Did Fulham Profit from the Absence of De Jong? [Article]

[Dax777]

What the statistic show is that more likely than not, De jong would not have changed the outcme of the game.

Simply put, Fulham hit an outlier in their conversion rate, and it paid off. Stats that show more than whether we won or lost a game when so and so was playing, are infinetly much more telling, than some fan's myopic view of "what may have happened" if De Jong was there. fact is we don't know what May have happened.

What the stat simply shows is that Fulham attacked at a lower rate than they have all season (understandably so as they were going up against better opposition than normal) but somehow converted at a higher rate than they usually do.

Thus, it is conceivable that even if De Jong was in the game, Fulham could have attacked at an even lower rate (than the lower than average rate they did) and yet still convert at such a high rate to get them the points they did.

Things like this sometimes happen. And it happened this weekend. Time to move on, and work on improving our conversion rate, not to mention our CD defending, which also has been poor.

The De Jong claims are a non-starter really.

 

[Jumanji]

Which De Jong claims you talking about Dax?

 

[balkanno]

The thing is those Stats don t show our traning mode (usually 55min - 65min) as it sums everything.

There is small room for stats to be usefull, others re just crap. The "Covered distance" is a pretty good indicator to get the big picture but they also aint 100% for sure. A usual Football covers 7000-8000m if hes 90mins just walk.

 

[Dax777]

Which De Jong claims you talking about Dax?

The bolded below. I mean what really does it tell us? How many have we won this season without him? should we then conclude he is not needed coz we are yet to lose without him in 6 tries?

I'd rather stick to stats like the one in the article you posted, than what some BM fan wrote below. It just doesn't say anything about anything. I mean who esle was unavailable? Who else was injured? What form were are forwards in (I.e did this coincide with Tevez's drought?) Was this when Silva got banged up? Was Yaya fasting? Was Lescott just getting blooded in? Was Kolo under suspicion? Were we without a plan B (AJ?) Who were we playing against? Chelsea's and United's or Blackburns and Blackpools?

There are just so many unaccounted for variables to take such a claim seriously. Yet this is a claim being made by someone who just derided a thoughtful statistical analysis of one game. I mean it is laughable really.

And besides the financial and moral support being giving by 'match going fans' there frankly is no superior value to going to the actual match! The idea that you see better at the actual match is an outdated idea that has persisted from the era of when one long lensed camera was used to film a match.

In today's world of technology, with replays, 3 D reconstruction, sky cam, and the works, you are bound to see more watching on Tele than you are watching from one stationary corner at the game. That there are still those who buy into the fallacy that they see better at the game than those watching at home is beyond laughable.

What a bunch of wrongly interpretated statistical crap.. who would waste their time doing that?

It means nothing, as the fact is.. we miss DeJong in certain games, namely the last 2.
We only won one of the 7 games he missed last season..

I, along with most match going fans, can see this on the day.. without referring to meaningless, new fangled statistical nonsense..

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

What a bunch of wrongly interpretated statistical crap.. who would waste their time doing that?

It means nothing, as the fact is.. we miss DeJong in certain games, namely the last 2.
We only won one of the 7 games he missed last season..

I, along with most match going fans, can see this on the day.. without referring to meaningless, new fangled statistical nonsense..

The psychological effect a player has on the rest can't be measured by dots on a board.

 

[bobby chariots]

Interesting in terms what it tells us about stats. I think it demonstrates that stats alone cannot be the deciding factor in terms of decisions about player selection/tactics.
The article, overall, is pointing to a multiplicity of factors that influence outcomes.

Thanks for posting it jumanji.

BTW - how some people 'react' to opinions they dont agree with on this forum could be improved somewhat, dont you think?

 

[THFC6061]

I'm sorry, but the absence of one player simply cannot excuse a team of Manchester City's strengths giving away a two-goal lead against the bottom club in the Premier League.

Until you address this problem, the chances of City becoming League Champions are very slim, I'm afraid.

 

[scenecreamer]

I'm sorry, but the absence of one player simply cannot excuse a team of Manchester City's strengths giving away a two-goal lead against the bottom club in the Premier League.

Until you address this problem, the chances of City becoming League Champions are very slim, I'm afraid.

This "bottom club in the Premier League" argument is silly and tired. Maybe at the end of the season, but right now it isn't valid. They played very well in the second half. I doubt they will be at the bottom for much longer.

 

[whats the point???]

yes. yes they did

 

[lincolnblue]

Yes. So did Napoli.