The Snowball stat thread

[Snowball]

but I don't recall many instances (and you need to find about two dozen this season
before he starts to look poor), many instances of him getting a ball where he could shoot
and doesn't, is crowded out or robbed.

That happens, of course.

I mean here beyond what happens to most strikers.

Really? I know you struggle to see things with your own eyes at times but this happens all the time with Church, he's just too easy to defend against.

I can't list you a dozen instances because I don't catalogue them away, but suffice to say that I see it every game and it's one of my over riding impressions of him.

Of course it happens to other forwards too (see Hunt failing to convert Antonio's cross the other day) but Church just makes more of a habit of it.

I really disagree. I've said he's less brave. There are goals Shane scored that Churchy wouldn't cos he won't
go in where it hurts. And he's more likely to lose a 1-on-1 chase. But actual genuine chances where he
doesn't get a shot away? Maybe he's a little worse than either Hunt or Alfie, but I REALLY haven't seen the
evidence. Note that's not the same as not winning a challenge 20 yards out. IMO Church is not half of Long
at that, but actual chances crowded out? Don't remember many.

[Wax Jacket]

what a thread

[leicsRoyal]

Church is definitely not doing the Shane role!

Unless he finds another gear and muscles up a bit.

He may not be good enough to do it, but he's been in that role

Do you not think that Longs role was as a goalscorer and someone who could make things happen?

It was secondary that he closed down well.

[cmonurz]

You're behaviour is classic passive-aggressive. You post "little" slights that you know PRECISELY will work. For example, you first post in this thread, immediately on the P-A offensive, just done in a sly way.

"So now the form table is 16 Games".

Ask what that implies. It certainly DOESN'T mean, "Oh, I see we have a genuine new standard."

You're implying. "This is Snowball AGAIN, making it up as he goes AGAIN, choosing a stat to suit, AGAIN. Snowball "cheating" AGAIN, Snowball being unreasonable, AGAIN."

You know precisely what you're doing. It's easy to make cowardly seemingly-trivial remarks
and then appear "aghast" when someone reacts.

Have I called you insane, or paranoid, or having a mental breakdown?

Read your post back, and tell me I have reason not to think you are paranoid.

[Wimb]

Fair doos and maybe I'm being a bit harsh with the Leeds goal, so I'll hand him that. Can't remember off the top of my head whether it was against 9 or 10 for the Sham game but do remember he practically stole one off Le Fondre Obviously it's still hard to score but it's just worth noting when looking at the stats that 33% of his goals came when the opposition were down in numbers.

That point also nullify's the goals as sub argument a fair bit as his two goals off the bench both came in that game.

He didn't deserve that Brighton goal , that's pushing it a bit! plus McAnuff needs all the goals he can get as well

Fair cop on the other stats though, certainly gives reason to hope he might come out of his shell and 'do a Shane'

[Wycombe Royal]

So Snowball you are very quick to point out where you think others are being abusive to you but can you not see where you are going wrong? Do you think the tone of your messages is OK?

You bring on these reactions yourself and I for one have no sympathy for any abuse you get. So before you go criticising others I would suggest that you take a look at what you write and then try to see how others might read your comments.

Of course I know that I am wrong and that you will now post something telling me exactly where I am wrong but to be honest I don't care as I'm just trying to give you a little assistance here (and this is from someone who in the past, and I probably still do, was agressive in their posting style and had a know-it-all style of writing).

[Snowball]

Really? I know you struggle to see things with your own eyes at times but this happens all the time with Church, he's just too easy to defend against.

I can't list you a dozen instances because I don't catalogue them away, but suffice to say that I see it every game and it's one of my over riding impressions of him.

Of course it happens to other forwards too (see Hunt failing to convert Antonio's cross the other day) but Church just makes more of a habit of it.

My personal memory this season is NOT of Church failing to create a chance he should,
no more than anyone else, at least. These are the only "possibles" I could find mentioned on the OS

SIX. Even if you added those and called them chances, he'd still be way more productiove (goals/shot)
then either Le Fondred or Hunt

Doncaster

And then a beautiful long ball from the Jobi McAnuff sent Church away and just as he pulled the trigger George Friend managed to stick out a leg to half block the strike and force the ball wide of the right post.

