Gameweek 2 Captain

CSF

TheDazzler wrote: »

Let's say Rooney scores 25% of goals United score. That's generous but however.
How statistically significant is it that he hasn't scored in those 9 goals? Not at all.
There will be some team he has those sort of stats against. It just happens to be Villa away.
As a matter of interest, what are his stats at home against Villa?



These sort of stats are almost ALWAYS coincidental. 8 years is a long space of time but 6 games is not a large sample size.

Unless you can pinpoint a reason that Rooney has not scored at Villa, such as not liking their shirt colour, there is no reason to assume that he will not revert back to his normal scoring ratio.
Villa historically in the time period we are talking about will have been more difficult to score against than Villa are now.
Rooney is not 'jinxed' against Villa.
As Fantasy players, we need to rid ourselves of these biases.

Can't agree with that. These sort of stats absolutely need to be taken into account. Not liking their shirt colour or jinxed does not come into it at all. Players routinely score better against other teams and at different grounds than others. Others score well at home but don't travel well. Combing these statistics is usually worth a few points every season. A lot handier than watching back all 12 matches to watch what went wrong for him.

Chesty08

Pelle.

Opened his account the weekend. Everton looked all over the place defensively against Watford.

Prefer picking a player at home too, seems like the right choice atm

km79

Liverpool play on MNF so I think I'll go benteke !

extra gravy

On Benteke now but tempted to take a punt on Sakho.

Paully D

Benteke is the only player odds on to score in GW2 per the gameweek odds thread. Kane follows closely behind.

I was on Benteke with Kane vice prior to seeing that and can't see myself changing it.

Benimar

Beginning to wish I had Benteke now. Would have to transfer out Rooney which just seems illogical.

zarquon

Paully D wrote: »

Benteke is the only player odds on to score in GW2 per the gameweek odds thread. Kane follows closely behind.

I was on Benteke with Kane vice prior to seeing that and can't see myself changing it.

Benteke only had 6 touches in the opposition box and 1 attempt on goal in the entire game. That's a shocking statistic and it's very hard to make someone captain after a game like that.

skippy15

Had planned on Kane for cpt- but cant decide on Rooney or Kane-
Rooney seems slightly better option mmmm

Paully D

zarquon wrote: »

Benteke only had 6 touches in the opposition box and 1 attempt on goal in the entire game. That's a shocking statistic and it's very hard to make someone captain after a game like that.

Rooney had 2 attempts on goal and 0 on target, he only had 2 touches in the box. Kane had 3 attempts on goal and 0 on target, he only had 7 touches in the box.

I'm not saying the others are bad options, but more so that out of the 3 players that will be captained the most this coming gameweek, none of them lit it up in GW1.

manual_man

Payet :cool:

spock.

stephenl15 wrote:

No chance for me. Gotta be sensible/boring with the captain choices at this early stage imo although I do own him

I'm going ahead with it anyway.
Everton's defending was very poor against Watford and Mane is the type of player who will punish that.

Besides, this is probably my last chance to take a punt on a captain for a while before Rooney next week and then Aguero auto captain.

TheDazzler

Benimar wrote: »

Another stat for you. In the 2014/15 EPL Rooney scored 13 goals of which precisely 1, yes ONE, was scored away from home.

Yes, he could score on Friday night (these runs have to end sometime) but 0 goals in his last 6 at Villa Park coupled with one away goal all last season is enough to doubt placing the armband on him.

It's not like I'm saying he's a rubbish player, but as much as you might say that the sample isn't statistically significant, there is nothing to suggest that Friday will be different either.

I'm not captaining him, that's my view. I'm sure everyone is capable of making up their own mind on this.

Initially we were talking about the 0 in 6 stat. I contend that stat is irrelevant.
Your new stat of 1 in 13 goals (he scored 12 in FPL?) being away from home could be significant.
The reason the 1 in 13 could be significant is the recency of the event plus the fact that the sample size (a little less than 19 matches?) is significantly higher.
But the fact that Rooney didn't score away to Villa in 2007-2012 means absolutely nothing to Fridays game.
Rooney was a different player. United were different. The Villa team was completely different.

Can we discount the 1 in 13? At least partially.
Rooney was played out of position repeatedly last season in a far more withdrawn role.
We know he will play up front this season so we can reasonably assume he will score more.
Man Utd scored a historically low 62 goals last year.
With the attacking signings made, we can reasonably assume they will score more and hence Rooney will score more.
Neither of those 2 facts address the low ratio of away/home goals but I assume that we look at the ratio of away/home goals over Rooneys 247, they follow something like the 20-25% of United away/home goals over that period.
If there is a significant difference that would be interesting.

