Rousseau

Big names, but technically -- in the case of Italy and Netherlands in particular -- they've been overtaken by more progressive sides. Sweden -- although that second game was a back-to-the-walls game -- are a really good side -- it shows you don't need a superstar like Ibrahimovic to succeed.

I don't think there is an international level, per se -- at least not any more. We're limited by the crop we can choose from. Therefore, Scotland's international 'level' will fluctuate. Our top players are nowhere near that of the past. Have I misunderstood? It's almost irrelevant who they're playing against week-in week-out. They may have experience, but they're not good enough. Although, I also don't believe a 'best' national side needs to be comprised of their best players; it needs to be a team that works together in style. Too many players are picked because they're playing in the EPL, when I think there are better players, in terms of the team, playing elsewhere. That's also why a national side must be composed of a core of the country's best club.

I saw this on Twitter but couldn't access it -- ads! -- so thanks for posting. I like Candeias: works really hard, great crosser, sets-up most of our goals. Good signing. He needs a song -- if Garner got one... ?

I prefer Alves to the lot of them -- maybe bar McCrorie -- because he's a beast aerially. The stats... ... suggest he's one of the best at winning aerial duels, which is really important in this league, when every attack is a lumped ball into the box from any position. I think McCrorie is a real class act. He needs to play. The potential there is really exciting.

I completely agree about the team aspect of football; some things stats can't measure. Although, Pass Maps illustrate the links between players -- but again, context must be taken into account, because defenders will pass between themselves a lot more than midfielders etc.. I don't agree with the Tavernier example, as the stats he's being measured by are individual; teammates don't have an influence. Some will, but the majority -- and certainly those used in the above radar, IMO -- do not. Yes, Sammon is p***. I doubt any stats were used by Wigan when they bought him! Stats are not just measured season-by-season, they are cumulative. Any cursory glance at his scoring record will prove he's not a great goal-scorer -- excepting that one season with Eremenko, as you stated. Looking at more in-depth stats -- not just goals-scored --, and being aware of the context would've shown quite clearly that it was a one-season wonder. Your example actually shows how not to use stats. I agree with the premise, though, that individual stats don't show everything. Again, it's being aware of the context. One single stat, in one game or one season in isolation, tells you very little. The cumulative stats, over several seasons, will tell you a lot. (This is not aimed at you, but I don't agree with this view that statisticians are hunched round a YouTube clip counting passes etc., or that scouts need to watch players in the flesh -- watching is useful, of course it is. There are tactical cams -- even SKY provide them on some games -- whereby the whole pitch is seen; you can see how a player interacts, how he moves etc., several times, over and over. Surely that provides much more information than watching a player once? Seeing a guy in the flesh is not the be-all and end-all.)

That's where xG comes into it, which tries to measure the 'quality' of the shot. It's not perfect, but I think it's more objective than 'shots on target', as you suggest.

I agree, but the best statisticians won't go out to be intentionally biased in that way. Any academic journal, for example, is biased, but that doesn't preclude us from deriving some benefit or value from it; we just have to be aware of any bias and context.

If you can be enlightened enough to concede there are benefits, then I wouldn't say you are a dinosaur. Whether they bore you or not is irrelevant.

I agree, but with Tavernier the stats used illustrate the offensive contribution mostly, which we can't deny he's been very good going forward, and this radar highlights that. There is a limit to the number of defensive stats that can be measured, unfortunately. We must be aware of that context when looking at defenders especially; stats don't claim to be the be-all and end-all, merely a new way of looking at the game that goes beyond the limitations of our eyes.

He's a balanced observer on the Scottish game. I've linked to his radar's a few times on here. Tavernier's there because he contributes the most of any other full-back in the stats that he has used -- I think he's one of the best assist-ers (?) in the league. Clearly these stats don't include everything, but they provide a nice overview of a player's contribution. I'd agree it's marmite: if you're open-minded and acknowledge the benefits stats can and do provide, and their limitations, then you'll like it; in contrast, if you're a dinosaur that is too blinded to acknowledge the limitations of one's own views, changes in the game and can't understand even the simplest technical terms, then you'll not like it -- but that's mostly through ignorance and a lack of understanding IMO.

We'll find a way to moan at anything. Appoint someone the next day and they're rushing and don't know what they're doing; take too long and they also don't know what they're doing. I'm happy they're taking their time, but surely they could have held some interviews by now?

No, that was today -- 1690 days since he was appointed Aberdeen manager...

When Craig spots someone else spending time with Kevin...

For now I agree! However, I can't see DM beating them.

But they were both playing a similar style of game, an effective and efficient British game. DM will bring an efficacy and efficiency, but I really can't see his style beating BR's style. Hope I'm wrong. Maybe he can add some flair players like Eck did?

I'd be content with McInnes but I'm not too enthusiastic about it. He'd bring stability, and I think we'd get second, but the football will be brutal. I'd like a manager that can stay in place for the next 3-4 years -- that's what we need now -- but I really doubt we're winning the league with DM; can we really afford to give them another 3-4 titles? I'm hoping that he can do more with more money.

I think I like the idea of Gio as manager more than the reality. I'm not sure Dutch is the way to go as they are a bit one-dimensional, and need good technical players which we don't have. One job, for me, is not enough to gauge how good he is as a manager. Then again, he does know what it takes to win leagues, both in Scotland, England, Netherlands and Spain. I wonder how much money he's had to spend at Feyenoord too? Perhaps Pete can enlighten me?

Slow day at work...?

No statistician has ever said we don't have to observe a player in action, I was merely contesting your view that "eyes don't lie". There are numerous philosophical and psychological studies that prove that our eyes deceive us. I've not played a Football Manager game in my life. You seem to be suggesting that stats have no place, which I think is really naive and quite ignorant. I'm glad some of the most prestigious clubs think differently, and can only hope Rangers are making strides towards implementing the same.

It is quite a stat, but I would probably prefer that to sticking with the same select few all the time.

That's patently untrue.

TheSPFLRadar produced this radar of Windass, where the edges are the top performer for that stat in the league: [tweet]927660394973483010[/tweet] As you can see it's well rounded -- he says underneath that that's similar to Sinclair, who gets praise left, right and centre -- but clearly he can't, or will not, cross the ball. His dribbling, key chain passes p/90 and open play assists p/90 is pretty much the best in the league.

The stats are for PC's tenure, so... we can file that under PC-bad...