him another go at least. If he still had his problems after then so be it. No doubting he's got far more about him than Ki and Cork as far as pure talent is concerned. |
Let's go back to the
"Cork is slow, and gritty but all he does is receive and recycle the ball backwards or sideways. "
Let us compare the Sqawka statistics (as Marttanomics likes statistics so much) for Forward passes.
Shelvey Forward Passes = 60% (at Newcastle)
Cork Forward Passes = 60%
Ki Forward Passes = 54%
What about the Gritty part
Shelvey tackles per game = 3
Cork tackles per game = 4.2
Ki tackles per game = 3
Shelvey tackles won = 33%
Cork tackles won = 53%
Ki tackles won = 33%
Yes Cork is "Gritty", but he also passes forward just as much with it, isn't it funny how different people perceive the way Players play?
As Shelvey wasn't even putting in the odd "wonder" pass for us while constantly (deliberately?) giving the ball away at the end we are well rid. |  | | |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 16:40 - Feb 8 with 1232 views | vetchonian |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 16:20 - Feb 8 by A_Fans_Dad |
Let's go back to the
"Cork is slow, and gritty but all he does is receive and recycle the ball backwards or sideways. "
Let us compare the Sqawka statistics (as Marttanomics likes statistics so much) for Forward passes.
Shelvey Forward Passes = 60% (at Newcastle)
Cork Forward Passes = 60%
Ki Forward Passes = 54%
What about the Gritty part
Shelvey tackles per game = 3
Cork tackles per game = 4.2
Ki tackles per game = 3
Shelvey tackles won = 33%
Cork tackles won = 53%
Ki tackles won = 33%
Yes Cork is "Gritty", but he also passes forward just as much with it, isn't it funny how different people perceive the way Players play?
As Shelvey wasn't even putting in the odd "wonder" pass for us while constantly (deliberately?) giving the ball away at the end we are well rid. |
People have blinkers only see what they want to see in players.
Perceptions are hard to change....look at the abuse Taylor gets on here...and Naughton too.
All Players have their faults but sometimes I wonder if some of our fans ever actually watch what is going on.
Cork is a useful player in our side....I am sure in a confident Swans side not trying to stave off relegation we would see more from him | |
| |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 16:58 - Feb 8 with 1220 views | Drizzy |
No more articles from this insufferable d*ck please. |  |
| |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 17:04 - Feb 8 with 1210 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 12:12 - Feb 8 by Uxbridge |
You haven't been saying all that though.
More often than not, as history has shown, we won't beat Everton. Two weeks ago we did. Denigrating that performance rather misses the point that it was a vastly improved performance.
We're missing big chances at goal? No shiit Sherlock. However that contradicts your argument re. Everton where you say we overperformed given the chances. It'd be far more worrying if we weren't creating chances, or seeing an upturn in the chances created. Which we are.
I'm sure Guidolin wants different players here. Everyone does.
Guidolin's doing fine. So was Curt as it goes. Both were a massive improvement on what went on before. This, as you may have noticed, is a key point for a lot of people.
As for not needing to change and evolve, have you actually seen anyone say that we don't? Seriously? One of the main criticisms of Monk was the evolution that seemed to be more regression than anything. Our recent history is one of constant evolution.
Anyway, always fun when a new fan tells us what our club is and what we should think. And as someone who probably puts a lot more stock in stats than many on here, it saddens me when someone puts blind faith in the numbers without context or ability to look at other key indicators. Regardless of what specific stats are saying, we're clearly heading in the right direction. |
The problem with statistics (and, yes, I do understand them - not directed at you btw), is that whilst the numbers themselves are 'relentlessly objective' , neither the selection of appropriate statistics nor the interpretation of those statistics, is.
Football actually doesn't lend itself to stats quite as much as the ridiculous obsession that some appear to have with opta suggests.
There is a reason why US sports are pretty statistical - it is because the variables within the game are far fewer.
