ADK Posted 20 January 2015 Posted 20 January 2015 I reckon people under estimate how difficult it is to consistently play accurate passes from the goal. How many top teams get the keeper to hoof it 100% of the time? You can't expect the keeper to be your playmaker.
Dan Posted 20 January 2015 Posted 20 January 2015 yep, you see things like what's going on at villa or newcastle and it's just a negative atmosphere, it quite simply cannot help the players or the team in any way shape or form. nor will sarcastic cheers or jeers when our players make mistakes. And Everton too. Couldn't believe my ears when they brought on Kone for Besic.
Guest MarshallForEngland Posted 20 January 2015 Posted 20 January 2015 You did, and you were told what an absolute load of tripe you were talking there, and you will be here too. Indeed, although there is a noticeable lack of counter-argument on this point. It's alright declaring it to be "tripe", but you've got your work cut out to show why because what I am saying is logically consistent and demonstrably true. Firstly, read up on Affirming the Consequent. When you've done that, substitute the examples on there for the types of claims made on here. It might look something like this: 1. If Ben Hamer stops everything directed towards his goal, the team has kept a clean sheet 2. The team has kept a clean sheet 3. Therefore Ben Hamer stopped everything directed towards his goal This is logically invalid. Statement 3 could be false even if Statements 1 & 2 are true. The team can keep a clean sheet even if Ben Hamer fails to stop everything directed towards his goal. Goals can be disallowed for many reasons, such as the scorer or another active player being offside. The point is that, even if the first two statements are true, the third is a logically invalid deduction because its truth is not entailed in the premises given. So here's the upshot: it's perfectly acceptable to make the factual claim that the team kept a clean sheet against, for example, Newcastle. It's logically fallacious, however, to Affirm the Consequent by using the presence of a clean sheet to make a claim that resembles Statement 3 above. To make it more relevant, take the Newcastle game as a real-world example so the above Statements have some practical application: 1. If Ben Hamer stops everything directed towards his goal during the Newcastle game, the team will finish the match with a clean sheet 2. The team has finished the match with a clean sheet 3. Therefore Ben Hamer stopped everything directed towards his goal during the Newcastle game - we know this isn't true! Now, nobody has (as far as I know), made the claim in Statement 3 quite in those words, but plenty have been very comfortable lauding the "clean sheets" as examples of Hamer's shot-stopping ability. I think I have shown quite clearly that this is a failure of reasoning.
fleckneymike Posted 20 January 2015 Posted 20 January 2015 Indeed, although there is a noticeable lack of counter-argument on this point. It's alright declaring it to be "tripe", but you've got your work cut out to show why because what I am saying is logically consistent and demonstrably true. Firstly, read up on Affirming the Consequent. When you've done that, substitute the examples on there for the types of claims made on here. It might look something like this: 1. If Ben Hamer stops everything directed towards his goal, the team has kept a clean sheet 2. The team has kept a clean sheet 3. Therefore Ben Hamer stopped everything directed towards his goal This is logically invalid. Statement 3 could be false even if Statements 1 & 2 are true. The team can keep a clean sheet even if Ben Hamer fails to stop everything directed towards his goal. Goals can be disallowed for many reasons, such as the scorer or another active player being offside. The point is that, even if the first two statements are true, the third is a logically invalid deduction because its truth is not entailed in the premises given. So here's the upshot: it's perfectly acceptable to make the factual claim that the team kept a clean sheet against, for example, Newcastle. It's logically fallacious, however, to Affirm the Consequent by using the presence of a clean sheet to make a claim that resembles Statement 3 above. To make it more relevant, take the Newcastle game as a real-world example so the above Statements have some practical application: 1. If Ben Hamer stops everything directed towards his goal during the Newcastle game, the team will finish the match with a clean sheet 2. The team has finished the match with a clean sheet 3. Therefore Ben Hamer stopped everything directed towards his goal during the Newcastle game - we know this isn't true! Now, nobody has (as far as I know), made the claim in Statement 3 quite in those words, but plenty have been very comfortable lauding the "clean sheets" as examples of Hamer's shot-stopping ability. I think I have shown quite clearly that this is a failure of reasoning. With regards point three (and without wishing to sound like a pastiche of a Chinese proverb) is a shot a shot if it is offside?
Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 What all these scientific and frank;y embarrassingly in depth things negate to factor is the confidence it brings to the entire squad when your goalkeeper comes for a cross and keeps a 'even completely technical because he might as well of been asleep' clean sheet, something Kasper hasn't done and Ben has. You probably haven't been told in this thread what you were in the other one because people don't want to repeat themselves and would rather just get behind the lad than pick holes in why he's absolutely shit with his fantastic record. Why not factor in the mentality shift since Ben has come in? Because that would be positive? Or a tangible truth? Can I say Bojans shot was unstoppable, no goalkeeper could or would of stopped it, so therefore Ben Hamer kept a clean sheet, even though he let in a goal, De Gea and Courtious wouldn't of even saved it, so really that doesn't count as letting in a goal, as it was impossible to change the outcome of the shot, so actually he technically has a clean sheet at Liverpool (penalties don't count) and against Stoke. Thanks for letting me realise how much better Ben Hamer is than I thought, through the power of science.
Langley Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 Two things. 1. I didn't ironically cheer hamer, just think he needs to handle it as a professional footballer. 2. I'm a season ticket holder and have been for years. My Dad's bigger than your dad...
MattyFromLE Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 Maybe it's Pearson's excuse now to put Schwarzer in? So Hamer makes an absolute belter of a save and you want him replace because a few goal kicks weren't accurate! Laughable.
DB11 Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 So Hamer makes an absolute belter of a save and you want him replace because a few goal kicks weren't accurate! Laughable. No I don't want him replaced because I quite like him (a stark contrast to my opinion based on his pre season performances) I merely suggested that if NP was looking for an excuse to make a change (we all know he isn't a manager that just changes players for no reason and is loyal to those currently in the starting XI) then that could possibly be it.
Leeds Fox Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 No I don't want him replaced because I quite like him (a stark contrast to my opinion based on his pre season performances) I merely suggested that if NP was looking for an excuse to make a change (we all know he isn't a manager that just changes players for no reason and is loyal to those currently in the starting XI) then that could possibly be it. If he's loyal, then he won't want to make a change. Also, Nigel isn't a manager who would require an excuse to change a player, if he wants to make a change, he will.
filbertway Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 I had £10 on Cabella first goal as well, the bookies didn't accept that his technical goal was actually a goal annoyingly. Still he must be chuffed to have scored.
Leeds Fox Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 I had £10 on Cabella first goal as well, the bookies didn't accept that his technical goal was actually a goal annoyingly. Still he must be chuffed to have scored. Wrong thread?
funkyrobot Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 My Dad's bigger than your dad... That's not what your mum says
Guest MarshallForEngland Posted 24 January 2015 Posted 24 January 2015 What all these scientific and frank;y embarrassingly in depth things negate to factor is the confidence it brings to the entire squad when your goalkeeper comes for a cross and keeps a 'even completely technical because he might as well of been asleep' clean sheet, something Kasper hasn't done and Ben has. You probably haven't been told in this thread what you were in the other one because people don't want to repeat themselves and would rather just get behind the lad than pick holes in why he's absolutely shit with his fantastic record. Why not factor in the mentality shift since Ben has come in? Because that would be positive? Or a tangible truth? Can I say Bojans shot was unstoppable, no goalkeeper could or would of stopped it, so therefore Ben Hamer kept a clean sheet, even though he let in a goal, De Gea and Courtious wouldn't of even saved it, so really that doesn't count as letting in a goal, as it was impossible to change the outcome of the shot, so actually he technically has a clean sheet at Liverpool (penalties don't count) and against Stoke. Thanks for letting me realise how much better Ben Hamer is than I thought, through the power of science. Forgive my late reply. I can't help but notice how you leave my argument completely intact with this response. What is it with "clean sheets" that you are obsessed about? You're close to making a good point with the penalties comment and several others have made the same point but in far less clumsy terms. Being fixated with whether or not it's a "clean sheet" stops you from you drawing meaningful conclusions about Hamer's performances. It wouldn't be unreasonable to discount penalties in assessing a goalkeeper's shot-stopping ability. Remember, I have been refuting the claim that our "clean sheets" are reliable indicators of Ben Hamer's shot-stopping ability and his overall performances. You've correctly identified the fact that a goalkeeper can concede 2 penalties and have a better game than he did when his opposition had a "0" next to its name. You're making the same point I am making; clean sheets are not reliable indicators of performance. Despite this, some people keep saying "OH SO CLEAN SHEETZ ARE COINCIDENCE LOOOL HERR DERR" like that's an argument. With regard to "mentality shift", it's a shame you have to fall back on such flimsy (and totally intangible, by the way) concepts like that. How have you ascertained that exactly? I don't know how many more times I have to point out regression to the mean; our performances had yielded anomalously poor results which were statistically likely to be followed by results closer to the average. It's like when you have 8 deaths on a single road in a year after an average of 2 or 3 per year for the past decade, so this is followed immediately by putting a speed camera up; the next year's death toll is always likely to be closer to the average than the anomalously high figure of the previous year anyway, but when this inevitable figure is revealed it is people with your skewed reasoning that point to the camera and say "look it works!" It's the essence of superstitious thinking. And this is on top of the fact that there is so little available data at the moment as both keepers have played about one quarter of one season each. I am not saying Hamer has had a net negative affect on the team but you surely must know you're grossly exaggerating the guy's influence.
