Three points for a win --- Hmmm

[Gordo]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan


Lampard is ****e, and you know this because Raineri is pleading for him to get a go in England. Eriksson isn't stupid. Face it, he's just a fat ****. Petit is by far a more cultured midfielder than Lampard will ever be. I guarantee you, I am not the only person here who doesn't rate him, does this mean we all don't know anything about soccer?

Anyway I won't resort to Dan26 style put downs by referring to your age, number of years bandwagoning or sexual preference.

Come off it mate.

He's probably the reason we're nipping at United's and Arsenal's heals. He's been the most consistent player for us this year.

I agree with your comment on Petit, but your comments arent true. Did you see Lampard's performance vs leeds during the week? He basically won us the game when we looked dead and buried.

I wouldnt call him a world class midfielder, but he isnt ****.

 

[Falchoon]

True Story

Mate of mine was at the Hallam pub and somehow got in a rumble with a bunch of Maoris, outsized, outclassed, outnumbered he swang a few, connected a few but came off second best. Lieing on the ground as the Maoris walked away he called out "you call that a beating, my mums given me better beatings than that"

Moral of the story, sometimes it's better to shut the **** up.


Dan?

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Dan26
No, I never said applying education to the real world wasn't relevant.

You implied it.

My post compared two jobs, and in doing so, I explicity stated that it didn't matter what the job was, the opinion of the said person was just as relevant.

You "explicity stated that it didn't matter what the job was", ie your ability to apply your education to the real world didn't matter.

You contradict yourself in one paragraph. That must be a bigfooty record.

Oh, so you think a 0.08 of one goal combined getween both teams is a significant figure do you?

In combination with the change in the number of draws, yes.

And I didn't state that the rule had no impact overall. I stated, correctly that it had no impact in England which has proved entirely correct

No it hasn't, as you've admitted below.

(oh wait, except for that huge 0.08 of one goal per game which has changed the way we live and speak.

Once again you display your ignorance. It's impact is more than what can be measured in goal scoring statistics.

 

[M29]

Originally posted by Dave
Not even Bill Gates could come up with something so convoluted.

But for the right proce he'd purcahse it.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Dave
You implied it.

Nice backpeddle. I've apparently gone from saying it to implying it. I didn't say it and I didn't imply it. If you're going to claim I implied something when I didn't say it, you can claim that anyone implied anything.

Originally posted by Dave
You "explicity stated that it didn't matter what the job was", ie your ability to apply your education to the real world didn't matter.

I stated it didn't matter what the job was because the job is irrelevant to the person's understanding of the topic. In other words, it doesn't matter what the job is, the truck driver can still apply their education to the real word, as an Accountant can.

Originally posted by Dave
In combination with the change in the number of draws, yes.

Firstly, what in the hell has the number of draws got to do with exciting attacking football? If people like higher scoring football (and I don't care, I just want high quality) the those people would like a 4-4 draw instead of a 1-0 result.

The bottom line is, if you think 0.08 of one goal per game (and that is combined between BOTH teams Dave) is significant you relly need to get some persepctive buddy.

Originally posted by Dave
Once again you display your ignorance. It's impact is more than what can be measured in goal scoring statistics.

And you'd know.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Dan26
Nice backpeddle.

Warning! Warning! DanOffice (TM) detects a serious spelling error in the above post. Let us consult the DanOffice Spelling & Grammar Consultant for more information:

Error: Backpeddle
Suggestions: Backpedal
Opinion: Back to school for you!

How can you not love DanOffice (TM)? Spelling & Grammar checks with personality! Order today!

 

[M29]

Originally posted by Falchoon
True Story

Mate of mine was at the Hallam pub and somehow got in a rumble with a bunch of Maoris, outsized, outclassed, outnumbered he swang a few, connected a few but came off second best. Lieing on the ground as the Maoris walked away he called out "you call that a beating, my mums given me better beatings than that"

Moral of the story, sometimes it's better to shut the **** up.


Dan?

But did he keep going to different pubs and doing the same thing? That's the bigger question.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
Warning! Warning! DanOffice (TM) detects a serious spelling error in the above post. Let us consult the DanOffice Spelling & Grammar Consultant for more information:

Error: Backpeddle
Suggestions: Backpedal
Opinion: Back to school for you!

How can you not love DanOffice (TM)? Spelling & Grammar checks with personality! Order today!

http://trephination.net/gallery/macros/stage******.jpg

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
Lampard is ****e, and you know this because Raineri is pleading for him to get a go in England.

