Discuss Pellegrini...(cont)

[taconinja]

Who did his job, correct? And is there need for additional hostility in a traditionally hostile discussion topic?

If giving the ball to somebody who can shoot is the totality of Nasri's job in your mind then we're going to huge major problems discussing this topic with any form of relevance.

Being reductive doesn't suit you.

 

[Damocles]

So getting the ball to someone in the position to shoot is neither good nor bad?

Odd too when you considef he 'only passes backwards'

Not specifically no. Here's the problems with it:

• We have no idea whether it was a good idea to give the person the ball in each of those instances.
  
• Nasri, like all players, has numerous jobs and this is just a single one of them.
  
• We don't know whether 8 times he did this was what he should have achieved. Maybe he should have had 10 key passes? Maybe he should have had 4 and he made 2 brilliant contributions? There is no context to his performance.
  
• Statistics don't particularly work in football in the way you are using them because it is not a closed environment. There are too many variables to track in decision making to have any bearing on whether he had a "good" performance.
  
• Nobody even knows how to define a "good performance" to the point of agreement so trying to use statistics about passing to support the idea is backwards. You are using a trivial statistic that isn't indicative of anything to support the notion that he performed something that nobody has agreed on the definition of.

This isn't to comment on Nasri's performance either way, just to comment on a poor use of statistics that don't mean anything at all.

 

[taconinja]

So getting the ball to someone in the position to shoot is neither good nor bad?

Odd too when you considef he 'only passes backwards'

Not specifically no. Here's the problems with it:

• We have no idea whether it was a good idea to give the person the ball in each of those instances.
  
• Nasri, like all players, has numerous jobs and this is just a single one of them.
  
• We don't know whether 8 times he did this was what he should have achieved. Maybe he should have had 10 key passes? Maybe he should have had 4 and he made 2 brilliant contributions? There is no context to his performance.
  
• Statistics don't particularly work in football in the way you are using them because it is not a closed environment. There are too many variables to track in decision making to have any bearing on whether he had a "good" performance.
  
• Nobody even knows how to define a "good performance" to the point of agreement so trying to use statistics about passing to support the idea is backwards. You are using a trivial statistic that isn't indicative of anything to support the notion that he performed something that nobody has agreed on the definition of.

This isn't to comment on Nasri's performance either way, just to comment on a poor use of statistics that don't mean anything at all.

It would indicate he wasn't hiding, though, wouldn't it? That by the way was the entirety of my point. You don't put people in shooting positions as an attacking midfielder if you're hiding.

 

[Damocles]

It would indicate he wasn't hiding, though, wouldn't it? That by the way was the entirety of my point. You don't put people in shooting positions as an attacking midfielder if you're hiding.

Why?

What if every time he got the ball he immediately kicked it to the striker who had nobody else around him so had to shoot?

He'd have 20 key passes then and it doesn't mean he didn't hide or that he had a good game. Again, it's the poor use of statistics to try and support the point that I'm arguing against.

 

[taconinja]

It would indicate he wasn't hiding, though, wouldn't it? That by the way was the entirety of my point. You don't put people in shooting positions as an attacking midfielder if you're hiding.

Why?

What if every time he got the ball he immediately kicked it to the striker who had nobody else around him so had to shoot?

He'd have 20 key passes then and it doesn't mean he didn't hide or that he had a good game. Again, it's the poor use of statistics to try and support the point that I'm arguing against.

Well how about you apply that same standard to the fucking shit post I responded to? You know the one where a player was accused of hiding at Palace with nothing of god damned substance to back it up.

Edit: Also screw your hypotheticals. Is that what you saw yesterday, or are you digging your damned heels in because you've got a point to prove and who cares what actually happened?

 

[Damocles]

Well how about you apply that same standard to the fucking shit post I responded to? You know the one where a player was accused of hiding at Palace with nothing of god damned substance to back it up.

Yours also had nothing of substance to back it up, which is my point.

