|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 0:02:03 GMT
We are over a seasons worth of games away from the shambles that is Bolton.
If that doesn't worry you you need have a rayt word with yourself
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Oct 29, 2019 21:27:14 GMT
It's an easily changed statistic. We could go from the rock bottom worst team to the best team in 1 game. I was not saying that we're going to score 3 goals next game. However, if we did, would you be on here broadcasting how brilliant the team is? - No, because they're not and it's a stupid measure of performance. I'd rather look at something meaningful. It’s meaningful right now. No one is even close to us. It’s meaningful right now because Jones promised us that we’d get an exciting team, which means attack and goals - something we’ve clearly not been capable of for a while and don’t look like bucking the trend anytime soon. It’s meaningful right now because we’ve got one of the more expensive squads in the division and they’re massively underperforming, this is another stat that backs this up. It’s another stat that shows how bereft of confidence we are. Our players can’t score goals. The team can’t score goals. It’s another stat that shows the direction of travel we’re heading in and have been for a while. If it’s so easily changed how come we haven’t done it for 87 games whereas the nearest team to us managed to do it 36 games ago? What makes you think we’ll change it easily? Obviously you don't understand. I am not contesting that we have been utter dross for the past 3 years, I am merely commenting on the KPI of games since last scored 3 goals. Why 3 goals? why not 2, 4, 5? Are you sure the nearest team did it 36 games ago. What if some other team had 50 games without 3 goals and then scored 3 goals last week? Wouldn't they be the nearest team to us? What if a team wanted to exercise "player power" to make a point to their owners/manager, and waited till the last five minutes of the game before downing tools and letting us score 5 goals uncontested to win the game 5-4, would that mean we were suddenly the best team on this indicator? What if TP took over next week and won 90% of hte games in the next 5 years 1-0? Would we still be a crap team? Talking of whom, Under MH, we had an average of 10.06 games between scoring 3 goals in a game, compared to TP's 15.83 games between 3 goal bonanzas. Does this mean MH is 55% better than TP? No, This is a crap indicator. There are so many better stats to use. Average Goals per game. Average Points per game, etc, etc, etc, But the only indicator that means a damn thing is our league position, and we are joint worst in this division.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Oct 29, 2019 22:55:27 GMT
It’s meaningful right now. No one is even close to us. It’s meaningful right now because Jones promised us that we’d get an exciting team, which means attack and goals - something we’ve clearly not been capable of for a while and don’t look like bucking the trend anytime soon. It’s meaningful right now because we’ve got one of the more expensive squads in the division and they’re massively underperforming, this is another stat that backs this up. It’s another stat that shows how bereft of confidence we are. Our players can’t score goals. The team can’t score goals. It’s another stat that shows the direction of travel we’re heading in and have been for a while. If it’s so easily changed how come we haven’t done it for 87 games whereas the nearest team to us managed to do it 36 games ago? What makes you think we’ll change it easily? Obviously you don't understand. I am not contesting that we have been utter dross for the past 3 years, I am merely commenting on the KPI of games since last scored 3 goals. Why 3 goals? why not 2, 4, 5? Are you sure the nearest team did it 36 games ago. What if some other team had 50 games without 3 goals and then scored 3 goals last week? Wouldn't they be the nearest team to us? What if a team wanted to exercise "player power" to make a point to their owners/manager, and waited till the last five minutes of the game before downing tools and letting us score 5 goals uncontested to win the game 5-4, would that mean we were suddenly the best team on this indicator? What if TP took over next week and won 90% of hte games in the next 5 years 1-0? Would we still be a crap team? Talking of whom, Under MH, we had an average of 10.06 games between scoring 3 goals in a game, compared to TP's 15.83 games between 3 goal bonanzas. Does this mean MH is 55% better than TP? No, This is a crap indicator. There are so many better stats to use. Average Goals per game. Average Points per game, etc, etc, etc, But the only indicator that means a damn thing is our league position, and we are joint worst in this division. Don't use it as a comparator then. Look at it in its simplest form - it's 87 games since we scored 3 or more goals in a game. That is shit. If you don't understand that, you don't understand football.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Oct 29, 2019 22:58:01 GMT
