**New** Puel In or Out - A simple Poll Mk 2

[Saxondale]

I genuinely don't know. Fence for me.

[Larry_LCFC]

6 hours ago, Gerbold said:

You surprise me - your first poll has been locked and now, with two weeks gone, you're yet again seeking confirmation from the forum for your individual view.

You've had your answer once - now you're beginning to resemble a 'remoaner' (which I am, incidentally - but the margin for Brexit was far tighter than the result you got!).

It doesn't really matter what your individual response to Puel is -  Srivaddhanaprabha's has the reins in his hand. As far as I'm concerned (and the majority of others on here) the jury is still out.

Personally i prefer the understated Puel to the more yawpy types. You state he has no "presence" yet I doubt you've yet been in his presence.

If there's a precedence for 'spunking' the transfer budget, as you so charmingly phrase it, "up the wall" then he has a good example from his predecessor. So far, as far as I can judge, the only money spent on players since he's been at City has been on Diabate -  who looks a fabulous performer already.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree with these polls of yours. I suspect there were plenty in agreement with you the first time around - but lots more not! Why not try one more in another two weeks - after all, three's a trick?

Christ who employed you as the forum police? I think you'll find people expressed an interest in seeing whether opinion had shifted after more bad results. Get over yourself you tit.

[st albans fox]

I've just looked through our season thus far. game by game. tried to be as objective as I can. I reckon we should have managed 53 points so far based on how we played in the games. that hasn't happened because football just isn't like that

 

gone through last season and I reckoned 46 points so not far from the 44 we got. 

 

so for some reason, we haven't got the rub of the green this campaign. perhaps that will change in the last few games and we will get some wins we don't deserve. there is no doubt that the last four games have seen a deterioration in performance compared with those that preceded it. seems odd that with Europa league qualification in touching distance, the performances have dropped off. we know this team is capable of getting results when they need to at the business end of the season. . i'm perplexed that for the first time in four campaigns, we have been unable to have a good late march/april. we know the mental capacity of this side and the ability of many of them.  so why the obvious lack of concentration against Newcastle and burnley ?  the lack of desire against soton ?   the players not wanting to do it for the manager?  the club not wanting to finish 7th?   some players going over the top or 'packing it in' as they see themselves not being part of our future ? 

 

I'm content to stick with the manager as I see plenty of potential for the way he wants to play with the majority of our current squad and some additions.  we have the capability to break at pace like Liverpool do. we have the capability to hold possession like spurs do but we lack a couple of top class players to break through in the final third. . we also don't have the capability to mix up the two because we lack a few crucial personnel needed to make it all work. 

 

if it really was so bad then I would be calling for change. I've watched us for decades. this really isn't so terrible. 

 

if he turns out to be unable to motivate an improved squad next autumn then he will get the tin tack. I think he deserves the opportunity to have a pre season and to take us through a full campaign but if its clearly going wrong come late october then we can change it then. 

[The Doctor]

9 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Expected goals and expected goals against are merely a toy for the stat geeks, a pasttime for the bored, because the xG and xGa numbers - like all stats - focus on results from the past.

 

They can‘t predict future results, are by no means a clear and reliable indicator and aren‘t able to paint the full picture regarding a team‘s performance.

 

Regardless of how great your chances are, you have to put them away.

No matter how hard you try, if the opposition scores a freak goal by accident, puts ten men behind the ball and you fail to even equalize despite all the great opportunities, you lose. It‘s as simple as that.

This is a very, very flawed view of stats Pruss. No, they don't ultimately make a difference to results - you can dominate a game and the opposition shithouse a completely undeserved (on the balance of play) win, and no matter how you look at it they've taken the 3 points, not you. But, used to look at long term trends they are very useful for forecasting whether drastic changes need to be made or whether it's small things not quite falling right. Take Burnley, if results were the xG scorelines then they'd be relegated, as is they're heading for Europe. Doesn't mean they don't deserve to qualify, but it does heavily suggest that they'll be in a massive struggle next season - smashing and grabbing results as they have is not sustainable 

[MC Prussian]

23 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

This is a very, very flawed view of stats Pruss. No, they don't ultimately make a difference to results - you can dominate a game and the opposition shithouse a completely undeserved (on the balance of play) win, and no matter how you look at it they've taken the 3 points, not you. But, used to look at long term trends they are very useful for forecasting whether drastic changes need to be made or whether it's small things not quite falling right. Take Burnley, if results were the xG scorelines then they'd be relegated, as is they're heading for Europe. Doesn't mean they don't deserve to qualify, but it does heavily suggest that they'll be in a massive struggle next season - smashing and grabbing results as they have is not sustainable 

It may be a flawed view from your point of view, because you're the one using them for the sake of your argumentation.

