2024/25 Squad and Transfers

[vikingTON]

4 hours ago, dunning1874 said:

This is how the passage of time works yes, what with February and March being more recent than January.

So you have been removing February results and updating your assessment on a regular basis then, what with the passage of April rendering the first half of February's results equally irrelevant as 'recent form' by your own definition? 

Or did you simply form your argument first, looked for the precise size of goalposts that would best fit, and are now trying to pass it off as the second K-T boundary that Changed Everything? 

Tough call tbh. 

Edited April 13 by vikingTON

[dunning1874]

8 hours ago, vikingTON said:

So you have been removing February results and updating your assessment on a regular basis then, what with the passage of April rendering the first half of February's results equally irrelevant as 'recent form' by your own definition? 

Or did you simply form your argument first, looked for the precise size of goalposts that would best fit, and are now trying to pass it off as the second K-T boundary that Changed Everything? 

Tough call tbh. 

Someone is certainly moving goalposts to suit an argument here.

Are you genuinely failing to grasp the extremely simple point that looking at the time period in which a player has lost form is the only pertinent sequence of games to look at when discussing a player's contribution while off form, so we're talking about February as the start point because that's when Muirhead lost form?

Or are you simply being so obtuse that you're pretending to because you blundered into this by using factually incorrect statements to support your argument and can't admit you were wrong on those points, which is why you've quietly discarded those arguments once the facts have been pointed out and gone down the road of arguing about what time period can be used to judge recent form?

Tough call tbh.

[vikingTON]

12 hours ago, dunning1874 said:

Someone is certainly moving goalposts to suit an argument here.

Are you genuinely failing to grasp the extremely simple point that looking at the time period in which a player has lost form is the only pertinent sequence of games to look at when discussing a player's contribution while off form, so we're talking about February as the start point because that's when Muirhead lost form?

Well no, because if your comparison between the end product of Muirhead and assorted sand-dancers on the bench was based on objectively recording 'recent form', then you clearly need to drop games in February on a rolling basis - and update your poindexter database - to reflect the fact that those games are increasingly no longer recent at all. Instead, you finally admit that you just cherry-picked a start date that best fitted your argument and presented figures from that fixed starting point. Which is not objective and demonstrates nothing of value. 

A page of tedious back and forth that could have been avoided, but there are enough questionable judgments as it is on here without having a fraudulent attempt at statistical analysis being used to support them. 

[dunning1874]

On 4/14/2024 at 6:22 PM, vikingTON said:

Well no, because if your comparison between the end product of Muirhead and assorted sand-dancers on the bench was based on objectively recording 'recent form', then you clearly need to drop games in February on a rolling basis - and update your poindexter database - to reflect the fact that those games are increasingly no longer recent at all. Instead, you finally admit that you just cherry-picked a start date that best fitted your argument and presented figures from that fixed starting point. Which is not objective and demonstrates nothing of value. 

A page of tedious back and forth that could have been avoided, but there are enough questionable judgments as it is on here without having a fraudulent attempt at statistical analysis being used to support them. 

It's the fixed starting point because it's when Muirhead lost form and the whole discussion is about his contribution from the point he lost his form. Including his unquestionable positive contribution before that date would therefore be irrelevant, because no one is questioning that he was very good earlier in the season. Moving the start date forward would make no sense because it is still when his ongoing spell of poor form started. You know this.

I would avoid criticising someone for causing a tedious back and forth through a stubborn refusal to admit they're wrong with the incorrect use of statistics if the various claims I'd made in a thread included:

21 year old Michael Garrity is about to turn 24, a fact you didn't address when your error was pointed out

Muirhead never plays on the right when he'd played on the right three days prior to you making that claim, a fact you responded to by moving the goalposts to claim Muirhead only starting on the right once all season is irrelvant, an argument you then dropped and failed to address when the fact of his other starts on the right was pointed out at your request

None of the fringe players have shown they can make as many contributions to goals as Muirhead, then when it was demonstrated that one of the fringe players competing for a place had in fact been involved in as many goals since Muirhead's form deteriorated despite less time on the park, you pivoted to:

Claiming Muirhead's 10 starts in that time period prior to Friday's game was the same thing as Garrity's 3 starts and 7 sub appearances when Muirhead had more than double the amount of time on the park, and finally now with every actual footballing argument expended you're reduced to semantics about what constitutes recent form.

People get things wrong all the time, which certainly includes me being too harsh on Muirhead recently enough. You can quietly accept that you were objectively factually incorrect on any or all of these points and stop digging at any time.

[vikingTON]

45 minutes ago, dunning1874 said:

It's the fixed starting point because it's when Muirhead lost form and the whole discussion is about his contribution from the point he lost his form. Including his unquestionable positive contribution before that date would therefore be irrelevant, because no one is questioning that he was very good earlier in the season. Moving the start date forward would make no sense because it is still when his ongoing spell of poor form started. You know this.