It’s meaningful right now. No one is even close to us. It’s meaningful right now because Jones promised us that we’d get an exciting team, which means attack and goals - something we’ve clearly not been capable of for a while and don’t look like bucking the trend anytime soon. It’s meaningful right now because we’ve got one of the more expensive squads in the division and they’re massively underperforming, this is another stat that backs this up. It’s another stat that shows how bereft of confidence we are. Our players can’t score goals. The team can’t score goals. It’s another stat that shows the direction of travel we’re heading in and have been for a while. If it’s so easily changed how come we haven’t done it for 87 games whereas the nearest team to us managed to do it 36 games ago? What makes you think we’ll change it easily? Obviously you don't understand. I am not contesting that we have been utter dross for the past 3 years, I am merely commenting on the KPI of games since last scored 3 goals. Why 3 goals? why not 2, 4, 5? Are you sure the nearest team did it 36 games ago. What if some other team had 50 games without 3 goals and then scored 3 goals last week? Wouldn't they be the nearest team to us? What if a team wanted to exercise "player power" to make a point to their owners/manager, and waited till the last five minutes of the game before downing tools and letting us score 5 goals uncontested to win the game 5-4, would that mean we were suddenly the best team on this indicator? What if TP took over next week and won 90% of hte games in the next 5 years 1-0? Would we still be a crap team? Talking of whom, Under MH, we had an average of 10.06 games between scoring 3 goals in a game, compared to TP's 15.83 games between 3 goal bonanzas. Does this mean MH is 55% better than TP? No, This is a crap indicator. There are so many better stats to use. Average Goals per game. Average Points per game, etc, etc, etc, But the only indicator that means a damn thing is our league position, and we are joint worst in this division. And PS, you never clarified on my point about if it was so easily changed how come were at 87 games now? Or didn't you understand that question?
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Oct 30, 2019 13:01:45 GMT
Obviously you don't understand. I am not contesting that we have been utter dross for the past 3 years, I am merely commenting on the KPI of games since last scored 3 goals. Why 3 goals? why not 2, 4, 5? Are you sure the nearest team did it 36 games ago. What if some other team had 50 games without 3 goals and then scored 3 goals last week? Wouldn't they be the nearest team to us? What if a team wanted to exercise "player power" to make a point to their owners/manager, and waited till the last five minutes of the game before downing tools and letting us score 5 goals uncontested to win the game 5-4, would that mean we were suddenly the best team on this indicator? What if TP took over next week and won 90% of hte games in the next 5 years 1-0? Would we still be a crap team? Talking of whom, Under MH, we had an average of 10.06 games between scoring 3 goals in a game, compared to TP's 15.83 games between 3 goal bonanzas. Does this mean MH is 55% better than TP? No, This is a crap indicator. There are so many better stats to use. Average Goals per game. Average Points per game, etc, etc, etc, But the only indicator that means a damn thing is our league position, and we are joint worst in this division. And PS, you never clarified on my point about if it was so easily changed how come were at 87 games now? Or didn't you understand that question? Your answer is in the first part of my second sentence. I highlighted it for you so you can't miss it. Oh and by the way, you didn't bother to answer any of my questions either. Tell you what, you go on measuring how many games between 3 goals scored, and be as happy as pigshit when we lose 5-3. I'll stick to more meaningful stats to fret over.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Oct 30, 2019 13:06:39 GMT
And PS, you never clarified on my point about if it was so easily changed how come were at 87 games now? Or didn't you understand that question? Your answer is in the first part of my second sentence. I highlighted it for you so you can't miss it. Oh and by the way, you didn't bother to answer any of my questions either. Tell you what, you go on measuring how many games between 3 goals scored, and be as happy as pigshit when we lose 5-3. I'll stick to more meaningful stats to fret over. So the answer is that we've been dross. Which is basically what I said at the start. You've answered my question with my original point but you still want to argue with me about my point that i originally raised and you agree with. Yeah, great stuff. I answered your questions about its meaningfulness with clearly spaced sentences to help you out.
|
|
|
Post by The Stubborn Optimist on Oct 30, 2019 13:52:38 GMT
And Leicester score 9 in just one game.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Oct 30, 2019 14:21:58 GMT
And PS, you never clarified on my point about if it was so easily changed how come were at 87 games now? Or didn't you understand that question? Your answer is in the first part of my second sentence. I highlighted it for you so you can't miss it. Oh and by the way, you didn't bother to answer any of my questions either. Tell you what, you go on measuring how many games between 3 goals scored, and be as happy as pigshit when we lose 5-3. I'll stick to more meaningful stats to fret over. Your point would be valid if we were winning loads of games 1-0, 2-0 or 2-1. But we aren't even doing that and the 87 game run merely highlights how incapable we are of winning games of football where we concede two goals (which is pretty often is it not?)
