Printable View
Downing allegedly was. He created more chances than any other winger the season before with Villa for Heskey up front. The logic was Downing + Caroll = goalsQuote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
I read before that Everton started scouting Coleman after examining his stats in Football Manager, they have an agreement with Sports Interactive who make the game for access to their database. The Collyer brothers, who founded SI, are both Everton season ticket holders.
Have you happened to read or see Moneyball? It's a super story but that's besides the point - the same methods of examining stats, using metrics and analyzing team dynamics used by Billy Beane in order to assemble a competitive, successful team on a shoestring budget are increasingly being used in football. As covered in the book Soccernomics (by Simon Kuper & Stefan Szymanski) there has been a trend towards the same stats based approach to the transfer market by a lot of managers and, in fact, the traditional approach of just buying the best player is considered archaic. I'm not saying its all 100% stats based at this stage (mostly because only the biggest leagues keep detailed & worthwhile stats) but the role of the scout and manager has changed dramatically in the last 10 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
Is the Football Manager database not just an elaborate scouting system? It's fallible like any other scout but undoubtedly useful for manager (and probably a lot of work-shy scouts too).
Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
So it didnt work out then?
As for money ball, was that not overblown? I read somewhere that it wasnt as successful as many make out - not that I know a whole lot about baseball tbh
Big Sam likes his stats - enough said
No, money ball definitely worked in baseball, just look at how the Athletics lost all their good players to free agency and then actually got better the next season with cheaper players, mostly unknowns. It simply doesn't work in football though, just look at Downing as others have pointed out as a fine example. I remember hearing an interview with John Henry when he said the stat they looked at most was how many times a player won the ball in open play and then his team went on to score a goal in the same play. Baseball sure, but in football, I think there's probably an average of about two goals per match at the Premiership level, so I'm not sure how well that stat serves you in judging how good a player is. That's what I love about football - you have to actually watch the matches to get to know the game.
Regardless of punters opinions on their validity in football, they're being used which was Benno's original question. I would recommend Soccernomics to anyone with an interest in the stats behind football. It's a very good read for the most part.
Cough!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Colbert Report
Red Sox won the World Series in 2004 after almost a century of underachievement using moneyball tacticsQuote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
I don't know how big of a baseball fan you are, but in fairness, that's a very misguided statement. Yeah, they put that on the screen at the end of the Brad Pitt film but most of the players the Red Sox had were on the roster before the advent of moneyball tactics became mainstream. The biggest play they had was actually in game four of the ALCS against the Yankees when David Roberts stole second. Keep in mind that Boston were down 3-0 in the series and down to their final few outs at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Am..._Series#Game_4
ACtually, I was in Boston for that series, and was back again in 2007 for the World Series win for a wedding. Told this to a woman at the wedding and she said "you're a lucky charm, you have to move here!" and I laughed, and then she grabbed my arm and said "no, seriously, you *have* to move here"Quote:
Originally Posted by Colbert Report
a year later, I was in Philadelphia for another wedding (lot of my mates marrying American girls) and who won the World Series in 2008?
World Series?:pQuote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
I thought that story was going to end with "it was my wedding, to the woman who grabbed my arm."Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
Watching the Faroes against Germany...they're playing a 4-4-2....if you paint bits of your tv green it's like watching a premonition of the game next month..
no, she was married. her husband was watching the game with her as well!Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Can anyone tell me was the Faroes games against Austria due to be played in June 2012 actually held? Can't find a result for it
On rte when the fixtures were agreed the following was included:
"In an unusual turn, the participating teams agreed to play one match, Faroe Islands v Austria, in early June 2012. This proposal was supported by UEFA".
They're playing each other in March and October next year, according to Wikipedia.Quote:
Originally Posted by abcd
UEFA made them move it to coincide with the rest of the fixtures in other groups, as far as I know.
Two games in our group tomorrow night. Sweden-Kazakhstan and Austria-Germany.
Don't think Sweden will have much trouble beating Kazakhstan. They had a 1-0 win against China last Thursday but really should have won by more as they created 4 or 5 clear goal scoring chances. Just on the argument of whether we have players with the ability to play the game on the ground or not, I noticed Jonas Olsson (West Brom) is encouraged to play the ball out of defence for Sweden. Olsson wouldn't be noted for his passing abilities.
Sweden probably won't have much trouble but hopefully Kazakhstan's brutal last-minute defeat will motivate them to make it a real match. Doubtful though.
Austria to beat Germany?