BFTG - Birmingham City

[Snowflake Royal]

Given the quality of sports journalism I wouldn't get too excited about someone getting in the team of the week or a star rating.

Especially seeing as selections for teams of the week are regularly ridiculed.

I pass no comment on his actual performance against Birmingham.

Interestingly* given his media accolades Whoscored had Gunter down as having a significantly worse pass completion rate for the game than everyone on our side except Mannone.

*Interesting only to those who regard random numbers as more significant than expert opinions. Might be *interesting to see how whoscored ranked our entire team last year in comparison to how we did.

They're not random numbers. They're useful and objective data that don't tell the whole story.

As for how it ranked us last year... it has a league table, so third. But looking at the closest measure to what I actually said for Gunter (it has loads of different metrics to compare) we were 2nd for most accurate short passes and 1st for most accurate long passes.

[paultheroyal]

The Times has Moore as its Championship Player of the Week, and also has both him and Gunter in the Championship team of the week

Gunter??? That completely overrated waste of space who only knows how to go backwards, can't defend and is usually the only reason we concede?

Clearly The Times joins all of those club and international managers who haven't got a clue what makes a good player and performance!

Not only that but The Sunday Times had Gunter as their star man. Incredible!!

Totally deserved and good recognition for a quality player we are lucky to have.

[Nameless]

Given the quality of sports journalism I wouldn't get too excited about someone getting in the team of the week or a star rating.

Especially seeing as selections for teams of the week are regularly ridiculed.

I pass no comment on his actual performance against Birmingham.

Interestingly* given his media accolades Whoscored had Gunter down as having a significantly worse pass completion rate for the game than everyone on our side except Mannone.

*Interesting only to those who regard random numbers as more significant than expert opinions. Might be *interesting to see how whoscored ranked our entire team last year in comparison to how we did.

They're not random numbers. They're useful and objective data that don't tell the whole story.

As for how it ranked us last year... it has a league table, so third. But looking at the closest measure to what I actually said for Gunter (it has loads of different metrics to compare) we were 2nd for most accurate short passes and 1st for most accurate long passes.

Looking at the definitions of these 'stats' I'd suggest they are far from objective, pretty weakly defined , in some cases they look wrongly defined or open to varying interpretation. Nothing wrong with trying to find numbers but football just doesn't lend itself to this sort of analysis in the same way cricket and rugby does. Of course over time it may get better but too often I think people see a fancy term with a number attached and assume it is meaningful. I'm far from convinced these stats stand up.

[muirinho]

*Interesting only to those who regard random numbers as more significant than expert opinions. Might be *interesting to see how whoscored ranked our entire team last year in comparison to how we did.

They're not random numbers. They're useful and objective data that don't tell the whole story.

As for how it ranked us last year... it has a league table, so third. But looking at the closest measure to what I actually said for Gunter (it has loads of different metrics to compare) we were 2nd for most accurate short passes and 1st for most accurate long passes.

Looking at the definitions of these 'stats' I'd suggest they are far from objective, pretty weakly defined , in some cases they look wrongly defined or open to varying interpretation. Nothing wrong with trying to find numbers but football just doesn't lend itself to this sort of analysis in the same way cricket and rugby does. Of course over time it may get better but too often I think people see a fancy term with a number attached and assume it is meaningful. I'm far from convinced these stats stand up.

They are also in many cases too dependent on how other players are doing rather than the player being "ranked" E.g., you could have the best winger in the world swinging across pinpoint crosses, but if your strikeforce is utterly useless, then the number of assists and key passes for that winger are going to be useless also.

Give me an actual expert's opinion, any day. Even ones I disagree with, at least I can work out the rationale behind their reasoning.

[West Stand Man]

*Interesting only to those who regard random numbers as more significant than expert opinions. Might be *interesting to see how whoscored ranked our entire team last year in comparison to how we did.

They're not random numbers. They're useful and objective data that don't tell the whole story.

As for how it ranked us last year... it has a league table, so third. But looking at the closest measure to what I actually said for Gunter (it has loads of different metrics to compare) we were 2nd for most accurate short passes and 1st for most accurate long passes.

Looking at the definitions of these 'stats' I'd suggest they are far from objective, pretty weakly defined , in some cases they look wrongly defined or open to varying interpretation. Nothing wrong with trying to find numbers but football just doesn't lend itself to this sort of analysis in the same way cricket and rugby does. Of course over time it may get better but too often I think people see a fancy term with a number attached and assume it is meaningful. I'm far from convinced these stats stand up.

And with that statement you show that you just don't get stats.

[RoyalBlue]

Did you go on Saturday or base that off previous performances?

Clearly the sarcasm was at too high a level for some!

It was a dig at the idiots who continually criticise Gunter and everything he does.

Look back through my posts and you will see clearly that I don't subscribe to that school of thought.

You have a history of having agendas against certain people... sorry I don't subscribe to your posts to see who you actively like and dislike at any current time.

Reddit users use /s to signify sarcasm, generally because they realise it doesn't transfer well online. Suppose that thought is below you though?

Certain people? One person I think you will find, and he's not a player. On occasions I have been critical of certain aspects of some players' games but probably no more than most others on here (that's partly the point of a discussion) and certainly not agendas. I never, ever get on the back of one or more of our players during a game and it really pisses me off when others do.

It says something of the absurd level of criticism of Gunter by some on here that you really couldn't spot the sarcasm portrayed by my extreme criticism and the claim that all of his managers knew nothing about football!

As for Reddit users feeling the need to use a symbol to clarify their meaning, maybe they should try a little harder with their written communication, as indeed shall I. Even without the symbol, I take it your last remark contained an element of sarcasm.

[Nameless]

They're not random numbers. They're useful and objective data that don't tell the whole story.

As for how it ranked us last year... it has a league table, so third. But looking at the closest measure to what I actually said for Gunter (it has loads of different metrics to compare) we were 2nd for most accurate short passes and 1st for most accurate long passes.

Looking at the definitions of these 'stats' I'd suggest they are far from objective, pretty weakly defined , in some cases they look wrongly defined or open to varying interpretation. Nothing wrong with trying to find numbers but football just doesn't lend itself to this sort of analysis in the same way cricket and rugby does. Of course over time it may get better but too often I think people see a fancy term with a number attached and assume it is meaningful. I'm far from convinced these stats stand up.

And with that statement you show that you just don't get stats.

I make no claim to being a 'statistician' , but I also don't think I'm completely clueless.

Of the various elements of my 'statement' which do you think shows I don't 'get' something ? Are you disputing that football is less suited to analysis by numbers ? Or that the 'stats' used are less than solid ? Or that some people try and read more into them than they really tell ?

[Snowflake Royal]

Sorry didn't mean to derail the whole thread.