Jump to content

Barry Bannan


villianusa

Recommended Posts

It doesn't affect our evaluation of Bannan though because we're not interested in the total chances he's created but the relative number of chances he's created compared to other players in other teams, and to other players in the same team.

Only if they were all aiming at the same player in the first place - for the example of crosses, Bannan is aiming at Benteke whilst Gerrard is aiming at Suarez. You would expect Benteke to be more of an aerial threat than Suarez so it makes Bannan's cross more likely to find its target than Gerrard's.

Stats can be very useful, but in this instance there are far too many variables. Even if comparing players aiming at the same target (so Bannan for Villa vs, say, Defour for Belgium) it wouldn't be a fair example as the standard of opposition would be important as would the number of opponents. In a league match Benteke may be being marked by one defender but at international level it may be two.

You just can't draw a fair like-for-like comparison based on stats with so many variables. Distance run, goals scored per chance, etc are a little easier to compare but it's still relying on equalities of context.

When I designed Italy's World Cup shirt in 2006 we tested the aerodynamics of it in a low velocity wind tunnel. We had to measure the results based on the notion of all the competitor products being worn by the same player in the same conditions, running in the same direction with the same level of fatigue. As such we used a figure of a running athlete (rather than a real one) and had scientists ensure the consistency of the environment.

Football is a game of variables so using stats is fundamentally flawed. If it were as simple as measuring stats Sam Allardyce, arguably the greatest advocate of sports science in the modern game, would be manager of Barcelona.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if they were all aiming at the same player in the first place - for the example of crosses, Bannan is aiming at Benteke whilst Gerrard is aiming at Suarez. You would expect Benteke to be more of an aerial threat than Suarez so it makes Bannan's cross more likely to find its target than Gerrard's.

Suarez is good with his feet. If Gerrard keeps his passes low he plays to Suarez's strength.

Stats can be very useful, but in this instance there are far too many variables. Even if comparing players aiming at the same target (so Bannan for Villa vs, say, Defour for Belgium) it wouldn't be a fair example as the standard of opposition would be important as would the number of opponents. In a league match Benteke may be being marked by one defender but at international level it may be two.

Just getting the cross in the right area is an achievement. Bannan is better at it than other Villa players.

When comparing to other teams Aston Villa aren't the only team with an aerial threat. Baines has Felliani. Stoke has Crouch.

If we didn't have Benteke perhaps Bannan would be equally adept at passing to feet.

Don't forget that fantastic crosses that can create chances may not show up on the statistics.

This occurs when excellent crosses are sent in while the striker is asleep and not keeping up with play. Crosses when striker is AWOL don't count to the 'chances created' stat.

In football it takes two players playing well to create a chance.

You just can't draw a fair like-for-like comparison based on stats with so many variables. Distance run, goals scored per chance, etc are a little easier to compare but it's still relying on equalities of context.

I agree. But if you look too hard at anything all meaning disappears. Stare at a blank wall long enough you will start seeing things and forget it's a wall.

This is why I agree that statistics aren't everything, but they aren't nothing at all either.

When I designed Italy's World Cup shirt in 2006 we tested the aerodynamics of it in a low velocity wind tunnel. We had to measure the results based on the notion of all the competitor products being worn by the same player in the same conditions, running in the same direction with the same level of fatigue. As such we used a figure of a running athlete (rather than a real one) and had scientists ensure the consistency of the environment.

If you look hard enough nothing at all is consistent with the statistics logged during different football matches except the inconsistency.

Pitch. Weather conditions. Quality of opponent. Number of fans. Vocality of fans. Side of bed the players got out. Tactics. Manager. Everything is different.

However, statistics do provide the baseline where you begin to evaluate different players. There is no other place to begin - unless you like to pick your first XI based on astrological signs.

Statistics alone aren't enough due to the inconsistencies in how they are acquired.

This requires that statistics on different players must go through human interpretation. You can't compare directly the statistics of Bannan with Gerrard with Birdcutt.

Who is the most superb? Most would say Gerrard. You can argue otherwise, but the statistics and the argument is easiest to maintain for Gerrard.

Football is a game of variables so using stats is fundamentally flawed. If it were as simple as measuring stats Sam Allardyce, arguably the greatest advocate of sports science in the modern game, would be manager of Barcelona.

Yes I agree... there are statistics favourable and negative about Bannan and you can't use either to say he is good or bad for sure, without some human interpretation.

Edited by Con
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me guess Con.. he had a good game today?

Terrible player and for me he is part of the problem we keep on leaking goals.. he offers no protection in midfield and players just breeze past him.

Also he doesn't do a good job of holding the ball infact he got caught in possession today near the box which thankfully came to nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tempo of the second half was completely different from the first minute, when Bannan wasn't on the pitch.

He came on when we had already conceded. 1-2.

No, he didn't inspire us to stay ahead.

Bannan is not to blame. We needed to have replaced Delph with an experienced player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abysmal player

I find it a strange coincidence that 5 mins after he's on the pitch the possession statistic was 76% to baggies 24% to Villa...

We completely lost the midfield battle and threw the game away

His corners were woeful not threatening in the slightest powderpuff and floated easily dealt with

Westwood's corners are 100 times better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's the reason we lost today. And the reason we've lost throughout our history. He shot Archduke Ferdinand and he set fire to the HIndenbuerg. He grew the iceberg that sunk the Titanic in his freezer and made AIDS in his fridge. If he touches a plant it dies and he can often be found strangling cute little bunny rabbits round the back of the co-op.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody can defend this lightweight clown anymore. My lad play's CM at academy level under 16's and I would put money on him bullying bannan all day. I'm truly suprised he made it through the youth system. He is shit end of!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly how is he playing in the Prem. a good clue is that he can't start for a weak Scotland side. I'd literally give him away, actually i would personally offer a buying £1000 out of my own pocket just so he couldn't be picked.

This is no Exageration to say I would offer the back 4 better protection, physically I can offer more, and my corners and passing would be equally as shit! Paul I can probably make Saturdays but midweek games I would struggle.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...
Â