Erm no - because when you claim that fringe jobbers are contributing more to the team based on recent form, then an objective definition of 'recent' is actually required for any meaningful comparison. 

Instead you opted for an entirely arbitrary start point that is not even recent at all any more. And also tried to pass off Muirhead starting as a right-sided forward last week for the first time since 1997 to 'show' that Bearne is definitely competing for the same position in the team.

These exercisye in cherry-picking and straw-clutching has all been to demonstrate that err, one of the squad fringe players produced just as many goal contributions in his best run of the season as Muirhead did in his worst. Which does not in fact make a credible case for your Garrity and Bearne dream team starting lineup as a solution to our lamentable tailspin, in the same way that your argument that Lewis McGrattan was the integral player in our victories last season was not credible either. 

[vikingTON]

59 minutes ago, dunning1874 said:

 

Claiming Muirhead's 10 starts in that time period prior to Friday's game was the same thing as Garrity's 3 starts and 7 sub appearances when Muirhead had more than double the amount of time on the park, 

This is precisely where you are wrong, because those two records are exactly the same thing to the manager of a professional football club. Players who make substitute appearances are expected to contribute just like starters. They're not thrown on to the park as a sympathy act. It doesn't matter whether you have 90 minutes or 25 minutes to deliver - the bottom line to Imrie or any other manager is the sum of a player's total contribution on the park to the team. 

The explanation for why your beloved squad players are not starting is entirely straightforward then: they haven't actually contributed enough to dislodge Muirhead or indeed any other starters in the pecking order. Being a standout in one game against Queens' Park and then being a bag of turds against Airdrie the next week merely confirms the existing pecking order. 

You believe that this is unfair and want their contribution to be weighted based on minutes off the bench, cherry-picked 'recent form' 'analysis', and a host of other mitigating circumstances, but the reality is that professional football isn't 'fair' in those terms and these excuses shouldn't and largely don't apply. 

[Greacen2000]

recent posts from VT on this thread have been total dug shite.  

[Toby]

Tedious dirge, but fair play to Dunning for not being bored into submission.

[capitanus]

I like this argument.

 

Carry on.

[IanClinging]

I understand the arguments around Muirhead. He's looked knackered since about February but still capable of getting a goal or creating an assist. Firhill in March and Dundee United last week being good examples. He looks like he'd benefit from a rest and coming off the bench with 20 minutes to go for a couple of games, he was a great impact sub when Imrie first arrived. But with Oakley out there is literally no-one else that can lead the line, so what do you do?

I'd definitely sign him up for another season, along with Oakley.

I would not sign Power or Broadfoot for another season, Power in particular. He's not going to get any faster and will continue to get caught on the ball, gifting goals.

[Brian Skelton]

I would be surprised if Broadfoot or Power get another contract at the meeting in the Morton supporters the chairman stated players wishing to end their careers at Cappielow is a thing of the past while he is there.

[BishopBrennan]

I've been told that we're signing Jay Bird from Arbroath in the summer. Bit of a strange one. 

[TRVMP]

That's a regen name. 

[The Bewilderedbeast]

28 minutes ago, BishopBrennan said:

I've been told that we're signing Jay Bird from Arbroath in the summer. Bit of a strange one. 

Well, stone the crows

 

 

Getting my coat

Edited April 20 by The Bewilderedbeast

[Cat10]

1 hour ago, BishopBrennan said:

I've been told that we're signing Jay Bird from Arbroath in the summer. Bit of a strange one. 

Should be trying to get McKenna

[Scott]

13 minutes ago, Cat10 said:

Should be trying to get McKenna

He’s apparently off to Falkirk. 

[ChampTon]

17 hours ago, BishopBrennan said:

I've been told that we're signing Jay Bird from Arbroath in the summer. Bit of a strange one. 

Thought he looked a bit raw when I've saw him this season but seems to have scored a few goals. Maybe not being in a completely dung team would help.

[dunning1874]

Not averse to the idea of having Bird as cover for Oakley, only 22 and 6 goals in 31 appearances (22 starts) for the worst team in the league by a mile isn't a bad return at all. What makes me wonder if it's worthwhile is that we're already bringing in Davies. I know Davies can play out wide or in behind a striker too, but we don't want to end up stockpiling attacking players and being short in other areas due to adding too many players who aren't going to improve the starting XI.

[RossMcC1874]

Don't really recall much of Bird but he has got 6 goals in the championship and is a good age and seems to be of the target man mold, wouldn't imagine he would be on much either seems a decent enough option. 

[vikingTON]

19 hours ago, Cat10 said:

Should be trying to get McKenna

A 33 year old whose peak of his career has been one stand out season at this level? It's a no thanks from me.