The Football.....

[albion]

Fairly simple. Any of us could do it if we watched all games and simply count up proven inaccuracies.

The simplest to do is 'inaccuracies per match'. Mark Clattenburg would have been up near top, or is it bottom?
Yesterdays match ref only seemed remarkable for extreme glaring errors.

Another thought I have is that in big big games it might happen that the occasion distracts from ones normal focus, making ref decision making more difficult. That certainiy did not seem to Clattenburg, he much guessed in any match of his I watched.

 

[Alex321]

Fairly simple. Any of us could do it if we watched all games and simply count up proven inaccuracies.

As I said, even with multiple replays from different angles, the pundits (supposedly experts) still often disagree aboiut whether it was an error or not.

So how do you define a "proven inaccuracy"?

 

[AndyRM]

There is only one statistic which matters in football.

I honestly don't give a f*ck about a players heatmap, touches in the box, expected goals, points per game...

It's meaningless nonsense which over complicates a simple game

 

[Pblakeney]

There is only one statistic which matters in football.

I honestly don't give a f*ck about a players heatmap, touches in the box, expected goals, points per game...

It's meaningless nonsense which over complicates a simple game

👍 100%.
The score is the only stat that counts. Everything else is just feeding media, or pub chat at best.

 

[AndyRM]

👍 100%.
The score is the only stat that counts. Everything else is just feeding media, or pub chat at best.

I much prefer the pub chat along the lines of "Do you remember when Pasca accidentally scored a header against Rangers and laughed about it" or "Do you remember when Boydy got booked for pretending to be a sumo wrestler after scoring against Motherwell and the fans had been giving him grief for being a wee bit heavy".

That's what football is about.

Not "Well it makes sense to be spending £100 million on this guy because he offers a guaranteed 8 crosses per game into the box with attacking intent."

I'm only 39 by the way, so I don't feel that I qualify as a moaning old git just yet.

 

[No Ta Doctor]

I much prefer the pub chat along the lines of "Do you remember when Pasca accidentally scored a header against Rangers and laughed about it" or "Do you remember when Boydy got booked for pretending to be a sumo wrestler after scoring against Motherwell and the fans had been giving him grief for being a wee bit heavy".

That's what football is about.

Not "Well it makes sense to be spending £100 million on this guy because he offers a guaranteed 8 crosses per game into the box with attacking intent."

I'm only 39 by the way, so I don't feel that I qualify as a moaning old git just yet.

I think you've misdiagnosed your problem though. It's not actually the stats that are the issue, it's that transfer speculation has completely taken over football. All season round we're bombarded by arguments about who's the better footballer, and why player x is a waste of space and should be replaced with player y. Everyone has always had players they liked and disliked on their team, their heroes and their scapegoats, and some have always banged on and bloody on about the scapegoats in particular. It's a particularly joyless approach to football, where even if you get a good win someone's pointing out how shoot some player is and how the result is only papering over the cracks. But today's availability of YouTube footage, live football, and social media means that everyone suddenly thinks they've got the solution to the winger issue in some Portuguese 17 yr old who scored a banger last week, and then the stats come in. The stats are simply a post facto justification for whatever gut feeling someone already has.

So back in the day, there were always a load of armchair managers who'd be telling you about your striker's lack of pace, but those conversations would soon fizzle out and be replaced with "remember when Sammy Nelson mooned the North Bank?", which is a lot more fun. Nowadays being an armchair manager is the default position - everyone played Championship Manager, everyone played FIFA, everyone played Fantasy Football. And the stats just provide the grist to that endless mill.

 

[albion]

As I said, even with multiple replays from different angles, the pundits (supposedly experts) still often disagree aboiut whether it was an error or not.

So how do you define a "proven inaccuracy"?

There were about 3 situations last night conclusively proven. Players got very exasperated though somehow they kept calm enough not to get bookings. The England corner, I think, looked particularly damning it appearing beyond obvious.
My first comment only arrived here through that header that 100% wasn't.

Like I said, the count has to only be proven wrong decisions. Are you saying that the Maradona 'hand of god' was never proven?

 

[PaulSB]

There is only one statistic which matters in football.

I honestly don't give a f*ck about a players heatmap, touches in the box, expected goals, points per game...

It's meaningless nonsense which over complicates a simple game

👏👏👏 bang on. I've long given up watching televised football and reading the majority of football related articles. There is so much total bollocks spouted by "the experts."

Three stats for me:

Rovers score
League position
Up or down

 

[albion]

I am likely biased but Laurel James looked the best England player on the pitch, yet she got near no mention by 'experts'.
Next match should be far easier, Italy vertainly not having the prowess of Sweden. It is hard to criticise all the penalty misses, the level of exhaustion adding to the mix.