Quote from: john e on December 11, 2024, 11:12:02 AMQuote from: rooboy316 on December 11, 2024, 09:29:10 AMQuote from: Percy McCarthy on December 11, 2024, 06:45:13 AM^^ Have you told lies before?Shall we say you ‘mis-spoke’? Or would that make it hard for you to deflect?How about this.. If we were on opposite sides of the Watkins/Duran debate, and I said ‘I prefer Watkins because he has scored more goals than Duran this season’ despite the fact that I know he hasn’t, what would you call that? Whatever word you choose to describe someone who would do that, we’ll go with it.I don’t have a horse in this race either way, and this is clearly a crusade that means enough to you to bring it up several times. However, since semantics are involved:a) that’s a false equivalence. The hypothetical Watkins debate is about number of goals, so clearly that’s a narrow quantitative metric with a clear answer. The debate is about which back 4 makes the better unit/team, not about which back 4 has conceded fewer goals.b) While fewer goals usually means better defence, and statistics can paint a good picture, this isn’t some conclusive, objective, incontrovertible truth that you make it out to be. There’s a lot more to consider, especially if you’re going to make it a purely statistical argument.c) the sample sizes you’ve used are decent, but not large enough to account for skews such as individual clangers etcd) correlation is not causation. Your back 4 may have contributed to a tighter defence which concedes fewer goals, but that doesn’t imply causation in its entirety. Quality of opposition, our set up in those games, how well the midfield screened them, how well Emi played etc all contribute, amongst other a whole bunch of other things.e) if it’s going to be part of a wider discussion about our best team, we also have to consider how that back 4 impacts our attack, not just a stat about goals conceded. f) the beauty of football is that, unlike baseball, there are a whole lot of qualitative lenses through which holistic judgements need to be made, as opposed to a singular quantitative metric, even if that metric does play an important role in making said judgementMy wholehearted apologies to the rest of the site for drawing this argument out even further…I was just about to say all thatMe too - effortlessly switching between English and Spanish all the way through.
Quote from: rooboy316 on December 11, 2024, 09:29:10 AMQuote from: Percy McCarthy on December 11, 2024, 06:45:13 AM^^ Have you told lies before?Shall we say you ‘mis-spoke’? Or would that make it hard for you to deflect?How about this.. If we were on opposite sides of the Watkins/Duran debate, and I said ‘I prefer Watkins because he has scored more goals than Duran this season’ despite the fact that I know he hasn’t, what would you call that? Whatever word you choose to describe someone who would do that, we’ll go with it.I don’t have a horse in this race either way, and this is clearly a crusade that means enough to you to bring it up several times. However, since semantics are involved:a) that’s a false equivalence. The hypothetical Watkins debate is about number of goals, so clearly that’s a narrow quantitative metric with a clear answer. The debate is about which back 4 makes the better unit/team, not about which back 4 has conceded fewer goals.b) While fewer goals usually means better defence, and statistics can paint a good picture, this isn’t some conclusive, objective, incontrovertible truth that you make it out to be. There’s a lot more to consider, especially if you’re going to make it a purely statistical argument.c) the sample sizes you’ve used are decent, but not large enough to account for skews such as individual clangers etcd) correlation is not causation. Your back 4 may have contributed to a tighter defence which concedes fewer goals, but that doesn’t imply causation in its entirety. Quality of opposition, our set up in those games, how well the midfield screened them, how well Emi played etc all contribute, amongst other a whole bunch of other things.e) if it’s going to be part of a wider discussion about our best team, we also have to consider how that back 4 impacts our attack, not just a stat about goals conceded. f) the beauty of football is that, unlike baseball, there are a whole lot of qualitative lenses through which holistic judgements need to be made, as opposed to a singular quantitative metric, even if that metric does play an important role in making said judgementMy wholehearted apologies to the rest of the site for drawing this argument out even further…I was just about to say all that
