Adam Wharton

[K-Hod]

35 minutes ago, KidderStreetNoise said:

Nostalgia is cruel

Please can you stop trolling?

Thanks.

[TheKitGuy]

44 minutes ago, KidderStreetNoise said:

Surely if he was an elite footballer at that level for so long he'd have won one POTY or been nominated for Ballon D'or?

134 appearances in the CL 

66 England caps

2x PFA team of the year 

 

11x Premier Leagues

3x Fa Cups

2x CL's

1x Club world cup

 

Come on KSN let's not be daft AW is a serious talent but at this stage isn't better than Paul Scholes. 

[KidderStreetNoise]

1 minute ago, TheKitGuy said:

134 appearances in the CL 

66 England caps

2x PFA team of the year 

 

11x Premier Leagues

3x Fa Cups

2x CL's

1x Club world cup

 

Come on KSN let's not be daft AW is a serious talent but at this stage isn't better than Paul Scholes. 

He was a good player, but people putting him on the pedestal of one of the best midfielders of his generation isn't on.

[Dreams of 1995]

17 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I never denied its benefits. I said there is a massive overreliance on it, too much importance is placed on it and it is flawed.

Conclusions are reached based solely on them, often illogically. Chaddy said that Anderson is the best midfielder in the league because he was top rated in a hand full of pre selected metrics. He also said that it proves that he should start next to Rice without considering the context of him playing a different role in a different team of different quality. He might be great at "progressive carries" for example but I dont think its a key requirement in the type of player we need next to Rice.

You mention xg. A player runs through on goal, takes too long and doesnt get his shot away. Hes had a great chance, its 0 xg.

A players pass completion will be better if he keeps things safe and makes no attempt to pass it forward. Forward passes could be 1 yard forward to someone essentially next to them or a defence splitting 30 yard pass. Metrics surrounding chances created will be affected by whether the striker gets a shot away. There are so many grey areas.

I don't really get what you are saying here. If you use statistics to develop a conclusion, then how is that illogical? It comes across as though you don't really know what you are arguing against

If you're looking for a player who takes up wide spaces, makes underlapping runs, passes forward more often than not and has a great first touch, then you would score on those metrics. There will be specific statistics which demonstrate that. The human element is both identifying the specific needs and knowing if that player, with those qualities, is what the squad requires

You may not think it is a key requirement of playing next to Rice. Does not make Chaddy's conclusion illogical. Just means you disagree. Like my first post mentioned, there were a number of statistics which favoured Wharton - chances created and through balls. But we know this. We know it because we have seen it and, conveniently for this debate, the statistics show he is the best at it

And the more you delve into stats the more you will find those nuances you want. You can easily identify a player that makes the most forward passes; from those you can then determine which passes are most effective (goal scoring opportunities, unlocking defences, chances created)

I don't know why you think there are more grey areas with statistics than there are with just rational player judgement. The fact is that statistics are objective; your use of those statistics and your ultimate conclusion is what makes it subjective. Trying to pass off statistics as not to be trusted or a 'grey area' really points to a confusion about the role of metrics. As said in my first post - they are really only measuring what you see with your own eyes.

[roversfan99]

11 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I don't really get what you are saying here. If you use statistics to develop a conclusion, then how is that illogical? It comes across as though you don't really know what you are arguing against

If you're looking for a player who takes up wide spaces, makes underlapping runs, passes forward more often than not and has a great first touch, then you would score on those metrics. There will be specific statistics which demonstrate that. The human element is both identifying the specific needs and knowing if that player, with those qualities, is what the squad requires

You may not think it is a key requirement of playing next to Rice. Does not make Chaddy's conclusion illogical. Just means you disagree. Like my first post mentioned, there were a number of statistics which favoured Wharton - chances created and through balls. But we know this. We know it because we have seen it and, conveniently for this debate, the statistics show he is the best at it

And the more you delve into stats the more you will find those nuances you want. You can easily identify a player that makes the most forward passes; from those you can then determine which passes are most effective (goal scoring opportunities, unlocking defences, chances created)

I don't know why you think there are more grey areas with statistics than there are with just rational player judgement. The fact is that statistics are objective; your use of those statistics and your ultimate conclusion is what makes it subjective. Trying to pass off statistics as not to be trusted or a 'grey area' really points to a confusion about the role of metrics. As said in my first post - they are really only measuring what you see with your own eyes.

My issue is with the idea that it PROVES anything. Those stats do not PROVE that Anderson is the best midfielder in the league or that he should play next to Rice. They can be used as part of an opinion but they are often used conclusively as if a player is factually better. They are also often hand picked to suit a narrative.