Like I said, I see the merit of some stats, numbers which are by fare more tangible - such as individual stats, f.eg. goals scored, assists, minutes played, key passes, won headers, won one-on-ones, amount of tackles, clean sheets, etc. But even these stats are flawed to some extent - what does clean sheets tell you about the goalkeeper alone, and how much of it is down to a very solid back four? There's so many elements coming into play, you cannot just use one or two stats in order to try and explain why things are the way they are.

 

I'm highly sceptic of team stats and their use, I see no point in them. You can twist and turn your point in any direction you see fit by the use of a selected few numbers, but they don't tell the full story, never will.

 

Let's say for example that we keep on doing reasonably well on the Expected Goals side of things - then why haven't we managed to halt the negative trend and start scoring at some point, winning more matches (that we drew or lost)?

Only twice in the past ten games have we scored two or more goals in a match. That is worrying - Expecting Goals or not, the numbers cannot tell you whether our woes continue or whether they'll stop (with the next game).

 

As for Burnley, they may or may not struggle next season. If they don't, what does it say about the use of your stats? If they do, at least I can point at the fact that although they will be struggling, they'll do so with the "burden" of playing Europa League matches, too.

[st albans fox]

some indicators from last years seasons xg stats

 

chelsea were 17 points ahead of where they should have been 

 

spurs were 10 points ahead of where they should have been

 

Arsenal were 12 points ahead of where they should have been

 

There were no other double figure variances. Interesting that both Chelsea and arsenal have dropped off this season from last season .....

 

spurs are not gojng to get close the 86 points year managed.

 

the xg table said that man city should have won last year

 

This year’s table currently has more double figure variances - West Brom and soton should be staying up, Burnley and Crystal Palace are pretty well in each other’s position and Man U are way ahead of their rightful place. Obviously West Brom and soton are unlikely to be in the prem to see but Burnley could well struggle and man united, without significant surgery, may not make top 4. Palace should be nowhere near a relegation battle. 

 

Go go back to our title winning season, the xg table said the us and West Ham were double figure points ahead of where we should both be - I guess that wasn’t rocket science. Looking back at the past few seasons, there is merit in these stats though as ever, nothing is infallible. 

 

 

[Guest MattP]

On the fence as well, can genuinely see both sides of it. 

 

If they want to give him time to shape his own team I think that's fair, if they have looked at the last few games and thought we aren't carrying on with this I also don't see a problem with it. 

 

To be honest I could only give a answer knowing who realistic alternatives were.

[The Doctor]

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

It may be a flawed view from your point of view, because you're the one using them for the sake of your argumentation.

Like I said, I see the merit of some stats, numbers which are by fare more tangible - such as individual stats, f.eg. goals scored, assists, minutes played, key passes, won headers, won one-on-ones, amount of tackles, clean sheets, etc. But even these stats are flawed to some extent - what does clean sheets tell you about the goalkeeper alone, and how much of it is down to a very solid back four? There's so many elements coming into play, you cannot just use one or two stats in order to try and explain why things are the way they are.

 

I'm highly sceptic of team stats and their use, I see no point in them. You can twist and turn your point in any direction you see fit by the use of a selected few numbers, but they don't tell the full story, never will.

 

Let's say for example that we keep on doing reasonably well on the Expected Goals side of things - then why haven't we managed to halt the negative trend and start scoring at some point, winning more matches (that we drew or lost)?

Only twice in the past ten games have we scored two or more goals in a match. That is worrying - Expecting Goals or not, the numbers cannot tell you whether our woes continue or whether they'll stop (with the next game).

