Leaderboard

I wish that someone would just cancel international friendly matches. It's completely pointless to continue with them at the moment.

The way Rangers FC have been treated by the SFA & all Scottish fans, and the way any Rangers player is treated by the tranny army I can tell you I will never forgive them, never, I just don't care if they win or lose! but I have no problem with any Rangers fan who still supports Scotland, each to their own.

Because I hope Serbia win tonight. Not because I hate Scotland but because it will mean the SFA suits won't get a jolly to the Euros and it will ruin the night for the 'Tartan Army'.

Massively enjoying this thread guys.

I can see the argument for the spontaneity of the game, but I want the correct decisions. I still think there's a better balance to be had. I don't think VAR is the issue. It's the rules that are the trouble. VAR gets most decisions right, IMO. In the moment you can't always see if the goal's offside or not, but with VAR you can. I always look at it from Rangers' perspective: if someone scores a goal against us, I would want the decision to be absolutely f*cking correct. Take the League Cup game against them: it was offside; it changes the game otherwise. If we had VAR in that game, it wouldn't have been given. Our Refs are incompetent, but they're not that incompetent (I think? ). It has highlighted how some of the rules now need changed. The hand-ball rule is bonkers. That's not VAR, that's the rules themselves.

Am I correct in stating there are clubs using this quite extensively now for recruitment? Brentford and Midtjylland are the two I've read about, Midtjylland clearly finding success with it. The inspiration for it coming from Moneyball and the Oakland baseball team's success with recruitment that went against perceived sport wisdom? Baseball, like cricket, has a history of statistics based fandom, something that relatively new to football. I remember being told that professional scouts could watch youth matches and decide in 10 minutes whether a boy had the ability to 'make it' or not. I remember thinking this was bonkers at the time but professionals I've spoken too over the years say the same thing; they can tell very quickly if someone is a player or not. Our recent recruitment has been fairly good at first glance, but is that skewed by the fact we're playing well? Roofe and Itten can't be declared successes just yet, despite Roofe's wonder goal and good all round play he's already picked up injuries that have kept him out and Itten hasn't settled or looked like a guaranteed starter yet. Hagi is as polarising a player as we've got just now, frustrating and vital in equal measure he's got great 'stats' but I suspect would attract a lot of criticism from our support if we were allowed into the ground. Balogun and McLaughlin look like good signings already, comfortable and already easily fitting into the first team when asked. If we look across the city though that's when our signings start to look pretty good by comparison. Outside of Eduarde there's not an obvious player going to move on for big money currently, indeed some of their recent signings have been surprisingly poor. By comparison we look pretty astute, with Kamara, Barasic, Jack, Kent, Aribo and Morelos all capable of moving on to a better league than Scotland's for considerably more than we paid for them. Celtic's issues might be related to their management not getting the best out of the players of course. I find the stats approach interesting but I can't see it changing my views of players based on what I see myself. I'm too much of a dinosaur to be swayed, but I'm glad the club are taking a different approach, as long as it works.

“Green Bowls Crown” - surpassed yourself there, old bean. But then nobody surpasses Uilleam except Uilleam.

The hostility to this is embarrassing. It's just ignorance. (Not necessarily here, just in general.) Those that criticise are the same that'll declaim, "Oh-- he should have scored there! That's a sitter!". Yes, the xG backs you up on that. It just describes what you intuitively think. What's wrong with that? No wonder this country achieves little of any relevance in football: we're still in the dark ages, held back by 'received wisdom', as other countries have modernised and developed and shot past us. Rant over. Apologies in advance.

You're not getting it. The 'fact' of "whether something is a good chance or a half chance", to put it your way, is calculated through statistical modelling. Opta takes 300,000 shots (what's that 20,000 games, assuming 15 shots per game?), looking a variety of variables (position of the shot, angle, etc. - quite a few) and comparing how many times that shot was actually scored, to get the probability of that type of chance being scored. So, their model then takes all that data and compares it to a chance that one of our players had on Sunday, to get the probability of that chance being scored. That's what would be 'expected' to score based on 300,000 shots in 20,000 games. To keep it simple, penalties have an xG of 0.76, meaning they are scored 76% of the time. That's a fact. Better players will exceed that, because they're better players: the xG describes that fact. It takes nothing away from "the beautiful game". It's giving us more facts with which to describe the game.

I struggle to accept that the Glasgow polis are fundamentally anti-Rangers, most of the coppers I know certainly aren't. That said I'm still not sure if Green and co were pursued by people who dislike Rangers or who dislike Charles Green and friends. I still feel there was something deeply suspicious about what happened to us and who benefited from it but that might just be my compensatory control kicking in and trying to infer order onto something that was in fact random and chaotic.

Deliberately cock it up so badly that any real investigation can't be done and those involved go unpunished, and them the opportunity to earn a few extra bob as recompense for the damage that they did to us?

