Talk:2010–11 Manchester City F.C. season

Balotelli

Should be FW, not DF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.109.180.14 (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Appearance stats

I find the presentation of these confusing. At first glance it appears that Tevez has not started any games, for example. I don't know of anywhere that separates starts and full 90 minute appearances. What is wrong with using Starts (sub) like Soccerbase, Rothmans and AFAIK all the other season articles? Oldelpaso (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• The stats. show that Tevez has not finished any games ... which he hasn't. With only duples to represent appearances you would never know that. You only find the triples confusing because you did NOT bother to read the qualifier at the head of the stats. section - viz.

Appearances are for competitive matches only

Numbers denote: # full games played (# games subbed off / # games subbed on)

I hope that clarifies things a little better. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 21:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• That why I said "at first glance". No statistical source that I know of presents appearance statistics in such a manner; as a tertiary source, Wikipedia should not be inventing new notation when perfectly adequate methods are used by everyone else. Also, the approach currently in use presumably involves citing a reference for each and every match a player is subbed off. Far easier to cite, say, Soccerbase as a ref for the full table. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• There are currently NO citations backing up those "Apps." figures in this season's article, nor in any prior season Man. City article that contains a PST, nor (I'm guessing here - because I can't be bothered to go check this) - in any comparable section in any other club's season articles. So if I take your point as having any serious merit we probably need to go and delete all those "Appearances" statistics in all those aforementioned places ... or perhaps just dutifully append to each of those numbers a "citation needed" qualification. Are you up for that chore?

Wikipedia does not allow you to present new cutting edge research (which is arguably not yet established "fact" with citable RSs to support it), but it makes no similar prohibition on utilizing more creative and sexy ways to conveniently display the same information that has been displayed elsewhere, or to display comparable information that no one had previously thought to display. We are hardly inventing "new notation" here ... we are simply finding a convenient way to display additional data in the PST which heretofore has been overlooked. It is no different that tracking yellow cards on a per competition basis rather than as just a humungous meaningless total (because the match suspensions associated with the cards - the very reason one would want to track them - do NOT always carry over between different competitions).

The "subbed off" information comes from the very same match day report sources as the actual "starts" and "subbed on" info. comes from, so whatever RS citation method is used for those two pieces of information (which is none right now, but that can be fixed) can be used for the "subbed off" information as well. Your objections carry no weight IMO. They appear to be more about your being out of your comfort zone with a new idea rather than that there is anything intrinsically wrong with that new idea. You will find no justification anywhere in Wikipedia for simply being a Luddite. :) Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 22:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• BTW, I personally would prefer to see the "appearances triple" represented like this: "n/n/n". Thus 18/5/9 would mean that the player in question played 18 full games, started 5 other games but was substituted in them, and was utilized himself as a substitute in 9 others. Would this be preferable do you think? It would certainly save a couple of characters in each of the "Apps." columns.

There are also others here who would like to see the stats. reflect selections for "match day team sheets" ... or what I have elsewhere jokingly called wanting to track "bums on seats"! My objection to doing that is more of a pragmatic one because it would widen the 5 widest columns in the PST even further thus making the PST potentially too wide for most users' screens. Those columns would also not be tracking "game appearances" any longer, but rather "team sheet selections" instead. However, if people found that info. useful it could most certainly be done by substituting the triple with a quadruple - viz. 18/5/9(4) might indicate that the above player was also an unused substitute in a further 4 games that season. That information too almost always comes from the same RS citable sources (such as match reports posted on the BBC Sports and the official MCFC websites) as the first three pieces of data come from.

I would love to hear your (or anyone else's) views on this issue. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 22:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• This is a correction to the above. When I stated that there were currently no citations in the article backing up those "Apps." stats. in the PST I was wrong. What I should have said is that there are currently no citations listed directly in the "Playing statistics" section of the article that support those stats. However, up above in the "Games" section every game that is listed is usually always supported with a "Report" which represents the citable RS for the information displayed for that game (scoreline, goal scorers, attendance figures, etc.). Those reports are usually always links to the match report put up on the official MCFC website. And those reports always list who the starting eleven were, who the unused subs. were, and who subbed in for whom and when. So, for instance, looking at the MCFC website match report cited by the article for the Liverpool game (I just got to this report by using the "Report" link for that game cited in the article) I can immediately see that Zabaleta subbed in for Yaya Touré and Jô subbed in for Tévez in the 85th minute of the game. The goal scorers and Micah's 58th minute booking are also covered by that match report.

