19 Sept 2013

Stat-Shock: LFC performance with/without Suarez (2011-13). You will be stunned....

Liverpool striker Luis Suarez returns from his 10-game suspension next week, and whilst that is a source of joy for most Liverpool fans, the irrefutable, fact-based reality is that the Reds perform better without him.

This is not an empty statement - as the surprising stats below show, Liverpool perform significantly better when Suarez is not in the team, to the extent that it could be argued that the Uruguayan's presence is actually detrimental to the club's forward progress.

I know that sounds hard to believe (!), but look at the stats! In EVERY area, LFC performs up to 50% better without Suarez in the team. I've argued for the last two years that Liverpool can survive easily without Suarez, but even I was surprised by what the stats below revealed.

Don't take my word for it though. Examine the following stats with an open mind, and you will be shocked to just how much the team statistically improves when Suarez is on the sidelines.


* The stats cover the last two COMPLETED seasons (2011-12 and 2012-13), plus the first five games of this season (four league; one cup).

* I've chosen this period because it coincides with the two bans received by Suarez for the Ivanovic/Evra/Fulham incidents.

* Suarez's 'Games Without' total includes two unused sub appearances during the 2012-13 season.

Suarez stats: 2011-12

 photo ScreenShot2013-09-18at141155_zpsb05d4da3.png

Suarez stats: 2012-13

 photo ScreenShot2013-09-18at141358_zps5d8b5927.png

Suarez stats: Grand Totals 2011-13

 photo ScreenShot2013-09-18at141425_zpsa91c3a09.png

KEY POINTS: 2011-2013

* WITH: Won only 37% of Prem games.
* WITHOUT: Won 65% of Prem games

* WITH: Win only 41% of ALL games
* WITHOUT: Won 70% of ALL games

* WITH: Gained 48% of league points
* WITHOUT: Gained 71% of league points.

* WITH: Scored 1.7 goals per game
* WITHOUT: Scored 2.1 goals per game.

* WITH: Conceded 1.3 goals per game
* WITHOUT: Conceded 0.6 Prem goals per game.

* WITH: Unbeaten in 69% of Prem games
* WITHOUT: Unbeaten in 86% of Prem games.

* WITH: Lost 30% of ALL games
* WITHOUT: Lost only 10% of ALL games.

As you can see, in practically every area that matters, Liverpool perform BETTER when Luis Suarez is not in the team. This is irrefutable. The team wins more games, accrues more league points, scores more goals (which is surprising!), concedes less, loses fewer games, and overall, is unbeaten in more games.

KEY POINTS: 2012-2013

- WITH: Won only 36% of Prem games.
- WITHOUT: Won 78% of Prem games.

- WITH: Won only 38% of ALL games.
- WITHOUT: Won 82% of ALL games.

- WITH: Gained 48% of league points.
- WITHOUT: Gained 85% of league points.

- WITH: Scored 1.6 goals per game.
- WITHOUT: Scored 2 goals per game.

- WITH: Conceded 1.1 Prem goals per game.
- WITHOUT: Conceded 0.7 Prem goals per game.

- WITH: Unbeaten in 73% of Prem games.
- WITHOUT: Unbeaten in 100% of Prem games.

- WITH: Lost 30% of ALL games.
- WITHOUT: Lost 0% of ALL games.

Suarez's absence last season (and going into this season) shows just how much better the team seems to perform without him. Again, the team wins more, loses less, wins more points, scores more, concedes less, and is unbeaten in far more games.

For me, the fact that Liverpool win dramatically fewer league games/points WITH Suarez is a major concern, and after such a great start to the Premier League season, there is a high probability that his return could - statistically speaking - lead to a downturn in the league. Hopefully, this will not be the case.

Considering these stats, can it credibly be argued that Suarez IMPROVES Liverpool? If so, how? What is the factual basis for such an assertion? Where is the evidence to support that contention?

In light of these stats, I challenge anyone to produce factual, persuasive proof that shows how Suarez is GOOD for Liverpool and IMPROVES the team's performance.