At the turn of the year, I read an article on Frank Mulholland's management of this proposed prosecution. The piece had a paragraph on Mulholland's golf club Sundays, where he would regale cronies on the reactions of those facing the charges. Let's hope when the damages are settled, the appropriate officers attend the golf club on a Sunday and ask Frank for a donation?

Haha, great minds think alike, we posted more or less the same thing at the same time. Stats are only a tool. Nobody uses them in isolation, a good scout is vital. However they can be a huge help to helping a scout find players with specific abilities to check them out, and of course a sense check for the scout to see that they haven’t missed anything. Hagi has raw ability, but you are right that some fans struggle to take to him. It doesn’t bother me that he isn’t that fast or strong and gives the ball away too much because he makes goals that nobody else in our team can make, because that can be the difference between 0-0 and 1-0 and I’ve seen apparently “good” performances from Rangers players in a 0-0 too often. I spent a year coaching an under 10s team in the west end, and I took over the team from a Rugby coach. I told him who I was demoting to the B team and he told me he thought he was their best player. He wasn’t. He was big and physical but he was poor, he went on to struggle for games in the B team. There were players in the B team who were head and shoulders above A team players who were, ironically, literally head and shoulders above them. People see different things when they watch the game and some people are better than that than others. (not intended as a boast, the other guy was a Rugby man and out of his depth coaching football).

...but not The Polis, which fights on, disputing both liabilty, and consequential damages. The Crown has admitted "malicious prosecution", which indicates that its action was not a genuine error, which indicates that there was some shady motive behind it, which indicates that there should be dismissals, if not prosecutions, for misconduct in public office (or somesuch), which indicates that there should be some formal inquiry into the fiasco. Perhaps, however, we should refrain from holding our breaths. Rangers case: Crown was wrong to take action against Charles Green, prosecutor admits James Mulholland Thursday November 12 2020, 12.01am, The Times Charles Green is seeking £20 million in damages from the Crown Office and Police Scotland https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/rangers-case-crown-was-wrong-to-take-action-against-charles-green-prosecutor-admits-jv50ttg2j Charles Green, the former Rangers executive, has received a courtroom admission of wrongdoing from Scotland’s most senior prosecutor over his “malicious” arrest during a fraud claims investigation. The 67-year-old businessman was told at the Court of Session that prosecutors should have never taken legal action against him. His lawyer, Garry Borland, QC, called the fraud investigation a “shameful episode” in the history of the Crown Office. Mr Green has gone to Scotland’s highest civil court in an attempt to recover £20 million in damages from the Crown Office and Police Scotland. He was arrested five years ago over the “alleged fraudulent acquisition” of the club in 2012 but the prosecution was later abandoned. Yesterday lawyers acting for the current Lord Advocate, James Wolffe, QC, told judge Lord Tyre that they wanted to make a public statement. Advocate Gerry Moynihan, QC told the court that the Crown admitted that had it acted wrongly in legal papers but that he wanted to speak in a public forum. “It is admitted that the prosecution of Mr Green had no proper basis,” he said. “It is admitted that there has never been objective probable cause and it is admitted in these circumstances that malice in the sense required to give liability at common law can be inferred. “The import of all that is that Lord Advocate acknowledges there has been a malicious prosecution in the sense that term is used in our law and accordingly there is liability in damages to Mr Green.” Mr Green is the latest figure to bring legal action against the police and the Lord Advocate over their supposed and actual activities during a fraud investigation at Rangers. It has been brought in the light of admissions made by the Crown in another case brought by the businessmen David Whitehouse and Paul Clark. Prosecutors have admitted that Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark were wrongfully arrested and prosecuted. The two men are seeking a total of £20.8 million from the Crown Office and Police Scotland. David Grier, a business turnaround specialist, has also raised a separate action against Police Scotland in which he is seeking £2 million from the force. In that action, Mr Grier claims that detectives acted unlawfully when he was arrested in 2014. Officers suspected Mr Grier, of London, had broken the law during the sale of the Ibrox side and the businessman was charged with fraud and conspiracy. The men were charged with offences relating to businessman Craig Whyte’s takeover of Rangers in 2011. But charges were dropped and they were cleared of any wrongdoing. The Lord Advocate at the time of the investigation was Frank Mulholland, QC, who is now Lord Mulholland, a high court judge. In the case of Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark, Mr Moynihan admitted earlier this year that the Crown was now admitting liability for wrongdoing in parts of the prosecution. Mr Moynihan said his clients accepted that the two men’s rights under article five of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated during the prosecution. The violation referred to how they were detained in custody following their arrest in advance of their first appearance in court. Article five of the ECHR relates to the right to liberty and security. Mr Moynihan said the two men’s right to a private life had been breached in relation to a press release which had been sent out in February 2016. Mr Moynihan also said the Crown admitted that it acted unlawfully in its prosecution beyond the two men’s first appearance in court. Mr Borland said in court yesterday that Mr Green had suffered a miscarriage of justice, adding: “The public admission that Mr Green has been the subject of a malicious prosecution represents a shameful episode in the history of the prosecution service of Scotland.” “He is entitled to substantial damages from the Lord Advocate because the prosecution of Mr Green was a malicious prosecution.” Mr Borland also told the court that his legal team were days away from appointing an expert who would conduct an investigation into the financial losses sustained by Mr Green as a consequence of his arrest. He said that this could take until February to conclude. Alastair Duncan, QC, who was representing Police Scotland, said his clients were contesting the action and that the hearing against them would proceed on liability and quantum — the amount of money which would be due to Mr Green in the event of him being successful in the action. Judge Lord Tyre ruled that Mr Green was entitled to damages. His case against the Lord Advocate will proceed only on quantum. Lord Tyre fixed a further procedural hearing to take place in February. A full hearing is expected to take place in August.

