Did I ask anyone to leave though?

I've asked no-one to leave - not now, not ever that I can recall. I've offered to leave myself if I'm wrong to see if ThePrinter was as confident in his statistical findings on this thread.

I think we all got the answer to that one.



Perhaps you are, I thought my previous reply on page 7 was about as subtle as a brick - the implication was seemingly understood in Wigan.

you can twist the words all you like but you know and we know what you asked.

Only a fool makes a quarrel out of a debate my friend.

I offered to leave if I were wrong on this - I didn't ask anyone else to. The gauntlet was thrown down but never picked up, despite confidence in the figures.

Yes you offered to leave and "invited" him to do likewise. The question was at the end.

You are splitting fine hairs mate.

It's clear what he said. He said he would leave if he was wrong in saying what Printer had posted wasn't correct.

Rather than look for some silly point scoring, why not show him to be wrong?

IMHO I already have and I don't think I am the "silly" one here.

Some of ThePrinters stats in question here are wrong - his conclusions that followed appear influenced by the inaccurate figures he produced.

How long will it be before he comes up with the correct stats - perhaps then the questions raised over certain forwards doing less (sorry that should read more apparently) in 2013 than in 2012 can be examined.

Presumably though he will find just as I did that many of his conclusions were not actually supported by Opta's figures.

Your "Sir Jimmy" apologist thread 18 months ago notwithstanding of course

you can twist it as well

the point was you cant try a dead man the apologists are the likes of those that knew what was going on but did and said nothing till he was dead and gone.

the stats where different... you claimed they where wrong... I guess we will just have to accept that.

oh by the way is an invitation a question ???

I'm not commenting on the stats - which come from Opta anyway - the problem, if one exists, is what ThePrinter did with them in order to conclude -



And maybe on closer analysis of the correctly presented stats it hasn't.

Leaving aside the (in my view unnecessary) psychoanalysis of others perceived motives when posting is anyone interested in discussing the validity of the above conclusion given the stats appear to paint a different picture? Rather than the predominantly one sided view given previously the results were mixed with some indeed implying a deterioration although I'd say the trenches mentality employed by the coach had a significant bearing on this.

Yes, you've indicated towards, hinted at, alluded to......but you've not fully and properly EXPLAINED how.
Why? Because you were waiting for me to accept your childish challenge before revealing. If I had've done would you still be hinting/indicating/alluding 6 days later?........No, we all know you'd jumped out of your skin to reveal why. There was/is absolutely no other reason for holding out for almost a week without a full explanation other than you wanted something first before revealing......and the thing you wanted was me to offer my permanent absence.



Seen as people keep asking you then yes, so don't play dumb. You've not revealed it properly because of the reason I mentioned above.



Because you're all about "the balance" remember?



You clearly did and by trying to deny it even when DoubleAone has quoted and highlighted and everybody has seen is pathetic, at least stand by what you said. I've been questioned and challenged for standing by what I said......but at least I didn't lie and pretend I didn't say it.

Like I mentioned, DoubleAone quoted your post, but you didn't stop there. Your next post carried on.....



Quite clear once again what you're getting at. I'd already said before then that I'd stand by my stats until proven wrong, that was me "backing them up" yet this still wasn't enough for you to reveal, you kept with your INDICATING and ALLUDING and once again asked if I was going to make the same offer to leave.



Yes, you and everybody else did get an answer.....on Thursday 6:14pm back on page 6 when I said "if I'm wrong NO I won't leave the board." Couldn't make it any clearer than that. I didn't hide from your question and answered it straight away without leaving anybody in the same state of confusion or uncertainty as you've done with your 'alluding' responses. That it wasn't the response you wanted is why you've still not giving a straight clear explanation as to why they're wrong.

Even this afternoon just gone El Diablo asked you (and not for the first time) to indulge him in a more detailed explanation. You opted against doing so and just harked back to something you'd posted a couple of days previously which he had more than likely already read as a previous poster on this topic on the Page 7 you 'alluded' to.



So you didn't ask me to leave YET you threw down a gauntlet which would require me to leave if you could prove some stats to be incorrect that you were 100% confident were wrong. You continued to hold off answering because I didn't "pick up the gauntlet."

Perhaps you're just better off being honest and admitting you did want me to leave.

.......................................................

The funny thing is that after you originally said my stats were wrong I went over things again and I'd worked out where I'd made a mistake LAST WEDNESDAY.

But to watch you make a t**t of yourself for almost a week now has been priceless.

First the childish "Loser leaves town" challenge, followed by bare faced lies and laughable denial that you'd even done it.

So I come out of this with some miscalculations. Shame, but not the end of the world, just a bit of egg on face but I'll live.
You on the other hand, instead of just making that happen straightaway have held on for a week trying to be clever with your information and in the process made yourself look childish, bitter, negative and a liar.

