Premier League 2016/17

inclineyid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
273
Based on our loose interpretations I reckon we'd claim Chavs opener today was a set piece too
 

heelspurs

Le filet mignon est un bastion de rosbif
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
4,270
Good answer, didn't read this before posting but I actually nearly wrote that I think Pogba would excel in our current system under Poch.

If you think that both Bentaleb and Pogba have been predominantly used as CM2's in 4231's this season, these stats make pretty scary reading:

View attachment 26389
View attachment 26390
Holy shit, great stats! And when you consider that Schalke have no one in form up top tp put away chances. Hell they won today because Bents scored 2...that he was responsible for the buildup on. We need to cancel that Schalke loan and sell him off to those numbnuts in manchester during the "Ed woodward memorial (in memory of all those millions wasted) transfer window" for 100M. If levy reads those stats his itchy trigger finger might just pull.
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
24,708
Holy shit, great stats! And when you consider that Schalke have no one in form up top tp put away chances. Hell they won today because Bents scored 2...that he was responsible for the buildup on. We need to cancel that Schalke loan and sell him off to those numbnuts in manchester during the "Ed woodward memorial (in memory of all those millions wasted) transfer window" for 100M. If levy reads those stats his itchy trigger finger might just pull.
Bentaleb is such a strange one of us. I guess we will never get to the bottom of it other than Poch lost faith in him playing him in a cm 2 and also that he doesn't think he could do a job further up the pitch, despite that being where he played at youth level
 

Marty

See you next Tuesday
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Messages
22,993
When a player scores from a saved shot, the initial shooter does not claim the assist. This is what makes the 'clearing of the ball' a grey area, for me.

Another weird one is the woodwork not being 'on target' despite the frame being a part of the goal.
A shot on target is a shot that leads to a goal if no-one gets in the way of it, while a shot that hits the woodwork and bounces out cannot possibly go in, and is therefore off target.
 

heelspurs

Le filet mignon est un bastion de rosbif
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
4,270
Bentaleb is such a strange one of us. I guess we will never get to the bottom of it other than Poch lost faith in him playing him in a cm 2 and also that he doesn't think he could do a job further up the pitch, despite that being where he played at youth level
Well he got a talking to for 2 bad passes in successive games leading to winning goals for the opposition. Ihave got to believe this was part of Poch's issue (trust) with him. As well as his insouciant nature. Hopefully he finds some maturity and humility in this loan and the terms are an "option" and not an obligation to buy on Schalke's part. But if memory serves there was a set numbeer of appearances to trigger a purchase. Considering he is probably first name on the team sheet right now I will assume that wil be triggered and he's a goner.
 

Spurs 1961

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
4,996
Well he got a talking to for 2 bad passes in successive games leading to winning goals for the opposition. Ihave got to believe this was part of Poch's issue (trust) with him. As well as his insouciant nature. Hopefully he finds some maturity and humility in this loan and the terms are an "option" and not an obligation to buy on Schalke's part. But if memory serves there was a set numbeer of appearances to trigger a purchase. Considering he is probably first name on the team sheet right now I will assume that wil be triggered and he's a goner.
Who knows what happens behind closed doors but we do know that once Poch wants a player out they will have to show something really special for him to change his mind
 

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
39,837
Holy shit, great stats! And when you consider that Schalke have no one in form up top tp put away chances. Hell they won today because Bents scored 2...that he was responsible for the buildup on. We need to cancel that Schalke loan and sell him off to those numbnuts in manchester during the "Ed woodward memorial (in memory of all those millions wasted) transfer window" for 100M. If levy reads those stats his itchy trigger finger might just pull.
Better yet, Poch could swallow some pride and bring him back because he'd be outstanding in the system we are now playing, the system he largely played in our development teams.
 