Warning! Warning! I detect a serious spelling error in the above post. Let us consult the Diego Forlan "names of coaches" Spelling & Grammar Consultant for more information:

Error: Raineri
Suggestions: Ranieri
Opinion: Back to school for you!

Conclusion: Subject should not make errors with the name of one of the higher profile managers. Subject obviously sees very little of Chelsea, judging by spelling of coaches name, and opinion of key players.

 

[David O'Leary]

Originally posted by Dan26
Subject obviously sees very little of Chelsea, judging by spelling of coaches name, and opinion of key players.

That's almost as bad as thinking Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink is American

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Dan26
Nice backpeddle. I've apparently gone from saying it to implying it. I didn't say it

In the exact words no, but the meaning was there in the words that you did use.

As for backpeddling, how'd that apology to Dipper go?

Or the reply to Moomba?

and I didn't imply it.

Yes you did.

I stated it didn't matter what the job was because the job is irrelevant to the person's understanding of the topic.

No it isn't.

In other words, it doesn't matter what the job is, the truck driver can still apply their education to the real word, as an Accountant can.

One demonstrates their ability to do so though their employement.

The other demonstrates their ability to do so how?

Firstly, what in the hell has the number of draws got to do with exciting attacking football?

If teams want more than one point they have to win. To win you have to attack. Getting the picture yet?

If people like higher scoring football (and I don't care, I just want high quality) the those people would like a 4-4 draw instead of a 1-0 result.

The bottom line is, if you think 0.08 of one goal per game (and that is combined between BOTH teams Dave) is significant you relly need to get some persepctive buddy.

Why? Because you say so?

And you'd know.

Well structured rebuttal Dan. I knew I'd get the rolleyes eventually, they're what you always fall back on when you're backed into a corner.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by M29
But did he keep going to different pubs and doing the same thing? That's the bigger question.

With the same bunch or a different bunch?

 

[Dave]

Just thought I'd post this again, Dan obviously missed it first time around.

Originally posted by moomba
Once again Dan, you have failed to respond to the following points, preferring just to restate the 0.08 goals per game rubbish. Here is why that figure is misleading.

1 - From memory your 0.08 per game figure was over a period of over 30 years. There have been changes in the number of teams in th eleague, rule changes, and many other factors that would affect that figure. You haven't addressed any of these other factors which IMO makes your figures meaningless.

2 - You have failed to recognise the existence of matches which are played in a much more attacking manner, but do not contain more goals. In my mind these games are a great benefit to the game, but no stats will reflect that.

3 - You have failed to consider that in many games, for example Man City leading by 3 goals over Fulham half way through the match, the rule was never going to have any effect. Where it is most effective is those games that meander to a meaningless draw, with neither side making any great efforts to get the winner. These are the games that the rule was brought in for, and a more meaningful figure would be the increase in goals per game in these types of games

4 - You have failed to accept the simple fact that scoring was on a downward trend as indicated by Falchoon, and as proven by goals scoring records in English Division 1 since the 50's. This trend was ended, surprisingly enough about the same time as the rule changed.

5 - You have not considered the fact that for the last five years of 2 points for a win, gmaes finished in a result 71.2% of the time. For the five years after the rule change that rate was lifted to 75.5%, significant in any language. Of course you avoided this topic by inferring that my sample size of ten years to so small it was meaningless, yet since then you have used sample sizes of 12 years and 1 year. I am still waiting for an answer about this inconsistency.

6 - You have failed to accept the simple fact that goal scoring in every year since the rule was changed in Italy has exceed goals scoring in all but one year since the early 1960's. Matches finishing in a result in Italy in every year since the rule change have been far greater than any year since the early 60's.

These are just a few of the questions that you have consistently failed to answer. I am also waiting for a response as to why you suggested that you were the only one to find Italian League stats even after I showed you the post that I made detailing these stats several days ago. I am still waiting for you come up with any evidence to refute the fact that increasing or decreasing the number of teams in a league affects scoring rates.

I am sure there are many questions to you that have remained unanswered on this topic (and others). Be aware that every time you argue your point without making any attempt to address those questions, they will be asked again and again.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Dan26
Warning! Warning! I detect a serious spelling error in the above post. Let us consult the Diego Forlan "names of coaches" Spelling & Grammar Consultant for more information:

Error: Raineri
Suggestions: Ranieri
Opinion: Back to school for you!