Next time you have a clear shot mate, just pull the trigger instead of f**king about.

so what was the error?

They were your stats, I said they were wrong while leaving space for you to recognise where you'd made the mistake and hopefully correct your errant post ....... still waiting for the accurate figures by the way.



But you also stood by the stats. Even though you now claim you discovered your error on Wednesday you were still posting on Thursday that -



and later that day -



As I had spotted the flaw you had introduced and you yourself are now claiming you'd spotted it also, why be provocative?



Of course it's not the end of the world but people should perhaps be wary of your use of stats in future as their basis may be misunderstood just as those pertaining to 2012 were.

__________

Now how about the actual conclusions you came up with which you backed with erroneous stats? Any movement there in light of your realisation (if/whenever it occurred) or has the implied significance of them now deteriorated - perhaps to the point of offering more support to the alternative view that you were challenging?

Challenging tvoc?

Would anyone be interested in actually posting the "correct" stats (On the assumption that opta stats are approximately correct over the course of a season) and their effect on the comparative calculations so that we can see how 2012 and 2013 compare on a like for like basis and we can then decide what conclusion these stats support.

....and why would we believe any different source of stats as opposed to Opta, or anything else again?

TVOC: ThePrinter seems to have kicked your ass, causing you to behave very oddly.

Richie in not reading the thread properly shock.

How do you come to a conclusion that the poster who produced misinformation of stats to back up an argument, that was then pointed out by another poster as incorrect, and subsequently admitted by first poster it was incorrect, that the poster pointing it out had his ass kicked?

Quote ="Richie"....and why would we believe any different source of stats as opposed to Opta, or anything else again?'" Who has stated that we should? At no point on this thread have I taken issue with the use of Opta totals. Quote ="Richie"TVOC: ThePrinter seems to have kicked your ass, causing you to behave very oddly.'" The stats, as presented here - viewtopic.php?f=17&t=563946&tsmp=1392209273&start=32 and here - viewtopic.php?f=17&t=563946&tsmp=1392209273&start=34 were incorrect - something even the person who was responsible for the post finally now appears to accept. __________ Edit: Quote ="ThePrinter"And why? Because I said the forwards aren't as bad as suggested, if done in blind loyalty then yes I deserve the title of rose tinted supporter, =#0000FFbut check the stats I've posted. All forwards improved in key areas in 2013. I don't say things out of blind loyalty, I say them because they hold some weight.'" And when somebody did they found the stats you posted were incorrect. Just waiting to see your corrected version of the stats now to determine how much weight the conclusions you drew actually hold with regards to your selected criteria.

Quote ="Richie"....and why would we believe any different source of stats as opposed to Opta, or anything else again?'" Who has stated that we should? At no point on this thread have I taken issue with the use of Opta totals. Quote ="Richie"TVOC: ThePrinter seems to have kicked your ass, causing you to behave very oddly.'" The stats, as presented here - viewtopic.php?f=17&t=563946&tsmp=1392209273&start=32 and here - viewtopic.php?f=17&t=563946&tsmp=1392209273&start=34 were incorrect - something even the person who was responsible for the post finally now appears to accept. __________ Edit: Quote ="ThePrinter"And why? Because I said the forwards aren't as bad as suggested, if done in blind loyalty then yes I deserve the title of rose tinted supporter, =#0000FFbut check the stats I've posted. All forwards improved in key areas in 2013. I don't say things out of blind loyalty, I say them because they hold some weight.'" And when somebody did they found the stats you posted were incorrect. Just waiting to see your corrected version of the stats now to determine how much weight the conclusions you drew actually hold with regards to your selected criteria.

Just a question, but shouldn't we be looking at the tackles per game to be on the decrease as a good thing?

Surely the less tackles we make in a game means we are defending less, which means we are attacking more - good right?

The challenge was the other way round IIRC

Nooo.

The only possible reason for a player to be making less tackles in a game is because he's lazy, obviously. Similarly, making 25 tackles in a game is going to be equally tiring no matter how those tackles are made, e.g. a player running straight at you or you having to chase him down from marker.

They hadn't gone down as a season. They were down, as Printer alleges, in the first half of the season, when the grounds are heavier and attacking play to a minimum.

From his point, in the second half of the season, when grounds were firmer and faster and the attacking plays of teams become more in tune, the points conceded increased.

Also, less defending on stats doesn't necessarily mean you are attacking more. It could simply mean both teams are making more errors and having plenty of stoppages and sharing out defending, rather than one team having more of the ball.

Or decrepit. It's difficult to know which sometimes.

The stats done lie.....of course not