roversfan99

"Take those tinted glasses off" is the next phrase in line for the echo chamber.

I agree with some of what you said, my issue is with how people use data, over rely on data, dont question data enough or purposely manipulate data. Take the Anderson example. One of the 2 sources came from a Nottingham Forest twitter account. So natural questions would be, why those specific stats? Why compare 15 minutes at the end when winning against a tired team to 75 minutes prior? And I think some of my questions about the other data are fair. If its about England, are those specific stats the most important? If its passing, if completion is high, is it safe and backwards/sideways? If its forward, does a 1 yard and 30 yard pass equal the same? Are the chances created reasonable ones? I dont think my opinion is any more credible or real than anyone elses. Judging players is still as subjective as it has ever been. Some teams use data and find good players, some find poor players. Same as before without data, it can help and it can hinder.

Of course luck plays a part though, moreso in international football. Southgate did benefit from some favourable draws that did not come as a direct result of anything he had done. Equally, I think Ismael is a poor manager. But he was unfortunate to see weather conditions call a game off because that was out of his control.

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.

Its not leaping to Waggott's defence. But historically you have regularly diverted blame away from the owners.

Why does it always divert away from the owners and to Waggott?

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 cant believe the clearly sarcastic suggestion that Wharton is much better than Scholes was has been taken so seriously.

I dont think the stats do back up that opinion personally. They prove that in the Premier League, playing in predominantly a different role in a team with totally different expectations and a totally different style, Anderson has the most progressive carries etc (which isnt really what I personally think is a priority for a holding midfielder) based on stats from whichever company they come from. To extrapolate that to believing that hes been the best midfielder in the league or that it proves the argument that Anderson is the ideal candidate to play a different role for England off the back of that is IMO not correct.

Ive not got a specific number in mind. Its more of a case of, dont force him out, in January, out of desperation, and instead give him at least half a season more to accelerate in value. Hes obviously going to generate more, you wont get true value under those conditions.

He is not head and shoulders ahead of Declan Rice as an all rounder. He is definitely not as good as him. Those stats are so limited and as you say come down to interpretation, but they merely show that he ranks top at those specific things under the system of wherever those stats come from. If you are judging the best midfielder based solely on who ranks highest on a select few metrics, and nothing else, then you are being foolish. The problem nowadays is people are too reliant on these stats, which are only a small part of what someone should be looking at. Who a player plays for, the type of player, the style of the team, the dominance or otherwise of a team, it all comes into play. You touch on it but Wharton and Anderson are different types of players. I personally think the style of Wharton would compliment Rice more. Anderson is also box to box but that hasnt been a problem against weak teams who havent really looked to exploit any gaps between and behind him and Rice.

Ive never denied that according to wherever Sky Sports get these specific metrics from, that he is top of them. I am saying that they doesnt prove objectively that hes the best midfielder in the league. You dont seem to be able to distinguish the difference between the 2.

You keep fixating on that, different situations, there will be other players with different clauses. Its like defending Venkys because they at least pay the players unlike Chansiri did. Its simple logic. We sold desperately, in January, before he had time to further play and appreciate in value. Logically, regardless of structure, his value with us being distressed sellers was lower than it should have been.

He was the type of player who wanted a ball to himself, he would often take too long on the ball or make a wrong decision.

But that implies that the total of any package is always the same. Ie, he is being sold right at that moment, and its just a question of structuring. His value regardless of structuring was limited. We had to sell, we were desperate, we sold him in January when theres less money around, clubs less willing to spend money, and we sold him early as opposed to letting bis value continue to appreciate. Theres no reason to suggest that if all of the above factors werent in play, and if we had waited, that we couldnt still have the add ons AND a higher fee. Big sales will contain sell on fees. If that player goes to the very top, it doesnt justify the sale because of potential add ons down the line, its not something our board have done really well to include, its standard. Its not either or.

Why shouldnt significant conclusions be taken from one game, a qualifier which was essentially a friendly because there was nothing to play for, comparing a player who started the game and played 75 mins v someone who came on with England dominant and winning? But they DONT show/prove that Anderson is objectively the best midfielder in the league which is what you said.

The problem is, people dont take these stats for what they are. They are misinterpreted, too much onus is put on them, they are cherry picked and illogical conclusions are reached . Wharton's pass percentage will probably not be anything special because he passes forward.

No chaddy, they dont "show" that he is the best midfielder in the league. The best midfielder in the league is a purely subjective choice. Those stats used will have been pre selected, the stats are not without their flaws, you are comparing different players playing different roles in different teams with different levels of dominance and control in games, different tactics etc. If you think that Anderson is the best midfielder in the league, or has been this season, then thats fine. But those stats do not prove the conclusion you have taken from them, nor are they intended for that purpose.

It was one game that ultimately didnt matter for either side. Anderson didnt transform the game, a poor Albania side had conceded, had tired and England had taken control by the time he came on. Its not worth taking significant conclusions from.

For us? He was predominantly frustrating.

Rochina had a decent career but I certainly wouldnt have him down as an "absolutely brilliant player." Had loads of natural ability and skill but his decision making was poor and when he got chances to start he tended to be ineffective.

To be fair, Anderson came on for 15 minutes at a time when we were totally dominant, in the lead and against a tired Albania.

It didnt show that he is the best midfielder in the league, thats my point. He obviously isnt, there are clearly midfielders better than him. Those stats merely proved that he has done the most of each of those stats in the first 10 games, that isnt proof that he is the best midfielder in the league. As I said, Wharton did rank higher yesterday than Anderson in certain stats, including apparently (I am very skeptical of these stats full stop) creating the most chances in the game. Unsure why you follow a random Forest page but they pre selected the stats in Anderson's favour, missed the ones in Wharton's favour, and didnt factor in the state of the game when the sub was made and the different circumstances. The higher rating for Wharton isnt based on opinion, its based on an accumulation of the (as I said flawed) stats. You have repeatedly shown an incapability to question things, even taking things out of context. Youve done it with the crap that comes out of the liars at Rovers before, taking any spin as the gospel truth.

I find it a little strange how you are seeking out Forest twitter pages to back up Anderson. I also think your inability to question things is summed up by how you are interpreting these stats. Because Anderson is top of a list of random stats, you stated that hes the best midfielder in the Premier League the other day. Now you are passing on these stats today as if they prove your point or that he was more effective. They are different types of players and they featured in different ways and at totally different stages of the game. Anderson was on for much less time but the game was totally different, Albania had conceded, they were knackered and England were totally dominant. He won all of his "ground duels" (very vague phrase) which was 1 of 1, for example. The stats quoted are seemingly from fotmob but they have also been cherry picked. Wharton has a higher rating, and created the most chances out of everyone in the game apparently. Point being, dont just take randomly selected and inherently flawed stats as proof of certain conclusions. Are you basing this purely on a few England games against poor opposition?

Its a bizarre argument. People presumably think we should have got a bigger initial fee ASWELL as add ons. Those add ons arent part of a masterplan as opposed to a higher fee. And had we waited longer and not been as desperate, chucking him out the door in the less busy winter window, then he would have been worth more, however it was structured.