Conclusion: Subject should not make errors with the name of one of the higher profile managers. Subject obviously sees very little of Chelsea, judging by spelling of coaches name, and opinion of key players.

You've got to give Dan credit here for coming up with his own original material for a change.

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by Dave
Just thought I'd post this again, Dan obviously missed it first time around.

Not to worry Dave. I think Dan is still trying to find a statistical reason why my stats on the Italian league are immature and irrelevant, and as such, he remains the only one who has provided stats (not that he actually provided them, but he has them on his system ... honest)

I am sure when Dan finalises that task he will get going on some of the questions that he has unfortunately missed answering over the past couple of years.

Moomba

 

[Dave]

It's either that or he's out scouring the net for those hilariously funny photos he keeps posting.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Moomba
1 - From memory your 0.08 per game figure was over a period of over 30 years. There have been changes in the number of teams in th eleague, rule changes, and many other factors that would affect that figure. You haven't addressed any of these other factors which IMO makes your figures meaningless.

So why hypocritically use Falchoon's figures showing a decrease in scoring since the 1950's? You going to claim that figure is meaningless too, because of the number of teams, rule changes etc? You are a total hypocrite if you accept his figures since the 1950's but don't accept mine for the reasons you gave. Hypocrite! You have no case if you just blindly accept Falchoon's figures. None.

Those very same factors (number of teams, rule changes etc) are also relevant to your argument of scoring having increased since 1981. If you don't use those figures, they are just as meaningless as you imply mine are. Bottom line is my figures are not meaningless. There was no significant trend since 1969 in England (which was where I had the figures from) that showed scoring was significantly changing.

If you don't like the league samples of 30 years, because of the large amount of variables, then take smaller samples (say, ten years before and after 1981) and there is no significant change.

Originally posted by Moomba
You have failed to recognise the existence of matches which are played in a much more attacking manner, but do not contain more goals. In my mind these games are a great benefit to the game, but no stats will reflect that.

This shows you have absolutely no understanding of the topic. Over several thousand matches, if there was factor which made teams play more attacking football, this would manifest itself into higher scores. More attacking football equals higher scores.

Obviously, there are individual matches here and there which have an attacking nature which don't result in goals. But over the course of many, many matches, a variable which makes teams play more attacking football will reuslt in more goals. Goal scoring hasn't increased, so the "3-point for a win" variable has had little effect in England.

If teams are playing more attacking football they might create, say, 12 chances per game instead of 9. An average of twelve chances per game should result in more goals over hundreds of matches than an average of 9 chances per game over the same number of matches.

Originally posted by Moomba
You have failed to consider that in many games, for example Man City leading by 3 goals over Fulham half way through the match, the rule was never going to have any effect. Where it is most effective is those games that meander to a meaningless draw, with neither side making any great efforts to get the winner. These are the games that the rule was brought in for, and a more meaningful figure would be the increase in goals per game in these types of games

Well hurry up and provide some evidence that that goals per game figure has increased in those "type of games."

Originally posted by Moomba
You have failed to accept the simple fact that scoring was on a downward trend as indicated by Falchoon, and as proven by goals scoring records in English Division 1 since the 50's. This trend was ended, surprisingly enough about the same time as the rule changed.

Scoring on a downward trend eh? I know you don't like big samples because you reckon there are too many variables like rule changes, etc. You even said that yourself, so why be a hypocrite and claim a trend since the 50's when you stated yourself that such a figure is meaningless!!!

So 10 years should be a good sample.

Average total score per game for the last 10 years before the rule in England.

1972 - 2.51
1973 - 2.51
1974 - 2.40
1975 - 2.63
1976 - 2.66
1977 - 2.56
1978 - 2.66
1979 - 2.63
1980 - 2.42
1981 - 2.66

What about the trend in Italy? Scoring on a downward trend there too?

Average total score per game for the last 10 years before the rule change in Italy.

1985 - 2.1
1986 - 2.06
1987 - 1.93
1988 - 2.1
1989 - 2.11
1990 - 2.24
1991 - 2.29
1992 - 2.27
1993 - 2.80
1994 - 2.40

That trend of lower scoring must be some invisible trend. If anything, in Italy scoring was going UP.

Originally posted by Moomba
You have not considered the fact that for the last five years of 2 points for a win, gmaes finished in a result 71.2% of the time. For the five years after the rule change that rate was lifted to 75.5%.

And for years 6-10 (the next set of 5 years) after the rule change the rate was 71.86%. What's your point?