Guest MarshallForEngland Posted 24 January 2015 Posted 24 January 2015 With regards point three (and without wishing to sound like a pastiche of a Chinese proverb) is a shot a shot if it is offside? Interesting! Well first of all I specifically said "everything directed towards his goal" to ensure there was no confusion over this sort of terminology. It's also irrelevant as the collection of statements are simply there to demonstrate the failure in logic of some people's arguments on here. It only matters that they express an internal logic, not that the premises are true (although I think they probably are). However, it's an interesting point for a different reason as this was not one of those times where the flag goes up early and the ball is punted past a static goalkeeper who has already heard the whistle. Hamer and the rest of our lot had their heads in their hands and the Newcastle players were celebrating before the linesman put his flag up. So hypothetically let's say I did say "Shot" and that had some game-specific meaning different to the colloquial one, I think I would be entitled to take into account the fact that play had not stopped when the ball was struck, at least both the striker and the goalkeeper believed it to be one, and they subsequently believed it to have resulted in a legitimate goal. The crux of the point I have been making is that clean sheets are unreliable indicators of goalkeeper performance. Some people might not like my method of delivery (or they just might not like being demonstrably wrong) but I think I have made my point well and I am yet to hear a decent rebuttal which, by the way, I would be delighted to receive and will gratefully accept my errors and shortcomings if I am shown to be wrong.
filbertway Posted 24 January 2015 Posted 24 January 2015 Glad to see Hamer get a clean sheet today. Penalty's don't count as real goals. Keep it up Ben!
sdb Posted 24 January 2015 Posted 24 January 2015 Glad to see Hamer get a clean sheet today. Penalty's don't count as real goals. Keep it up Ben!
Xen Posted 24 January 2015 Posted 24 January 2015 To be fair, Hamer didn't concede, so do we chalk this one up as another 'technical clean sheet'?
volpeazzurro Posted 24 January 2015 Posted 24 January 2015 Probably we just need a better coach than Stowell i.e. possibly even Scwartzer? My thinking behind this is as follows with our two goalkeepers: 1. Schmeical - Doesn't command his area, of no use whatsoever usually from corners, but a great shot-stopper. Heard Sven on the radio some months ago talking about his time at Man City and his goalkeepers Hart and Schmeical in particular. Whilst he was complimentary of both he said that he always favoured Hart as he was much better at crosses. Therefore this has been Schmeical's weakness for a long long time. So why hasn't he put it right? Is he arrogant and thinks he's ok or does he need a better coach who commands respect who does repetitive routines with him until he improves. 2. Hamer - Prefer him to Schmeical at the moment, but his distribution is Kak. Why does he (and a few other goalkeepers) feel the need to kick the ball from way out to the side (if you know what I'm trying to get at). Does he think it looks stylish or cool, cuz it sure ain't working. Would not a more normal straighter leg approach be far better? Can't this also be ironed out with a decent coach. I know naff all about coaching but.. if you've clearly got an issue with one part of your game, as in all sports, then that's the one you need to work on surely. Just a thought but then what do I know.
Merging Cultures Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 I don't care about kicking. This lad looks like he can keep the ball out the net better than the other two.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.