I have no problem with people giving their opinion on something, I don't think anything needs backing up to any degree more than this let alone by poorly using statistics.

 

[NQCitizen]

So getting the ball to someone in the position to shoot is neither good nor bad?

Odd too when you considef he 'only passes backwards'

Not specifically no. Here's the problems with it:

• We have no idea whether it was a good idea to give the person the ball in each of those instances.
  
• Nasri, like all players, has numerous jobs and this is just a single one of them.
  
• We don't know whether 8 times he did this was what he should have achieved. Maybe he should have had 10 key passes? Maybe he should have had 4 and he made 2 brilliant contributions? There is no context to his performance.
  
• Statistics don't particularly work in football in the way you are using them because it is not a closed environment. There are too many variables to track in decision making to have any bearing on whether he had a "good" performance.
  
• Nobody even knows how to define a "good performance" to the point of agreement so trying to use statistics about passing to support the idea is backwards. You are using a trivial statistic that isn't indicative of anything to support the notion that he performed something that nobody has agreed on the definition of.

This isn't to comment on Nasri's performance either way, just to comment on a poor use of statistics that don't mean anything at all.

I agree with all that but in context set against his team mates if he contributes a greater input he deserves recognition.

He did set up the winner.

I think Samir takes way too much stick, he's scored crucial winning goals in massive games. He's hardly a shrinking violet, people seems to have a huge problem with him looking to keep the ball as opposed to talking risk after risk.

His ball retention is amazing and he's a decent finisher.

Yet people suggest he should be dropped just because he's a 'shithouse' or 'bottler' when he's actually contributed in pressure situations for often than not.

He's not Silva, but he's more than good enough to start against Everton and earn a new deal.

Nasri, Kolarov, Dzeko and Garcia are great squad players we should be glad to have, and while their limitations may irritate us sometimes what we get out of them will cost 100m+ just to match.

 

[taconinja]

Well how about you apply that same standard to the fucking shit post I responded to? You know the one where a player was accused of hiding at Palace with nothing of god damned substance to back it up.

Yours also had nothing of substance to back it up, which is my point.

I have no problem with people giving their opinion on something, I don't think anything needs backing up to any degree more than this let alone by poorly using statistics.

Your point is you don't like the player. Period. That's the entirety of your point and you don't give a single fuck as to anything else right now. Good for you. Who played the pass that released Toure for his goal? I don't know! The player was hiding too effectively to tell.

 

[Damocles]

Well how about you apply that same standard to the fucking shit post I responded to? You know the one where a player was accused of hiding at Palace with nothing of god damned substance to back it up.

Yours also had nothing of substance to back it up, which is my point.

I have no problem with people giving their opinion on something, I don't think anything needs backing up to any degree more than this let alone by poorly using statistics.

Your point is you don't like the player. Period. That's the entirety of your point and you don't give a single fuck as to anything else right now. Good for you. Who played the pass that released Toure for his goal? I don't know! The player was hiding too effectively to tell.

Are you sure?

Because it feels to me that my point is that people misuse statistics and don't really understand them. But now I'm not sure because you obviously have a better understanding of what I'm thinking than me.

I was thinking of burgers for tea. Do you think I'll fancy it later?

 

[supercity88]

I don't think Nasri played as well as needed. He managed to pass the ball into space for Yaya, but that would not have been an assist for many players - Yaya had a lot to do to score there and it was a simple pass - the Dzeko one-two with Yaya was the creating sequence for the goal. Rather than take the ball and control the game, as Silva would have done in Nasri's position, we rarely had much linkage between midfield and attack. Milner doesn't do much other than graft (which we need for Everton) and Nasri needs to be the guile but is too often a passenger. I too think Goodison is a game we must play without him - we need more than someone who drifts in and out of the game - I don't know whether we are going to risk Silva, but if we can then swapping him for Nasri will make us a much better side. Aguero rarely got a break of things in the game - with Silva he will have much more to feed onto.