Stats are useful, Ive never denied that. But there are limitations to their use. There are grey areas in how they are measured. And they are often wrongly manipulated. I never said that there are MORE grey areas with stats. But someone saying x player is good/bad/better than y wouldnt be treated as if its objectively the case, it would be seen as what it is, an opinion, when you throw pre selected metrics in the mix people often seem to think that it objectively proves whatever conclusion they personally have come to.

We have seen at Rovers that we seem to have gone down a more data driven route of selecting players and some right shite has come as a result. Obviously those metrics become even looser when you cant possibly objectify differences in standards of leagues.

[Dreams of 1995]

39 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

My issue is with the idea that it PROVES anything. Those stats do not PROVE that Anderson is the best midfielder in the league or that he should play next to Rice. They can be used as part of an opinion but they are often used conclusively as if a player is factually better. They are also often hand picked to suit a narrative.

Stats are useful, Ive never denied that. But there are limitations to their use. There are grey areas in how they are measured. And they are often wrongly manipulated. I never said that there are MORE grey areas with stats. But someone saying x player is good/bad/better than y wouldnt be treated as if its objectively the case, it would be seen as what it is, an opinion, when you throw pre selected metrics in the mix people often seem to think that it objectively proves whatever conclusion they personally have come to.

We have seen at Rovers that we seem to have gone down a more data driven route of selecting players and some right shite has come as a result. Obviously those metrics become even looser when you cant possibly objectify differences in standards of leagues.

I think you are showing a fundamental misunderstanding to be honest. You started that post by saying you have an issue with stats proving anything. They only deal in facts. They prove what you would like them to - if you want to know if a player completes his passes more often than not, then the stats will prove that. What's the struggle with that? Stats are just fact. They aren't manipulated at all - they are collected by a computer and put in formats computers understand...factual.

If you are a scout and your head coach comes to you saying: "I need a midfielder who occupies wide spaces and makes lots of underlapping runs" - you go to the data analyst and you ask him to find you that type of player. Which player is then the best, is based on the human element - thought.

The crux of the post is that data is "hand picked". Well, isn't that the case without data? You would ‘hand pick’ parts of a players game you think justifies the argument you are making, ie - at Sheffield Wednesday away he won a header to set this goal up etc etc 

Your big issues seems to be people using data to justify their conclusion. I would say that is an informed opinion. The arrogance around data would suggest that you believe your conclusion to be 'more real' than others, even though you aren't prepared to use anything factual to back it up with

I have highlighted points of your post that I think suggest you are not understanding the use of data, stats or whatever. Stats do prove things - it's their purpose; any metric is "pre-selected" as a human being decide what is measured and why; we have not signed shite because of data, we have signed shite because our budget affords shite; and there is a very easy way to objectify standards in leagues because part of the measurable is the league they perform in.

I don't think you like data for whatever reason and are refusing to move on that position. This is a pointless back and fourth about it. Next time a poster uses some stat to justify his conclusion, they are not trying to prove you wrong, they are trying to demonstrate how they got to their conclusion. I think you'd do well to understand that point as it would save the many discussions you find yourself in on the subject

Edited 1 hour ago by Dreams of 1995

[RevidgeBlue]

52 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I think you are showing a fundamental misunderstanding to be honest. You started that post by saying you have an issue with stats proving anything. They only deal in facts. They prove what you would like them to - if you want to know if a player completes his passes more often than not, then the stats will prove that. What's the struggle with that? Stats are just fact. They aren't manipulated at all - they are collected by a computer and put in formats computers understand...factual.

If you are a scout and your head coach comes to you saying: "I need a midfielder who occupies wide spaces and makes lots of underlapping runs" - you go to the data analyst and you ask him to find you that type of player. Which player is then the best, is based on the human element - thought.

The crux of the post is that data is "hand picked". Well, isn't that the case without data? You would ‘hand pick’ parts of a players game you think justifies the argument you are making, ie - at Sheffield Wednesday away he won a header to set this goal up etc etc 

Your big issues seems to be people using data to justify their conclusion. I would say that is an informed opinion. The arrogance around data would suggest that you believe your conclusion to be 'more real' than others, even though you aren't prepared to use anything factual to back it up with

I have highlighted points of your post that I think suggest you are not understanding the use of data, stats or whatever. Stats do prove things - it's their purpose; any metric is "pre-selected" as a human being decide what is measured and why; we have not signed shite because of data, we have signed shite because our budget affords shite; and there is a very easy way to objectify standards in leagues because part of the measurable is the league they perform in.

