From: milivella on
milivella:

> 6th update: February 16: Fulham is 16th.

7th update: March 16: Fulham is 16th.

OK, Luiz (who wins if Fulham end the season >11th) will win it. Since
there is no more suspense at all, I'll skip April 16 and, in the next
update, will jump through to the end of the season (May 16).

Data-filled screenshots:
Played matches: http://i.imgur.com/8VfvD.jpg
Competitions:
- Premier League: http://i.imgur.com/U7rkw.jpg
- [out of Europa League, FA Cup and League Cup]
Players' stats:
- Goalkeepers: http://i.imgur.com/X5J79.jpg
- Defenders: http://i.imgur.com/mVieu.jpg
- Midfielders: http://i.imgur.com/kdLpy.jpg
- Attackers: http://i.imgur.com/y6zT2.jpg

--
Cheers
milivella
From: Futbolmetrix on
On Mar 30, 3:58 pm, milivella <milive...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> milivella:
>
> > 6th update: February 16: Fulham is 16th.
>
> 7th update: March 16: Fulham is 16th.
>
> OK, Luiz (who wins if Fulham end the season >11th) will win it. Since
> there is no more suspense at all, I'll skip April 16 and, in the next
> update, will jump through to the end of the season (May 16).

So, is Fulhamark's poor performance due to:

a) lack of chemistry (or, as famous Catania president once said when
told that his team lacked chemistry: "Tell me where this guy Chemistry
plays, and I'll go out and buy him!"

b) our overestimating the quality of Fulhamark's players. Many of them
are mid-level Serie A players. Given current UEFA coefficients, that
wouldn't be too surprising.

c) Poorly assorted roster. For example, why is Marchionni listed as a
LM? Why is Marco Motta listed as a midfielder?

d) Bad luck. Injuries (only a few players seem to have played almost
all matches, all the others rotate a lot). Or simply bad luck in the
sense that Fulhamark should have accumulated more points than it
actually did, but caught many bad breaks.

D

From: Clément on
On Mar 30, 4:58 pm, milivella wrote:
> milivella:
>
> > 6th update: February 16: Fulham is 16th.
>
> 7th update: March 16: Fulham is 16th.
>
> OK, Luiz (who wins if Fulham end the season >11th) will win it.

I think this is kind of unfair. All I did was to predict the worst
outcome for MarcoFulham. I guess I do deserve some credit for
suspecting the team was overrated by most bets, but even then I was
conservative by betting on just one table position lower than than the
lowest bet before mine.

That gave me 7 different winning outcomes, which were at least 5 more
than any other player except for Mark V, who had 6 - but really, what
were the odds FullMarko would contend for a UCL spot?

I don't know which criteria Daniele used to make his prediction. But
really, all I did was pick his guess and predict a slightly worse
outcome.


Anyway, I thought this was an interesting game. Maybe it could use a
little tweaking to prevent what I perceive as some inbalance, but I
still like it as it is.

Abraço,

Luiz Mello
From: milivella on
Futbolmetrix:

> So, is Fulhamark's poor performance due to:

This is the question!

> a) lack of chemistry (or, as famous Catania president once said when
> told that his team lacked chemistry: "Tell me where this guy Chemistry
> plays, and I'll go out and buy him!"

:) And this is only one of his memorable quotes!

> b) our overestimating the quality of Fulhamark's players. Many of them
> are mid-level Serie A players. Given current UEFA coefficients, that
> wouldn't be too surprising.
>
> c) Poorly assorted roster. For example, why is Marchionni listed as a
> LM? Why is Marco Motta listed as a midfielder?
>
> d) Bad luck. Injuries (only a few players seem to have played almost
> all matches, all the others rotate a lot). Or simply bad luck in the
> sense that Fulhamark should have accumulated more points than  it
> actually did, but caught many bad breaks.

Great. I think that we can rule out b (quality). In fact, if you pick
the best 16 players for each EPL team, the sum of their current
abilities is:

2663 Chelsea
2633 Manchester United
2564 Manchester City
2558 Liverpool
2532 Arsenal
2465 Tottenham
2388 Everton
2357 Aston Villa
-> 2294 Fulham
2268 Sunderland
2251 West Ham
2182 Wigan
2162 Blackburn
2154 Bolton
2147 Portsmouth
2141 Stoke
2132 Wolves
2086 Birmingham
2066 Hull
1981 Burnley

Fulham is 9th! So what about the other options?

a) Lack of chemistry: and experience in EPL, I would add. It's
possible: see how Manchester City is 3rd in the table above, while in
the 20 simulations I ran it had less in average less points than
Liverpool.

c) Poorly assorted roster: it can be! Your spotting of Marchionni
points in that direction: his best position according to FM is on the
right, and it loses 6 "Miniger points" when played on the left.

d) Bad luck: possible as well, the only way to know it would be to run
more simulations of the 2009-10 season.

--
Cheers
milivella
From: milivella on
milivella:

> Futbolmetrix:
>
> > Why is Marco Motta listed as a midfielder?

Excuse me, I forgot to answer to this bit. I guess that Motta is
included among both defenders and midfielders because according to FM
is position is "D/WB/M RL" ("defender/wayback/midfielder right/left":
quite versatile, isn't he?).

(Of course I'm deleting Motta and Marchionni from the Minger database:
I've given you too many details about them! :) )

> if you pick
> the best 16 players for each EPL team, the sum of their current
> abilities is:
>
>    2357 Aston Villa
> -> 2294 Fulham
>    2268 Sunderland

That is Fulhamark, of course.

--
Cheers
milivella
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Volkswagen - Golden Horde [R]
Next: Brasileirão Maluco 2010