Originally posted by Moomba
You have failed to accept the simple fact that goal scoring in every year since the rule was changed in Italy has exceed goals scoring in all but one year since the early 1960's. Matches finishing in a result in Italy in every year since the rule change have been far greater than any year since the early 60's.

So, why is Italy your only escape route here? Have a problem, bring up Italy. As you can see from the ten years prior to the rule coming into play scoring was increasing. How do you know this wouldn't have kept going? Assumptions don't count. And even if the rule has done it's job and created more goals and results in Italy, it hasn't done so in England.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Dave
In the exact words no, but the meaning was there in the words that you did use.

Bullsh*t.

Originally posted by Dave
Yes you did.

Who the hell are you, the "thought" police? The only one who knows what I did or didn't imply is ME. Not you. So, before you start invading us with your stock standard well researched 3 word replies, it might be worthwhile remembering that you cannot read minds.

Originally posted by Dave
No it isn't.

Yes the job IS irrelevant to the persons understanding of the topic.

Originally posted by Dave
One demonstrates their ability to do so though their employement.

The other demonstrates their ability to do so how?

The Accountant follows a computer program, and probably does very little manual calculation. The day to day application of two equally intelligent people (one a truck driver, one an accountant) takes place not just in one's job but in their everyday life, from visits to the supermarket to planning the family budget, to investing their money in shares.

But that is not relevant anyway, because the initial discussion involved a truck driver with a statistics degree and comparing him to an Accountant with the same degree. The job itself is irrelevant to their understanding of the topic we are discussing here.

Originally posted by Dave
If teams want more than one point they have to win. To win you have to attack. Getting the picture yet?

And if both teams have exactly the same attack minded attitude there is every chance the game will still end in a draw. And to win, you don't necessarily have to attack anyway. You can defend all game and try to score on the counter attack, because you don't want to take risks that will result in goals to the opposition.

Originally posted by Dave
Why? Because you say so?

Yes. To think 0.08 is significant indicates a huge lack of common-sense on your part. So yes... get some persepctive because I said so.

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by Dan26
So why hypocritically use Falchoon's figures showing a decrease in scoring since the 1950's? You going to claim that figure is meaningless too, because of the number of teams, rule changes etc? You are a total hypocrite if you accept his figures since the 1950's but don't accept mine for the reasons you gave. Hypocrite! You have no case if you just blindly accept Falchoon's figures. None.

The only reason I brought up Falchoons figures is because you said that the fact that scoring has been on a downward trend since the 50's was a figment of his and my imaginations. I am yet to see you acknowledge that you were wrong to say that. Other than that the only thinkg I have said about those figures is that they are one of many factors, other than the 3 points for a win rule change that have to be considered when assessing scoring patterns over a long period of time.

As for hypocritical, you bagged me for using a sample size of ten years, yet you have used 12, and 1 year figures as "evidence" to support you point of view.

Those very same factors (number of teams, rule changes etc) are also relevant to your argument of scoring having increased since 1981. If you don't use those figures, they are just as meaningless as you imply mine are. Bottom line is my figures are not meaningless. There was no significant trend since 1969 in England (which was where I had the figures from) that showed scoring was significantly changing.

I have acknowledge that there are many factors behind scoring over a long period of time, you have not. I have also acknowledge that statistics alone can only provide an indicator of trends, not the full story. Surprisingly enough, you have not come up with one non-statistical argument in this thread.

If you don't like the league samples of 30 years, because of the large amount of variables, then take smaller samples (say, ten years before and after 1981) and there is no significant change.

Six (or seven) years after the rule change the number of teams in the league changed from 44, to 46 to 38. I don't see the point in doing any analysis of scoring figures during this period, without also doing a detailed analysis of the effects of changing numbers of teams in a league. That's why I didn't go beyond the 5 years either way.

This shows you have absolutely no understanding of the topic. Over several thousand matches, if there was factor which made teams play more attacking football, this would manifest itself into higher scores. More attacking football equals higher scores.

No, it shows that you are incapable of accepting a point of view different to your own. If a number of situations occur over a period that would have the effect of reducing scoring, yet scoring stays the same, is it not reasonable to expect that other situations exist (ie existence of a new rule encouraging attacking play) that would increase scoring. Several people on here have come up with legitimate reasons why scoring rates would be on the decline throughout the 80's and 90's, you are yet to address any one of those. Secondly, your own statistics show that goals have increased since the introduction of the rule.

