SaigonSaddler wrote:Neuromantic wrote:SaigonSaddler wrote:Neuromantic wrote:SheffieldSaddler wrote:How many clubs gave players Christmas day off?
Are they all unprofessional too?
I don't know - do yo have official numbers?
All I know is, Swindon were in and they won 4-1. All that matters. As someone above mentioned, even if it gave them 1% better match preparation - these fine margins count in football.
Utter Conjecture. And you a scientist too. Tut tut.
How do you know the break didn't improve Walsall and prevent a 7-1 reverse? According to some, That's all we should expect from Smith. :)
As I pointed our Mr. Saigon, even if it improved their performance by even 1% - that would have counted towards their victory.
I could have put it in terms of a principal component matrix, but then we would have had to measure all possible variables contributing to a 'victory'. We could then measure the variance of each extracted factor and find the eigenvalues/vectors of each component. However, for simplicity, I think it's quite easy to conclude that 3 hours more match preparation the day before a game is going to result in a better performance (albeit we don't know how much, and it won't always result in a victory).
the point is, that even if it did improve their performance by even the smallest of margins, then it was worth us going in.
I think that makes completely reasonable, logical sense.
No. Because you don't know if extra training would increase performance and There is absolutely no way of checking.
There are too many confounding variables, such players pissed off at having train over Xmas. So how on earth do you isolate the Xmas training = improved performance correlation.
You can't. FACT.
Me with Matt.
(Psssst, that's what a principal component analysis will tell you psssst)
