So, what changed?

[Monty13]

A bit more luck on our side?

 

[morty]

A bit more luck on our side?

I think it was a golfer who said, when questioned about luck, who said "You know what, the more I practise, the luckier I get"

Its a cliche, but you make your own luck, mainly through working hard.

 

[lyb]

Luck is an expression of the deviation from the probabilistic expectation when dealing with a sample size of one.

 

[SussexYellow]

I think it was a golfer who said, when questioned about luck, who said "You know what, the more I practise, the luckier I get"

Its a cliche, but you make your own luck, mainly through working hard.

Lee Trevino

 

[morty]

Lee Trevino

Aha, cheers

 

[Monty13]

I think it was a golfer who said, when questioned about luck, who said "You know what, the more I practise, the luckier I get"

Its a cliche, but you make your own luck, mainly through working hard.

 
I agree that your chances of being "lucky" increase when your better practiced at the task in hand.

However it is also true that the greater the number of variables the more chance of you being "unlucky". Much as I love golf, in its purest form a round of golf for a professional is nowhere near as complex with its variables as a game of professional football.

Luck is an expression of the deviation from the probabilistic expectation when dealing with a sample size of one.

That wouldn't be my definition, nor my interpretation of mathematical theorums associated with probability and luck.

How can you possibly know the probability of an outcome when your sample size is one? You can only generate probabilistic expectation of something happening in a single event when you have a large sample size to begin with.

Unless the exact same Norwich team are going to play Wigan a lot for us, that's never going to happen. That's the problem with pure statistics in football.

 

[Yellow Fever]

That's true Monty, but lucky, often one-off incidents are the ones that grab the attention in football. The difference yesterday was that players didn't switch-off occasionally to gift opportunities to the opposition as in the Reading and Brighton games.

 

[Monty13]

That's true Monty, but lucky, often one-off incidents are the ones that grab the attention in football. The difference yesterday was that players didn't switch-off occasionally to gift opportunities to the opposition as in the Reading and Brighton games.

Oh I agree, I was being tongue and cheek with my original post.

But luck, and the lack of it, will always be a factor.

You mitigate against mistakes but no team can completely cut them out.

 

[morty]

That's true Monty, but lucky, often one-off incidents are the ones that grab the attention in football. The difference yesterday was that players didn't switch-off occasionally to gift opportunities to the opposition as in the Reading and Brighton games.

Theres a saying used in the forces and I think it applies here, "Train hard, fight easy"

 

[lyb]

That wouldn't be my definition, nor my interpretation of mathematical theorums associated with probability and luck.

How can you possibly know the probability of an outcome when your sample size is one? You can only generate probabilistic expectation of something happening in a single event when you have a large sample size to begin with.

Unless the exact same Norwich team are going to play Wigan a lot for us, that's never going to happen. That's the problem with pure statistics in football.

My point is that luck is a purely sentimental and retrospective response only related to mathematics in as much as it's an expression of reaction to things where you would not expect it to happen based on probabilities. Ultimately, probabilities always allow for unexpected outcomes, it's just a question of how big that probability is as to how lucky or unlucky people consider it to be that the less favoured outcome has come to pass. The bigger the sample size of the given events though, the less likely it is to deviate significantly from the expectation. 

 

[Salopian]

Common sense suggests that we wait a further game or two before deciding that something big has changed. Wigan were indeed poor, but we have not excelled ourselves against other sides in the bottom places in the division.

We certainly had a major change in team shape, in playing with no recognised wingers until Josh came on. I argued on another post that this was to negate the potential of the Wigan midfield, possibly their strongest section. If this was the case, then the management have to be applauded.

We selected neither of our slower CBs, and brought in Cuellar. I think that this probably also helped.

We were content to soak up Wigan pressure, helped by the changes above. and kept them out, courtesy of John Ruddy. Generally the defence seemed more resistant.

It is true that we scored only once, but away from home and in a must win situation. It is also true that we didn't create many chances, and Lafftery's lack of studs didn't help.

All in all, with Adams knowing his job was possibly at stake, we went away and won by conviction, and we now have a better points record away than at home!

 

[hogesar]

Evidently Wigan are poor - but hard to beat at the same time. It wasn't a game for the neutral, it was barely a game for the fans of either side.

However, we scored a good goal and kept our shape throughout (probably for the first time this season including our other wins).

On another note i thought Bradley Johnson done well. He gets singled out for criticism again, but it's yet another game we've won with him in the side.

It always confuses me how often we lose when he doesn't play, and when he does play how much more often we manage to win, in spite of him playing.