Pezo Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 The problem with prozone is whether people use it objectively or look for evidence to support conclusions they've already reached. Millen using it to describe width as a myth tells me it is easy to misuse. Very true - what happens in that circumstance is Millen had a belief and some data must have shown that it was true. This is where everything fails because both parts of whole have got it wrong. But surly its better to have an un bias load of data plus your own opinion than A)just your opinion which can be swayed or B)Just the data which can be misinterpreted. Its not going to get it right every time but the 2 combined should give a better overview than they both can in there individual parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Very true - what happens in that circumstance is Millen had a belief and some data must have shown that it was true. This is where everything fails because both parts of whole have got it wrong. But surly its better to have an un bias load of data plus your own opinion than A)just your opinion which can be swayed or B)Just the data which can be misinterpreted. Its not going to get it right every time but the 2 combined should give a better overview than they both can in there individual parts. The point is the data can be made to fit any viewpoint you happen to hold. For that reason alone statistical analysis is a very easy tool to misuse. There are other ways in which is can do more harm than good - for example: - stops you observing valuable things that aren't recorded - makes it harder to identify and deal with consistently bad decisions as they can be made to look justifiable - stops you taking decisions you can't back up with data (even though they're right - you won't have an excuse) - makes you think tactically (reacting to data) rather than strategically about the longer term goals and philosophy behind them In the footballing side of the club I think we're very guilty of the latter two of those. Prozone is useful where it makes you aware of something you hadn't noticed, that's about it. Who ran the farthest or how many crosses got attempted are pieces of information so lacking in context that they are useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tunley Legend Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I wonder whether Prozone would have told Keith Millen that Stoke destroyed Arsenal down the flanks? If not, simply watching the game would have given him the answer!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindjuicer Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Millen using it to describe width as a myth tells me it is easy to misuse. From what I remember of the interview, Millen was responding defensively to perceived criticism of our formation. He was not saying "Skuse put in 8 ineffectual crosses so everything's OK". He was saying "I'm as pissed off about our lack of final third play as you are so shut up about it already". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 He was saying that the lack of width wasn't the problem because we put in lots of crosses when it bloody obviously was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellRedPhil Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Im sure Lee feels the same way about u We don't pay him though, do we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindjuicer Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 He was saying that the lack of width wasn't the problem because we put in lots of crosses when it bloody obviously was. That's not what I got at all. Where's the clip? Also "width" has been used as magic word here for months, with little acknowledgement that it's almost as vague a word as "attack". Also fast, affordable wingers who can dribble, track back and are able to get the ball to our forwards in good positions don't exist. Lastly, the performance of our CMs, inability to counter and lack of confidence all seem more significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 That's not what I got at all. Where's the clip? Somewhere on the BBC site I guess. Also "width" has been used as magic word here for months, with little acknowledgement that it's almost as vague a word as "attack". Also fast, affordable wingers who can dribble, track back and are able to get the ball to our forwards in good positions don't exist. Magic word? Hardly. Bloody obvious problem with massive knock on effects that might be too subtle for you to notice? Possibly. Lastly, the performance of our CMs, inability to counter and lack of confidence all seem more significant. The root cause of all of those is the narrow formation and cautious style. I could go into more detail but I've done it a million times before and this is already off topic so use search if you're interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest boss192 Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 What is the point in all this continual chat about lee johnson? everyone has a different opinion of his quality,some for and some against...one thing is obvious IMO and it's the fact that in league 1 lee was very good,but in the championship i have found him average at best...take away the fact his dad is manager and dismiss the boo-boys,the fact of the matter is he is'nt what we need or are looking for.Even on a bad day Elliot is some way in front of Lee,include Hartley,Sno,Skuse,Williams and where on earth does Lee fit in???...Look at it this way and most of you with rose tinted glass's will realise his move was for the best for the team,the good of the club,and let's our team move forward and not backward...surely that's the direction we all want to move in,right???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindjuicer Posted January 27, 2010 Report Share Posted January 27, 2010 The root cause of all of those is the narrow formation and cautious style. I could go into more detail but I've done it a million times before and this is already off topic so use search if you're interested. Fancy revising that opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 27, 2010 Report Share Posted January 27, 2010 No. Our back four were clueless, are you really going to suggest we lost six nil due to width? It was pretty obvious what happened last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindjuicer Posted January 27, 2010 Report Share Posted January 27, 2010 No. Our back four were clueless, are you really going to suggest we lost six nil due to width? Oh dear. You're the one blaming everything on lack of width. I said: "Lastly, the performance of our CMs, inability to counter and lack of confidence all seem more significant." You replied: "The root cause of all of those is the narrow formation and cautious style." So how is "narrow formation and cautious style" the "root cause" of "all of those" (all 3 featuring very strongly) last night when we played 4-4-2 with 2 decent wingers??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 27, 2010 Report Share Posted January 27, 2010 Oh dear. You're the one blaming everything on lack of width. I said: "Lastly, the performance of our CMs, inability to counter and lack of confidence all seem more significant." You replied: "The root cause of all of those is the narrow formation and cautious style." So how is "narrow formation and cautious style" the "root cause" of "all of those" (all 3 featuring very strongly) last night when we played 4-4-2 with 2 decent wingers??? Stop talking cock. Narrow formation is why our central midfielders have been struggling as they have no options to pass to and no movement ahead of them since everyone was easily crowded in central, same reason we can't counter as we have no outlets wide, and this leads to shit results which is why we get low confidence. Last night's result does not in any way change that. Last night we played with width, we were good going forward for the first 20 minutes. Unfortunately our keeper and back four forgot things they should have learned when still at junior school, presumably not helped by the fact that we haven't picked a settled side this season in terms of personnel or shape, and then after the second goal they completely bottled it. It's hard to believe someone who watched that debacle and has a clue about football doesn't understand that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindjuicer Posted January 27, 2010 Report Share Posted January 27, 2010 Narrow formation is why our central midfielders have been struggling as they have no options to pass to and no movement ahead of them since everyone was easily crowded in central, same reason we can't counter as we have no outlets wide None? Since when do you need wingers to counter? which is why we get low confidence. Yes, there could be no other cause of this. It's hard to believe someone who watched that debacle and has a clue about football doesn't understand that. It's not hard to believe you're ducking and diving on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 27, 2010 Report Share Posted January 27, 2010 None? Since when do you need wingers to counter? You need outlets to counter fast. Having only one (the long ball up the middle) makes it very easy to defend. Yes, there could be no other cause of this. Low confidence: - shit results - chopping and changing all the time - management style ? What else? Ah - you're going to blame the fans aren't you? Haha yeah very good. It's not hard to believe you're ducking and diving on this issue. I'm not ducking and diving anything. My views on our weaknesses this season are crystal clear and there for all to see. Last night does nothing to change those, if anything it re-enforces them. We need to pick a formation and style with some width and balance, stick to it and have a settled back four. Not the first time or even the fifth time I've said those things. Maybe I'm missing something - if so post an actual question and I will answer it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.