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Oct 30, 2019 14:24:27 GMT
Dunner werrit,I'm pretty sure we will score 3 goals in div 1 at some point.😶
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Oct 30, 2019 15:08:27 GMT
Your answer is in the first part of my second sentence. I highlighted it for you so you can't miss it. Oh and by the way, you didn't bother to answer any of my questions either. Tell you what, you go on measuring how many games between 3 goals scored, and be as happy as pigshit when we lose 5-3. I'll stick to more meaningful stats to fret over. Your point would be valid if we were winning loads of games 1-0, 2-0 or 2-1. But we aren't even doing that and the 87 game run merely highlights how incapable we are of winning games of football where we concede two goals (which is pretty often is it not?) We've conceded two or more in 40 of those games.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Oct 30, 2019 15:25:39 GMT
Your point would be valid if we were winning loads of games 1-0, 2-0 or 2-1. But we aren't even doing that and the 87 game run merely highlights how incapable we are of winning games of football where we concede two goals (which is pretty often is it not?) We've conceded two or more in 40 of those games. Exactly- it's a recipe for disaster.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Oct 30, 2019 16:15:35 GMT
Your answer is in the first part of my second sentence. I highlighted it for you so you can't miss it. Oh and by the way, you didn't bother to answer any of my questions either. Tell you what, you go on measuring how many games between 3 goals scored, and be as happy as pigshit when we lose 5-3. I'll stick to more meaningful stats to fret over. Your point would be valid if we were winning loads of games 1-0, 2-0 or 2-1. But we aren't even doing that and the 87 game run merely highlights how incapable we are of winning games of football where we concede two goals (which is pretty often is it not?) No, that statistic does not show we are incapable of winning games. In that 87 game streak, how many did we win? I couldn't be bothered to count, but seeing as we have indeed won games, the number of games between 3 goal bonanzas does not indicate we are incapable of winning. Let's just agree, we are in a bad position in the league and need to improve.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Oct 30, 2019 16:44:04 GMT
Your point would be valid if we were winning loads of games 1-0, 2-0 or 2-1. But we aren't even doing that and the 87 game run merely highlights how incapable we are of winning games of football where we concede two goals (which is pretty often is it not?) No, that statistic does not show we are incapable of winning games. In that 87 game streak, how many did we win? I couldn't be bothered to count, but seeing as we have indeed won games, the number of games between 3 goal bonanzas does not indicate we are incapable of winning. Let's just agree, we are in a bad position in the league and need to improve. 17
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Oct 30, 2019 17:41:36 GMT
Your point would be valid if we were winning loads of games 1-0, 2-0 or 2-1. But we aren't even doing that and the 87 game run merely highlights how incapable we are of winning games of football where we concede two goals (which is pretty often is it not?) No, that statistic does not show we are incapable of winning games. In that 87 game streak, how many did we win? I couldn't be bothered to count, but seeing as we have indeed won games, the number of games between 3 goal bonanzas does not indicate we are incapable of winning. Let's just agree, we are in a bad position in the league and need to improve. I quote "In that 87 game streak, how many did we win?" Not many and we're being hamstrung by our inability to score three or more which, as davef pointed out, means that as we've conceded at least two goals in almost half of those games, the two factors are linked. Anyway, I've said my bit and I get the impression you're just being obtuse so for that reason, I'm out.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Nov 9, 2019 17:22:57 GMT
It's an easily changed statistic. We could go from the rock bottom worst team to the best team in 1 game. I was not saying that we're going to score 3 goals next game. However, if we did, would you be on here broadcasting how brilliant the team is? - No, because they're not and it's a stupid measure of performance. I'd rather look at something meaningful. It’s meaningful right now. No one is even close to us. It’s meaningful right now because Jones promised us that we’d get an exciting team, which means attack and goals - something we’ve clearly not been capable of for a while and don’t look like bucking the trend anytime soon. It’s meaningful right now because we’ve got one of the more expensive squads in the division and they’re massively underperforming, this is another stat that backs this up. It’s another stat that shows how bereft of confidence we are. Our players can’t score goals. The team can’t score goals. It’s another stat that shows the direction of travel we’re heading in and have been for a while. If it’s so easily changed how come we haven’t done it for 87 games whereas the nearest team to us managed to do it 36 games ago? What makes you think we’ll change it easily? Based on this wonderful measure, we are better than every single team in the Premiership because we have played fewer minutes than any of them before since last scoring 3 or more goals!