 

As for Burnley, they may or may not struggle next season. If they don't, what does it say about the use of your stats? If they do, at least I can point at the fact that although they will be struggling, they'll do so with the "burden" of playing Europa League matches, too.

No, it's objectively speaking a flawed view because it's just dismissing very revealing statistics. There's a reason people look at them, and it's not americanisation of the sport or nerds getting in on the game - it's because with the increasing money, clubs are looking for every edge and analyse everything to get it.

 

They won't say whether it'll change on saturday, or when it'll change but it indicates whether it's likely to change or whether we desperately need to change something else to get back to winning ways.

[Larry_LCFC]

1 hour ago, Gerbold said:

I'll ignore the first and last sentences - they reflect more on you than they do me. As to the relevant comment - I haven't found that people were generally expressing a desire for another 'poll'. And who appointed you mouthpiece for the anti-Puel brigade?

Oh get off your high horse before you fall off. I will be sure to run any future topics past you incase it doesn't meet your approval for discussion.  On the other hand, you could always do the adult thing and bypass the topic if it upsets you so much. 

Am i not allowed an opinion if it differs to yours? Seriously, grow up.

Edited 23 April 2018 by Larry_LCFC

[urban.spaceman]

[urban.spaceman]

Puel in, BTW.

[MC Prussian]

19 hours ago, The Doctor said:

No, it's objectively speaking a flawed view because it's just dismissing very revealing statistics. There's a reason people look at them, and it's not americanisation of the sport or nerds getting in on the game - it's because with the increasing money, clubs are looking for every edge and analyse everything to get it.

 

They won't say whether it'll change on saturday, or when it'll change but it indicates whether it's likely to change or whether we desperately need to change something else to get back to winning ways.

I don't see what one has to do with the other.

Has it paid off for a club in any way or form so far? Did Manchester City win the league title thanks to stats and the analysis thereof? Was it a decisive factor?

Nope.

 

One can look at your explanation from a different angle:

With the increasing amount of money, it's creating a bloated apparatus where vacancies at clubs open like crazy. It's created a whole new industry, with "experts" at the helm.

And many, many desperate geeks trying to work for their beloved club (or whatever motivation they have) for little to no money.

 

The likelihood of a change is again depending on various influences, and for that reason, "Expected Goals" or Expected Goals Against are - at best - merely two drops in a huge pond.

But go on...

[yks]

To truly represent the fact that football is really all about immediate results as any FIFA 2018 player know, I think we should consider opening one of this poll every fifteen minutes of each game.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

I don't see what one has to do with the other.

Has it paid off for a club in any way or form so far? Did Manchester City win the league title thanks to stats and the analysis thereof? Was it a decisive factor?

Nope.

 

One can look at your explanation from a different angle:

With the increasing amount of money, it's creating a bloated apparatus where vacancies at clubs open like crazy. It's created a whole new industry, with "experts" at the helm.

And many, many desperate geeks trying to work for their beloved club (or whatever motivation they have) for little to no money.

 

The likelihood of a change is again depending on various influences, and for that reason, "Expected Goals" or Expected Goals Against are - at best - merely two drops in a huge pond.

But go on...

I find this stance really odd. Were you wronged by a data analyst or statistician as a child by any chance?

 

It's marginal gains, just in a different form. How is it any different to clubs using ice chambers, tailoring fitness and diet plans for individual players etc? The scouting system that worked so well for us, as well as those used by clubs around the world, are built on "stats and the analysis thereof". Sports science and analysis are vital to the way the top clubs operate - to decry it as the work of "desperate geeks" is unjustified.

 

Nobody is claiming that xG is be-all and end-all, but it's a useful stat as it gives a reasonable indicator of how well teams are creating chances and how good those chances are. 

[maddog]

Give him next season and if it's looking relegation trouble by Christmas/new year sack him.

 

It will be his third season managing in England so I'd like to think he'll improve just like players new to the league do after a couple of years. 

[Donut]

5 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

I don't see what one has to do with the other.

Has it paid off for a club in any way or form so far? Did Manchester City win the league title thanks to stats and the analysis thereof? Was it a decisive factor?