DERBY

Second half The first chance of the second half fell to the feet of the fit-again Jimmy Kebe, who coasted through to the edge of the area but toed it on to Church too late for him to shoot first time and a Derby leg got back to break the move up.

IPSWICH AWAY

First half:
Simon Church was unlucky not to score inside the first couple of minutes - Jimmy Kebe got in an excellent cross from the right but it was inches too far ahead of Church's boot.

BLACKPOOL AWAY

Le Fondre then played a wonderful ball through for Church, and it was just too strong for the Welshman to control - otherwise he was in on goal.

CARDIFF AWAY

Church was then very close to a tap-in from Hunt's low cross but again City defended well. (Shot saved or block?)

HULL HOME (Don't know if this is one)

With 13 on the clock Robbie Brady tested Adam Federici with a good free kick, and then Jem Karacan broke down the other end but couldn't quite play Church in.

[Snowball]

You're behaviour is classic passive-aggressive. You post "little" slights that you know PRECISELY will work. For example, you first post in this thread, immediately on the P-A offensive, just done in a sly way.

"So now the form table is 16 Games".

Ask what that implies. It certainly DOESN'T mean, "Oh, I see we have a genuine new standard."

You're implying. "This is Snowball AGAIN, making it up as he goes AGAIN, choosing a stat to suit, AGAIN. Snowball "cheating" AGAIN, Snowball being unreasonable, AGAIN."

You know precisely what you're doing. It's easy to make cowardly seemingly-trivial remarks
and then appear "aghast" when someone reacts.

Have I called you insane, or paranoid, or having a mental breakdown?

Read your post back, and tell me I have reason not to think you are paranoid.

OK, Sweetness. Tell me what you actually meant by your typical sly, passive-aggressive dig.

It was just a random comment, was it? Like clearing your throat or WERE you objecting (again?).

And the above is nothing to do with paranoia, it's do do with sussing YOU in particular. I have plenty of squabbles, say with Hoop, but he's "up front", clear, and not sneaky or snide.

A different, more honourable animal.

[Wimb]

But the role of any striker is to help create a number of chances for himself or to create some for others, or have good link play that sets up a chance for himself.

For example, Church and Le Fondre linked brilliantly for the goal at Coventry but how many times have we seen that this year? He's one of 4 'attackers' in the team and it's his responsibility as much as anyone else to be creating chances. It's ok being prolific from a small amount of chances and that deserves praise, but a bigger problem would be his role in an attacking unit that's not firing.

[Snowball]

So Snowball you are very quick to point out where you think others are being abusive to you but can you not see where you are going wrong? Do you think the tone of your messages is OK?

In general OK, under attack positively not.

But as I say, there's a difference between constructive argument and
the usual undermining for the sake of it. There are two people on here
who couldn't leave a Snowball stat alone to save their life.

You bring on these reactions yourself and I for one have no sympathy for any abuse you get.
So before you go criticising others I would suggest that you take a look at what you write and then try to see how others might read your comments.

And YOU check a thread and see where it comes from first.

Go back and read the first Shane thread where it felt at times
like me against the whole of Hob Nob

And I turned out to be right.

[cmonurz]

You're behaviour is classic passive-aggressive. You post "little" slights that you know PRECISELY will work. For example, you first post in this thread, immediately on the P-A offensive, just done in a sly way.

"So now the form table is 16 Games".

Ask what that implies. It certainly DOESN'T mean, "Oh, I see we have a genuine new standard."

You're implying. "This is Snowball AGAIN, making it up as he goes AGAIN, choosing a stat to suit, AGAIN. Snowball "cheating" AGAIN, Snowball being unreasonable, AGAIN."

You know precisely what you're doing. It's easy to make cowardly seemingly-trivial remarks
and then appear "aghast" when someone reacts.

Have I called you insane, or paranoid, or having a mental breakdown?