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Nov 9, 2019 17:30:55 GMT
It’s meaningful right now. No one is even close to us. It’s meaningful right now because Jones promised us that we’d get an exciting team, which means attack and goals - something we’ve clearly not been capable of for a while and don’t look like bucking the trend anytime soon. It’s meaningful right now because we’ve got one of the more expensive squads in the division and they’re massively underperforming, this is another stat that backs this up. It’s another stat that shows how bereft of confidence we are. Our players can’t score goals. The team can’t score goals. It’s another stat that shows the direction of travel we’re heading in and have been for a while. If it’s so easily changed how come we haven’t done it for 87 games whereas the nearest team to us managed to do it 36 games ago? What makes you think we’ll change it easily? Based on this wonderful measure, we are better than every single team in the Premiership because we have played fewer minutes than any of them before since last scoring 3 or more goals! Are you glad we broke it or would you have preferred to stay at 2 goals and take a point?
|
|
|
Post by mrpickles on Nov 9, 2019 17:31:55 GMT
The Northern Ireland fans did say he was a miracle worker!
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Nov 9, 2019 19:32:10 GMT
Based on this wonderful measure, we are better than every single team in the Premiership because we have played fewer minutes than any of them before since last scoring 3 or more goals! Are you glad we broke it or would you have preferred to stay at 2 goals and take a point? it was never about what we did. It is a crappy measure. According to this measure, we are now one of the best teams in the world. I prefer to look at the league table and see that we have made a small improvement but are still far from where I want us to be.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Nov 9, 2019 23:51:39 GMT
Are you glad we broke it or would you have preferred to stay at 2 goals and take a point? it was never about what we did. It is a crappy measure. According to this measure, we are now one of the best teams in the world. I prefer to look at the league table and see that we have made a small improvement but are still far from where I want us to be. So to clarify: A - if we'd not scored the required measurement today (I.e. 3 or more goals) you'd have made your pathetic comment? B - you're delighted we scored 3 (or more goals) and won a game?
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Nov 10, 2019 0:25:39 GMT
Are you glad we broke it or would you have preferred to stay at 2 goals and take a point? it was never about what we did. It is a crappy measure. According to this measure, we are now one of the best teams in the world. I prefer to look at the league table and see that we have made a small improvement but are still far from where I want us to be. Before today, we hadn't scored three goals in a game in 87 matches and nearly two years. In that time we fallen from 14th in the Premier League to bottom of the Championship. Do you think that's a coincidence?
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Nov 10, 2019 0:28:28 GMT
it was never about what we did. It is a crappy measure. According to this measure, we are now one of the best teams in the world. I prefer to look at the league table and see that we have made a small improvement but are still far from where I want us to be. So to clarify: A - if we'd not scored the required measurement today (I.e. 3 or more goals) you'd have made your pathetic comment? B - you're delighted we scored 3 (or more goals) and won a game? Wooooosh!. It's not about what Stoke are doing. It's a crap measure. And yes, if we had won 2-1 or 1-0 I'd be absolutely delighted. To clarify your point, If you thought that this measure was such a good indicator of how crap we are, then logically by the same measure, we are now world beaters. (or is it a crap measure?)