You continue to quote the 0.08 however you have been unable/incapble/unwilling to acknowledge that the rule change was never intended to effect every match. Just by way of example if 8 matches are played and going into the final 10 minutes, 6 of them involve a team taking the lead, you are going to get pretty much the same effect with 2 points for a win or 3. It is only the two where the result is in question that you will see th e benefits of the rule. If this leads to 1 extra goal only, your stats will show .125 goals per game played, but in reality it has been closer to .50 goals per game in the games that the rule change was brought in to change (ie those goals that result in a boring draw because neither side is prepared to take the initiative, and take some risks to score the winner).

Obviously, there are individual matches here and there which have an attacking nature which don't result in goals. But over the course of many, many matches, a variable which makes teams play more attacking football will reuslt in more goals. Goal scoring hasn't increased, so the "3-point for a win" variable has had little effect in England.

Scoring has increased, by over 30 goals per season from memory. Again you fail to address any alternative reasons why scoring may not have increased as much as you would like.

If teams are playing more attacking football they might create, say, 12 chances per game instead of 9. An average of twelve chances per game should result in more goals over hundreds of matches than an average of 9 chances per game over the same number of matches.

Unless there are other reasons which would otherwise reduce scoring rates. To help you out again:
- Number of teams in the league has been reduced, logic says that the loss of the two weakest teams will reduce scoring across the board.
- Huge influx of foreign players has changed the dynamics of the game immeasurably. While I suspect the influx of outfield players has made the game more of a spectacle, and much more enjoyable, I think that is more than countered out by the pure quality of foreign keepers present in English football today.
- Scoring was on a downward trend since the 50's. I suspect that this has and will continue be an ongoing problem with the league as it continues to get more and more professional, and the costs of relegation get bigger and bigger. Fact is that managers cannot afford to role the dice, unless there is a significant reqard in it for them.
- Add in to this technology changes in footwear, footballs, refereeing standards, and just about everything involved in the sport show that unless you are prepared to put in a bit more effort than you have, comparing statistics over such a period of time is pointless.

Well hurry up and provide some evidence that that goals per game figure has increased in those "type of games."

Provide some evidence that scoring hasn't.

Scoring on a downward trend eh? I know you don't like big samples because you reckon there are too many variables like rule changes, etc. You even said that yourself, so why be a hypocrite and claim a trend since the 50's when you stated yourself that such a figure is meaningless!!!

It's not meaningless, when the debate is whether or not scoring has been on a downward trend since the 50's. Once again, you were wrong on that one, yet you fail to acknowledge that. In reference to the topic of the thread, it is only one other factor that must be considered if you are going to compare figures over a 50 year period. You won't consider that factor, as such your stats are a waste.

So 10 years should be a good sample.

Average total score per game for the last 10 years before the rule in England.

1972 - 2.51
1973 - 2.51
1974 - 2.40
1975 - 2.63
1976 - 2.66
1977 - 2.56
1978 - 2.66
1979 - 2.63
1980 - 2.42
1981 - 2.66

What about the trend in Italy? Scoring on a downward trend there too?

Average total score per game for the last 10 years before the rule change in Italy.

1985 - 2.1
1986 - 2.06
1987 - 1.93
1988 - 2.1
1989 - 2.11
1990 - 2.24
1991 - 2.29
1992 - 2.27
1993 - 2.80
1994 - 2.40

That trend of lower scoring must be some invisible trend. If anything, in Italy scoring was going UP.

Once again Dan26, you said that the fact that scoring was on a downward trend since the 50's was a figment of Falchoon's an my imagination. I proved you wrong, end of story. Just in case you missed it (because you sure as hell haven't acknowledged it):

English Division 1 goal scoring rates.
1950/51 - 1959/60 season: 3.41 goals per game
1960/61 - 1969/70 season: 3.16 goals per game
1970/71 - 1979/80 season: 2.54 goals per game

If it walks like a downward trend, and talks like a downward trend.

And for years 6-10 (the next set of 5 years) after the rule change the rate was 71.86%. What's your point?

Help me out here Dan, what exactly are you talking about.

So, why is Italy your only escape route here? Have a problem, bring up Italy. As you can see from the ten years prior to the rule coming into play scoring was increasing. How do you know this wouldn't have kept going? Assumptions don't count. And even if the rule has done it's job and created more goals and results in Italy, it hasn't done so in England.

