Subjectivity v reality

[houseboy]

Looking at an Aberdeen forum earlier I got to thinking about an individual's perception of a game based on obvious bias as opposed to the actual reality. Some on there were saying they 'could have won' and one character even said we were 'there for the taking'. I appreciate that we have ALL been guilty of this at some point but take a look at the stats below from the game last night and see if there is ANY correlation with some of those Aberdeen views.

Burnley Aberdeen
16 Shots 16
7 Shots on target 3
61% Possession 39%
586 Passes 372
69% Pass accuracy 53%
13 Fouls 17
2 Yellow cards 2
0 Red cards 0
4 Offsides 1
7 Corners 11

Fan bias interests me and this is a classic case of dreams over reality. The only two stats where they out-did us were fouls and corners. I know there can be anomalies, such as when we beat Liverpool with less than 20% possession or when Arsenal did the same sort of thing to Bayern one time, but looking at the above I'd say that no-one could rightly claim they could have won based on real stats, there are no vagaries here, no room for manoeuvre, we won and deservedly so.

[edison]

They could have won - that is accurate

[dsr]

Probably their point is that they had a couple of near dos, and if they'd done better with one of their chances or half chances they would have gone through in normal time. Which is true. But in most games, either side can point to an incident where IF they had done something different it would have changed the game. There are very few draws (after 90 minutes!) where both sides couldn't validly claim they could have won.

[RalphCoatesComb]

They COULD have won the tie right up to the point where Ashley Barnes smashed in the penalty.

They had several half chances that, if taken, would have won them the game.

In terms of reality, it was a lot closer than any of us wanted it to be. Well done Aberdeen for making a fist of it.

[Devils_Advocate]

We've won and drawn many matches over the last couple of years where we were on the wrong end of those kind of stats and we've scoffed at opposition fans on their forums bemoaning how they deserved to win and how lucky we were.

There we some close moments last night and had Aberdeen gone 2-1 up in the 2nd half as they nearly did a couple of times then I'm fairly certain with the away goals they'd have gone on to win and deservedly so.

[Lord Beamish]

Reality. We won, 4 goals to 2. No other stats matter as much as that one.

[TheFamilyCat]

This is similar to the arguments last season, or possibly the season before (Man U?) about how good/ bad we were defensively after one particular game.

The stats showed that the opposition had a a lot of shots at goal, suggesting they had created a lot of chances, therefore our defence was poor. In reality, a lot of those attempts were long range because we didn't let them near our area as a result of our defensive qualities.

[houseboy]

They could have won - that is accurate

Yes they could, if the game had a completely different set of stats and a different pattern entirely, or if the ref had been stupid, or if a couple of our players had dropped dead on the pitch, but based on those stats and the actual result who could legitimately claim we were there for the taking? I'm not saying they couldn't have won against all those adverse stats, we all know it's possible, but to claim some kind of hard luck story against the facts is just backing up what I said originally, that fan bias is a funny kind of thing.

[NottsClaret]

It's right what Dyche says about fine margins. When pundits and fans talk about a 'huge gulf' between teams, you rarely see that play out over 90 minutes. One team might beat another 8 out of 10 times but in any one game it's going to be very marginal differences that count.

Man City for example have a better player in every position than we do, are on a different planet financially and will finish dozens of points ahead of us again, but it didn't stop us taking a point off them last season at the Turf. Plenty of top sides get there by just being a fraction better than the opposition, every single week.

Just because we've got access to £150m of Sky money doesn't suddenly make our players 10 times better than Aberdeen's, it just makes us likely to be able to edge them more often than not, which is what happened.

[Alanstevensonsgloves]

This is similar to the arguments last season, or possibly the season before (Man U?) about how good/ bad we were defensively after one particular game.

The stats showed that the opposition had a a lot of shots at goal, suggesting they had created a lot of chances, therefore our defence was poor. In reality, a lot of those attempts were long range because we didn't let them near our area as a result of our defensive qualities.

I think it was man u who had a record number of shots in one game and we still drew 0-0. Think it was 38

[boatman]

"Statistics are like mini-skirts .. they give you good ideas but hide the most important parts."
Aberdeen manager Ebbe Skovdahl in 2001 when hearing that Arild Stavrum had more shots on target than Henrik Larsson.

Some people's glasses are far too tinted. We could have won but as was clear quality and that extra bit of finesse won in the end.