I'm not saying you're saying he's a rubbish player and for the record I'm not suggesting he is a good captaincy choice. I wouldn't advise anyone to captain him (obviously dependent on their team) and yes, I'm sure people will make their own mind up on it.
I'm simply arguing that the 0 in 6 stat should not play any part in the decision process for deciding to either captain/not captain Roooney.
Regarding the following;
"as much as you might say that the sample isn't statistically significant, there is nothing to suggest that Friday will be different either"
Yes, there is something to suggest Friday will be different.
It's called statistical probability. It's what bookmakers use to make odds.
Each team has an expected goal return in each game. Let's say Uniteds at Villa is 2 goals. And let's say that Rooney has a 25% of scoring every goal that United score.
Therefore he has a roughly 50% chance of scoring on Friday.

CSF wrote: »

Can't agree with that. These sort of stats absolutely need to be taken into account. Not liking their shirt colour or jinxed does not come into it at all. Players routinely score better against other teams and at different grounds than others. Others score well at home but don't travel well. Combing these statistics is usually worth a few points every season. A lot handier than watching back all 12 matches to watch what went wrong for him.

I guess we're probably going to have to politely agree to disagree.
I am of the opinion that these sort of stats (the 0 in 6 at Villa) need to absolutely be discounted from your thinking.
It means almost nothing.
If you think the fact that Rooney didn't score at Villa Park in 2007/08/09/10/11/12 has any relevance whatsoever on why he should or shouldn't score on Friday night, then I don't know what more to tell you.
The 0 in 6 is simply a statistically insignificant sample size of matches. Even if it was statistically significant, it still isn't relevant to Fridays game due to their lack of recency.
United scored 9 goals in those visits. For each one, Rooney had (we'll say) a 25% chance of scoring it. A 1 in 4 chance.
Roll a 4 sided dice 9 times. Repeat the cycle 100 times.
Sometimes, you'll get number 1 coming up 5 times, sometimes 0 times. It should come up roughly 2 times.
That's how many goals Rooney 'should have' scored over those 6 games, 2 goals. The fact he has 0 is simply statistical variance. Not unusual in any way.
And in any case, games from 8 years ago mean nothing. How can you possibly think otherwise?

PARlance

Players (Strikers especially) like playing against teams / at grounds they have previously done well at. It's not rocket science, just human nature.
The reverse is the same but it doesn't mean that Rooney won't score against Villa. I wouldn't weight it massively either, but it's still worth consideration.

Lemlin

PARlance wrote: »

Players (Strikers especially) like playing against teams / at grounds they have previously done well at. It's not rocket science, just human nature.
The reverse is the same but it doesn't mean that Rooney won't score against Villa. I wouldn't weight it massively either, but it's still worth consideration.

Alan Shearer, the PL's highest scorer, has come out and said that himself. He said you can't help but feel a sense of anticipation going to certain grounds or playing teams where you know you've performed well before.

Backstreet Moyes

zarquon wrote: »

Benteke only had 6 touches in the opposition box and 1 attempt on goal in the entire game. That's a shocking statistic and it's very hard to make someone captain after a game like that.

Liverpool were away to a very organised Stoke side and Benteke didn't have a proper pre season.

He is at home to an attacking newly promoted side who at home lost to a poor Villa.

It is very possible that Liverpool could put 4 or 5 past bournemouth and that for me makes Benteke the obvious choice to be my captain.

TheDazzler

PARlance wrote: »

Players (Strikers especially) like playing against teams / at grounds they have previously done well at. It's not rocket science, just human nature.
The reverse is the same but it doesn't mean that Rooney won't score against Villa. I wouldn't weight it massively either, but it's still worth consideration.

Lemlin wrote: »

Alan Shearer, the PL's highest scorer, has come out and said that himself. He said you can't help but feel a sense of anticipation going to certain grounds or playing teams where you know you've performed well before.

The fact that some players "like playing against" and have "a sense of anticipation" doesn't equal or presuppose performance in any way.

Colking

TheDazzler wrote: »

The fact that some players "like playing against" and have "a sense of anticipation" doesn't equal or presuppose performance in any way.

Sorry, I couldn't disagree with you more. If it gives said player a psychological edge then it does indeed assist in presupposing performance.

In my not so "Glory Days" playing football, there were sides I always preferred playing against. Pound for pound, man for man they were no better or worse than a number of other teams in the league, but I always scored more against those particular sides on average.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Philippe Coutinho

Knex*

Paully D wrote: »

Benteke is the only player odds on to score in GW2 per the gameweek odds thread. Kane follows closely behind.

I was on Benteke with Kane vice prior to seeing that and can't see myself changing it.

zarquon wrote: »

Benteke only had 6 touches in the opposition box and 1 attempt on goal in the entire game. That's a shocking statistic and it's very hard to make someone captain after a game like that.

Really finding it hard to choose between Benteke and Kane myself. Rooney I have, but I fancy those two a bit more to score.

Have Benteke captain as of now.

