Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
STATBANK: CHELTENHAM TOWN 1-3 CHARLTON ATHLETIC
lancashire lad
Posts: 15,630
many thanks to the 94 Lifers who gave marks
8
Comments
-
LL, where is Small's marks?1
-
Thanks Ross1
-
We are the in form team compared to our next 5 opponents. COYR!!
1 -
I gave all the top three 8s, glad to see them at the top with such similar marks!0
-
Northampton Lancs?...Have I spotted todays deliberate mistake...🙄0
-
BBC have 7 fouls by us, and only two by them. That seems very low.0
-
Well doneeastterrace6168 said:Northampton Lancs?...Have I spotted todays deliberate mistake...🙄
0 -
I’m not sure about those BBC stats. At half time they gave us 53% possession but it seemed to me that for most of the first half, nearly all the action was downJamesSeed said:BBC have 7 fouls by us, and only two by them. That seems very low.
the far end.1 -
They are not BBC stats but are provided by the Press Association to the majority of media outlets, I have no idea how they come up with the figures0
-
This is where I find some stats based scoring a load of nonsense. Just seen one stats model which had Dobson as our 2nd best player and Coventry our worst.Stats do definitely have a place in the modern game, but it will never give you a 100% reflection of what people visually see5
-
Sponsored links:
-
There were very few fouls and free kicks in the match, the ref being one happy to tolerate a bit of contact, rather than constantly blowing his whistle.JamesSeed said:BBC have 7 fouls by us, and only two by them. That seems very low.
Only 2 bookings in the entire game, and one of those was for May going into the crowd.1 -
lancashire lad said:They are not BBC stats but are provided by the Press Association to the majority of media outlets, I have no idea how they come up with the figuresThe PA seem to have had a bit of a weird one last night. They correctly credited Small with the assist for the 3rd in the stats, but the match report says Ladapo passed to May for the goal0
-
Agreed, although free kicks for fouls are awarded by the ref, so should just be a counting exercise. Nine fouls in the entire game seems low though. It’s been interesting to see our foul count rising as we’ve become harder to bully.AFKABartram said:This is where I find some stats based scoring a load of nonsense. Just seen one stats model which had Dobson as our 2nd best player and Coventry our worst.Stats do definitely have a place in the modern game, but it will never give you a 100% reflection of what people visually seeAnd yes, I’d ignore players match ratings that appear on stats websites, as they’re just the opinions of a single person. Our stats are way more reliable, ans there can be fifty or more fans contributing - and it’s quite rare I look at them and feel they're far off the mark. Perhaps there’s a little ‘favourite player’ bias for a player like Dobson, but look at Tennai Watson’s marks recently; he wasn’t rated at all after his first few games, and perhaps he was marked a bit low when his form first picked up. But his marks now reflect his improvement quite accurately. In the words of Harry Nilsson, ‘Well it's just amazing how fair people can be.’
Big fan of the stats page as a resource.3 -
Yes, I did know that. I suspect they get used by many other sites, not just the Beeb’s.lancashire lad said:They are not BBC stats but are provided by the Press Association to the majority of media outlets, I have no idea how they come up with the figures0 -
At Northampton he stuck in a great cross but nobody met it, so he didn't get the assist and credit for the cross. At Cheltenham his great cross was finished off...JamesSeed said:
Agreed, although free kicks for fouls are awarded by the ref, so should just be a counting exercise. Nine fouls in the entire game seems low though. It’s been interesting to see our foul count rising as we’ve become harder to bully.AFKABartram said:This is where I find some stats based scoring a load of nonsense. Just seen one stats model which had Dobson as our 2nd best player and Coventry our worst.Stats do definitely have a place in the modern game, but it will never give you a 100% reflection of what people visually seeAnd yes, I’d ignore players match ratings that appear on stats websites, as they’re just the opinions of a single person. Our stats are way more reliable, ans there can be fifty or more fans contributing - and it’s quite rare I look at them and feel they're far off the mark. Perhaps there’s a little ‘favourite player’ bias for a player like Dobson, but look at Tennai Watson’s marks recently; he wasn’t rated at all after his first few games, and perhaps he was marked a bit low when his form first picked up. But his marks now reflect his improvement quite accurately. In the words of Harry Nilsson, ‘Well it's just amazing how fair people can be.’
Big fan of the stats page as a resource.2 -
Small ..a real prospect3
-
Thanks as always Lancs. Minor thing, but Stevenage's PPG should be 1.33, not 1.66.0
-
thanks Jonniesta0