EllenAlex

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2013
Messages
1,030
A shot on target is a shot that leads to a goal if no-one gets in the way of it, while a shot that hits the woodwork and bounces out cannot possibly go in, and is therefore off target.
I understand your thinking, hwoever; if a ball strikes the underside of the bar or inside post before going in, is the off-target shot now considered on target? Or does the woodwork claim the goal?
 

Marty

See you next Tuesday
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Messages
22,993
I understand your thinking, hwoever; if a ball strikes the underside of the bar or inside post before going in, is the off-target shot now considered on target? Or does the woodwork claim the goal?
As long as the ball goes in, it's on target. If the ball hits the post or bar and doesn't go in, it's off target.
 

EllenAlex

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2013
Messages
1,030
As long as the ball goes in, it's on target. If the ball hits the post or bar and doesn't go in, it's off target.
If the ball is struck off target (hits the post), then the player has missed the target.

If it goes in off the post, can the player claim full responsibility for the goal? I don't think so in your argument, as you have given such strict guidlines as to what is and what isn't on target.

Your theory suggests that off target can become on target an still claimed by the striker of the shot. When we all know that if struck off target and hits a defender and goes in, the player can't claim the goal.

The only difference between the post and defender is that one is always static.
 

heelspurs

Le filet mignon est un bastion de rosbif
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
4,270
Better yet, Poch could swallow some pride and bring him back because he'd be outstanding in the system we are now playing, the system he largely played in our development teams.
You are correct. The sign of a good leader is analysing the balance of evidence and making sound decisions. Additionally, the ability to re-evaluate past decisions in the face of new/intervening evidence really separates the good from the great (of course morons believe you make a decision and stick by it). Unfortunately I think his ability to act or re-evaluate seems to be contractually out of his hands.
 

heelspurs

Le filet mignon est un bastion de rosbif
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
4,270
If the ball is struck off target (hits the post), then the player has missed the target.

If it goes in off the post, can the player claim full responsibility for the goal? I don't think so in your argument, as you have given such strict guidlines as to what is and what isn't on target.

Your theory suggests that off target can become on target an still claimed by the striker of the shot. When we all know that if struck off target and hits a defender and goes in, the player can't claim the goal.

The only difference between the post and defender is that one is always static.
why are you having such a difficult time with this simple concept? Hitting the post is not the deciding factor as to whether or not a shot is on or off target. Where that ball immediately goes thereafter is the deciding factor. If a ball hits the post and goes IN without the intervention of any other player then the initial shot was ON-TARGET, irrespective of the post-hit. If a ball hits the post and then goes out, into the field of play and is then acted on by another player then the preceding shot was OFF-TARGET. Here's another one, if the shot hits the post and bounces to the half-field line and a hurricane wind blows it back into the net without a touch by any other player...the shot was ON-TARGET. As @Marty said :
As long as the ball goes in, it's on target. If the ball hits the post or bar and doesn't go in, it's off target.
 

EllenAlex

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2013
Messages
1,030
Hitting the post is not the deciding factor as to whether or not a shot is on or off target.
Wrong. How do you not understand the simple concept that hitting the post is off target? If the ball hits the ball plum centre of the stick and comes back out it is off target. Same if the ball trails the line. My point being that if the ball crosses the line it is as much the 'post's' goal as it is the player, as he has struck 'off target'.

The problem is the definition; I say the post is part of the goal and therefore on target. The rulers don't. Hence the grey area in my mind.
 

Marty

See you next Tuesday
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Messages
22,993
Wrong. How do you not understand the simple concept that hitting the post is off target? If the ball hits the ball plum centre of the stick and comes back out it is off target. Same if the ball trails the line. My point being that if the ball crosses the line it is as much the 'post's' goal as it is the player, as he has struck 'off target'.

The problem is the definition; I say the post is part of the goal and therefore on target. The rulers don't. Hence the grey area in my mind.
The post is an inanimate object, it can't score a goal. All that matters is the attempt that was made.

