What a stupid thing to say! Obviously we've picked up more points since he's been in the team as we had none before then. But it's not down to him. Try and understand simple maths - Hennessey faced 45 shots in 7 games and let in 17 goals; Speroni has faced 10 shots in 3 games and let in 4 goals. Hennessey has better stats (62% of shots saved c/w 60%) but faced a lot more shots (not his fault surely?) and consequently let in more goals. More valid surely as to why we've been doing better is that we've actually scored some goals, down to Zaha being back in the side and Puncheon not so.

Anyone who thinks it's valid to compare 62% of 45 with 60% of 10 needs to learn the meaning of the term "statistically significant", especially with reference to sample size.

And does everyone understand that how good the shots were has something to do with it? Yesterday three of the four goals came from unsaveable shots and the fourth was a penalty. Hart was lucky to stop a couple that ought to have been unsaveable. Proves nothing.

It would be just as easy (and similarly invalid) to point at all the clean sheets Hennessey has kept for Wales, and the single goal they conceded against Ireland (which again everyone seems to think was 100% his fault), and then at the 2-2 draw between Scotland and England, and conclude that Hennessey is a better keeper than Hart.

Edited by chateauferret (29 Oct 2017 4.14pm)

When we quote two statistics for comparison - in this case, % shots stopped by goalkeepers - and we want to show that one is "better" than the other, we can only make that assertion based on a certain level of confidence. The level of confidence is a function of the difference and the sample size; the sample size implies the standard deviation of the population sampled. The difference between the found values in standard deviations determines the level of confidence: two standard deviations, 97.5%; three, 99.75%, and so on.

The sample size here is vanishingly small and the difference in the found values would give a level of confidence so low that no meaningful statement could be made.

Add to that that no consideration has been given to the quality of the defences, the quality of the shots, the prevailing sightlines (cited in Spam's excuse for Wilf's goal), and so on, and it will be clear that any attempt to state that either keeper is better than the other based on these games alone is futile.

Edited by chateauferret (29 Oct 2017 6.07pm)

I've got A Level Maths thanks and know about sample sizes - unfortunately those games are all we have from this season to use. My point is that there's little between the keepers. It's certainly more valid to compare shot/save percentages even form a small sample than just say WH has concede more goals therefore is a worse keeper which seems to be Brent's argument.

And does everyone understand that how good the shots were has something to do with it? Yesterday three of the four goals came from unsaveable shots and the fourth was a penalty. Hart was lucky to stop a couple that ought to have been unsaveable. Proves nothing.

It would be just as easy (and similarly invalid) to point at all the clean sheets Hennessey has kept for Wales, and the single goal they conceded against Ireland (which again everyone seems to think was 100% his fault), and then at the 2-2 draw between Scotland and England, and conclude that Hennessey is a better keeper than Hart.

Edited by chateauferret (29 Oct 2017 4.14pm)