Read your post back, and tell me I have reason not to think you are paranoid.

OK, Sweetness. Tell me what you actually meant by your typical sly, passive-aggressive dig.

It was just a random comment, was it? Like clearing your throat or WERE you objecting (again?).

And the above is nothing to do with paranoia, it's do do with sussing YOU in particular. I have plenty of squabbles, say with Hoop, but he's "up front", clear, and not sneaky or snide.

A different, more honourable animal.

No.

You’ve taken particular offence to me because I’m not shy in strongly disagreeing with your methods and presentation on here. I have not been sly, sarcastic, rude or offensive to you, unless first provoked by your utterly over the top and frequently insulting reactions to my disagreement.

You should take WR’s advice, as he is spot on. You haven't 'sussed' me. As I've already posted, and you ignored, if anything I am known on here for being a little too serious and literal, not what you describe at all.

Here’s how things will continue. You can review our previous discussions for consistency in my approach.

I will continue to post my genuinely held opinions on your threads as you post them. Those opinions will be polite, but will not always agree with yours. If and how you choose to respond is your call, and the nature of my subsequent replies will depend on that. Ball is in your court.

You don't like me? Fine. I have no issue with on a 'personal' level at all, but it's entirely your prerogative.

[Snowball]

But the role of any striker is to help create a number of chances for himself or to create some for others, or have good link play that sets up a chance for himself.

Which is why personally I FAR prefer Le Fondre who I believe is underused and should be first on the team sheet (pre Roberts)
because some of his passes have been sublime, and he has plenty of assists.

For example, Church and Le Fondre linked brilliantly for the goal at Coventry but how many times have we seen that this year? He's one of 4 'attackers' in the team and it's his responsibility as much as anyone else to be creating chances. It's ok being prolific from a small amount of chances and that deserves praise, but a bigger problem would be his role in an attacking unit that's not firing.

Is that Church's fault, his partner's fault
or maybe McDermott's fault for not settling on a duo?


Watching game pre-Roberts it seemed to me that Church or Hunt (when with Alf) were the channel-runners
with Alf more central often deep, but that recently Church had been played and asked to run himself
into the ground for 60 minutes. Personally, subjectively, I think he's been inefficient but look at the stats

Most Goals per minute, most accurate

20 13 60% ON TARGET ALF
16 08 67% ON TARGET CHURCH
11 13 44% ON TARGET HUNT

and Church has started in 10 of our 13 wins plus got 2 as a sub in an 11th. (A lot more than any other striker) Accident?

[Snowball]

Cumonurz, what did you mean when you posted

"So 16 games is now the form table"?

[Woodcote Royal]

Snowball chooses that sample size because it produces the results that best illustrate his point. No other reason.

Well that would make him really unique, wouldn't it I wonder if the Labour Party will ever latch onto this scam

I don't agree with everything Snowball posts but some of the sh*t he takes on here beggars belief and often comes from those who should have the brains to know better.

Unlike the vast majority of posters, myself included, he invariably backs up his views with stats. You may not like them, they may not be perfect but, nevertheless, it's a damn site more than most of us provide.

In this instance, the point he makes is both obvious and very relevant but clearly doesn't sit well with the doommongers.

In Long and Mills we lost 2 major players last summer and this was a major factor in yet another slow start to the campaign. As Snowballs stats clearly show, since getting our act together with the usual rebuilding and new players bedding in, few teams have been in better form than us....................and there is nothing wrong with using our last 22? games to illustrate this point.

[cmonurz]

Cumonurz, what did you mean when you posted

"So 16 games is now the form table"?

It was a while ago, but I assume in the context of this thread, it was a succinct, if a little curt, question as to the form table keep changing in length.

And that’s it. Not an insult, no snide remark, just a post on a message board to which you have taken a quite incredible level of offence (I assume, given you keep repeating that particular remark).

I mention paranoia sincerely, I have only ever entered your threads with the purpose of debating the stats you have raised (be it the data itself or the methods used, which as you know is a key part of statistical analysis). I am not a ‘WUM’, and have no desire to see you go off on one at another perceived slight. It is not my fault that you have continued, despite my protestations, to take my posts the wrong way. As I said, your prerogative from hereon.