As an example - watching American Football, it is far more relevant to talk about the number of times a quarterback does this or that because every single time they line up, the field is set in the same way, they are always in the centre of the pitch, the number and placement of both his team and the opposition team is the same. (I know they could be at twenty yards, or fifty yards up the field, and I know they could have a different number of players in different positions, but it is pretty much the same and they reset after every single play back to the same positions again).
Same with baseball - the pitcher and the hitter are always in the same spots, there is always the same distance between them, the ball has to be thrown over pretty much the same piece of ground otherwise it'll miss the plate, the bases are in the same place and so on.
The issue with football, is that the number of variables in play is astonishing - it is not a 'stop start' game, but one that is constantly evolving. A player receiving the ball will always be in a different place, the opposition players will be in a different place, in different parts of the field, his team mates will be in different positions and so on and so on. Pretty much the only time that is comparable with the static starting point of US sports is a penalty, and there, statistics are widely used and have been forever.
What stats to use are also far more difficult to choose. Again, taking baseball as an example, you hit the ball or you don't, you get to first base, or second, or whatever, you hit a home run or you don't - it's pretty easy to work out the important stats to use. So how do you measure the performance of someone like Britton and the impact he has on a game? Is it assists? Goals? % pass completion rate? % tackles made? I would argue that none of those statistics actually value what it is that he brings to the team - it is far more complex and nuanced than a set of stats would ever show. It takes watching the game, and understanding it (which means having watched loads of games for a long time) that actually allows someone to see his 'worth'.
Some stats are very interesting of course - as well as the possession stats (which are interesting but not as important as Sky would have us believe), shots, shots on target etc etc I personally find the 'average position on the field' quite interesting, the heat maps similarly, and even stats about how far members of the team have run are interesting.
But they only tell a tiny part of the story and if looked at in isolation, will often give a completely false idea of the game (Leicester for example have pretty poor possession stats I believe, and yet look at where they are).
The biggest single failing of stats of course, is that they only record the past and cannot predict the future - they will do over time if accurate enough and within a controlled environment (as per the casino point) because in the long run, probability is what it is, but they won't over a single event even in a controlled environment with few if any variables (which is why the odd person wins a fortune in a casino) and they certainly won't in a one off football game that has no end to the variables at work. | | | |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 17:08 - Feb 8 with 1208 views | vetchonian |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 17:04 - Feb 8 by londonlisa2001 |
The problem with statistics (and, yes, I do understand them - not directed at you btw), is that whilst the numbers themselves are 'relentlessly objective' , neither the selection of appropriate statistics nor the interpretation of those statistics, is.
Football actually doesn't lend itself to stats quite as much as the ridiculous obsession that some appear to have with opta suggests.
There is a reason why US sports are pretty statistical - it is because the variables within the game are far fewer.
As an example - watching American Football, it is far more relevant to talk about the number of times a quarterback does this or that because every single time they line up, the field is set in the same way, they are always in the centre of the pitch, the number and placement of both his team and the opposition team is the same. (I know they could be at twenty yards, or fifty yards up the field, and I know they could have a different number of players in different positions, but it is pretty much the same and they reset after every single play back to the same positions again).
Same with baseball - the pitcher and the hitter are always in the same spots, there is always the same distance between them, the ball has to be thrown over pretty much the same piece of ground otherwise it'll miss the plate, the bases are in the same place and so on.
The issue with football, is that the number of variables in play is astonishing - it is not a 'stop start' game, but one that is constantly evolving. A player receiving the ball will always be in a different place, the opposition players will be in a different place, in different parts of the field, his team mates will be in different positions and so on and so on. Pretty much the only time that is comparable with the static starting point of US sports is a penalty, and there, statistics are widely used and have been forever.