I don't think you like data for whatever reason and are refusing to move on that position. This is a pointless back and fourth about it. Next time a poster uses some stat to justify his conclusion, they are not trying to prove you wrong, they are trying to demonstrate how they got to their conclusion. I think you'd do well to understand that point as it would save the many discussions you find yourself in on the subject

Reading the above, as an old timer I have to say I agree  with RF 99. Most stats have no context and are virtually meaningless imo.

So what if a player completes his passes more often than not? He probably will do if he isn't taking a risk and might not do if he is trying to be creative and make something happen.

Also agree with RF about the amount of shite we've brought in in recent years presumably with the help of data.

It's convenient because it's easier and massively reduces the amount of leg work initially in identifying potential targets but there's no way anyone is telling me that the end result is any better or more consistent  than in years gone by pre the use of data.

e.g. We want a winger with pace - computer spits out Kargbo.

Edited 1 hour ago by RevidgeBlue

[Dreams of 1995]

25 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Reading the above, as an old timer I have to say I agree  with RF 99. Most stats have no context and are virtually meaningless imo.

So what if a player completes his passes more often than not? He probably will do if he isn't taking a risk and might not do if he is trying to be creative and make something happen.

Also agree with RF about the amount of shite we've brought in in recent years presumably with the help of data.

It's convenient because it's easier and massively reduces the amount of leg work initially in identifying potential targets but there's no way anyone is telling me that the end result is any better or more consistent  than in years gone by pre the use of data.

e.g. We want a winger with pace - computer spits out Kargbo.

The raw form of statistics do not have context. It is the interpretation of those statistics which provide meaning. Interpretation will include providing context. Behind the data analysts of every club there will be someone who works on that - sets the data limitations, the methodology, the trends or real world factors.

When Sky Sports present data on a midfielder, they don't include the amount of times that player caught the ball. That is because it is not relevant in the context of the discussion. 

Some of the data has inherent context anyway - "through balls" for example will be a player who will take risk. He is likely to pass into space more meaning he suits a team with pace. All context but requires human thought

It is very easy to sit here in the modern world and blame data for the bad decisions the club made. What was at fault for the bad signings before? Did we sign Grabbi because the data got it wrong?

Statistics in sport - not just football - are used to inform, not necessarily decide. It won't make the decision making perfect. Using them to provide an informed opinion is just clever thinking.

There have been some examples where data-driven recruitment has proved fruitful. Watch Moneyball if you have some time Rev. It is not a recipe to guaranteed success but clearly professional people paid very highly have decided the inclusion of data analysts provide for a more informed and successful decision making process

Do you remember some of the stories that happened "pre-data"? Was it Southampton who signed a player who had never kicked a ball before 😄 It has definitely helped productivity!!

[RevidgeBlue]

14 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

The raw form of statistics do not have context. It is the interpretation of those statistics which provide meaning. Interpretation will include providing context. Behind the data analysts of every club there will be someone who works on that - sets the data limitations, the methodology, the trends or real world factors.

When Sky Sports present data on a midfielder, they don't include the amount of times that player caught the ball. That is because it is not relevant in the context of the discussion. 

Some of the data has inherent context anyway - "through balls" for example will be a player who will take risk. He is likely to pass into space more meaning he suits a team with pace. All context but requires human thought

It is very easy to sit here in the modern world and blame data for the bad decisions the club made. What was at fault for the bad signings before? Did we sign Grabbi because the data got it wrong?

Statistics in sport - not just football - are used to inform, not necessarily decide. It won't make the decision making perfect. Using them to provide an informed opinion is just clever thinking.

There have been some examples where data-driven recruitment has proved fruitful. Watch Moneyball if you have some time Rev. It is not a recipe to guaranteed success but clearly professional people paid very highly have decided the inclusion of data analysts provide for a more informed and successful decision making process

Do you remember some of the stories that happened "pre-data"? Was it Southampton who signed a player who had never kicked a ball before 😄 It has definitely helped productivity!!

It was our pal Souness who brought George Weah's cousin in temporarily at Southampton I think. 🤣

I've seen Moneyball - very interesting and fairly ingenious.

Problem imo is it worked once with certain individuals in a specific set of circumstances and people think they can use the idea of it to  reproduce something similarly miraculousin a completely different setting again and again.

You can't imo or at least your chances of success are exceptionally limited.

I've mentioned several times before that we seem to be using a Moneyball type of approach by targeting several players who've recently been relegated from some obscure European League. Which presumably means they're extremely cheap

Doomed to failure imo but who knows, maybe Rudy knows better than I.