Prove me wrong Dan26
- The scoring in 1992/93 was affected by two things, first the introduction of the backpass rule in Italy, second the presence of two teams, Ancona and Pescara being promoted to Serie A and having a combined 234 goals either scored for, or more likely scored against prior to immediate relegation. This compared to 169 goals involving the two bottom team the year before, a difference of 0.21 goals per game.
- The impact of the back pass rule was lessened the following year and the two bottom teams Atalanta and Lecce were involved in a combined 200 goals only. Scoring in every year since then has been higher than every year (but 1992/93) since the early 1960's. I note you haven't mentioned the fact that the Italian league has had a huge decrease in draws in every year since (you have to go back to the 1969/70 season to find the last time there was a higher percentage of results).

As for escape routes, what the hell are you talking about. Your stats show that not only has scoring increased in England, despite numerous other factors affecting the level of scoring, but the instances of games ending in a draw has decreased, and all this with not one negative consequence of the rule. No escape route needed by me, I can safely say that the 3 point rule has been a great benefit to English and Italian football, with no negatives consequences

Moomba

 

[Diego Forlan]

Moomba, I'm sorry to say, you're on a hiding to nothing on this one.

DanSelectivity (TM) coupled with DanReasoning (TM) and DanIgnorance (TM), means he will never ever see past his own point of view and accept that he can (and is) wrong on virtually every argument he puts forward in regards to the world game. I liken it to talking to a brick wall.

Meanwhile, I have to go and sell a few copies of DanOffice (TM) to my friends at Danoz Direct. I'm sure they'll sell quite nicely

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by Dan26
Yes. To think 0.08 is significant indicates a huge lack of common-sense on your part. So yes... get some persepctive because I said so.

Over 30 goals a year is significant, with no negative effects of the rule change an extra 1 goal a year is significant.

I would say that someone who quotes statistical references from over 50 years of data, yet does not acknowledge the presence of any alternative factors that could effect the accuracy of the figures knows bugger all about accoutancy, statistics or anything else.

I can imagine you arguing that someone who earns 10 times more than they did ten years ago is ten times better off.

Of course, cost of living, increased expenses, mortgages, child support, travel costs etc would all immature, irrelevent, and meaningless factors to you, the simple statistics show that the person is earning 10.0 times what he or she did the year before.

Moomba

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Dan26
I'm only having a go at the two of them. They were agreeing with each other to a ridiculous extent. Calling them bum-chums implies that they follow each other on the net. It does not imply they were gay unless you're sense of perspective is warped.

Originally posted by Dan26 I think it's pretty obvious, from the bum-chum aspect of both of the above two posts, that Diego Forlan and Shinboners are sleeping together.

So what does claiming they are sleeping together imply Dan?

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Dan26
Bullsh*t.

Such compelling argument.

Who the hell are you, the "thought" police?

Temper temper.

The only one who knows what I did or didn't imply is ME.

Wrong, the implication is in your words. Whether you intended it or not it another matter.

See, there's a difference between implication and intention.

Yes the job IS irrelevant to the persons understanding of the topic.

No Daniel it isn't.

The Accountant follows a computer program, and probably does very little manual calculation. The day to day application of two equally intelligent people (one a truck driver, one an accountant) takes place not just in one's job but in their everyday life, from visits to the supermarket to planning the family budget, to investing their money in shares.

That's your argument? That your home budget gives you as much experience in statistical analysis as working in the field does?

But that is not relevant anyway, because the initial discussion involved a truck driver with a statistics degree and comparing him to an Accountant with the same degree. The job itself is irrelevant to their understanding of the topic we are discussing here.

No, the initial discussion was that the person who worked in their field was more likely to know what they were on about and that their opinion holds more weight than that of someone who does not work in the field. That was my point, and as usual you missed it.

Yes. To think 0.08 is significant indicates a huge lack of common-sense on your part.

I'll take the opinion of those who know their stuff over yours any day Dan.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Dan26
"Yes you DID say that I said scoring was going up, when I never said scoring was going up. You said, "Even here all you've done is use one years stats as an argument that the scoring was going up anyhow." "

Originally posted by Dan26
That trend of lower scoring must be some invisible trend. If anything, in Italy scoring was going UP.

Nice backpeddle.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by moomba
Surprisingly enough, you have not come up with one non-statistical argument in this thread.

Gasp! Heresy! Moomba, you of all people should know better than to suggest that non-statistical argument holds any merit on these boards.

If you persist in this illogical line of reasoning you may recieve a visit from DanJihad (TM). Not a pretty thought.