Quote from: Percy McCarthy on December 11, 2024, 06:45:13 AM^^ Have you told lies before?Shall we say you ‘mis-spoke’? Or would that make it hard for you to deflect?How about this.. If we were on opposite sides of the Watkins/Duran debate, and I said ‘I prefer Watkins because he has scored more goals than Duran this season’ despite the fact that I know he hasn’t, what would you call that? Whatever word you choose to describe someone who would do that, we’ll go with it.I don’t have a horse in this race either way, and this is clearly a crusade that means enough to you to bring it up several times. However, since semantics are involved:a) that’s a false equivalence. The hypothetical Watkins debate is about number of goals, so clearly that’s a narrow quantitative metric with a clear answer. The debate is about which back 4 makes the better unit/team, not about which back 4 has conceded fewer goals.b) While fewer goals usually means better defence, and statistics can paint a good picture, this isn’t some conclusive, objective, incontrovertible truth that you make it out to be. There’s a lot more to consider, especially if you’re going to make it a purely statistical argument.c) the sample sizes you’ve used are decent, but not large enough to account for skews such as individual clangers etcd) correlation is not causation. Your back 4 may have contributed to a tighter defence which concedes fewer goals, but that doesn’t imply causation in its entirety. Quality of opposition, our set up in those games, how well the midfield screened them, how well Emi played etc all contribute, amongst other a whole bunch of other things.e) if it’s going to be part of a wider discussion about our best team, we also have to consider how that back 4 impacts our attack, not just a stat about goals conceded. f) the beauty of football is that, unlike baseball, there are a whole lot of qualitative lenses through which holistic judgements need to be made, as opposed to a singular quantitative metric, even if that metric does play an important role in making said judgementMy wholehearted apologies to the rest of the site for drawing this argument out even further…
^^ Have you told lies before?Shall we say you ‘mis-spoke’? Or would that make it hard for you to deflect?How about this.. If we were on opposite sides of the Watkins/Duran debate, and I said ‘I prefer Watkins because he has scored more goals than Duran this season’ despite the fact that I know he hasn’t, what would you call that? Whatever word you choose to describe someone who would do that, we’ll go with it.
Villa Tim, you obviously do not watch many Villa games. Unai said after the Brentford game that we had to change the way we normally play to accommodate Mings into the side, and if you did watch that game then you would have seen that Mings is not as comfortable with the ball at his feet.We are a fantastic team to watch, I don't want to just see us booting the ball down the pitch.
I've always fancied watching us in a European game away but that kind of of nonsense puts me off. It's not everyone obviously but some just go long to get as drunk as humanly possible. You're best off doing an away freindly, they're probably a bit more civilised. Bohemians and Shamrock Rovers a few years back were great.
Quote from: Clampy on December 11, 2024, 07:01:09 PMI've always fancied watching us in a European game away but that kind of of nonsense puts me off. It's not everyone obviously but some just go long to get as drunk as humanly possible. You're best off doing an away freindly, they're probably a bit more civilised. Bohemians and Shamrock Rovers a few years back were great. I'd imagine that there were even more drunk annoying people in Belgium, but it was very easy to avoid them. I mean I never saw another Villa fan in three days.
Quote from: olaftab on December 11, 2024, 03:40:17 PMA couple observations on last night. Everything at the stadium was efficient and orderly.I hope they never allow drinks into seats at Villa Park. Most people got unwanted soaking by beer being thrown into the air after every goal. It was horrible from 3rd minute onwards. Not pleasant.The buses after the match were super efficient. Leipzig fans were very good, knowledgeable and friendly. Public transport everywhere was good.People chucking beer about are absolute vermin. I'd love to go to more Villa away games, but unfortunately I always end up pissed off with the set of absolute twats I usually find myself saddled with in the immediate vicinity. Coke-addled tossers flapping their podgy hands at opposition fans, mostly.
A couple observations on last night. Everything at the stadium was efficient and orderly.I hope they never allow drinks into seats at Villa Park. Most people got unwanted soaking by beer being thrown into the air after every goal. It was horrible from 3rd minute onwards. Not pleasant.The buses after the match were super efficient. Leipzig fans were very good, knowledgeable and friendly. Public transport everywhere was good.
Quote from: sid1964 on December 12, 2024, 06:29:25 AMVilla Tim, you obviously do not watch many Villa games. Unai said after the Brentford game that we had to change the way we normally play to accommodate Mings into the side, and if you did watch that game then you would have seen that Mings is not as comfortable with the ball at his feet.We are a fantastic team to watch, I don't want to just see us booting the ball down the pitch.You obviously didn't watch the Brentford game. Of the 40 passes that Mings made (with a 90% completion rate), how many were long punts out of defence. I'll give you a clue, it was less than one.Spoiler for Hiden: Zero
It helps that "we won" but also there was nothing contentious in the whole game. No penalty decisions, no fouls in the build-up to any of the goals, barely any bad fouls in the whole match for either side.
The beer chucking nonsense seemed to start with all those horrible Boxpark type places, somewhere else I'll never set foot while I've got a breath left in my body.
Please donate to help towards the costs of keeping this site going. Thank You.
Author
Topic: RB Leipzig vs Aston Villa post match thread. (Read 12600 times)