Thus as long as the PST does not contain stats. for any competitive games played that are not covered in the "Games" section up above, all of the information that it displays is supported by citable RSs that are actually cited - rather than could theoretically be cited, such as Soccerbase (as you suggested), which I have personally never seen cited in support of the any data used in the Man. City article PSTs for any season. Thus the information presented in the current PST "Apps." triples is already supported on a per match basis by citable RSs, and if quadruples were used to track "BoS" info. that too would be similarly supported. I really believe this is a non-issue you are raising. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 06:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Additional views from others would indeed be welcome. I'll post a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football.

Paucity of referencing in other articles is not an excuse for perpetuating poor practice. References need citing at the point they are used. How is the reader to know that material is supported by references elsewhere in the article? This is of course a side issue. My main issue is that this format unnecessarily surprises the reader, when the alternative of starts (sub) is commonplace throughout the football world. Sure, we shouldn't patronise our readers, but neither should we make them jump through hoops. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• I quite agree that the paucity of referencing in other articles is not an excuse for perpetuating poor practice. Neither is the paucity of representing substitutions from only the "subbed-in" perspective an excuse for perpetuating that poor practice either. You won't find me arguing against the desirability of adding appropriate RS citations to the article - in fact, the only reason the PST in this article has any citations AT ALL is because I have either personally added them or have twisted someone else's arm to go add them for me.

WRT your "references need citing at the point they are used" comment I also agree - you only have to look at my own error above in coming to the conclusion that all the stats. info. currently displayed in the PST is not supported with RS citations to see the consequence of that need. However, I believe it would be mind-bogglingly redundant (and way too much unnecessary work) to cite the same references for the validity of the same pieces of used information multiple times over within the same article. IMO RS citations to support information included in the article only need to be cited once - at the place that that supporting RS citation is first required. In the case of what we are discussing, that happens in the "Games" section earlier in the article. To re-cite all those same MCFC website match report references once again in the "Playing statistics" section is totally redundant. All we need to add there is a blanket statement saying that the RS information on which the displayed PST statistics are actually based are all provided on a game-by-game basis up in the earlier "Games" section.

WRT your main point, "that this (new) format unnecessarily surprises the reader", it is, to be quite frank, completely irrelevant. You, or anybody else, cannot prevent new useful information being displayed anywhere within any Wikipedia article simply because it is unfamiliar to you. If everybody took that stance the article could NEVER grow and develop. Just like Stevie Ireland you are going to have to learn to move beyond your current "comfort zone". To further undermine your argument, if you go look at the way the old "match starts (subbed starts)" duples are displayed on the BBC Sports pages they are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. The BBC uses the convention that the first digit lists ALL match starts, and the figure in parentheses qualifies how many of those starts were substitutions. Consequently, you have to subtract the parenthetical number from the first number used by the BBC in order to come up with the first number that we were using in our old duples. Thus they are NOT the same and the MCFC season article is the anomalous one.

Many more people use those BBC web pages worldwide than currently use this Wikipedia season article to access this sort of "AppsStats" information, so any argument proffered by you that my enhancement of the old "AppsStats" scheme in the PST is a retrograde step because "it surprises the reader" is completely bogus since the duples I've just replaced already "surprised" any reader coming to the Wikipedia MCFC season article after spending any time on the BBC website pages covering this same information. It most certainly "surprised" me when I myself made that transition. Yet I did not immediately complain that the MCFC article was wrong and misleading to my eyes "at first glance", but instead I adapted to it, and in the end came to prefer the alternative presentation of the "AppsStats" here. IOW, I moved out of my BBC comfort zone and embraced the alternative way of presenting that same information in the Wikipedia MCFC season articles. IMO, you need to do the same thing here.

Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 20:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• What about a player who is both subbed on and subbed off in the same game (it can happen)? How would that be displayed? Also, why is the # symbol used to denote "number" above the table (an Americanism completely unknown in the UK) in an article on a British subject.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed, it was Robinho's situation that caused me to realize that presenting this statistic as a duple instead of as a triple is inherently flawed (and has ALWAYS been so). There are two sides to every substitution - the incoming and the outgoing. To track only the one side is obviously distorted. Why is the fact that Nimely got a 5 minute run-out at Burnley in a game that was completely in the bag more important than the fact that Tévez is not considered fit enough, or playing well enough, to merit staying on the pitch for the full 90 minutes in every game he has played so far this season? In answer to your question, Robinho's situation would be represented thus: 0 (1/1). If before the Everton game his "Apps." stats. had been 7 (2,3) - I just made that up, BTW - then after the Everton game they would have been 7 (3,4).

As for your comments about the "# symbol" being "an Americanism completely unknown in the UK" and that the article "is about a British subject", the last time I checked, association football is a world sport (NOT just a game played in the UK) and America has a population about 5 times that of the UK (so that symbol has a meaning to many more people than the alternative "no." would). The fact that Wikipedia is a world website resource (started by an American called Jimbo Wales, who no doubt, is also completely unknown in the UK!), and NOT just a UK website resource, means that the above argument alone would justify the use of "#" in preference to "no." (or whatever else you had in mind). The fact that you probably made your post on your Dell laptop whilst sitting in a TGI Friday's watching reruns of "M*A*S*H" makes your parochial jingoism even more amusing! You need to realize that not everyone on this planet lives on Coronation Street like you do! :)

Having said all that, I would be quite happy to change "#" to "no.", or if someone else changed it, you won't see me reverting it - because it really is no big deal. The choice of "#" was made simply because it is shorter (and it occurs 3 times in the definition of the triple). Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 18:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Using the format 0 (1,1) for a player who is both a substitute and substituted in the same game does not differentiate between 0 (1,1) to represent a player who plays in two games; one as a substitute, and one substituted. It just backs up the idea that you are making up a notation that is non-sensical, illogical, incorrect and non user friendly. Brad78 (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Appearances should be just that - the amount of appearances the player has made. The 'games subbed off' is a new one with me but if you insist on keeping that then I suppose it would be more sensible to go with: TOTAL NUMBER OF GAMES PLAYED (NUMBER OF SUBSTITUTE APPEARANCES/NUMBER OF TIMES PLAYER HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED OFF THE PITCH). That allows for the basic stats that most people want to be simply viewed, and also allows for more detailed stats to be observed by the reader taking a close look. This would satisfy Oldelpaso's very reasonable request for simplicity without removing any data.--EchetusXe 10:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• You seem to be advocating a much lengthier and wordier definition of the triple than the current one, and pretty much just for the sake of it. I would wholeheartedly support a shorter and pithier definition, but I am not so sure I would back going in the complete opposite direction. Also, I don't seriously believe that the terms "subbed on" and "subbed off" are completely lost on the whole British football supporting public as you are suggesting they are. If you prefer "subbed in" and "subbed out" that would be just fine and dandy IMO, as would anything as equally short and pithy that gets the exact meaning across. But IMHO what you just suggested is a bit of a mouthful and obscures rather than clarifies what is already there.

The other modification you are suggesting is that the order of the 3 pieces of information be changed. I have no problems whatsoever with doing that if most people think it would be clearer and more intuitive displayed in that order. However, far from satisfying Oldelpaso's complaint that the triple is confusing "at firsrt glance" I think your suggested order does not improve that situation, or might possibly even makes matters worse. Utilizing your suggestion, Tévez's "AppsStats" now become 0 (0/3) instead of 0 (3/0). As long as that first digit is zero I don't believe Oldelpaso will be entirely happy. To determine which order the digits in the triple appear one has to first determine the order of importance of the 3 stats. The ranking I used to originally come up with that triple is as follows, but readers should feel free to argue that the order should be something different (as you just did):

(1) Player was in the "starting 11" and finished the game in the "ending 11";

(2) Player was in the "starting 11" but was "subbed out" during the course of the game due to injury, poor performance or for tactical reasons;

(3) Player was not in the "starting 11" but was "subbed in" due to injury or poor performance (of others) or for tactical reasons or as an "impact sub" (which is really just another tactical reason).

