FIFA World Cup 2014 - GROUP D [Uruguay, Costa Rica, England, Italy - 14/19/20/24 June] **spoilers**

Is this the new fashion having two different coloured boots? Thought it was just one player trying to hard to be cool, but there's a few of them in this game.
 
Even if Italy win, Italy vs Uruguay should still be good. Italy still can't lose to Uruguay or they might not progress.
 
Loki said:
Said exactly the same thing last night. Sooner players like Rooney and Gerrard **** it all off and concentrate on their club football the better. They don't get any credit for it and are often the ones to blame for England Crashing out of any major tournament.


We all know DrunkenMaster loves a good stat to bend his own stupid ******* arguments. Unless of course the facts discredit his argument then he comes up with the usual clap trap about stats being meaningless
Click to expand...


It's amazing how when people have stats explained to them they spout completely nonsense about me to somehow make their stats more useful, when they aren't.

I don't love a good stat, I like using stats as a part of an argument.

Rooney has consistently performed like crap in games for England for the past 2 years while still scoring.

I do not use stats on their own, they back up an argument. If your argument is purely the stat itself and you have no idea how to interpret it, then it IS meaningless.

Take your useless stats, who has played as Englands striker the most in the past 4 years.... Rooney, who is involved in the attacking play on a pitch more than a striker... no one. So you would expect whatever striker to start significantly more than any other player in the past 4 years to be involved in most of the attacking play, score the most goals and get a good number of assists.

What you don't mention is who he scored against, the general quality of the opposition in the past 4 years... you posted a stat with no context, making it meaningless. I gave the stats context, which show that being the top scorer when you start more than anyone else, is a pretty useless stat, may as well say the sky is blue... the reply from me is the same in either case... du'h.

Do you think Carroll would have outscored Rooney in the past 4 years? What about, Welbeck, or, any other striker who has played a lot lot less than Rooney? Completely useless stat. Again I'll point out, Crouch had 20 or so in 40 appearances, does that make him a brilliant striker who should start in the world cup? What about put this way, imagine Suarez was English, and had barely played at all for England with Rooney starting, would you expect Suarez to magically score loads of goals while not playing? probably shouldn't point out that 11 goals in 4 years is pretty crap. Defoe has half, how many minutes has Defoe played vs Rooney, I'd bet on it being less than 25% of the minutes yet scoring more than half as much.

Why are say Vela's stats good, because he's got around 15 goals/10 assists a season in the league for 3 years, it shows consistency. I've actually watched the games, he's frequently the best player on the pitch, he's put in fantastic performances against Valencia, Barca, Real, Atletico, he isn't just performing against the bottom 6 teams in the league.

The stats BACK UP what I can see, what anyone can see when they watch a game.

You can also score that many and be crap. Vela could look the best player in the world but if he started every game and got 2 assists a season and no goals, then regardless of how good he looks he wouldn't be effective and I wouldn't play him.


Do you think stats for Hart might show he's conceded the most goals, and saved the most goals for England... you think that's because he's a brilliant or crap keeper, or because he's the only one who really plays?
 
Last edited:
drunkenmaster said:
It's amazing how when people have stats explained to them they spout completely nonsense about me to somehow make their stats more useful, when they aren't.

I don't love a good stat, I like using stats as a part of an argument.

Rooney has consistently performed like crap in games for England for the past 2 years while still scoring.

I do not use stats on their own, they back up an argument. If your argument is purely the stat itself and you have no idea how to interpret it, then it IS meaningless.

Take your useless stats, who has played as Englands striker the most in the past 4 years.... Rooney, who is involved in the attacking play on a pitch more than a striker... no one. So you would expect whatever striker to start significantly more than any other player in the past 4 years to be involved in most of the attacking play, score the most goals and get a good number of assists.

What you don't mention is who he scored against, the general quality of the opposition in the past 4 years... you posted a stat with no context, making it meaningless. I gave the stats context, which show that being the top scorer when you start more than anyone else, is a pretty useless stat, may as well say the sky is blue... the reply from me is the same in either case... du'h.