Wow. What a way to qualify.

We could speculate wildly, widely, and for as long as we had breath. The best I can offer is that The Lord Advocate, himself, or after discussions with the Scottish Government, decided to pursue, or to support the pursuit, of various parties who were around the trough marked 'Rangers' at feeding time. The reason for this, given the rumours, assertions, etc. swirling around the country, was the desirability of being seen to -take action given the high public profile of Rangers, and -take action to demonstrate that the crown operated without fear or favour, and -take action to clear the air, one way or another. From this, it is but a small step to impute a 'malicious' prosecution, one not based on incontrovertible, or, at least, strong evidence, but premised on these entirely different criteria. We should not forget that it was only last year that the Court of Session, in the case of Whitehouse (yes, him) v Gormley, determined that the Crown had no immunity from civil suit.

Another example of stats contradicting popular perception of a player. Frimpong another one who is wildly popular despite having very little end product.

The Crown Office is just another label for the taxpayer's pocket

Link should play at the bit where he is asked about stats. A wee bit surprised he wasn't a bit more positive about how we are doing in this area, but it is probably a sign of his knowledge and high standards that he isn't singing our praises at such an early stage in our development in this area.

Would that it were "Crown Bowls Green". It seems a strange thing, this prosecution which the Crown has conceded was "malicious", and not, say, 'frivolous', or 'capricious',. or 'vexatious', or merely one which could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. According to Messrs Livingstone Brown, Solicitors https://www.livbrown.co.uk/criminal-defence/connectetd-litigation/malicious-prosecution "...From time to time, there are cases where it is clear the Crown was wrong to prosecute – where the available evidence simply could not support a conviction. Those wrongly accused may seek redress, to compensate them for the huge impact that being prosecuted can have: stress, anxiety, loss of reputation, loss of employment, and so on. Most countries recognise the right to seek damages for ‘malicious prosecution’. That generally requires a claimant to prove that they were prosecuted; that the prosecution was determined in their favour (eg by being dropped, or them being found not guilty); that the prosecutor lacked ‘probable cause’ (sufficient evidence) to prosecute; and that the prosecutor acted maliciously. In Scotland, however, it was long understood that the Crown was ‘immune from suit’, meaning that no claim could be brought, regardless of how little evidence there was and how malicious the prosecution had been. That changed in late 2019, with the case of Whitehouse v. Gormley. The Inner House (Scotland’s highest court of appeal in civil cases) decided that the Crown had no immunity. A person who had been prosecuted without sufficient evidence and maliciously had a right to damages. The court ruled that an action could also be brought under human rights legislation. Malicious prosecution cases are complex and difficult to prove. It is not enough to believe that a prosecutor acted maliciously; that fact has to be proved. However, the courts now recognise that such actions can be brought...." It is not clear how 'malice' is determined, although I suspect that an opinion poll in, say, The Riddrie Hilton, would find a large number of guests agreeing that their prosecutions were 'malicious'.

Well it was until VAR. Now you are never quite sure if a player is offside, a goal scored will be chalked off or a when is a hand ball - hand ball? The legislators are doing their best to ruin the spontaneity and emotion of the beautiful game. The stats are take it or leave it, i look at some but usually come away from a game with memories of a particular bit of skill or fantastic goal or even a terrible mistake and i wouldn't necessarily dig into the stats other than the usual possession, corners, shots on target etc but appreciate they can be useful.

The Kante one is interesting. I can recognise from the stats that he's an incredible ball-winner. But, for me, his overall game is poor. It's a personal judgement. I wouldn't be using him at Chelsea, unless they want that singular player to win the ball back in big games, etc. Teams like Leicester can use him more consistently. So, I can use the stats to see what he's good at, but still disagree with someone over Kante's overall merits. Like @DMAA with Hagi. I was the opposite with Hagi: he wasn't quite doing it, for me, but seeing the assist stats, he's clearly creating chances for our players. He just needs to find the right position, or perhaps only be used in the right games. I think SG is going for the latter, and only using him in certain games. Stats are just a tool.

Yes! Kante epitomises this. Average player, in an poor team, but yes, his defensive stats were tremendous. It would be easy for a scout to overlook that. Idrissa Gueye was similar: not a standout, but had an uncanny knack for interceptions and winning the ball back. He was signed by Villa, moved to Everton, and is now playing for PSG. They're not brilliant players (I'm not a fan of Kante - even if I think his ball-wining ability is stunning), but they have a superb skill-set that teams can use.

Cool.

That's cool, Rousseau.

I'm still worked up!

For us fans, it's mostly through Twitter etc. -- and the few @DMAA posts here. The data packages that clubs and pundits use are bloody expensive!

And whereabouts can you get a copy of the stats for a game so you can examine them ,

This is what I’m trying to explain, it isn’t done like that. It’s all pre-defined. For example, an attempt on goal from particular coordinates on the pitch will be assigned a pre-defined xG score. The pre-defined score is based on historical data, the percentage of shots from that position that have historically resulted in a goal. Opinion doesn’t come into it, it’s pretty much at the stage where a computer can calculate it, as I understand it. They tweak the models to take into account extenuating circumstances, and the models are increasingly accurate in predicting the score based on the attempts on goal made in a game. I should say I am not an expert in this and there will be bears out there, including the guys who run these Twitter accounts, who are much better qualified than me to explain how they work. But the key point is that the stats are generated from an objective statistical model which is informed by a mountain of historical data.

Think we should push for our management to remove Jack and McLaughlin from Scotland squad for next week or hope SFA postpone Israel coming.

When it started on radio in the 80s it was ground-breaking. Apparently clubs used to get tapes of the show and play them on the bus home from games, but Celtic stopped because the send-up of Danny McGrain was so cruel, and accurate, I should add. Davie Hay didn't come out of it well either, the infamous 'who's the best Scottish player of all time Davie? Pele. He's not Scottish, Davie. Always wondered why he never got picked for the national team.' Apparently Hay was furious at being portrayed as an imbecile (I thought it was funny). It's well past its sell by date though, indeed it's a sad inditement of BBC Scotland that it's still trotted out every year. Johnny Watson's a bluenose but I suspect he's the only one these days.

Just watched the whole game again. Wasn't easy but had to do it. When they're live, I watch these games through a filter of sweat and dread so cannae really judge objectively. But with this one I had to know if I'd just imagined how good we were because of the stadium we were playing in and the club we were playing against. Nah - wasn't imagining it. We were achingly gorgeous. A painful watch precisely because we were every bit as brilliant - or at least as in control against ten men in a seriously entertaining and thrilling way - as I imagined. We were beautiful. Then we took our eye off a dead ball (our midfield were so bloody amazing for the rest of the game that I'm just winded rather than angry) and didnae track Silva into the box... Morelos was bordering on world class and he gave an absolutely torrid time of it to Jardel, who came on for Pizzi to plug the hole left by Otamendi at centre-half (so that, older viewers, is another Jardel who couldnae trap a bag of cement). Given Otamendi is suspended for the next game, I'm crossing fingers, toes and eyes that Alfie's not Covided, or anything worse, between now and Benfica arriving at Ibrox. Our two full backs were also phenomenal (AGAIN!), getting both their Benfica opposite numbers hooked at half-time and, to be fair, doing just as much damage to their replacements. So I don't think Jorge Jesus will know whether to stick or twist at the back. But he'd be as daft as his hair looks not to go with Waldschmidt and Nunez from the start this time, given the two of them combined for the the two second half goals we lost. And if that Rafa Silva - lovely player, a rich man's Candeias - is allowed to play the whole 90 with Pizzi this time, they won't be shy in coming forward. So in the Ibrox return game there might be even more need for the Jack-Davis-Kamara line across the front of the defence. But if they come onto us, like they actually should, I think we'll cope. I think we'll concede, yes, but I think we'll score more. Maybe way more. If Benfica stick to the same high line they played last Thursday, Brandon Barker's in serious contention instead of Aribo but, personally, I'd like us to go with the same starting XI as in Lisbon, with the obvious possible exception of Balogun for Helander. And you can be guaranteed Stevie G's reading this. Oh aye. He's waiting to see what I think before he picks his side... I know he is...

Good luck to Northern Ireland and Србија.

What exactly is a playmaker? A man who can receive the ball at a distance from goal and either by beating an opponent(s) or by releasing a pass creates a chance for another to finish? Who is that in the current team? Hagi? Aribo? John Greig could win the ball and drive forward scattering a couple of defenders then pass the ball in roughly the direction of Ralph Brand to crack into the net? Was JG a playmaker?