What stats to use are also far more difficult to choose. Again, taking baseball as an example, you hit the ball or you don't, you get to first base, or second, or whatever, you hit a home run or you don't - it's pretty easy to work out the important stats to use. So how do you measure the performance of someone like Britton and the impact he has on a game? Is it assists? Goals? % pass completion rate? % tackles made? I would argue that none of those statistics actually value what it is that he brings to the team - it is far more complex and nuanced than a set of stats would ever show. It takes watching the game, and understanding it (which means having watched loads of games for a long time) that actually allows someone to see his 'worth'.
Some stats are very interesting of course - as well as the possession stats (which are interesting but not as important as Sky would have us believe), shots, shots on target etc etc I personally find the 'average position on the field' quite interesting, the heat maps similarly, and even stats about how far members of the team have run are interesting.
But they only tell a tiny part of the story and if looked at in isolation, will often give a completely false idea of the game (Leicester for example have pretty poor possession stats I believe, and yet look at where they are).
The biggest single failing of stats of course, is that they only record the past and cannot predict the future - they will do over time if accurate enough and within a controlled environment (as per the casino point) because in the long run, probability is what it is, but they won't over a single event even in a controlled environment with few if any variables (which is why the odd person wins a fortune in a casino) and they certainly won't in a one off football game that has no end to the variables at work. |
what was it Disraeli once said?
"there are lies,damn lies and statistics" | |
| |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 17:10 - Feb 8 with 1196 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 17:08 - Feb 8 by vetchonian |
what was it Disraeli once said?
"there are lies,damn lies and statistics" |
Quite a few on here said that the season that Gower was for a while, the most 'creative footballer in Europe' :-) | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 17:36 - Feb 8 with 1171 views | Clinton |
Magnificent post by LondonLisa above. Fully agree, especially the point that there are too many variables at play to adequately describe and predict football matches.
The interpretation of much of this welter of data collected on football matches, is as much an art as a science. |  |
| If you can fill the unforgiving minute.
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son! |
| |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 17:44 - Feb 8 with 1159 views | jruss1 |
Just a point on the 'shot map american'. I had to stop following him on Twitter. He bases all his views on these maps,which I think has been proven in this thread is silly.
He also constantly whinged about us leaving Gomis, Montero and towards the end of his spell here Shelvey, on the bench. He said we were hurting ourselves, even though aanybody who has watched any actual games this season knows it is the exact opposite. | | | |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 18:00 - Feb 8 with 1130 views | Gowerjack |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 17:10 - Feb 8 by londonlisa2001 |
Quite a few on here said that the season that Gower was for a while, the most 'creative footballer in Europe' :-) |
The Gower was a useful player but far from the most creative in Europe. |  |
| |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 18:16 - Feb 8 with 1109 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 18:00 - Feb 8 by Gowerjack |
The Gower was a useful player but far from the most creative in Europe. |
Yes - that was sort of the point ;-) | | | |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 18:22 - Feb 8 with 1100 views | JackFish |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 17:04 - Feb 8 by londonlisa2001 |
The problem with statistics (and, yes, I do understand them - not directed at you btw), is that whilst the numbers themselves are 'relentlessly objective' , neither the selection of appropriate statistics nor the interpretation of those statistics, is.
Football actually doesn't lend itself to stats quite as much as the ridiculous obsession that some appear to have with opta suggests.
There is a reason why US sports are pretty statistical - it is because the variables within the game are far fewer.
As an example - watching American Football, it is far more relevant to talk about the number of times a quarterback does this or that because every single time they line up, the field is set in the same way, they are always in the centre of the pitch, the number and placement of both his team and the opposition team is the same. (I know they could be at twenty yards, or fifty yards up the field, and I know they could have a different number of players in different positions, but it is pretty much the same and they reset after every single play back to the same positions again).
Same with baseball - the pitcher and the hitter are always in the same spots, there is always the same distance between them, the ball has to be thrown over pretty much the same piece of ground otherwise it'll miss the plate, the bases are in the same place and so on.
The issue with football, is that the number of variables in play is astonishing - it is not a 'stop start' game, but one that is constantly evolving. A player receiving the ball will always be in a different place, the opposition players will be in a different place, in different parts of the field, his team mates will be in different positions and so on and so on. Pretty much the only time that is comparable with the static starting point of US sports is a penalty, and there, statistics are widely used and have been forever.
