I will bet you my IQ is higher than yours screw!
-
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...
Manager Ange Postecoglou
- Thread starter The Fighting Cock
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
You didn't see my later post where I admitted I was wrong about us being in a relegation battle. Or, if you did, you chose to ignore it. No surprise there.
It's a fairly straightforward proposition. If you do or say something that turns out to be wrong, have the courage to admit it. You should try it some time.
I’d have to be wrong first.
Unsurprising response.
He’s not wrong : If and ( God willing ) when we do stay up ; Agent Ange will have done a lot of the heavy lifting when he was at Forest . So hopefully he’ll get some well-earned gratitude then .
Absolutely mental take this. Wanting to finish 10th-14th in the Premier League over winning a real, actual trophy for the first time in forever, wtf.
Because that would have been the reality, 10th -14th. The squad simply wasn’t good enough to fight on 2 or 3 fronts with all the injuries. Forster/Austin, Gray and Davies at CB, Mikey Moore, Reguilón, Werner, etc all playing significant minutes is no recipe for success.
This season fully corroborates that no matter how good or bad Postecoglou was, an already thin squad being injury-ravaged is a death blow to any hopes of a top 6 finish. Any sane person would take a European trophy and qualification for the Champions League in that situation eleven times out of ten and twice on Sundays.
Few English Prem sides are able to “ fight on two fronts “. TBF .
Witness last week’s results .
It’s one or the other ; very rarely both these days . Recent history has taught us that .
Last edited:
He was who set in the rot
Thread is full of crackheads
Ok children, let’s talk about logical fallacies and how to avoid them.
Oh really? We got 5th spot because our performances at the end of that season was so poor we actually through a CL spot away, after beating Aston Villa 4-0, to put us in the driving seat. Even then, if you take away the first 10 games of the season, we would have finished mid table probably in the bottom half of the table too, if we had maintained that consistency throughout the season.
After those first 10 games, we was on downward spiral, the football getting worse, the results, everything...
Not turning anything around, I am just not forgetting what happen, unlike so many other people.
Saying that “if you take away the first 10 games of the season we would have finished mid table” is no more relevant or meaningful than saying “if you take away the last 10 games of the season we would have finished top 5”. You can’t just pick one and ignore the other because you think it strengthens your argument.
Also, it’s fine to disregard 3 of 4 first choice defenders suddenly out after those first 10 games and shite like Dier, Davies and Emerson replacing them, but it’s undeniable that there were still several good performances and results after that point, so saying that “After those first 10 games, we was on downward spiral, the football getting worse, the results, everything...” doesn’t hold up.
And just a friendly reminder that post-Postecoglou the team is sitting in ummm *checks notes * 16th place and in genuine danger of relegation. 5th sounds fucking glorious.
He said he and the staff made the conscious decision to prioritise the Europa league.
And whether you agree with the decision or not, it’s pretty much undeniable that’s what happened. Because if you think it’s just something he’s saying to rewrite history, you’d have to explain why for instance he’d be regularly playing Gray/Davies/Dragusin over Romero and VDV when both were back fit?
And it’s not just the CBs, look at some of those Premier League lineups leading up to the semis and final. It couldn’t be any more obvious that winning the trophy was the goal over clawing their way up to… 15th.
What I recall from those first 10 games is the opposition carving our team up, walking through the defence, and Vicario making a series of astonishing point blank saves, and people on here stating we'd got a better keeper than Raya.
The reality though is he nor could any other goalkeeper maintain that level, and when Vicario's form slid so did the entire team.
I recall peaking through my fingers thinking how the fuck did he save that?
Unfortunately the writing was on the wall, I was hoping Vicario could keep being Superman, but the reality is, no goalkeeper can keep saving point blank shots when the defence have been caught out on the halfway line with one simple pass creating a breach.
Fortunately Vicario's golden period lasted long enough to get the team a decent finishing position in the league.
“Brilliant things” bwahahahaha.
This guy definitely grew up ‘winning’ a shit ton of participation trophies.
That's not the same thing though is it - there are actual methods in data science (Winsorization, Trimmed Mean, Regression to the Mean) to prevent over-weighting a series due to a small number of anomalies.
Your comparison is not the same, because if you take away the last 10 games of last season, we had 34 from 28 - making 1.21 ppg, or 46pts over a full season, ergo 14th position ignoring causality.
So “if you take away the first 10 games of the season we would have finished mid table” is pretty much exactly the same outcome as “if you take away the last 10 games of the season we would have finished mid table”
For more on that:
Initial 10 games of 23/24 = 2.6 ppg (P10, 26pts)
Remainder of 23/24= 1.42 ppg (P28, 40pts)
Full 23/24 = 1.74 ppg (P38, 66pts)
Full 24/25 = 1.0 ppg (P38, 38pts)
Full 23/24 + 24/25 = P78, 104pts = 1.36842105ppg = 52 point season average = mid table
Trimmed Mean
Combined minus anomaly = P66, 78pts = 1.18.
So over the 66 games we performed like a lower mid-table side that would average 45 points per season
Windsorization
Average ppg of a top 4 team is 1.8 ppg, so you apply a reasonable capping to the anomalies (10 * 1.8 ppg + 66 * 1.18 = 1.26315789 ppg), which is still a 48 point season and very mid-table
Recency Bias
Applying a 60/40 weighing to the most recent half means ((1.00 ppg * 0.6) + (1.74 * 0.4)) = 1.296 ppg = 49.28 ppg (lower mid table)
So whichever way you cut it, at very best, we were a regular top 6 side reduced to a lower mid table one.
It isn't some kind of "bias" or "delusion", but statistics and quite standard maths that supports ignoring the initial 10 games as they were a statistical outlier and served to cover up a rather immediate and settled decline that worsened over time
Initial 10 games of 23/24 = 2.6 ppg (P10, 26pts)
Remainder of 23/24= 1.42 ppg (P28, 40pts)
Full 23/24 = 1.74 ppg (P38, 66pts)
Full 24/25 = 1.0 ppg (P38, 38pts)
Full 23/24 + 24/25 = P78, 104pts = 1.36842105ppg = 52 point season average = mid table
Trimmed Mean
Combined minus anomaly = P66, 78pts = 1.18.
So over the 66 games we performed like a lower mid-table side that would average 45 points per season
Windsorization
Average ppg of a top 4 team is 1.8 ppg, so you apply a reasonable capping to the anomalies (10 * 1.8 ppg + 66 * 1.18 = 1.26315789 ppg), which is still a 48 point season and very mid-table
Recency Bias
Applying a 60/40 weighing to the most recent half means ((1.00 ppg * 0.6) + (1.74 * 0.4)) = 1.296 ppg = 49.28 ppg (lower mid table)
So whichever way you cut it, at very best, we were a regular top 6 side reduced to a lower mid table one.
It isn't some kind of "bias" or "delusion", but statistics and quite standard maths that supports ignoring the initial 10 games as they were a statistical outlier and served to cover up a rather immediate and settled decline that worsened over time
Erm, no - it is exactly the opposite of it.
Thinking it is unintelligence is, ironically, unintelligence.
Or conversely it might be exactly the opposite of the opposite of it.
Thinking thinking it is unintelligence is, ironically, unintelligence is, arguably, unintelligence.
Well, it's more than very clever people come up with statistical theory and analysis techniques, and "ignoring the first 10 games" is the absolutely first thing all of them would suggest to do, because they double up on the concept of "anomalies" and also "statistical over-performance". Double odd results.
The fact that people get so upset over 10 out of 76 games suggests how transparent it becomes without them