UEFA Champions League 2017/2018

[bocadillo]

I agree with all that, and find it hard to understand all the Spurs hate (there are plenty of far more worthy recipients!). Controversially, I don't really understand the Kane hate either (can't stand Alli though!).

Is it possible that you don't come into contact with too many of their fans?

 

[give_us_a_wave]

Arsenal.

**** me, Serie A must be a right pile of wank.

 

[Blaarev]

Sort of wrong thread though

 

[give_us_a_wave]

Sort of wrong thread though

I guess. Seemed to fit nicely with Spurs though.

 

[Brown Nose]

This is one of the things that I can't be doing with about Spurs. When any other team throws away yet another opportunity, there would be criticism of the manager and players. When it happens (and it happens an awful lot) with Spurs, they just get more and more misplaced gushing praise:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43326021

Alli is a loathsome player who I don't think I've ever seen play one match without trying to cheat. Kane is an excellent striker but he's massively over-rated. Check out his shots to goals ratio. He has far and away more shots than any other player - the whole team is essentially built around him - and his finishing is pretty average. Someone like Vardy has a much better strike rate for example.

And don't get me started on that clown of a manager. He's Prince Choker of Chokerville who is just a bad imitation of Marcelo Bielsa. It's like watching Paul Lambert pretending that he's Martin O'Neill. He's been a manager now for nine years and has won feck all.

 

[Hector]

Is it possible that you don't come into contact with too many of their fans?

Two of my colleagues are Spurs fans. As nice guys as you could hope to meet.

 

[bloo]

I don't know if Kane is overrated, he's certainly in a rich vein of form and leads the line well. So if one is to be measured by results then he's due some credit.

I think it true to say that the team is built around getting the best out of him, which seems to be working out ok as a tactic so again it's pretty hard - in fairness - to be overly critical.

So, with those two things taken into account, I think it's going to be very interesting to see how both Kane and Spurs get on when Kane disappears abroad.

It's possible that Kane could do an Ian Rush and find another country to be like another country and not settle. I think it possible Spurs will struggle to replace him and, as he is almost instrumental to the way they play, I think they too will struggle and need to go through yet another phase of rebuilding. I think that won't be helped by having some of their better players picked up by other clubs, the lure of better wages and success proving too much for them. Yep, maybe the end of yet another Spurs era.

I would hasten to add that I'm trying to speak objectively. On a personal level, I can't stand Spurs, Kane, Alli nor Ponchettino.

 

[pork pie fox]

Kane is an excellent striker but he's massively over-rated. Check out his shots to goals ratio. He has far and away more shots than any other player - the whole team is essentially built around him - and his finishing is pretty average. Someone like Vardy has a much better strike rate for example.

Not that I've got too much time on my hands today, but here are the top 20 goalscorers in the Premier League this season, along with their Shots and Goals to Shots ratio.



Better get back to work now.

 

[Hector]

Not that I've got too much time on my hands today, but here are the top 20 goalscorers in the Premier League this season, along with their Shots and Goals to Shots ratio.

View attachment 14110

Better get back to work now.

Interesting that only four out of the top 21 goalscorers are for teams outside the top six, and more than half the teams have nobody who has reached 8 goals after 29 matches.

 

[SwedeFox]

What's the strike rate supposed to be an indicator of (other than the obvious but hardly instrinsically valuable goals/shots ratio)?

 

[Ike O'Noclassed]

What's the strike rate supposed to be an indicator of (other than the obvious but hardly instrinsically valuable goals/shots ratio)?

Who takes the penalties?

 

[pork pie fox]

What's the strike rate supposed to be an indicator of (other than the obvious but hardly instrinsically valuable goals/shots ratio)?

I don't know. I was just supplying the data for BN's post.

There are lots of things you could try to interpret from the data, I guess it depends on what you want it to show.

 

[camberwell fox]

What's the strike rate supposed to be an indicator of (other than the obvious but hardly instrinsically valuable goals/shots ratio)?

Its clearly a ****ometer; it is the only way that Kane can be number 1.

 

[SwedeFox]

I don't know. I was just supplying the data for BN's post.

There are lots of things you could try to interpret from the data, I guess it depends on what you want it to show.

Yeah, it was directed to BN who made a point of it rather than you.

Looking at that table, I would find it hard to single out strike rate as anywhere near as important as goals scored. I enjoy watching Kane just because he's able to get a shot away from anywhere (well I WOULD enjoy it if I supported any of the teams he features in)

More plausible conclusion to me is that it is the rest of the Spurs attacking players that are overrated rather than him

 

[pork pie fox]

Yeah, it was directed to BN who made a point of it rather than you.

Looking at that table, I would find it hard to single out strike rate as anywhere near as important as goals scored. I enjoy watching Kane just because he's able to get a shot away from anywhere (well I WOULD enjoy it if I supported any of the teams he features in)

More plausible conclusion to me is that it is the rest of the Spurs attacking players that are overrated rather than him

You could try to make totally different points, if you felt they were valid:

• A better striker, with a higher conversion ratio, would score more than Kane, given how many shots he has
• Kane is a better striker than others, as he manages to get into more positions to shoot

Depends on how you want to interpret them, I guess.

 

[homer]

We can all agree that he's a gormless big nosed wanker, though, can't we ?

We don't need any stats for that

 

[SwedeFox]

You could try to make totally different points, if you felt they were valid:

• A better striker, with a higher conversion ratio, would score more than Kane, given how many shots he has
• Kane is a better striker than others, as he manages to get into more positions to shoot

Depends on how you want to interpret them, I guess.

I get what you're saying ppf but I don't think they're totally unrelated points. Kane scores a lot of goals because he shoots a lot. It's part of his style of playing. To argue about his missed shots - given the number of immensely important goals he has scored for Spurs - seems to me like focusing on the number of times Vardy runs offside. It's simply a side effect intrinsic to their way of playing.

 

[camberwell fox]

We can all agree that he's a gormless big nosed wanker, though, can't we ?

We don't need any stats for that

Pi, who you calling big nose?

 

[pork pie fox]

I get what you're saying ppf but I don't think they're totally unrelated points. Kane scores a lot of goals because he shoots a lot. It's part of his style of playing. To argue about his missed shots - given the number of immensely important goals he has scored for Spurs - seems to me like focusing on the number of times Vardy runs offside. It's simply a side effect intrinsic to their way of playing.

You may see it that way, but others may look at the stats in isolation and, in particular where you have an agenda, they can be used to make a particular point.

Being a stats geek, I prefer looking at the raw data, rather than interpreting them too much. I'll leave that to others

 

[SwedeFox]

You may see it that way, but others may look at the stats in isolation and, in particular where you have an agenda, they can be used to make a particular point.

Being a stats geek, I prefer looking at the raw data, rather than interpreting them too much. I'll leave that to others

Yes, that is the approach I'm disagreeing with.

Being a bit of a ****, I'd say that raw data requires a selection which in turn implies a certain perspective, but that's another discussion perhaps. Appreciate your work ppf!