The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
There's a reason why eye-witness testimony is considered the least reliable form of evidenceI'm not sure how 10 assists in 10 games could possibly be considered poor. Even if that assist was the one positive contribution he made in any of those games, the very fact that he made it in every single one of them proves his value to being on the pitch. If Kane scored 'only' one goal a game for 10 games in a row, he'd be considered the most in-form striker in Europe, regardless of whether or not he was quiet for most of those games.
Sure, numbers are not everything, but they provide context and insight into what some people judge solely by the eye. There's a reason why eye-witness testimony is considered the least reliable form of evidence. All you're really saying is that you're willing to dismiss clear, unbiased, statistical evidence if it contradicts what your own eyes are telling you.
Maybe it's time for an eye-test?
Kind of hard to be enthusiastic about him at the moment, when you see how he playsHe never gets rest. Give the guy a break. He is always out on the pitch and typically puts in the most kilometers. Perhaps he's just fucking tired. He's still contributing with goals and assists. Whether he wants to go or not, he is still playing for this team. Back him
You know what you saidIt's kind ion funny isn't it how all the time he wasn't getting goals and assists, but still seeing the same (often more) ball as the last three games, still trying stuff etc, he was shit, the last three games he's still tried a lot of stuff that hasn't come off, been even less involved than some of those "shit" games,(some people are saying he wasn't great today) but now he's assisted three and scored in his last three (and a couple of those assists took a fair bit of effort from the scorer) you're calling him great again.
Seems your more of a "stat" man than an eye guy after all?
You call out others for stuff you get shown up for, in the hope that it deflects from the very same bollocks you peddle. Say it first then it makes it a bit harder for someone call you out for out it eh?
You are fucking great at twisting sentences and I'll give you your due, your bullshit is at least quite slick bullshit, but it's still bullshit.
Because you could lose the ball 25 times, get dispossessed 5 times leading to goals against, miss 15 sitters, make 30 shit crosses, not run after your man, make wrong passes, and be crap for 90 minutes. For ten games.I'm not sure how 10 assists in 10 games could possibly be considered poor
Because you could lose the ball 25 times, get dispossessed 5 times leading to goals against, miss 15 sitters, make 30 shit crosses, not run after your man, make wrong passes, and be crap for 90 minutes. For ten games.
But you could also tap the ball 2 meters to someone who scores in those ten games.
It doesn’t mean you had a good game.
It’s an exaggerated point but it still shows you how ten assists ins ten games is simply ten passes in ten games.In other words: if you concoct the most absurd scenario possible, your point makes sense.
I'll stick to reality, where 10 assists in 10 games would make you a Player of the Month candidate, multiple times.
It’s an exaggerated point but it still shows you how ten assists ins ten games is simply ten passes in ten games.
What if a player blasts the ball over the bar twice, when he could have laid it for a tap in?
Then gets dispossessed and we concede?
Then takes three poor corners
Two poor free kicks
Doesn’t back track all game
But makes an assist in the 80th minute but we lose. Has he had a blinder?
The stats look great to someone who didn’t watch the player and that’s my whole point.
What if we lost those ten games though partly through his other poor playWhich resulted in 10 goals.
No that’s my point....his ten good passes in ten games doesn’t mean he was better than anyone else on the pitch. The guy that scored may have been shit too, and missed four sitters.Apparently he had a better game than anyone else on the team, other than the guy whose goal he provided, so maybe he's not the problem?
And this is the problem.Sure, and I get your point, but they also reveal how much that player ACTUALLY contributed, not just the things that your eyes tell you he didn't do. In other words, the stats are telling you that your eyes are misleading you, because while you watched a player make some mistakes and not get everything right, telling yourself that he's been poor, in actuality the player in question created a goal every single game.
I don't know about you, but I'd have that guy on the pitch every single game.
What if we lost those ten games though partly through his other poor play
No that’s my point....his ten good passes in ten games doesn’t mean he was better than anyone else on the pitch. The guy that scored may have been shit too, and missed four sitters.
Because you are clinging to the ten assists and refusing to entertain the fact that by changing up the team, we may have scored 20 and have more points.
It’s not about personal stats....I don’t care if Kane scores just four goals in a season if the team score 120 and we win the league.
Ok take 3 games then....an assist in every game doesn’t mean he played well. It’s the same thing....pick as many games as you see fit and my point still stands.Again, if you concoct an absurd scenario, then sure, you have a point. But that's not the reality of the situation.
It’s funny that every scenario I lay out is “absurd” but you happily and readily accept the assist for ten games in a row stat.I'm not refusing anything. I'm pointing out that 1 assist a game is an enviable contribution, and if they did it 10 games in a row then clearly their value to the team is, at least, the creation of a goal.
I didn’t say his assists didn’t matter, I said they don’t mean he had a great game or played well if he got an assistNor would I, but then again if Kane only scored 4 out of our 120 goals no-one would be saying he had a good season. By comparison, with Eriksen, we're talking about a player who is consistently one of the greatest assist providers in the league, every single year.
Those statistics matter, even if someone's eyes tell them a different story.
Ok take 3 games then....an assist in every game doesn’t mean he played well. It’s the same thing....pick as many games as you see fit and my point still stands.
It’s funny that every scenario I lay out is “absurd” but you happily and readily accept the assist for ten games in a row stat. Why isn’t that one as absurd?
I didn’t say his assists didn’t matter, I said they don’t mean he had a great game or played well if he got an assist. Just like I’m saying he can have an absolutely amazing game, with 0 assists and 0 goals
And why couldn’t Kane have a good season but only score 4? What if his link up play was integral to us winning the title?
But I’ve explained to you that while it’s a fantastic STAT, it says nothing about the overall performance.10 games is triple the sample size, and thus a better reflection of consistency. 20 games would be be even moreso, and so on. If someone got an assist every game for 20 games, that's actually a FANTASTIC performance, regardless of whether or not the team as a whole won somethin
No, I never said 10 assists in 10 games could be a poor stat.You said that 10 assists in 10 games could be considered poor if it didn't result in what you wanted. I'm simply saying to you that what you wanted isn't necessarily a fair measuring stick, and that contribution would still be an elite contribution, regardless.
It says nothing about his performance thoughBut, what I am arguing is that if someone DOES assist a goal every single game for 10 games, that's not a poor performance over that period.
Well if he had a hand in 75 goals then yes....because the other guy had a hand in 25.What if it was? Do you think it was more integral than someone who got 15 assists and 10 goals?
Spot onEriksen had a good game yesterday, but was awful in parts (free-kicks, attempted tackles, missed passes etc). Stats don't convey this fact.
But I’ve explained to you that while it’s a fantastic STAT, it says nothing about the overall performance.
Otherwise you can judge a player via Opta over an entire season having never watched a single game. Don’t you think that’s ridiculous?
Well if he had a hand in 75 goals then yes
I don’t think Lampard was as good in attack as Dele and Eriksen but that didn’t stop him scoring 15-25 odd goals in a season every year for ten years
What kind of straw-man rubbish is this - when has that ever happened in a single game? BehaveBecause you could lose the ball 25 times, get dispossessed 5 times leading to goals against, miss 15 sitters, make 30 shit crosses, not run after your man, make wrong passes, and be crap for 90 minutes.
Still a better season than the likes of Dele for example. Even Kane never really hit a rhythm due to ongoing injuries, etc.We all agree he had average season. Still 12 asissts, most in PL.