[houseboy]

I think some are missing my point a little. I'm not talking about ifs and buts, chances taken or missed, I'm talking about the actual result and the game stats (and I'm a great believer in 'only one stat matters', trust me). My point is how can anyone claim we were 'there for the taking' when the stats of the match say something completely different? If they had battered us and lost I can understand that. If they had had a host of half chances missed I can understand that. If they had had overwhelming possession (as WE did) I can get with that. And I know stats don't tell the whole story. But to claim that they were somehow unlucky or that there was nothing in it is just plain wrong. 16 shots each yes. On target? 7-3 to us. Possession? Overwhelmingly in our favour.

I'm not putting Aberdeen down, they were great, I'm just pointing out how fan bias (ours included at times) can cloud judgement when it comes to assessing a game.

[houseboy]

I think it was man u who had a record number of shots in one game and we still drew 0-0. Think it was 38

And that is my point, they had a right to moan, they were tons better than us on that day. We've taken loads of points in the last two seasons when we were statistically worse (most games really last season) but to claim hard luck against stats is silly.

[Silkyskills1]

That's why a goalkeeper and a goalscorer are the two most important positions on the field with the goalkeeper taking top billing. He's the only one that can do what he does and the visitors weren't able to exploit any shortcomings in what effectively was our 3rd choice keeper.

[dibraidio]

27 minutes into last night's game the boy Ferguson scored a wonder goal to put them level after 117 minutes of the tie.
For the following 63 minutes plus time added on Burnley were there for the taking. If they'd transformed any of their numerous chances they'd have won the tie because Burnley failed to score. Right up until the last 20 minutes of a contest that lasted 210 minutes (plus added time) they matched us and could have won the tie with an away goal requiring us to score twice.

All it would have taken was for one of those shots to be on target. To be honest, I had a feeling that we might have another Lincoln on our hands because I thought we huffed and puffed and struggled to cope with their widemen.
Adding the shots and the corners and the free kicks together they had enough chances to win 3 games but their finishing was poor. Lowton for one took one for the team to stop them counter attacking.

If they had that many chances every week I'm sure they'd expect to win more than they'd lose.

Until Cork popped one in after 101 minutes I wasn't at all confident that we'd get a result. Fortunately we weren't part of their fairy tale.

For comparison:
Burnley.....Lincoln
17.....shots......5
5....on target....1
6......corners....4
60...posession...40

1 shot on target was all it took because we didn't score.

[Rileybobs]

Aberdeen’s goalkeeper was man of the match by a country mile and made 3 saves that were above and beyond what would have been expected of him. Of course Aberdeen could have won - at 1-1 and even 2-1 the game was very finely poised but there was a lot of bluster without any real chances on our goal.

[houseboy]

"Statistics are like mini-skirts .. they give you good ideas but hide the most important parts."
Aberdeen manager Ebbe Skovdahl in 2001 when hearing that Arild Stavrum had more shots on target than Henrik Larsson.

Some people's glasses are far too tinted. We could have won but as was clear quality and that extra bit of finesse won in the end.

I just LOVE that quote. Absolutely mint.

[houseboy]

27 minutes into last night's game the boy Ferguson scored a wonder goal to put them level after 117 minutes of the tie.
For the following 63 minutes plus time added on Burnley were there for the taking. If they'd transformed any of their numerous chances they'd have won the tie because Burnley failed to score. Right up until the last 20 minutes of a contest that lasted 210 minutes (plus added time) they matched us and could have won the tie with an away goal requiring us to score twice.

All it would have taken was for one of those shots to be on target. To be honest, I had a feeling that we might have another Lincoln on our hands because I thought we huffed and puffed and struggled to cope with their widemen.
Adding the shots and the corners and the free kicks together they had enough chances to win 3 games but their finishing was poor. Lowton for one took one for the team to stop them counter attacking.

If they had that many chances every week I'm sure they'd expect to win more than they'd lose.

Until Cork popped one in after 101 minutes I wasn't at all confident that we'd get a result. Fortunately we weren't part of their fairy tale.

For comparison:
Burnley.....Lincoln
17.....shots......5
5....on target....1
6......corners....4
60...posession...40

1 shot on target was all it took because we didn't score.

Numerous chances? What you mean all 3 shots on target. And if they had got one then the whole pattern of the game might have changed and whose to say we wouldn't have had a whole raft of chances. You cannot predict from ifs and buts mate. If they had scored from one of their 3 chances then maybe we would have upped our game with more urgency. It's part of cause and effect - if one thing in a game (or indeed in life itself) had been different then the course of the game would change in some way. You say if they had taken one of their chances they would have won because we didn't have any but that is not logical because if they had scored neither you nor I know how the game from that point would have panned out.

