In "The Times" on Saturdays there's a column by a bloke called Daniel Finkelstein, who's normally a politics commentator/writer but follows footy as well. In it he discusses various aspects of the game, but with a difference - he and a group of statisticians do a lot of number-crunching and look at what the cold, hard numbers have to say. They accept that stats don't always tell the whole story, but it's interesting to see what happens when a group of qualified boffins apply hard statistical science to the opinions current in the game.
Today's article discusses how we've done over the past couple of seasons, says our start this season is more in line with what the numbers would suggest, and ends like this:
"Three things seem worth mentioning. First, they have stayed steady in quality but have changed with their defence getting weaker and their attack getting stronger. They are letting in a large proportion of the shots on goal. They need to put this right.
Second, Xabi Alonso was, next only to Steven Gerrard, their best player. It was a disaster to lose him to Real Madrid.
But most importantly - the money. Our figures show that Benitez outperforms the wage bill. Blame the Americans. Not Rafa."
What does everyone reckon to that then?
Today's article discusses how we've done over the past couple of seasons, says our start this season is more in line with what the numbers would suggest, and ends like this:
"Three things seem worth mentioning. First, they have stayed steady in quality but have changed with their defence getting weaker and their attack getting stronger. They are letting in a large proportion of the shots on goal. They need to put this right.
Second, Xabi Alonso was, next only to Steven Gerrard, their best player. It was a disaster to lose him to Real Madrid.
But most importantly - the money. Our figures show that Benitez outperforms the wage bill. Blame the Americans. Not Rafa."
What does everyone reckon to that then?