What stats to use are also far more difficult to choose. Again, taking baseball as an example, you hit the ball or you don't, you get to first base, or second, or whatever, you hit a home run or you don't - it's pretty easy to work out the important stats to use. So how do you measure the performance of someone like Britton and the impact he has on a game? Is it assists? Goals? % pass completion rate? % tackles made? I would argue that none of those statistics actually value what it is that he brings to the team - it is far more complex and nuanced than a set of stats would ever show. It takes watching the game, and understanding it (which means having watched loads of games for a long time) that actually allows someone to see his 'worth'.
Some stats are very interesting of course - as well as the possession stats (which are interesting but not as important as Sky would have us believe), shots, shots on target etc etc I personally find the 'average position on the field' quite interesting, the heat maps similarly, and even stats about how far members of the team have run are interesting.
But they only tell a tiny part of the story and if looked at in isolation, will often give a completely false idea of the game (Leicester for example have pretty poor possession stats I believe, and yet look at where they are).
The biggest single failing of stats of course, is that they only record the past and cannot predict the future - they will do over time if accurate enough and within a controlled environment (as per the casino point) because in the long run, probability is what it is, but they won't over a single event even in a controlled environment with few if any variables (which is why the odd person wins a fortune in a casino) and they certainly won't in a one off football game that has no end to the variables at work. |
Great post, sadly I can only upvote it once! |  | | |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 18:34 - Feb 8 with 1084 views | Gowerjack |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 18:16 - Feb 8 by londonlisa2001 |
Yes - that was sort of the point ;-) |
Whoosh | |
| |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 18:45 - Feb 8 with 1067 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 18:34 - Feb 8 by Gowerjack |
Whoosh |
Oh sorry gowerjack - I got so thrown by the use of the superfluous 'The' , I got quite besides myself :-) | | | |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 19:32 - Feb 8 with 1017 views | Tummer_from_Texas |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 17:04 - Feb 8 by londonlisa2001 |
The problem with statistics (and, yes, I do understand them - not directed at you btw), is that whilst the numbers themselves are 'relentlessly objective' , neither the selection of appropriate statistics nor the interpretation of those statistics, is.
Football actually doesn't lend itself to stats quite as much as the ridiculous obsession that some appear to have with opta suggests.
There is a reason why US sports are pretty statistical - it is because the variables within the game are far fewer.
As an example - watching American Football, it is far more relevant to talk about the number of times a quarterback does this or that because every single time they line up, the field is set in the same way, they are always in the centre of the pitch, the number and placement of both his team and the opposition team is the same. (I know they could be at twenty yards, or fifty yards up the field, and I know they could have a different number of players in different positions, but it is pretty much the same and they reset after every single play back to the same positions again).
Same with baseball - the pitcher and the hitter are always in the same spots, there is always the same distance between them, the ball has to be thrown over pretty much the same piece of ground otherwise it'll miss the plate, the bases are in the same place and so on.
The issue with football, is that the number of variables in play is astonishing - it is not a 'stop start' game, but one that is constantly evolving. A player receiving the ball will always be in a different place, the opposition players will be in a different place, in different parts of the field, his team mates will be in different positions and so on and so on. Pretty much the only time that is comparable with the static starting point of US sports is a penalty, and there, statistics are widely used and have been forever.
What stats to use are also far more difficult to choose. Again, taking baseball as an example, you hit the ball or you don't, you get to first base, or second, or whatever, you hit a home run or you don't - it's pretty easy to work out the important stats to use. So how do you measure the performance of someone like Britton and the impact he has on a game? Is it assists? Goals? % pass completion rate? % tackles made? I would argue that none of those statistics actually value what it is that he brings to the team - it is far more complex and nuanced than a set of stats would ever show. It takes watching the game, and understanding it (which means having watched loads of games for a long time) that actually allows someone to see his 'worth'.