[tiger76]

Their keeper pulled off three world-class stops to keep them in the tie,yeah there was a couple of nervy moments in our penalty area,but second half and extra time i can't remember a clear cut chance that Aberdeen created,over the two legs Burnley deservedly went through.

[JarrowClaret]

I think houseboy is right and we do it as well. It was obvious last night that we were the better side as we should have been. That isn’t saying that Aberdeen didn’t compete as they did and they made it a really entertaining game. The best side doesn’t always win it managed too last night but boy was it close. Being subjective means that not only was Joe Lewis’s saves ignored but the fact that Wood was clean through and brought down just before half time which also meant they probably should have been playing the whole second half with 10 men. A whole new dynamic to the game still not straightforward. Anyway none of that matters we won they didn’t. Really entertaining game amazing atmosphere and for the most part really friendly fans the spontaneous round of applause that both sets of fans gave each other whilst walking away was the best thing I have seen happen after a game of Football.

[NRC]

Not sure I follow the question. The stats are real. What can be read into them could be expressed subjectively or objectively, but without further information someone who has not seen the game and been able to apply the missing context would not be able to tell the difference

[JarrowClaret]

And obviously me being subjective ignored the chances they created I think they should have done better with one in the second half which got blasted over the bar. If i’m Honest though as much they played some neat football at times and put some dangerous crosses in apart from maybe 3 or 4 times they never really looked like scoring from where I was that is. I had half an eye on my kids but i thought most of there shots were longish distance ones.

[dibraidio]

houseboy. You're just as biased. They played a big part in the game. They could easily have won it in normal time with a moment of magic. It didn't happen but their fans spent 74 minutes waiting for that moment of magic. Every corner, every cross, every shot they were hoping it could happen. You can't condemn their fans for believing that they could have won.

[houseboy]

Not sure I follow the question. The stats are real. What can be read into them could be expressed subjectively or objectively, but without further information someone who has not seen the game and been able to apply the missing context would not be able to tell the difference

It's quite simple mate. Stats don't mean a thing, the only thing that matters is the score, we all know that, and many teams, us more than most, win against the stats, it happens all the time. My point is that when the stats back up the result it can hardly be argued that 'we were there for the taking' because evidently we were not. 61% possession. 7 shots on target to 3. More passes with better accuracy and that is not taking into account, as has been mentioned, the fact that they could, with another ref, have played the whole second half with 10 men.

I'm not arguing in favour of stats, they can be made to prove anything if you present them in the right way, but when those stats back up the reality it's hard to argue against them.

[Erasmus]

There is no absolute reality, only perceptions.

[edison]

There is no absolute reality, only perceptions.

What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

[houseboy]

houseboy. You're just as biased. They played a big part in the game. They could easily have won it in normal time with a moment of magic. It didn't happen but their fans spent 74 minutes waiting for that moment of magic. Every corner, every cross, every shot they were hoping it could happen. You can't condemn their fans for believing that they could have won.

And so could we! That's the whole point. I'm not being biased and neither am I putting down Aberdeen for their contribution to a great game. Read my posts again. I don't blame them for their bias any more than I would us, but saying what they were hoping for or what could have happened is pointless. To try to argue that they should have won or that we were there for the taking is to ignore all the evidence to the contrary. I'm not going to quote the stats again as it's getting boring but to try to argue the results against the very obvious evidence is like saying if your auntie had b''''''s she'd be your uncle.

[houseboy]

There is no absolute reality, only perceptions.

Don't get me started, I'm a Zen Buddhist.

[edison]

"like saying if your auntie had b''''''s she'd be your uncle."

She'd still be your auntie, just with balls surely?

[houseboy]

What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

Absolutely. No-one knows for sure what reality is because our only contact with the 'outside world' is through sense perception and that can be faulty.

Old philosophical argument (Kant I think):

If a child was born with absolutely no senses at all and was kept alive artificially for 18 years would that young adult have a single thought in it's head?

ALL our knowledge, every bit of it, comes from experience and that can ONLY be gained through the five senses, there is no other way. The chances are the child/young adult wouldn't even be aware of it's own existence because even that knowledge depends on knowing that which is not us.

The general conclusion is that the world is actually a mental construct because without mind there would be nothing to witness it's existence.

If you haven't already (but I'm guessing you might have) try to read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig and it's follow-up some years later Lila - an Enquiry Into Morals, they actually changed my view on the world and introduced me to Zen and, of all things, quantum physics.

Sorry about the digression but you hit on a favourite subject.