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Nov 10, 2019 0:38:49 GMT
So to clarify: A - if we'd not scored the required measurement today (I.e. 3 or more goals) you'd have made your pathetic comment? B - you're delighted we scored 3 (or more goals) and won a game? Wooooosh!. It's not about what Stoke are doing. It's a crap measure. And yes, if we had won 2-1 or 1-0 I'd be absolutely delighted. To clarify your point, If you thought that this measure was such a good indicator of how crap we are, then logically by the same measure, we are now world beaters. (or is it a crap measure?) So to clarify, you were going with a or b? The whoosh is on your part, you're not looking at the big picture. DaveF gave you plenty of detail earlier in the thread about this. Scored 3, won the game and yet you think you've got a leg to stand on in this argument? You're well off the mark, which probably explains why you don't understand the significance of this stat in our decline to this point - you're clearly used to missing the target ...
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Nov 10, 2019 0:40:37 GMT
it was never about what we did. It is a crappy measure. According to this measure, we are now one of the best teams in the world. I prefer to look at the league table and see that we have made a small improvement but are still far from where I want us to be. Before today, we hadn't scored three goals in a game in 87 matches and nearly two years. In that time we fallen from 14th in the Premier League to bottom of the Championship. Do you think that's a coincidence? He doesn't seem to grasp it's not about being the best when your in such a tumultuous spin, it's about not being the worst and breaking it up. No ones claiming to be world beaters, just not the worst.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Nov 10, 2019 0:45:17 GMT
Wooooosh!. It's not about what Stoke are doing. It's a crap measure. And yes, if we had won 2-1 or 1-0 I'd be absolutely delighted. To clarify your point, If you thought that this measure was such a good indicator of how crap we are, then logically by the same measure, we are now world beaters. (or is it a crap measure?) So to clarify, you were going with a or b? The whoosh is on your part, you're not looking at the big picture. DaveF gave you plenty of detail earlier in the thread about this. Scored 3, won the game and yet you think you've got a leg to stand on in this argument? You're well off the mark, which probably explains why you don't understand the significance of this stat in our decline to this point - you're clearly used to missing the target ... I look at the league table. We have taken a tiny step in the right direction but still in a terrible state. Now that we have 0 games since we last scored 3 in a game, what does this measure tell you today? It's a crap measure of performance, and if you don't get that, fine. Carry on.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2019 0:49:03 GMT
So to clarify, you were going with a or b? The whoosh is on your part, you're not looking at the big picture. DaveF gave you plenty of detail earlier in the thread about this. Scored 3, won the game and yet you think you've got a leg to stand on in this argument? You're well off the mark, which probably explains why you don't understand the significance of this stat in our decline to this point - you're clearly used to missing the target ... I look at the league table. We have taken a tiny step in the right direction but still in a terrible state. Now that we have 0 games since we last scored 3 in a game, what does this measure tell you today? It's a crap measure of performance, and if you don't get that, fine. Carry on. Thank you.
We will.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Nov 10, 2019 7:35:11 GMT
So to clarify, you were going with a or b? The whoosh is on your part, you're not looking at the big picture. DaveF gave you plenty of detail earlier in the thread about this. Scored 3, won the game and yet you think you've got a leg to stand on in this argument? You're well off the mark, which probably explains why you don't understand the significance of this stat in our decline to this point - you're clearly used to missing the target ... I look at the league table. We have taken a tiny step in the right direction but still in a terrible state. Now that we have 0 games since we last scored 3 in a game, what does this measure tell you today? It's a crap measure of performance, and if you don't get that, fine. Carry on. So to clarify, that's answer a or b?
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Nov 11, 2019 16:03:37 GMT
I look at the league table. We have taken a tiny step in the right direction but still in a terrible state. Now that we have 0 games since we last scored 3 in a game, what does this measure tell you today? It's a crap measure of performance, and if you don't get that, fine. Carry on. So to clarify, that's answer a or b? Wow! A) To spell it out for you, Regardless of what the result had been, I still maintain the accurate (not pathetic as you allege) statement, the number of games since you last scored some random number of goals is a crap measure of performance, compared to a myriad of other measures of performance such as league posiution, because you can go from last to first in the space of 90 minutes. Therefore it is not an accurate measure of overall performance. B) Ridiculous question for any Stoke fan. Of Course. Clear enough for you? .... Now how about answering my point of clarification : If, as you maintain, the measure "Number of games since a team last scored 3 or more goals" is a good measure of performance, and we were the worst team in the league; now that we have 0 games since we last scored 3 or more goals, are we the joint best team in the league? Yes or No?