Nope.

 

One can look at your explanation from a different angle:

With the increasing amount of money, it's creating a bloated apparatus where vacancies at clubs open like crazy. It's created a whole new industry, with "experts" at the helm.

And many, many desperate geeks trying to work for their beloved club (or whatever motivation they have) for little to no money.

 

The likelihood of a change is again depending on various influences, and for that reason, "Expected Goals" or Expected Goals Against are - at best - merely two drops in a huge pond.

But go on...

I would imagine in the highly analytical and attention to detail filled world of Pep Guardiola, that stats, modelling, data........it all played a part in the title win for sure. Categorically.

 

You seem to be drawing some sort of parallel between the application of statistics and data as if its snake oil. Im not really sure why you feel this way to be honest.

[st albans fox]

The stats said that we over achieved when winning the title. That we weren’t as good as the points total said. 

 

We havent been that good since. There are other reasons for that but you can’t say the stats were wrong. 

 

this season the stats say we are better than the points total shows.

 

i guess if that doesn’t suit your argument then you will make the point that stats mean nothing. Over a long enough period, the stats are generally right but you don’t usually get long enough in this game for the numbers to catch up with you.  

[MC Prussian]

10 hours ago, Guest said:

I find this stance really odd. Were you wronged by a data analyst or statistician as a child by any chance?

 

It's marginal gains, just in a different form. How is it any different to clubs using ice chambers, tailoring fitness and diet plans for individual players etc? The scouting system that worked so well for us, as well as those used by clubs around the world, are built on "stats and the analysis thereof". Sports science and analysis are vital to the way the top clubs operate - to decry it as the work of "desperate geeks" is unjustified.

 

Nobody is claiming that xG is be-all and end-all, but it's a useful stat as it gives a reasonable indicator of how well teams are creating chances and how good those chances are. 

I've stated before that I do see the use of stats or certain indicators when it comes to judging the ability of individual qualities.

 

Why you start to mix the benefit of physical exercise and special training with the use of stats, I don't know. Training measures have an immediate effect on the players' fitness, if applied correctly.

The recent discussion on here circled/circles around the rise of new statistical gimmicks, such as "Expected Goals" and "Expected Goals Against", which I hadn't heard of up until this season (or the season before). I don't believe the hype surrounding it and stand firm on my point of view that they are merely a distraction and by no means indicative of how well a team will perform or has performed.

 

Analyzing your potential to score doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Either you score, or you don't.

From my perspective, we're entering a stage where we are overanalyzing football, and I don't believe the sport or spectator will profit from it.

 

 

[mozartfox]

What about a new Poll to see if FT members actually felt we needed the second Poll given the result of the first Poll?

[foxinsocks]

10 minutes ago, mozartfox said:

What about a new Poll to see if FT members actually felt we needed the second Poll given the result of the first Poll?

After the newcastle and southamton games i expected a shift.  Maybe there aren't many waverers.  I was surprised there wasn't a shift

[mozartfox]

13 minutes ago, foxinsocks said:

After the newcastle and southamton games i expected a shift.  Maybe there aren't many waverers.  I was surprised there wasn't a shift

Mine will shift if Wes is brought back for the Palace game

[foxinsocks]

55 minutes ago, mozartfox said:

Mine will shift if Wes is brought back for the Palace game

Mine shifted watching the southampton game and listening to puel on radio leicester. ... 

[crazies]

Voted in cos we need another poll on this being that the ins favour the outs 

  Best of 5 ? 

[st albans fox]

the background noises seem to indicate that the owners are likely to get rid at the end of the season.  

 

two things

 

1) they had better have someone lined up who will play football rather than hoofball or I wont be renewing my ST's at the existing level

 

2) some of the players may already know this and their performances have dropped off as a consequence 

[cc_star]

On 20/04/2018 at 14:29, Larry_LCFC said:

I'm still an outy. I just look at Puel and see nothing that makes me feel fired up. The bloke is underwhelming and he has no presence about him whatsoever. I think he will spunk the transfer budget up the wall and we will still play the same sideways and backwards 3 shots a game sort of way.

I see no fire in his belly.

THIS!!!