Someone who previously claimed that -



were that true that person would not need to ask. Someone who genuinely took that massive factor into account would already know which games are in the figures and which games are not.



You're not reluctant to post the corrected stats (having realised your error) but as yet you've failed to do so. You really shouldn't need me to explain anymore than I already have especially as its an error you've also identified.



So with the fault now seemingly identified let's see the corrected stats. They were and still are your choice of stats - just post the corrected ones.



Your stats remember.

You got them wrong or so you claim so let's see the corrected ones. It's really that simple.

Just in case anyone has forgotten the detail - what with all the irrelevant sideshow here are the posts that need immediate attention -

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=563946&tsmp=1392209273&start=32

and here -

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=563946&tsmp=1392209273&start=34

Someone who previously claimed that -



were that true that person would not need to ask. Someone who genuinely took that massive factor into account would already know which games are in the figures and which games are not.



You're not reluctant to post the corrected stats (having realised your error) but as yet you've failed to do so. You really shouldn't need me to explain anymore than I already have especially as its an error you've also identified.



So with the fault now seemingly identified let's see the corrected stats. They were and still are your choice of stats - just post the corrected ones.



Your stats remember.

You got them wrong or so you claim so let's see the corrected ones. It's really that simple.

Just in case anyone has forgotten the detail - what with all the irrelevant sideshow here are the posts that need immediate attention -

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=563946&tsmp=1392209273&start=32

and here -

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=563946&tsmp=1392209273&start=34

If people want to re-visit page 5 - what I said and why I said it will still be there for all to see.

_______

Nothing I said back then will alter that these remain =#FF0000your stats and contain (by your own admission) mis-leading comparisons due to your involvement -

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=563946&tsmp=1392209273&start=32

and here -

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=563946&tsmp=1392209273&start=34



I agree that would be a significant variable that you would need to take into account for comparison purposes. Unfortunately it's not one you always pay enough attention to as witnessed here when you posted -



But not the case when you make the like for like comparison. It's noticeable how many of the more recent years figures are remarkably close - at least according to the Opta figures - but then dramatically jump up in total in 2013 ...... it's almost as if the data-set changed last year - making like for like comparisons difficult to achieve without making the necessary adjustments. But I'm sure I don't need to keep pointing this out, afterall you recognised the massive part this would play.



You've since had to acknowledge that you mangled them - not me nor anyone else just you.





So you've accepted I was correct to call you out over them and -



I couldn't agree more that it's important for stats to be accurately reported for them to be of any significance so I was not surprised to hear that -



but oddly they have still to appear. Why is that? And the answer doesn't involve any input required from me first - that's a red-herring, a nonsense given they are your stats and you've recognised the flaw you introduced. Not sure if you've let everyone else in to the closely guarded secret yet - perhaps you have and I missed it.

The onus remains on you to come up with the corrected figures and continually failing to do so appears 'strange/questionable' given how long you have had since being made aware of the problem =#FF0000you introduced.

If people want to re-visit page 5 - what I said and why I said it will still be there for all to see.

_______

Nothing I said back then will alter that these remain =#FF0000your stats and contain (by your own admission) mis-leading comparisons due to your involvement -

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=563946&tsmp=1392209273&start=32

and here -

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=563946&tsmp=1392209273&start=34



I agree that would be a significant variable that you would need to take into account for comparison purposes. Unfortunately it's not one you always pay enough attention to as witnessed here when you posted -



But not the case when you make the like for like comparison. It's noticeable how many of the more recent years figures are remarkably close - at least according to the Opta figures - but then dramatically jump up in total in 2013 ...... it's almost as if the data-set changed last year - making like for like comparisons difficult to achieve without making the necessary adjustments. But I'm sure I don't need to keep pointing this out, afterall you recognised the massive part this would play.



You've since had to acknowledge that you mangled them - not me nor anyone else just you.





So you've accepted I was correct to call you out over them and -



I couldn't agree more that it's important for stats to be accurately reported for them to be of any significance so I was not surprised to hear that -



but oddly they have still to appear. Why is that? And the answer doesn't involve any input required from me first - that's a red-herring, a nonsense given they are your stats and you've recognised the flaw you introduced. Not sure if you've let everyone else in to the closely guarded secret yet - perhaps you have and I missed it.

The onus remains on you to come up with the corrected figures and continually failing to do so appears 'strange/questionable' given how long you have had since being made aware of the problem =#FF0000you introduced.