[Snowball]

You’ve taken particular offence to me because I’m not shy in strongly disagreeing with your methods and presentation on here.

No, I take offence at you because you turn up like a bad penny and ALWAYS criticise,
because you went after me over Long like a demented banshee and then went into hiding
when Long came good.

Plenty of my detractors had the decency to say (even if grudgingly) that I was proved right in the end. Not you.

I have not been sly, sarcastic, rude or offensive to you

You mean apart from page 1 of this thread and a few hundred times over Shane?

Your FIRST POST in this thread

Re: Last Season - This Season
Post cmonurz, 17 Dec 2011 20:46

So 16 games is now the form table.


That's not "debate"

That's not intelligent discussion.

That's not genuine query.

That's piss-take, encitement, classic cowardly passive-aggressive

[winchester_royal]

Snowball chooses that sample size because it produces the results that best illustrate his point. No other reason.

Well that would make him really unique, wouldn't it I wonder if the Labour Party will ever latch onto this scam

I don't agree with everything Snowball posts but some of the sh*t he takes on here beggars belief and often comes from those who should have the brains to know better.

Unlike the vast majority of posters, myself included, he invariably backs up his views with stats. You may not like them, they may not be perfect but, nevertheless, it's a damn site more than most of us provide.

In this instance, the point he makes is both obvious and very relevant but clearly doesn't sit well with the doommongers.

In Long and Mills we lost 2 major players last summer and this was a major factor in yet another slow start to the campaign. As Snowballs stats clearly show, since getting our act together with the usual rebuilding and new players bedding in, few teams have been in better form than us....................and there is nothing wrong with using our last 22? games to illustrate this point.

Congratulations on taking my point completely out of context.

As has been repeated by other posters lots of times on this thread alone, it is not the content of Snowball's posts that grate, but more the tone that they are written in.

If he was able to write with even a slight acknowledgement of the fact that he may be wrong, and views other than his own are worthy of some consideration, then he would be a whole lot more popular on this board.

[Wycombe Royal]

And I turned out to be right.

My point is proven.

You just can't help yourself. That sort of comment is what I would expect from a teenager. And for the record, most were criticising you for your approach to using statisics, not your opinion on Shane (there are exceptions to that, hence the word most).

[Snowball]

Fair doos and maybe I'm being a bit harsh with the Leeds goal, so I'll hand him that.

Good

[/quote]
Can't remember off the top of my head whether it was against 9 or 10 for the Sham game [/quote]


He scored within a minute of coming on.

They then had their second sending off.

McAnuff took the free-kick and Church scored a good header

but do remember he practically stole one off Le Fondre

I don't. Which goal, which game?

There was a game where Alf challenged the keeper and the ball fell to Church
but Alf wasn't getting there


I should add, I AGREE that Church just seems to get his name on tap-ins etc, but nobody else is there. He had one at Hull last year, he had a miss-shot at Burnley, he shinned the Liverpool goal the season before, but there are strikers who just do that. History will only remember the numbers

Obviously it's still hard to score but it's just worth noting when looking at the stats that 33% of his goals came when the opposition were down in numbers.

and no other RFC player could score against those ten men or nine men.

That point also nullify's the goals as sub argument a fair bit as his two goals off the bench both came in that game.

I'm quoting the stats, pure and simple.

Manset had two as a sub in game 1 (Millwall) coming on for 22 minutes.
He scored in the 85th and 89th, so could have got two in 6 minutes
Manset's OTHER goal was also as a sub, and he hasn't scored this season when starting

[cmonurz]

So 16 games is now the form table.


That's not "debate"

That's not intelligent discussion.

That's not genuine query.

That's piss-take, encitement, classic cowardly passive-aggressive

You win. I’ve literally just explained the context of that comment, and you've ignored it. There's simply no point to this any more.

If you want to continue this debate further, pm me. Otherwise, my previous post stands as to how I will continue to respond to you on this board.

Bizarre.