or to join or start a new Discussion

Articles/all comments
These 30 comments are related to an article called:

How can stats be so different?

Page 1 of 2

posted on 16/9/12

not even 63 was 66 on sky.

posted on 16/9/12

67 in the echo!

posted on 16/9/12

It is 66, OPTA stats is used by Sky.
It's also on the Liverpool website.

posted on 16/9/12

still same old story... All possesion and no goals

comment by Neo (U9135)

posted on 16/9/12

So much possession yet so little penetration and no one who can shoot

posted on 16/9/12

It's Aston Villa and we did score
Arsenal who put 6 past a team yesterday couldn't even score 1 past them

posted on 16/9/12

villa?

posted on 16/9/12

Only stat that matters is Sunderland 1 - 1 Liverpool.

posted on 16/9/12

kash agreed

posted on 16/9/12

Sky still believe Gerrard has the ball on a piece of string, that's why.

posted on 16/9/12

On a few occasions, Allen made a bad pass. Thank god!!! He's human after all. Organisationally, team-work-wise, while Sterling impressed, Allen kept the team together. On reflection, biggest impression??? How much we are missing Lucas. Anyone got any news on him? JimmyTheRed

posted on 16/9/12

boris the city fan uses bbc stats. Sky stats have the full picture territorial or normal possession. Anyway I always use sky stats as blocked shots count as on target shots on the bbc website even if you shot 30yds out straight at goal and it gets blocked 25yds away. Even bbc commentary on match day they use opta stats. I remember when a game showed man utd having like 9 shots on target and stoke had 1 I believe and they used opta to say all 3 shots on target have gone in. Man utd won 2-1.

comment by statto (U15683)

posted on 17/9/12

We need to get over this possession obsession. Possesion stats are worthless unless you do something with it. Possession doesn't win a game, goals do.

posted on 17/9/12

I like how some people think because a team scored more goals they deserved to win. They may win but do a smash and grab win. Perfect way to show that is chelsea 1-0 barcelona. Most one sided game by barcelona and chelsea with there only shot on target score. Yes chelsea won, but its all about the luck. It was not good defending, just on anopther day they score 6 or 7 but destiny was shining on chelsea and ball hit the post or cec was in the way.

Possession tyres teams down hence barca and spain have been so successful likewise man utd because we keep the ball well and attack most if the time leaving opponents dazed then space comes and goals come. In fact watch the second half against wigan we had virtually all of the possession attacking played deep in wigans half similar to how barca play and made wigan not live with us.

comment by statto (U15683)

posted on 17/9/12

hajur defence is just as important as attack, barca may have dominated the possesion and dictated the play but they couldnt score. chelsea defended very well and were clinical when it came to scoring.

barca passed very well but defended awful.

posted on 17/9/12

comment by statto (U15683)

posted 18 minutes ago

hajur defence is just as important as attack, barca may have dominated the possesion and dictated the play but they couldnt score. chelsea defended very well and were clinical when it came to scoring.

barca passed very well but defended awful.
.........................................
This has to be the most dumbest comment I have seen in ja606. On another day they win 12-3 on aggregate. Just luck and bad finishing by barcelona and chelsea scoring from every attack in both legs. Heck chelsea had 4 shots on target against barcelona and the one that did not go in was from behind the half way line.

I just lol at dumb people who say they teams defended well when teams have 60 shots ish against them and chelsea had like 10 in both games.

Barca defended very well, to only allow chelsea so few shots and have so many shots show that. It was just 3 break away goals. Chelsea scored from all 3 chances they created. Barca scored one goal every 30 chances compared to chelsea one goal every chance.

Are you that dumb. If barca defended awful they would have let chelsea shoot 30 chances instead. Luck and bad finishing stopped it being a 10 goal winning margin for barca. If you actually look at the chances its crazy what score it could have been if barcelona took there chances like chelsea. Probably 15-3 on aggregate.

posted on 17/9/12

using your logic a team goes clean through 30 times but by missing every single time means the opposition defended well by conceding 30 chances while they have 1 shot bounces of 5 or 6 deflection 30yd shot and goes in and you will say they deserved to win. Of course without bad decisions but just because a team wins doesn't mean its deserved. In chelseas case they did a smash and grab.

comment by statto (U15683)

posted on 17/9/12

if a team has 60 shots in two games and fails to score more than the opposition who have 4. I think that tells its own story. poor finishing. sonething my team are currently great at.

comment by statto (U15683)

posted on 17/9/12

football is about tactics they got them right, contain barca until the final third, get some luck along the way and be deadly when a chance arises. pretty football doesnt to deserve a victory. nothing deserves victory other than the score. thats what history remembers

posted on 17/9/12

comment by statto (U15683)

posted 59 seconds ago

if a team has 60 shots in two games and fails to score more than the opposition who have 4. I think that tells its own story. poor finishing. sonething my team are currently great at.
.............................................
You don't get it do you, teams win by luck. You need luck to win any game. If barca played chelsea same way they would win most of the time. Heck chelsea performance against athletico madrid was 2x better then they played against bayuern munich or barcelona and athletico madrid could have scpred 8 or 9 goals easily.

comment by statto (U15683)

posted on 17/9/12

they defended poorly because with so little shots, so little posession they got beat by clinical finishing, ots mot about if buts candies and nuts its about who scores most by whatever legal means possible. ie tactics. chelsea obviously got it right becuase they won big ears

comment by statto (U15683)

posted on 17/9/12

your problem is you fovus too muvh on what could of happened, I live in a world where I bade my opinion on what has actually haopened. go back to your fairytale land of giants and unicorns.

posted on 17/9/12

comment by statto (U15683)

posted 28 seconds ago

football is about tactics they got them right, contain barca until the final third, get some luck along the way and be deadly when a chance arises. pretty football doesnt to deserve a victory. nothing deserves victory other than the score. thats what history remembers
................................................
Teams who create the most chances normally win. Theres a reason why barca have won 3 champions leagues in last 6 years. Theres a reason why man utd have reached 3 champions league finals undefeated in last 5 years. Just that most of the time if you are good you do well.

Chelsea deserved to beat barca in 2009 but barca completely dominated chelsea in 2012, probably the most one sided semi-final/

I think you statto are getting mixed up with results and who desrved to win, a team can win completely undeserved. It happens probably once in a while hence why top teams normally win in the league.

comment by statto (U15683)

posted on 17/9/12

no teams who take there chances normally win.

posted on 17/9/12

thats not true, if man utd have 30 chances and take 10% of them while a team has 2 chances and takes 100% of them man utd win. A lot of games seem to happen like that against man utd.

Page 1 of 2

Sign in if you want to comment