TheDazzler

Colking wrote: »

Sorry, I couldn't disagree with you more. If it gives said player a psychological edge then it does indeed assist in presupposing performance.

In my not so "Glory Days" playing football, there were sides I always preferred playing against. Pound for pound, man for man they were no better or worse than a number of other teams in the league, but I always scored more against those particular sides on average.

Having a psychological edge does indeed assist in presupposing performance. Having "a sense of anticipation" doesn't give you a psychological edge though, no matter what the cerebral Alan Shearer thinks.
Alans grasp on psychological edges and optimum performance was well illustrated by his ill advised sojurn into club management. Better for him that he sits on a couch spouting nonsense about "passion", "playing for the shirt" and other assorted cliches.


I can't speak to your Glory Days but I'll speak of my own.
There were certain teams I scored better against than others.
That's obvious. It would be very unusual if all my goals were distributed completely equally.
I mostly scored goals against weaker teams though.
Some teams I preferred playing against. Or rather some markers.
I was relatively quick, therefore I preferred playing against slower players as my skillset was better suited to playing them.
If I turned up the following year and their fullback was much quicker and better, I probably didn't like playing against them.
I can look back and say, "I liked playing against team X". Why? Because I scored more against them.
Your example above sounds a lot to me like confirmation bias.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias (sorry, it won't let me link that as I'm a new user)
Perhaps you think you scored against them because you loved playing against them.
But perhaps you loved playing against them BECAUSE you scored against them.

hots

extra gravy wrote: »

On Benteke now but tempted to take a punt on Sakho.

Really fancy Sakho too but should probably play safer with Benteke or Rooney.

Colking

TheDazzler wrote: »

Having a psychological edge does indeed assist in presupposing performance. Having "a sense of anticipation" doesn't give you a psychological edge though, no matter what the cerebral Alan Shearer thinks.
Alans grasp on psychological edges and optimum performance was well illustrated by his ill advised sojurn into club management. Better for him that he sits on a couch spouting nonsense about "passion", "playing for the shirt" and other assorted cliches.


I can't speak to your Glory Days but I'll speak of my own.
There were certain teams I scored better against than others.
That's obvious. It would be very unusual if all my goals were distributed completely equally.
I mostly scored goals against weaker teams though.
Some teams I preferred playing against. Or rather some markers.
I was relatively quick, therefore I preferred playing against slower players as my skillset was better suited to playing them.
If I turned up the following year and their fullback was much quicker and better, I probably didn't like playing against them.
I can look back and say, "I liked playing against team X". Why? Because I scored more against them.
Your example above sounds a lot to me like confirmation bias.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias (sorry, it won't let me link that as I'm a new user)
Perhaps you think you scored against them because you loved playing against them.
But perhaps you loved playing against them BECAUSE you scored against them.

Touché

Perhaps, or perhaps you are falling in to the trap of reverse confirmation bias! Perhaps you are beginning to miss actual trends because you pass them off as confirmation bias.


Sidenote: Is that you Miller ?

L.S.F

Have Kane at the moment with Rooney backup but all might change!

internet_user

L.S.F wrote: »

Have Kane at the moment with Rooney backup but all might change!

Ive it on Kane with Rooney VC too, neither side looked great going forward at the weekend which is leading me to consider Sakho

Lemlin

TheDazzler wrote: »

Having a psychological edge does indeed assist in presupposing performance. Having "a sense of anticipation" doesn't give you a psychological edge though, no matter what the cerebral Alan Shearer thinks.
Alans grasp on psychological edges and optimum performance was well illustrated by his ill advised sojurn into club management. Better for him that he sits on a couch spouting nonsense about "passion", "playing for the shirt" and other assorted cliches.


I can't speak to your Glory Days but I'll speak of my own.
There were certain teams I scored better against than others.
That's obvious. It would be very unusual if all my goals were distributed completely equally.
I mostly scored goals against weaker teams though.
Some teams I preferred playing against. Or rather some markers.
I was relatively quick, therefore I preferred playing against slower players as my skillset was better suited to playing them.
If I turned up the following year and their fullback was much quicker and better, I probably didn't like playing against them.
I can look back and say, "I liked playing against team X". Why? Because I scored more against them.
Your example above sounds a lot to me like confirmation bias.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias (sorry, it won't let me link that as I'm a new user)
Perhaps you think you scored against them because you loved playing against them.
But perhaps you loved playing against them BECAUSE you scored against them.

You've lost me to be honest. Is the above quote from Shearer or who?

Surely you believe in confidence. For example, Luis Suarez consistently scored hat tricks against Norwich. Do you not think he'd have an extra zip in his step ahead of any fixture against them? Re a psychological edge, do you not think the Norwich defenders were ****ing themselves thinking "here goes Suarez again"? They're going into the game ****ing themselves and he's going in full of confidence. How can it be argued that past performance cannot provide a psychological edge against teams?

Think of a job interview. You ask someone questions about their past (e.g. what did you do in the past when you were under pressure?). Why is that done? Because past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Therefore I would certainly see past performance against certain sides as an indicator of future performance. It's one of the reasons I captained Suarez every time he captained Norwich and that ended well! The same could also be said of Kun Aguero vs Spurs.

Rock Lesnar

Thinking of Coutinho, Ayew or Payet, Coutinho in the lead at the minute

L.S.F

internet_user wrote: »

Ive it on Kane with Rooney VC too, neither side looked great going forward at the weekend which is leading me to consider Sakho

He's my other striker too

PARlance

Shearer. No brainer.

CSF

PARlance wrote: »

Shearer. No brainer.

Loves playing against Swansea.

TheDazzler

Lemlin wrote: »

You've lost me to be honest. Is the above quote from Shearer or who?

Surely you believe in confidence. For example, Luis Suarez consistently scored hat tricks against Norwich. Do you not think he'd have an extra zip in his step ahead of any fixture against them? Re a psychological edge, do you not think the Norwich defenders were ****ing themselves thinking "here goes Suarez again"? They're going into the game ****ing themselves and he's going in full of confidence. How can it be argued that past performance cannot provide a psychological edge against teams?

Think of a job interview. You ask someone questions about their past (e.g. what did you do in the past when you were under pressure?). Why is that done? Because past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Therefore I would certainly see past performance against certain sides as an indicator of future performance. It's one of the reasons I captained Suarez every time he captained Norwich and that ended well! The same could also be said of Kun Aguero vs Spurs.

I don't know if the quote comes form Shearer, I'm quoting from your post;

"Alan Shearer, the PL's highest scorer, has come out and said that himself. He said you can't help but feel a sense of anticipation going to certain grounds or playing teams where you know you've performed well before."

I am making the point that anything that Alan Shearer has to say in the realms of sports psychology can be discounted due to the fact that he is a cretin.
He may have been a tremendous footballer but he doesn't have the intelligence to understand why. And he certainly doesn't have the ability to convey anything of value to the viewer. Other than perhaps, "Rooney hasn't scored in 6 here at Villa Park."
I am saying that "a sense of anticipation" does not presuppose performance. It's the sort of nonsensical cliched garbage that Shearer would spout.

You brought up the Suarez vs Norwich example. We all knew that example was going to be brought up, didn't we? Why? Coz it's the one outstanding example.
Suarez scored 11 in 4 against Norwich. Pretty explosive.

Suarez did that against Norwich over the space of 2 years.
A poor side, likely to concede against a rampant Pool side. Pool scored higher than their goal expectation over the period and Suarez scored higher than his individual 25-30% individual contribution. Impressive.
But he didn't do it against Chelsea, did he? Why was it that it was the worst team in the league, "that he liked playing against"?
Because they were the worst team in the league.
But yes, Suarez probably had a psychological edge over Norwich due to the fact that those games were all played within a short enough window. The teams would have been similar, his opponents would have similar.

Do I believe in confidence? Yes, I do.
If you score in 10 consecutive games, I think you're possibly more likely to score in the 11th.
I do think confidence and form is overstated hugely but I believe it plays a part.
However a teams current form/confidence (last 6 matches) would be much more important than historical form (games from 8 years ago!).


This is not the case with Rooney and Villa. You're taking into account games from 8, 7, 6 and 5 years ago. They are irrelevant.
I wouldn't be surprised if Rooney isn't even aware of the '0 in 6' stat. He probably thinks, "I've 9 in 13 against Villa. I like playing them."

I know past performance is an indicator of future performance.
I don't dispute that. So long as factors remain constant.
You understand that saying that because Preston North End were the most successful team in the 1880s and that they have a winning record over Man Utd*, that they would be favourites if Preston met Man Utd. You understand that that's nonsense, right?
Why? Because it would be misusing and misunderstanding completely out of date stats.
Which is what 0 in 6 at Villa Park is.

Captaining Suarez against Norwich? How astute. I think a few of us followed you in on that one though. Not for him, "loving playing Norwich" but the fact that one of the best strikers in the world, in the form of his life, was playing one of the worst teams in the Prem.

Aguero vs Spurs? Again, the best striker in the league playing against a side that plays an open expansive game, instead of parking the bus. We're all on that one too.

But considering you're so keen on these stats, I assume you captained Costa at home to Swansea? That was a banker 2 goals at least.
Costa loves playing against Swansea. You know he scored 5 in 2 against them last year?

Strikers love playing bad teams that gives them chances and goals. They "love playing against" the teams that they score against.



* This is a hypothetical example.

Edit: Regarding an earlier question, I'm not this Miller character.
I'm;
fantasy.premierleague.com/entry/2266/history/ (sorry, I can't link as a new user so you'll need to put in the www. yourself).