Dreams of 1995

I cant say I particularly like Val either. I can give him credit for changing the formation though. Before that, I felt like he was the type of manager to be stubborn and expect players to adapt to his system For that I give him credit. Get us in the play offs and I’ll warm to him 😎

I think we need to bring in a central midfielder to come and cover Tronstad. The problem is, it’s unlikely you’ll sign his replacement in January. Not unless you’re willing to spend a bit over the odds. We won’t It’s likely we will go for a centre back and then look to supplement the squad with what is available. A centre back and centre mid for me is the priority.

Wouldn’t have happened with data analysis Rev 😉

We were good all over the pitch yesterday. Well done George Pratt - fantastic game young man and looked ever so comfortable. His passing was on point and a couple of very important blocks. Didn’t look out of place even when that lump of a man Smith tried to drop on to him Gudjohnson is becoming my favourite player. He’s a real poacher. But for those criticising his play - the chance for Smith was made harder by Gudjohnson strength. Fantastic save by Pears, but only possible due to our Icelandic super star Morishita got in the way down the right hand side early doors. He was making good runs to underlap down the right, but that was into Alebiosus space. Once Morishita played more narrow and left that right hand side space for Alebiosu we roasted them. A small tactical switch that turned our attacking fortunes around Lovely win and we climb up the table again

Miller putting McLoughlin through it. He’s got to improve on the ball

There’s something going on with Pickering. He’s been effectively frozen out. Not the best player we’ve had, but is a shoe in here surely?

Think I agree with academy football, although the other side is for those lads who can take the workload it turns them into absolute machines Plenty of lads break down throughout their late teenage / early 20s. Unfortunately appears like Carter is one of them. Such a shame, he's a good defender and looked like he was going to be a real talent for us at one time. Maybe a step down to a lower level of football and a less onerous training regime is on the cards for him Calls of him being a waste of space are wide of the mark and frankly insulting for a chap who has worked at the club for over 10 years. Pathetic really

The only person who's conflating "PL best.." and Man Utd POTY is you. Why do you hold United fans' opinions so highly?

According to you, the Man Utd supporters' opinions are what counts the most. They voted him as POTY. You must think he's fucking class. Premier League, La Liga, Ligue 1 and POTY at United. Do you have him on your wall?

Some revisionism going on here. Fergie going with two DM's in a big game means Scholes isn't that good 700+ appearances, dozens of titles and 60+ appearances for his club. The little ginger lad was a cracking footballer. That's where it needs to be left. Couldn't give a shite about his POTY I just had a look at the history of their POTY. He ain't in bad company is he? 1993/94: Eric Cantona (France) 1994/95: Andrei Kanchelskis (Russia) 1995/96: Eric Cantona (France) 1996/97: David Beckham (England) 1997/98: Ryan Giggs (Wales) 1998/99: Roy Keane (Ireland) 1999/00: Roy Keane (Ireland) 2000/01: Teddy Sheringham (England) 2001/02: Ruud van Nistelrooy (the Netherlands) 2002/03: Ruud van Nistelrooy (the Netherlands) 2003/04: Cristiano Ronaldo (Portugal) 2004/05: Gabriel Heinze (Argentina) 2005/06: Wayne Rooney (England) 2006/07: Cristiano Ronaldo (Portugal) 2007/08: Cristiano Ronaldo (Portugal) 2008/09: Nemanja Vidic (Serbia) 2009/10: Wayne Rooney (England)

Rudy definitely doesn't know better. I just think we are signing those players because that's what our budget provides. When the data analysts and scouts come up with the target list, no doubt they'll have a column which shows value. We'll be straight down towards Option C - D with the value of <500k. Unfortunately Rev - pay peanuts, get monkeys.

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!!

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

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.

I actually think it came from Waggott. He had to replace Mowbray but there aren't many candidates available who would do what Mowbray did. He was real old school. And so he had to replace him with two - one, a chap to look at signings and two, a coach to coach the players. Broughton & JDT were our way out. There's no doubt in my mind that they were sabotaged; it's no doubt that sabotage was Suhail