World Cup 2018 Group A- RUS/KSA/EGY/URU

SuperDave84 wrote: UCDFAN wrote: BrendanD88 wrote: SuperDave84 wrote: Why does every one of your posts look like it has gone through the beta version of google translate? Also, you misspelled temperature, so I think your post can be devalued too, applying the same logic. In terms of time of day etc, there are loads of teams who have played 9pm games in cooler locations... yet Russia have run further than any other team. Twice. Including their 4pm game. It is more than a little curious. @Superdave84 What is it you don't understand? because you understood my point about valuing contributions through spelling. Thumps up to the beta-version of Google Translate. The source spreadsheet doesn't consider the Sport or environment but just compares on Nationality. That should be a problem for anyone circulating or defending the source material. Style of play of Team, Style of play of opposition, score-line through the game, all of these things can be considered by someone who cares about the Sport. Eh, I never said I didn't understand your post. I get your point; however, those things are impossible to quantify. Also, addressing them head on, why would Russia need to run like blue-arsed flies against Saudi? Sure they had the lead for most of the game. Russia ran more than anyone else in a 4pm game, while teams in later games, in cooler locations, haven't run that far. It's very suspicious, no matter whether you deal with it as raw figures, or whether you contextualise it by reference to other, immeasurable factors. How do you propose to account for "style of play" in assessing if it is suspicious or not? Long and short of it, the numbers are a red flag, and not the good kind with a hammer and sickle.

Did you interrupt yourself? there was no need.
As you are probably already aware Style of Play can be quantified. Thank you for allowing me to find at least this research.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02640414.2016.1169309
"In conclusion, 12 (eight attacking and four defensive) different playing styles and associated performance indicators utilised in elite soccer were identified in this data set. Furthermore, the selected factors together explained 87.54% of the variance. The degree to which a team relies on a specific style can be determined based on the team’s score for each factor. "

As I mentioned score-line, tempeture (var. spelling),Time of Day. A couple more: km covered per goals scored; km covered per points earned.
Russia would return low kilometre numbers for those last two.
The Sport includes these considerations, effort/outcome ratios everywhere, both informal and formal.

The source spreadsheet ignores all of that but uses a single indicator to confirm bias of the author. But the Sport has to put in resources to respond to partial information, it would be helpful if Supporters of the Sport would challenge the partial information closer to the source. So there's a chance the quality of the information can improve. Atm the partial and incomplete information is been distributed and defended.

Russia Senior 'A' is probably too polite to comment on the inconsistency of "a little curious"/"very suspicious".

SuperDave84 wrote: The data is all there: is there a model that shows that Russia's running isn't suspiciously high, using some or all of the variables you've pointed out? The closest we have is raw data that suggests that it is. Even modifying for variables like temperature, humidity and time of day, Russia's km covered is already high. They were not playing in cool, dry, non-humid cities in the evening time, like the games in Yekaterinburg, Kazan or Nizhny. The single indicator used is easily the best single indicator. If you have a model that shows how it isn't suspicious, now's the time to show it, rather than just criticising the conclusions based on the data without showing how it is wrong. Also, to be clear, I didn't say it was "a little curious", I said it was "more than a little curious". That's not inconsistent with "very suspicious". If you're going to be a pedant, it helps to be right.

UCDFAN is Russian or of Russian origin  I reckon

Edited by Denis Irwin - 21 Jun 2018 at 6:15pm

@Denis Irwin

Denis Irwin wrote: SuperDave84 wrote: His brutally garbled English, bizarre syntax and unnecessary capitalisation would certainly lead to that conclusion... not to mention the inability to answer a straight question, and attacking the person raising the question as biased rather than actually addressing the issue in dispute. I'm done with him. As am I It's quite clear he can't accept genuine criticism/ questioning of Russia that is backed up . So he's resorting to the race card

irishmufc wrote: SuperDave84 wrote: His brutally garbled English, bizarre syntax and unnecessary capitalisation would certainly lead to that conclusion... not to mention the inability to answer a straight question, and attacking the person raising the question as biased rather than actually addressing the issue in dispute. I'm done with him. No dinner for UCD fan tonight.

The f**k you thread, that's where.

SuperDave84 wrote: The f**k you thread, that's where.