Washington!

[Rangers77]

I find it a bit pathetic that Nasser has been so vehemently called out on this issue yet I was just as vocal on CW as he was and I haven't taken any stick. Doesn't sit right with me.
I still stand by the fact that, until the last few games, he was complete shite, but I'm happy to see his improvement and want him to continue that.

You don't p iss people off, Ginge. You converse and listen, mate.

[Stanley]

I don't masquerade them as being factual, I merely give factual backing in the form of stats to whatever my opinion is. It's always been an opinion, it just has backing from facts.

Nas, we've been here before, and that would be fine if you were wholly impartial with your utilising of stats over the entire squad.

Where you come unstuck is you are often highly selective in your use of stats, so as to portray your personal favourite players in a more favourable light and equally, your non-favourite players in a poorer light.

IMO this is the reason why you get so much stick on here. If you really want credibility as a statistician you cannot allow your personal opinions of a player to affect your judgments of them in your stat based posts. I appreciate that's not an easy thing to achieve, but it's crucial to do so nevertheless.

I hope that provides some food for thought.

[nasser95]

Nice backtracking. Just highlights how stupid a comment it was in the first place

No backtracking, have always said that if he does well it means we're doing well. I've also always said I couldn't care less who was up front as long as they were doing what they're paid to do, scoring. If it's Conor, good for him, if it's Smith, good for him, if it's sylla, good for him. No matter who's there, as long as they are playing well, I'm happy with them. If they aren't I'll criticise.

[Kevin Mcleod]

I think we should have a Naz amnesty.
Start again from scratch from today and let him judge washington again accordingly .

Peas.

[Ginger Ninja]

You don't p iss people off, Ginge. You converse and listen, mate.

So does Nasser mate, it's just his use of stats seems to rub people the wrong way. Maybe it's because those stats prove someone wrong sometimes and they don't like it, I dunno. Personally never cared for stats but that doesn't mean he has any less right to his opinion. On the subject of CW I have been just as critical and stubborn (for want of a better word) as Nasser, but haven't had any backlash from anyone. Just a bit strange to me mate that's all.

[nasser95]

Nas, that would be fine if you were wholly impartial with your utilising of stats over the entire squad.

Where you come unstuck is you are often highly selective in your use of stats, so as to portray your personal favourite players in a more favourable light and equally, your non-favourite players in a poorer light.

IMO this is the reason why you get so much stick on here. If you really want credibility as a statistician you cannot allow your personal opinions of a player to affect your judgments of them in your stat based posts. I appreciate that's not an easy thing to achieve, but it's crucial to do so nevertheless.

I hope that provides a little food for thought.

I appreciate what you're saying but disagree wholeheartedly. I come here to post up my opinions, just like everyone else. I then ensure that my opinions have valid back up in the form of stats. Statistics are about interpretation, I've said it 27 billion times on here, but alone, they are useless, and in my opinion, the same can be said for completely ignoring them because they disagree with your view. A balanced view involving statistics that validate an argument and opinion is in my opinion necessary to form a cohesive argument and I won't change how I post and that is irrelevant of the stick I get on here because I don't care about the stick, people can hate me all they want but it won't change my posts.

And you say I favour certain players (I'll assume Luongo is the big one that people think I will ignore logic to support) and thus highlight their strengths when compared to someone you believe I dislike (in this case, people think I dislike Conor personally). I totally find that to be untrue and here's my counter-point. Everyone thinks Luongo should be a more attacking player and on that basis he isn't good enough. I think and see that Luongo for us is used in a more defensive role and given what he does in that sense, I highlight his defensive statistics as those are the most relevant to the role he takes in our squad. If he was a striker, I'd look at his shooting stats primarily along with dribbling to a degree. And would you look at that, whenever I criticise CW's performance prior to the last two games, I do exactly that. I look at his finishing and shot accuracy, shot frequency, shot positioning and I make my judgement accordingly. Take a look at all the stats stuff I've put up on this forum and it's all been pretty relevant to his role as a striker.

So no, I don't favour certain players. Just like people here feel I've been overly critical on CW, which I disagree with, I feel people have been overly critical with someone like Luongo and thus I'll defend as fervently as resistance is shown or I'll invariably get drowned out.

[nasser95]

I think we should have a Naz amnesty.
Start again from scratch from today and let him judge washington again accordingly .

Peas.

I'll do it haha, he's playing like a different player to how he was before the last couple of games so hope he keeps it up.

[Rangers77]

So does Nasser mate, it's just his use of stats seems to rub people the wrong way. Maybe it's because those stats prove someone wrong sometimes and they don't like it, I dunno. Personally never cared for stats but that doesn't mean he has any less right to his opinion. On the subject of CW I have been just as critical and stubborn (for want of a better word) as Nasser, but haven't had any backlash from anyone. Just a bit strange to me mate that's all.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago....

[Stanley]

I appreciate what you're saying but disagree wholeheartedly. I come here to post up my opinions, just like everyone else. I then ensure that my opinions have valid back up in the form of stats. Statistics are about interpretation, I've said it 27 billion times on here, but alone, they are useless, and in my opinion, the same can be said for completely ignoring them because they disagree with your view. A balanced view involving statistics that validate an argument and opinion is in my opinion necessary to form a cohesive argument and I won't change how I post and that is irrelevant of the stick I get on here because I don't care about the stick, people can hate me all they want but it won't change my posts.