I thought the same as you for years, but a few years ago I started using Opta stats programmes at work, they explain it pretty clearly. The posts aren't in the equation when it comes to whether a shot is on target or not. Whether the effort results in a goal if no-one gets in the way of the ball is the only criteria.
 

heelspurs

Le filet mignon est un bastion de rosbif
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
4,270
Wrong. How do you not understand the simple concept that hitting the post is off target?
Methinks you are still missing the point. Me-also-thinks you might get that a lot.

If the ball hits the ball plum centre of the stick and comes back out it is off target.
Not exactly. It depends on what happens NEXT. Does it go out of play (OOP)? Does another player touch it? Does it spin back into the goal? If it goes OOP then it would be OFF-TARGET. If it were to spin back into the goal untouched by another player it would have been ON-TARGET. The simple point is the hitting of the post is immaterial in the determination of whether a shot is on or off target. It is the ultimate result of the shot that defines is "on-targetedness". If you choose not to accept it then fine, start you own stats company and rail against your current stats-oppressors. Tell everyone else how wrong they are and that you are the one true "on-target prophet" and everyone should follow you.

The goalpost is only a delineation of the goal (target) and is part of the field of play. Similar to the touchline and goal line. When a ball touches either it is not OOP is it? It is still in the field of play. Goalposts are only different because the goal (target) is a limited 3 dimensional space whereas the field is limited in 2 dimensions and unlimited in its 3rd. Get it? You can't paint a line in the air so they use a post. And considering your difficulty in comprehending the previous I sense that there may well be some consternation with this more abstract perspective.

And from one of your previous posts:
The only difference between the post and defender if that one is always static.
REALLY!??!! Then would there be NO difference if a defender stood still the whole game? Would we just consider him a post then?
Let's start with one is part of the field of play and the other is an opposing player. Do you know that the ref is part of the field of play as well? So if a striker take the worst shot in the world and is going out for a thrown-in but hits the ref in the knee, caroms off into the goal without touching another player that goal is the striker's. OMG!!!! But if I do the same shot and it bounces off a 'static' defender then that goal is an OG.
 
Last edited:

yankspurs

“We’re not a selling club”
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
31,807
Is Watford about to be dragged into the relegation battle with a points deduction?
 

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
39,837
Holy shit, great stats! And when you consider that Schalke have no one in form up top tp put away chances. Hell they won today because Bents scored 2...that he was responsible for the buildup on. We need to cancel that Schalke loan and sell him off to those numbnuts in manchester during the "Ed woodward memorial (in memory of all those millions wasted) transfer window" for 100M. If levy reads those stats his itchy trigger finger might just pull.
In a wonderful example of life imitating art (or the media imitating SC) don't know if you ever listen to the Guardian Football Weekly, but in both the last two episodes they were discussing the "Pogba" issue (I only managed to listen to them today back to back). Phillip Auclair on last thursday's and Paulo Bandini on this Monday's, both pretty much echoing what we were saying, especially Bandini today saying almost word for word what I was saying about Pogba but also Mikhitaryan - if you get a chance have a listen (this pod's the best football pod there is anyway and always worth a listen - just for the whimsically dulcet tones of James Richardson).
 
Last edited:

yankspurs

“We’re not a selling club”
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
31,807
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/10/24/watford-face-fine-and-points-loss-over-forged-hsbc-bank-letter/

I would expect that, since they conned the Football League and not the Premier League, that they would only be deducted points if they were relegated, that's how it normally works with breaches of FFP rules and such. But that's pure guesswork on my part.
Reading the article has me so confused. The best I could make out is a forged letter was sent from someone/somewhere to the FA bearing the name of Watford's parent company and a bank the club doesnt/didnt do business with. But no one from the club knew anything about it and didnt even know the original letter from Credit Suisse was rejected. They could get anywhere from a hefty fine to automatic relegation but may only get a points deduction. Im confused as to how the article passed editing as it was so all over the place and confused as to how the hell the club knew nothing about the forged letter and didnt even know the original was rejected. Like how could you possibly have no clue about this?!?
 
Top