Do you think Carroll would have outscored Rooney in the past 4 years? What about, Welbeck, or, any other striker who has played a lot lot less than Rooney? Completely useless stat. Again I'll point out, Crouch had 20 or so in 40 appearances, does that make him a brilliant striker who should start in the world cup? What about put this way, imagine Suarez was English, and had barely played at all for England with Rooney starting, would you expect Suarez to magically score loads of goals while not playing? probably shouldn't point out that 11 goals in 4 years is pretty crap. Defoe has half, how many minutes has Defoe played vs Rooney, I'd bet on it being less than 25% of the minutes yet scoring more than half as much.

Why are say Vela's stats good, because he's got around 15 goals/10 assists a season in the league for 3 years, it shows consistency. I've actually watched the games, he's frequently the best player on the pitch, he's put in fantastic performances against Valencia, Barca, Real, Atletico, he isn't just performing against the bottom 6 teams in the league.

The stats BACK UP what I can see, what anyone can see when they watch a game.

You can also score that many and be crap. Vela could look the best player in the world but if he started every game and got 2 assists a season and no goals, then regardless of how good he looks he wouldn't be effective and I wouldn't play him.


Do you think stats for Hart might show he's conceded the most goals, and saved the most goals for England... you think that's because he's a brilliant or crap keeper, or because he's the only one who really plays?
Click to expand...

Ok so your trying to argue the stats with context to prove he is 'Crap' Am I missing something when one is clearly objective and the other subjective.

Not saying you are prone to Hyperbole but for you reference.

hy·per·bo·le [hahy-pur-buh-lee] Show IPA
noun Rhetoric .
1.
obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2.
an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”
Compare litotes.

Origin:
1520–30; < Greek hyperbolḗ excess, exaggeration, throwing beyond, equivalent to hyper- hyper- + bolḗ throw

Synonyms
2. overstatement.

Antonyms
2. understatement.

Is Rooney really that crap or are you just exaggerating or overstating it because its your personal feeling. My feeling is that he isn't crap and I am basing that on performances, effort and application of a skill set I have seen in the flesh.

When you have one of your best technical attackers in the first game facing his own goal more than the oppositions goal, there is something fundamentally wrong with the team set up and tactics.
 
Except for Rooney has done it for utd also, and for several years and to an increasing degree every season, which rules out it being an England problem.

Again I'd point out, the twice he made "attacker" style runs, he was involved in two goals. The problem I've said is that Rooney can be good, he chooses to play this way for whatever reason and he IS crap playing the way he does. He refuses to play as a proper attacker, he shies away from runs at the defence, with or without the ball. He ran back to the half way line because he wants to, not because he has to, and because he does it so often it screws up what everyone else is doing. Instead of stretching the defence and making space, he runs to midfield reducing space and giving no options forward.

Countless times he got the ball, had space to drive forwards and actively chose not to. This is a problem with him and no one else, tactics, team mates, team, it's Rooney that does it.

If he played as an out and out striker I would have no problem actually starting him, it's that he consistently refuses to play the role.

Also no, stats aren't objective(presuming you meant stats), they are just stats, 11 goals in 4 years could be great, if you played 3 times in 4 years, or horrendous if you played 400 times, the stat is subjective in this case based on how many games he played, more specifically how many minutes he played(amongst many other comparisons that can be made, to other players time on pitch vs goals, to who they score against, etc).

Those stats are clearly attempting to show(I presume by you as well but I mean by whoever made the graphic) that Rooney is our best attacker because he's got the most goals. But what if a table of goals to minutes on the pitch put him 8th , and bottom, in a list of strikers. 11 goals in 4 years wouldn't be any less true but combined with other stats gives a much stronger picture.

The worst players in the world given enough game time eventually score/assist, even defenders, hell, even keepers now and then.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom