Entertainment

You have solely determined the components of a football match that makes it entertaining- why can't you see that doing so is subjective and whilst it might be consistent it is not scientific in any way, thus flawed?

It isn't difficult to understand.

 

In my opinion buddy, you're using your own bias by having possession as point-worthy. Yet no points for tackles/headers/interceptions won. Now, for me at least, I get more of a thrill (yes, in my pants) out of a crunching tackle, a strong header or vital interception than I would watching us pass it around in our own third, often fearing the ball's about to be gifted to the opposition.

 

I have used only statistics that are readily accessible and available to everyone, and which are based upon fact. The scoring system is mine, but I have told everyone what it is, and I have asked for others to contribute their own ideas towards changes. I could not have been more open or honest about the basis I have used. Because others do not like the system, I have promised not to use it in Minority Report. I literally do not know what more I could have done, and yet I am being attacked like I have suggested we abandon the off-side law and replace it with me flipping a coin.

 

Of course you’re sure. That’s the whole point

my post has been bubbling around in my subconscious ever since I read my 2nd minority report.

I spend my life providing data reports regarding contractor performance. The performance managers use this to beat the contractors over the head, my commercial colleagues hand wring about whether their contract assumptions are achieving the policy intent.

And the clever bloke (operational analyst - a professional economist) sat in the corner just says ‘But the targets are arbitrary; we’re congratulating them for hitting one target and berating them for missing another, but they’re just lines we drew in the sand, they don’t mean anything’. And it’s true, we could just as easily have set the targets in a different place and be congratulating them for both or berating them for both.

All of your analysis is based on your targets, they have no basis in fact. Hanging a measurable fact on them doesn’t make them fact based, they remain subjective.

and here’s a statistic for you: I know 9/10s of 4/5s of fook all about football. But I do know a bit about performance analysis

 

When I was thinking about what would be entertaining to someone who has no interest in who wins a game, I had to think of games that I have watched that did not involve Barnsley FC or England. I had to think about what would entertain me. I agree that a team passing the ball across the line of the back 4 is not interesting. However, they are doing that because the opposition is allowing them to do that. The opposition is not pushing enough players forward to stop them doing that, because they fear that they will allow too much space, and therefore too many opportunities, in the areas between the lines. Now, I am not sure if that situation is the fault of the team that is passing the ball along the line of the back 4 in an attempt to draw the press forward and thereby creating space, or the fault of the team that is refusing to be drawn into the trap. In the end, I decided that it was just not worth the debate. I decided that possession was possession wherever it was because it showed that the opposition was not prepared to go and win it back. Furthermore, I decided that the ultimate entertainment in the sport of football is in scoring goals, and that you can only score if you have possession. Therefore, possession should be rewarded. However, I am quite happy to listen to your alternative scoring criteria, but only if they accept that the primary entertainment in football is to score goals.

 

I am no longer sure that I know what this discussion is all about. If I follow your logic, we all simply end our contributions to the BBS, because we are all wasting our time. If that is your point, then I agree. We are all wasting our time. If we are raising interesting points for discussion, and that we do not mind that we are wasting our time, then you have no point.

 

Sorry I disagree. Entertainment is emotion. That's the whole idea. Your use of the word entertaining to describe statistics and creating your own unilateral points system based on that false definition of entertainment is like me saying that 7x4 is more entertaining that 56/2. Why? Because I've just decided that a division score 4 points, a multiplication scores 9. There's no logic to it but I've just decided that the case.

Actually your system is more like F1 and you decide that each overtake is worth a poor regardless of how it occurs. The first placed guy breaks down on the opening lap bringing out the safety car for half the race and that's an instant 19 points for entertainment. Safety car comes out again for a breakdown 50 laps later and it's another 18 points as the remaining cars drive past the stricken car. 37 points
The next race max verstappen has a problem in qualifying and starts from the back. He carves through the cars lap after lap and on the last lap he dives down the inside and overtakes Hamilton for the win. He's the only guy to do any overtaking but it's amazing to watch, will he? Won't he? Sadly it's only 19 points and a boring race on your system.

As for the Liverpool game. I'm pretty sure the unbiased neutrals would find it more entertaining than a nil nil bore draw against Southend but again your system says that's not the case. You cant say that uncommitted observers prefer watching a dull stalemate than a feisty 3-2 game with 3 red cards. Well you can but you're just plain wrong to say it. You have got the definition of what entertainment means completely wrong and it's you who cannot separate your spreadsheet analysis of football with entertainment not the rest of us who can't separate emotion with entertainment.

 

Can you genuinely hand on heart say that an unbiased observer funds a possession statistic to be entertaining yet doesn't find a last ditch challenge to be entertaining? That an unbiased observer finds a red card to be worthy of taking points off the entertainment factor?
Honestly?

 

Not at all.
Your logic is astoundingly flawed. I believe that your contributions are worthwhile.

But you should get the stick from up your arse that leads you to believe that your ‘objective’ opinions are superior to other people’s ‘subjective’ opinions. Because your objective analysis is based only on your subjective performance measures.

I’m not rubbishing your opinions, I’m trying to make you understand your analysis better. And maybe that’ll stop you being a nob to others.

 

When we beat Sheffield Wednesday away 11 years ago, Bobby Hassell's goal-line clearance was just as key to that win as JCR's winning goal.

On both of our last two trips to Anfield, I watched us rarely get forward to attack Liverpool, and saw heroic defending, great goalkeeping. They're two of the greatest away games I've attended as a fan. Similarly, when we beat Chelsea in the cup at Oakwell, it was the bodies on the line and dogged, battling spirit that made it so special (for me).

Of course scoring goals is a big part of the entertainment factor. But not conceding them is just as important, surely?

Reading away in 2011 - we won 2-1 and the second goal (Matty Done) was beautiful to watch. But it was the two Luke Steele penalty saves that we remember most.

As I said already, against Derby away this season we had 28% of the ball. But we had twice as many shots and twice the goals. More headers, more tackles, more interceptions. It was a game you couldn't get your head around, if I remember rightly. Yet it made perfect sense to me. It's why I actually give credit to Steve Cooper and Swansea for their win over us at the weekend. They always play football, possession-based. But not on Saturday they didn't. They matched our system, and went even more direct than we have under Val. They profited from our errors. They beat us. I couldn't help but be impressed by it.

I was impressed with Val when we faced Brentford earlier this season, even though we lost. Because he knew that pressing their backline was too risky. So we let them play in defence. They barely created anything. We were on for a good, solid point and clean sheet. But we all know that we've got individual errors in us (see Swansea/Blackburn and many others) so we lost that ourselves. We gave the best striker in the league a free run and free header from a set piece. Albeit, we should have had a penalty and perhaps a salvaged result.

I've already said, I like your thread. I like debate being stirred. But I don't think it's possible using statistics to quantify entertainment levels of a football match. And not when certain stats are used, but other key stats ignored.

 

I have absolutely no interest in F!.

Unless you can produce the full statistics of those games, we are just shooting the breeze.

It is possible to watch a football match in which you have no interest or emotional involvement in either team. It is possible to be entertained by that match, and remain uninvolved emotionally in the result at any point. That is the difference between entertainment and emotional involvement.

 

Unlikely.

 

In the distant past I think we've both commented on the following.

Bradford away, Jan 2016, won 1-0 with a Watkins goal, 5th win of that 7 match winning run that turned our season around. A good professional away performance, Ashley Fletcher schooled by Rory McArdle but never quit trying, Mark Roberts came on for Mawson early on and partnered Kevin Long to a clean sheet having been frozen out for weeks. It was the game when I first felt something special was happening, a hard earned away win at Bradford on a Tuesday night, nothing spectacular as such.

But the standout bit of entertainment for me, had me on my feet shouting and giving a real sense of belief in the team, was watching George Williams at left back, in the space of 30 seconds put 3 blocks in to stop their decent winger getting a cross in. Block, get up, block again, get up, block again for a corner. Right in front of the away end. Doing the dirty work, stirring passion and emotion. Battling for team mates and us in the stand.

Entertaining football is more the spontaneity and unexpected than the planned and predictable, even if the latter is due to exceptional skill and tactics.

 

Finally something we agree on.

It is a shame you can't do what you do without this air of superiority, because if you did I think you'd be one of the most respected posters on here. Quite ironic when you think about it.

 

That’s a shame:

because I think you’d get a lot better engagement with your posts if your opening statement wasn’t always ‘this is probably beyond your comprehension plebs’.

edit: Cross posted with the above.

 

I am not trying to suggest that you did not enjoy those games. However, I am suggesting that it is possible for an emotionally invested watcher to enjoy an game that was not entertaining to a watcher who was not invested in the end result. The definition that I was trying to arrive at was a definition that is not dependent upon that emotional investment. You might well argue that such a definition is not worth anything, and I think most contributors on here would agree with that sentiment. However, it is something that I wanted to do because I wanted to know the difference that emotional involvement makes to our perceptions.

I know that many believe that I am trying to find more evidence to use against VI. If anything, the statistics show exactly the opposite. They show that we have been slightly more entertaining than our opponents. This is not another stick to beat anyone with. I do not like 3-4-3 and I am quite willing to explain why that is, but it has little to do with entertainment.

For your information the figures for the Derby game were, Derby County 0 (46) v Barnsley 2 (113) Total 159. It is the 7th most entertaining game of the season and the 5th most entertaining Barnsley performance. In comparison the figures for the Swnsea game were, Swansea City 2 (59) v Barnsley 0 (30) Total 89

 

Look guys. I am not looking for respect. I write about what I see, and I write in a manner that comes naturally. I am sorry that what I write and the manner that I write it offends some people, but I do not go out of my way to offend. I have taken a fair bit of stick over the years, and I try not to give it back. Instead, I try to explain in more detail why I hold the view that I do. I do not claim to be perfect. I do not claim that I know everything, or even more about the subject than my correspondent. Frankly, I can do nothing about my style, and If I offend, I suggest you start avoiding my posts, because my style is not something that I can change. I try to be interesting. I try to introduce new ideas. I try to stay well clear of politics. I cannot be anyone else but me.

 

I know that's possible. And without being emotionally involved do you truly believed that a neutral would enjoy watching people pass along the back 4 for 90 minutes? I don't think you do believe that

 

So you don’t actually care about the facts, or genuinely being objective; so long as you can carry on being bombastic.

Well that seems reasonable.

 

I love how he sees making condescending comments questioning other people's ability to understand football/ analytical skills as being "his style" which cannot in any way whatsoever change.