Re:
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:09 pm
I thought that was the football fans' motto (hence the "we always lose to that lot, therefore we're going to lose to that lot" mentality)."chuckbert" wrote:Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Page 2 of 2
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:09 pm
In my opinion, it is the tinkering as a whole which has done the damage. Foster is an example of such but, by no means the be-all and end-all.
Re:
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:09 pm
"Dr Bob" wrote:Another problem to go along with post hoc ergo propter hoc - confusing correlation and causality. Here are some other statistics derived directly from those given by GY (I hope I got these numbers correct).
Goals conceded:
home with Foster 0.45 per game home after Foster left 0.5
away with Foster 1.23 per game away after Foster left 1
Goals scored:
home with Foster 2.51 per game home after Foster left 1
away with Foster 1.46 per game away after Foster left 2
Has the exit of Foster caused the huge reduction in goals scored per game? It seems to me this is by far the bigger problem. If Foster's absence is considered as part of squad tinkering that has resulted in fewer goals scored per game, then to that extent Foster's departure - as part of a wider issue - is relevant. Otherwise on the evidence thus far (the sample of post-Foster games is far fewer), it seems to me Foster is largely an irrelevance to this debate.
I'd argue that the recent absence both of two of our previously first choice front line (including our leading scorer) and our captain (our most creative midfielder) through injury probably has more to do with the reduction in the goals scored than Foster's superb distribution, but I might be wrong - GY?People seem to forget that much of the recent tinkering (with the exception of the now extremely boring Foster-Beast, Wright-day debate) has been enforced - the defence would presumably have been unchanged as it has been for some time if it were not for Tonkin's absence.
Just as big a problem is the players we all know and love and would presumably almost always have in our starting 11s like Bulman, Batt, Beast and Green(M) being off form.
And the pitch is terrible now which can't help.
Re:
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:20 pm
I agree to an xtent about the frontline DW, but solid defence and distribution means we are much more likely to win games. I accept it is arguable both ways, however, you may wish to use the excellent RO stats machine to see if thee is evidence to support the case."deanwindass" wrote:"Dr Bob" wrote:Another problem to go along with post hoc ergo propter hoc - confusing correlation and causality. Here are some other statistics derived directly from those given by GY (I hope I got these numbers correct).
Goals conceded:
home with Foster 0.45 per game home after Foster left 0.5
away with Foster 1.23 per game away after Foster left 1
Goals scored:
home with Foster 2.51 per game home after Foster left 1
away with Foster 1.46 per game away after Foster left 2
Has the exit of Foster caused the huge reduction in goals scored per game? It seems to me this is by far the bigger problem. If Foster's absence is considered as part of squad tinkering that has resulted in fewer goals scored per game, then to that extent Foster's departure - as part of a wider issue - is relevant. Otherwise on the evidence thus far (the sample of post-Foster games is far fewer), it seems to me Foster is largely an irrelevance to this debate.
People seem to forget that much of the recent tinkering (with the exception of the now extremely boring Foster-Beast, Wright-day debate) has been enforced - the defence would presumably have been unchanged as it has been for some time if it were not for Tonkin's absence.
Just as big a problem is the players we all know and love and would presumably almost always have in our starting 11s like Bulman, Batt, Beast and Green(M) being off form.
And the pitch is terrible now which can't help.
I'm rather less convinced that the tinkering has been enforced.
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:15 pm
Tinkering or not - the players we put out last night should have been good enough to take the three points.
Re:
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 2:18 pm
How about blaming the enforced winter break for killing our momentum?
Re:
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 3:17 pm
Everyone else had enforced winter cancellations as well."chuckbert" wrote:How about blaming the enforced winter break for killing our momentum?
Re:
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 3:51 pm
True, but they didn't all have the same momentum as us."GodalmingYellow" wrote: Everyone else had enforced winter cancellations as well.