Some stats are very interesting of course - as well as the possession stats (which are interesting but not as important as Sky would have us believe), shots, shots on target etc etc I personally find the 'average position on the field' quite interesting, the heat maps similarly, and even stats about how far members of the team have run are interesting.
But they only tell a tiny part of the story and if looked at in isolation, will often give a completely false idea of the game (Leicester for example have pretty poor possession stats I believe, and yet look at where they are).
The biggest single failing of stats of course, is that they only record the past and cannot predict the future - they will do over time if accurate enough and within a controlled environment (as per the casino point) because in the long run, probability is what it is, but they won't over a single event even in a controlled environment with few if any variables (which is why the odd person wins a fortune in a casino) and they certainly won't in a one off football game that has no end to the variables at work. |
I love detailed stats and tend to obsess over them as much as Dav and this Marottanomics dude, but that's a great framing of the counterargument.
In my opinion, neither one of you are completely correct nor totally wrong. |  |
| |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 19:36 - Feb 8 with 1005 views | monmouth |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 19:32 - Feb 8 by Tummer_from_Texas |
I love detailed stats and tend to obsess over them as much as Dav and this Marottanomics dude, but that's a great framing of the counterargument.
In my opinion, neither one of you are completely correct nor totally wrong. |
But statistically, which one comes out ahead? |  |
| |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 19:41 - Feb 8 with 1002 views | exiledclaseboy |
Well, anyway. Looking forward to the next article. "Right goals, wrong methods. Why we were actually sh*t against Southampton despite winning 3-0." |  |
| |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 19:55 - Feb 8 with 977 views | 3swan |
My comment on statistics. Black & white based on numbers but not other conditioning factors.
As far as the Swans. I have enjoyed our games lately.
Performances are improving but we still have the affect of the league position pressure. Even before our new manager we were a team who's style of play was changing.
Again we are 'under development' where the manager can only change slightly to where he wants us to be.
It's all about a transition period and statistics are based on past performances and not future changes to style and personnel | | | |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 20:01 - Feb 8 with 946 views | VetchitBack |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 19:41 - Feb 8 by exiledclaseboy |
Well, anyway. Looking forward to the next article. "Right goals, wrong methods. Why we were actually sh*t against Southampton despite winning 3-0." |
Ha ha I cannot wait for the "Why we were shit against Southampton despite winning 3-0" article.
Or the "Why despite staying up Swansea City were the 'real' losers in this season's EPL" one. |  |
| The orthodox are always orthodox, regardless of the orthodoxy.
|
| |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 20:09 - Feb 8 with 922 views | Darran |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 20:01 - Feb 8 by VetchitBack |
Ha ha I cannot wait for the "Why we were shit against Southampton despite winning 3-0" article.
Or the "Why despite staying up Swansea City were the 'real' losers in this season's EPL" one. |
Well as funny as that is I still remember the "we didn't deserve to go up" posts under Jackett even though we'd finished in the third automatic position. |  |
| |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 20:18 - Feb 8 with 901 views | Phil_S |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 20:09 - Feb 8 by Darran |
Well as funny as that is I still remember the "we didn't deserve to go up" posts under Jackett even though we'd finished in the third automatic position. |
Or the Jobsters "Any idiot could have got that side promoted" |  | | |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 20:18 - Feb 8 with 897 views | Darran |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 20:18 - Feb 8 by Phil_S |
Or the Jobsters "Any idiot could have got that side promoted" |
Hehehe.  | |
| |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 20:19 - Feb 8 with 891 views | Dr_Winston |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 20:18 - Feb 8 by Phil_S |
Or the Jobsters "Any idiot could have got that side promoted" |
? |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 20:21 - Feb 8 with 884 views | Phil_S |
| Guidolin: Right Man, Wrong Tools on 20:19 - Feb 8 by Dr_Winston |
? |
It was a comment you made back in the day - more than one occasion too | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
