A sense of urgency

[RedPnutz]

You watched LvG's Ajax team then?

You know that doesn't matter because LVG's last trophy was 20 years ago and he is totally out of touch with modern football (even though he's just managed in the WC), unlike many of our enlightened posters who know exactly what it means to be a manager of a football club because they watch a lot of football and play FM, and are all experts on body language, psychology, linguistics with clairvoyant minds.

 

[NextSeason]

You know that doesn't matter because LVG's last trophy was 20 years ago and he is totally out of touch with modern football (even though he's just managed in the WC), unlike many of our enlightened posters who know exactly what it means to be a manager of a football club because they watch a lot of football and play FM, and are all experts on body language, psychology, linguistics with clairvoyant minds.

What on earth are you talking about? x 1000

EDIT: oh, I've just detected the sarcasm.

 

[RoadTrip]

The stats tell nothing except what you want them to tell.

I could interpret it the following ways as well:

1) From the season starting 2010 to 2013, we wasted respectively 278, 275, 280, 231 chances. My god, SAF's and Moyes' attack were so wasteful compared to LVG's who only wasted 238 and 179. In the second season, LVG's team wasted 59 less chances, that's a 24.8% improvement.

2) Out of total shots, shots on target were 24.5%, 27.12% 26.64%, 26.88%. LVG's first season was 24.43% but second was 26.63% which is higher than the average of 26.16% of the first 3 seasons in that table which were under SAF. Woohoo... LVG's team not only improved from his first season but also managed to edge SAF!!!!!!

3) How about goals as a percentage of total shots? From season starting 2010 to 2013, the stats are 9.15%, 10.13% and 10.54% and 8.70% respectively. LVG's last season was 9.16% and currently it stands at 10.05% Woohoo... another improvement and manages once again to edge out SAF's three-year average of 9.94%!!!!

4) Maybe we can move on next to goals per shots on target? The stats are then 37.33%, 37.35%, 39.29%, 32.35%. LVG's seasons are 37.5% and 37.74% respectively. Based on this, it implies LVG's has only "failed" to match the 2012 season under SAF. He's beaten all the rest of the seasons in that table.

So the stats above conclude that:

a) SAF's team did create the most chances, but the strike force was so inept it has wasted so many more chances. If they were as well-coach as LVG's team, then they would have scored more goals.

b) LVG had a slow start but his strikers have progressively gotten more accurate because the ratio of shots on target to total shots have improved.

c) Another one: LVG's team is better coached because it scores more goals compared to shots taken (much less wasteful)

d) Better strike force surely? LVG's strikers convert a higher percentage of shots on targets into goals on average.

e) However you splice it, Moyes is shit. His team wastes the most shots (280), has the poorest goals as a total of shots taken (8.7%), converts the least percentage of shots on target (32.35%) and of course finished 7th... lowest so far.

I wonder what the defensive stats are?

So what ARE the stats telling? Not much...

This is a ridiculous post. Complete over complication.

Who cares who is or isn't more wasteful? The only real number that matters is total goals. Is scoring 10 from 20 shots better than scoring 15 from 50 shots? No, because scoring efficiency doesn't win you games. Scoring goals does.

So I'd definitely take a "less well coached ()" team who misses more often but scores more goals.

 

[izec]

You watched LvG's Ajax team then?

The first and the last time he played great football. A long time ago. His Bayern and Holland side were shit to watch for most parts. It seems to me the more he managed, the more defensive and risk averse he got.

 

[NoLogo]

The first and the last time he played great football. A long time ago. His Bayern and Holland side were shit to watch for most parts. It seems to me the more he managed, the more defensive and risk averse he got.

I think that happened with age. The older he got the more cautious his teams seemed to play.

 

[RedPnutz]

This is a ridiculous post. Complete over complication.

Who cares who is or isn't more wasteful? The only real number that matters is total goals. Is scoring 10 from 20 shots better than scoring 15 from 50 shots? No, because scoring efficiency doesn't win you games. Scoring goals does.

So I'd definitely take a "less well coached ()" team who misses more often but scores more goals.

My point was that stats tell only part of the story, often the important part is hidden. And they can be presented in anyway to tell the story you want.

So since the stat above talks total goals in 14 games, what if Team A scores 1 goal per game to win each game 1-0; and Team B score 5 goals each in the first 4 game and draws the remaining 10 nil-nil?

By your logic, the only number that counts is total goals so team B is the better teams because 20 is more than 14. Or are too many numbers confusing you?

 

[RedPnutz]

This is a ridiculous post. Complete over complication.

Who cares who is or isn't more wasteful? The only real number that matters is total goals. Is scoring 10 from 20 shots better than scoring 15 from 50 shots? No, because scoring efficiency doesn't win you games. Scoring goals does.

So I'd definitely take a "less well coached ()" team who misses more often but scores more goals.

Yes and it is meant to be ridiculous to match the absurdity of your initial post on how telling the stats were.

 

[RoadTrip]

My point was that stats tell only part of the story, often the important part is hidden. And they can be presented in anyway to tell the story you want.

So since the stat above talks total goals in 14 games, what if Team A scores 1 goal per game to win each game 1-0; and Team B score 5 goals each in the first 4 game and draws the remaining 10 nil-nil?

By your logic, the only number that counts is total goals so team B is the better teams because 20 is more than 14. Or are too many numbers confusing you?

Yes and it is meant to be ridiculous to match the absurdity of your initial post on how telling the stats were.

you are not worth my time.

 

[Sam]

You watched LvG's Ajax team then?

20 years ago?

 

[BennyBlanco]

I don't know about his Ajax team, but I watched his Barca side all the time back then, they were a possession side, much like us from what I can remember but they were capeable of individual brilliance, particuarly from Rivaldo & Figo on either flank.
But no, they weren't risk adverse at all from my memory, certainly not defensive minded or negative at all, infact half the time I recall them conceeding goals it was from breakaways, being caught with half the team pushed up the pitch, leaving back just Frank de Boer and maybe one other to try desperately to defend from being overrun.