Whether the order of the triple is 1-2-3 (as above) or 1-3-2 (as you suggest) I'm completely cool about. Whatever folk feel is clearer. I originally put both pieces of the sub. info. in the new triple in parentheses so that users could more easily relate this format back to the old "match starts (subbed starts)" duple, but I really feel that all 3 pieces of info. in the stat. triple should be given equal prominence, with any difference in their "importance ranking" being indicated by merely their order of appearance in that triple. So is "subbed in" more important than "subbed out" or vice versa? Comments please. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 19:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading between the lines above, would the following be a happy compromise?

• Number of games played (Number games subbed off / Number of games subbed on)

This would show Tévez as 2 (2/0). Note the removal of the word full. It might just achieve that first glance answer that some seek, as well as providing enough information to calculate just how many full games played. As for "#" or "no." and "in" or "out", I'm not fussed either way, but I do like the full wording. gonads³ 20:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• But that is NOT at all the same, is it? You have simply duplicated one of the pieces of information contained in the parentheses (viz. stats. digit (2) in my post above) and clobbered the leading stats. digit (1) with it. So now the user has lost the information that Tévez has not completed any games so far this season. That is exactly the information I wanted to capture with the triple. One of the reasons Tévez crossed over to the blue half of Manchester was because SAF was using him mostly as an impact sub. and Tévez wanted much more game time (particularly in a World Cup year). Mark Hughes had no problem offering him that because he needed a striker of Tévez's calibre, so he could guarantee him his desired match starts. If Mancini now starts to regularly sub. Tévez out so that he never plays 90 minutes, what exactly has Carlos gained by his move over to Eastlands?

That is the sort of subtlety that gets lost in the old way of presenting the "AppsStats" which are focused only on whether or not someone set foot on a pitch during a game. With a little careful thought, and taking up very little additional room, the new triple captures which players are playing the full games (such as Nigel de Jong) and which players are being juggled in and out by Mancini for tactical and performance reasons. Mancini arguably has the best quality squad in the EPL this season - his problem now is how to give as much game time to everyone in it in order to keep them all as happy as possible. Consequently, you are probably going to see 3 substitutions per game in almost every game City play this season, very few of which are going to be made because of injuries - such as Shay Given's (which is exactly the situation that substitutes were invented to handle in the first place).

Of course, the use of the substitutes for primarily tactical purposes has been part of the game for many seasons now - because the modern game of soccer is a tactical affair played with 25 man squads, 18 man team sheets and 14 participating players on the pitch ... and the days of "starting elevens" with an utility substitute are long behind us, and they have been ever since Paul Madeley hung up his boots - or perhaps that should be Paul Lake! IMO, the "AppsStats" finally need to catch up with this evolution of the modern game and much better capture a very important part of it; namely, the substitutions both in and out. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 21:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• However, building on your above concept of striking a "happy compromise" I would be happy to settle on the following quadruple:

- Total number of appearances (Number of full games / Number of games subbed off / Number of games subbed on)

Thus Tévez's "AppsStats" would now appear as: 3 (0/3/0). This meets Oldelpaso's "at first glance" criterion and also continues to capture all of the information I wanted captured. It just does so with more characters than I thought necessary to use. The first number is really only the total of the 3 parenthesized numbers that follow it, which I was assuming the reader could work out for himself (thus saving some characters). Having just read Brad's comments I now realize that such an assumption of basic maths skills on the part of Wikipedians (and thus general intelligence on their part) might have been a little misplaced. :(

However, note well that this is really an extension of the BBC Sports approach to this stat., with the parenthesized triple qualifying the first "number of total appearances" figure by breaking it down into 3 different kinds of appearances, whereas in the BBC Sports' case, the single parenthesized number qualifies the "number of total starts" figure by identifying how many of those starts were not at the kick-off. Also note that this approach almost definitely puts the kybosh on any hopes anyone may have had of extending this statistic to also represent the BoS count - which is really not a part of a "match appearances" stat. anyway; it would belong more as part of an "appearances dressed in kit on match day" stat.! :) Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 01:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The current presentation of the appearance data is absolutely non-sensical. I don't understand what it means. Appearance data by 99% of sources either has simply games played or games started/substitute appearances. Referring to games where the player is withdrawn is effectively original research. Brad78 (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)