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Nov 11, 2019 16:32:22 GMT
So to clarify, that's answer a or b? Wow! A) To spell it out for you, Regardless of what the result had been, I still maintain the accurate (not pathetic as you allege) statement, the number of games since you last scored some random number of goals is a crap measure of performance, compared to a myriad of other measures of performance such as league posiution, because you can go from last to first in the space of 90 minutes. Therefore it is not an accurate measure of overall performance. B) Ridiculous question for any Stoke fan. Of Course. Clear enough for you? .... Now how about answering my point of clarification : If, as you maintain, the measure "Number of games since a team last scored 3 or more goals" is a good measure of performance, and we were the worst team in the league; now that we have 0 games since we last scored 3 or more goals, are we the joint best team in the league? Yes or No? what a very strange argument. going 87 games and not scoring more than 2 goals is obviously indicative of a team unable to a) score many goals (sorry to state the obvious!) b) beat teams convincingly and coincides with a massive slump in form as you would probably expect of any team unable to achieve this. It means if a team scores 2 against you, then you are unable to win that game for example, that's not good for a start! The mere fact that we have not had a player who could manage a hat-trick in 87 games tells you something (not everything of course!) While it is not entirely an accurate indicator of form, it's obviously very significant. I'd really like to see any evidence of a team going 87 games without scoring over 2 goals in a game being successful! Would have to have an amazing defence. I cant believe anyone can seriously think that going 0 games since we last scored 3 goals or more is a statistic of equal relevance or significance? Must be a wind-up!
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Nov 11, 2019 19:21:25 GMT
So to clarify, that's answer a or b? Wow! A) To spell it out for you, Regardless of what the result had been, I still maintain the accurate (not pathetic as you allege) statement, the number of games since you last scored some random number of goals is a crap measure of performance, compared to a myriad of other measures of performance such as league posiution, because you can go from last to first in the space of 90 minutes. Therefore it is not an accurate measure of overall performance. B) Ridiculous question for any Stoke fan. Of Course. Clear enough for you? .... Now how about answering my point of clarification : If, as you maintain, the measure "Number of games since a team last scored 3 or more goals" is a good measure of performance, and we were the worst team in the league; now that we have 0 games since we last scored 3 or more goals, are we the joint best team in the league? Yes or No? No - we're not the worst in the league though now. This isn't a stat about who's the best, it's about who's the worst. That's why it was phrased as "it's been so many games since" There's only one person on here claiming in anyway shape or form that the stat has relevance to being the best and that's you. If you want to start as your stat then that's great, I have no opinion either way - but when it comes back to the original context of the stat and we go 80 odd games without scoring 3 or more goals I'll raise the same concerns. Maybe you should try reading all the words instead of just looking at a couple of them and making up some mad stuff about being the best in the country (which no one except you is claiming).
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Nov 11, 2019 19:30:26 GMT
Wow! A) To spell it out for you, Regardless of what the result had been, I still maintain the accurate (not pathetic as you allege) statement, the number of games since you last scored some random number of goals is a crap measure of performance, compared to a myriad of other measures of performance such as league posiution, because you can go from last to first in the space of 90 minutes. Therefore it is not an accurate measure of overall performance. B) Ridiculous question for any Stoke fan. Of Course. Clear enough for you? .... Now how about answering my point of clarification : If, as you maintain, the measure "Number of games since a team last scored 3 or more goals" is a good measure of performance, and we were the worst team in the league; now that we have 0 games since we last scored 3 or more goals, are we the joint best team in the league? Yes or No? No - we're not the worst in the league though now. This isn't a stat about who's the best, it's about who's the worst. That's why it was phrased as "it's been so many games since" There's only one person on here claiming in anyway shape or form that the stat has relevance to being the best and that's you. If you want to start as your stat then that's great, I have no opinion either way - but when it comes back to the original context of the stat and we go 80 odd games without scoring 3 or more goals I'll raise the same concerns. Maybe you should try reading all the words instead of just looking at a couple of them and making up some mad stuff about being the best in the country (which no one except you is claiming). My point exactly! You claim it's a good stat to measure who's the worst in the country, but not who's the best. Fine. My only comment about this stat is it's a crap measure. You want to continue the debate, I'm afraid you'll have to debate with yourself.
|
|