And you say I favour certain players (I'll assume Luongo is the big one that people think I will ignore logic to support) and thus highlight their strengths when compared to someone you believe I dislike (in this case, people think I dislike Conor personally). I totally find that to be untrue and here's my counter-point. Everyone thinks Luongo should be a more attacking player and on that basis he isn't good enough. I think and see that Luongo for us is used in a more defensive role and given what he does in that sense, I highlight his defensive statistics as those are the most relevant to the role he takes in our squad. If he was a striker, I'd look at his shooting stats primarily along with dribbling to a degree. And would you look at that, whenever I criticise CW's performance prior to the last two games, I do exactly that. I look at his finishing and shot accuracy, shot frequency, shot positioning and I make my judgement accordingly. Take a look at all the stats stuff I've put up on this forum and it's all been pretty relevant to his role as a striker.

So no, I don't favour certain players. Just like people here feel I've been overly critical on CW, which I disagree with, I feel people have been overly critical with someone like Luongo and thus I'll defend as fervently as resistance is shown or I'll invariably get drowned out.

Conor obviously is not one of your favoured players, that's why your ridiculous stat of his 1.5 goals scored gave you so much grief on here. It's just another example of your stat posts being unbalanced.

Another example would be Onuoha. I find your use of stats with him to be selective and therefore doesn't reflect an accurate portrayal of the player overall.

A further example would be Scott Parker when we played them away. Your stat-posts about him gave a totally skewed impression of his overall performance, when he was easily their best player.

[Rangers77]

Conor obviously is not one of your favoured players, that's why your ridiculous stat of his 1.5 goals scored gave you so much grief on here. It's just another example of your stat posts being unbalanced.

Another example would be Onuoha. I find your use of stats with him to be selective and therefore doesn't reflect an accurate portrayal of the player overall.

A further example would be Scott Parker when we played them away. Your stat-posts about him gave a totally skewed impression of his overall performance, when he was easily their best player.

Claiming Luongo was better than Manning last night in terms of tackles, when Manning played 60 mins and Luongo 90 ( nad Manning had an extra tackle) might back you up Stan......

[nasser95]

Claiming Luongo was better than Manning last night in terms of tackles, when Manning played 60 mins and Luongo 90 ( nad Manning had an extra tackle) might back you up Stan......

When did I claim that? Read what I said before you post ridiculous statements.

[Pinkie]

If it were up to the same ones (or one) saying different Jimmy would still be the manager... LOL.

Washington would of been sent packing to some poor 2nd division side or non league and we`d still be have jimmy in charge playing the same negative system without admitting its not working, & all players would be playing within themselves with no confidence whatsoever, manning would of been released as hes pants lol you cant make it up tbh, just shows how out of his depth jimmy was compared to what ollies doing/done in short space of time!

[WeAreQPR12]

So does Nasser mate, it's just his use of stats seems to rub people the wrong way. Maybe it's because those stats prove someone wrong sometimes and they don't like it, I dunno. Personally never cared for stats but that doesn't mean he has any less right to his opinion. On the subject of CW I have been just as critical and stubborn (for want of a better word) as Nasser, but haven't had any backlash from anyone. Just a bit strange to me mate that's all.

There is a massive difference. He is using stats to slate a player that hasn't been performing for a number of reasons. You don't rate him because you've just not been impressed with his performances. The difference being is Nasser is a coc ky young ####, that thinks he can be a clever cu nt throwing numbers at people. Washington hasn't been scoring because he has been let's down by a manager that never played to his strengths. I am less blinded than you because I look at the bigger picture. His movement off the ball his intelligents and vision to pick the right pass, none of this is noticed but a bloke just just reels out stats and does it in a very no it all way. Not a pop at you ninja but surely you can see why he rubs people up the wrong way and I know your not a fan of me however Stanley is the voice of reason and fans should take note

[Stanley]

Claiming Luongo was better than Manning last night in terms of tackles, when Manning played 60 mins and Luongo 90 ( nad Manning had an extra tackle) might back you up Stan......

Yes, that's another one 77. And then saying Mass is the best midfielder in the league, then later changing it to best DM......The list is endless really. But honestly I don't want to beat up on him, and I'm not anti stats per se. The have their use. But I just hope he can take some of the constructive criticism on board and be more judicious in his use of them.

[Rangers77]

When did I claim that? Read what I said before you post ridiculous statements.

I avoid directly conversing with you, but this once..... In the Luongo thread. You said.

"Manning made 6 tackles, Luongo made 5 but Luongo also made an interception that Manning didn't do. Luongo also won a couple in the air and manning only won one and Luongo made a successful dribble which manning didn't do"

Manning played 60 odd mins. Luongo 90. In case you can't, er, do the math: 6 tackles in 60 mins is, I think, a more impressive statistic than 5 plus an interception in 90. You clearly want the 'interception' to count more than a tackle.

Oh dear. It's so not worth my time, I so know. It really isn't. Reply how you want. I'm not breaking my rule again.