EDIT: For reference purposes, here is the list of games missed by Suarez since arriving at LFC:

 photo ScreenShot2013-09-19at173716_zps489db1f7.png

NOTE: Please stick to the Comment Policy (Click to read)


  1. Wow that is surprising. I think I saw something similar with Gerrard as well, might have been on of your articles.

  2. I think if we play the way we have been, trying to maintain possession and short passes, he can only help. The first half of last season we had few reliable options for goals so we were feeding everything to him which may explain the lower win % overall. If he's on the wing and plays with a more team oriented style (even just a little) it's hard to say a player of his caliber won't make the team better. Liverpool need as many players as possible that can, in an instant, change the game solely through individual effort and skill.

  3. "People can come up with statistics to prove anything Kent, forty percent of all people know that."

    Simpsons aside i've got nothing :)
    Good analysis.

  4. a little misleading - the arrival of Courthino and time for the team to gel has as much to do with these results.

  5. I disagree, so much of this is spun to make him look detrimental to the team, but the periods where he was out in 2011/12 barely any change was seen. When he was absent last season we had just had the jan window and had a team and manager that was slowly gelling. Sorry jamie you've spun this in a misleading fashion.

  6. How is it 'misleading'? The stats show categorically that over a two year period, LFC perform massively better without Suarez.

  7. Just saying something is 'misleading' doesn't make it so. You've provided nothing to back up this argument. Anyone can say 'that's misleading', but where is your evidence to counteract the factual stats I've presented?

  8. There are some surprising stats in this roundup, I agree.
    But the fundamental flaw is the samples used for *without* are only a 1/4 of the samples *with*
    For instance, you are comparing 32 games in 11/12 vs 5 games without, and extrapolating percentages. That's like taking our 1st 5 games (say we win the next one) then applying that 80% win ratio to the full season, which means we'll end up with 91 points...
    The team has been inconsistent. So comparing small sample sizes to large ones(comparatively) by using percentages is not in my view, a valid comparison. Over a short period, the team can play very well or very badly, which does affect the figures.
    Using your figures, in 12/13 we won 9 of 14 games without Suarez. Over the season , that would have equated to 71 points from wins alone. Add drawn points to that (13 last season) and we would have come SECOND in the league!
    I think that illustrates why such statistics can be misleading
    You certainly have a point that the team seems to play more as a team without Suarez as a go to man. But that does NOT mean that the team will continue to do this now we have better players to share his load. That's IF Suarez agrees to fit into the team ethic, which I hope he will. I believe he thought it was up to him to do everything in the past, which led to overdoing it occasionally and some selfishness.
    You surely don't believe that the other players we have are better than Suarez. It's up to Suarez to subjugate his ego for the good of the team. If he can't, get rid.
    But I think he will.

  9. With respect, I disagree that there is sample size 'flaw'. The comparison is such because Suarez has only missed a specific number of games. Additionally, there is a 'grand totals' box at the end that takes into account the last two completed seasons. If Suarez has only missed 20 games so far, I can only use those as the 'without' stats.

    Plus, I haven't 'extrapolated' percentages. The stats are factual for each given year.

    I don't think it matters if the other players are better than Suarez. It's about the team performance, not that of one individual, and what the stats show categorically is that LFC perform better as a team without Suarez in every conceivable way, including goalscoring, which you'd think would be the opposite.

  10. Was about to say the same thing...

  11. I am not surprised in the least. Suarez is slow and hogs the ball. He may be our best player by far, but we become a 1 man team with Suarez on the pitch. Without Suarez, the team becomes the sum of everyone and we have some pretty amazing players, all of whom put in a shift when given the opportunity to.

    I'd rate Sturridge, Lucas and Coutinho as our more important players. We are a much better side with all of them playing.

  12. Somewhat knew that our form without him in the second half of last season was pretty good but I didn't realise the difference in the with or without. I'm not a stats fan and as Mike illustrates to an extent why. First half of the season did have Suarez in it but it didn't have Sturridge or Coutinho in it. Sturridge, Coutinho and the change in tactics (e.g. considerably deeper defensively line, counter attacking focus, etc) in the second half of the season were a big reason for the form in the second half of last season.

    But will be interesting to see how the dynamic of the team changes when Suarez comes back in because he will be back in. More importantly, how it effects Sturridge and Suarez. I would be annoyed if Suarez was allowed to go straight back to the main striker role at Sturridge's expense. Interesting times when Coutinho, Sturridge and Suarez get a run of games together.

  13. I think you are missing some important considerations:

    We were much better in the second half of last season because of the additions of Sturridge and Coutinho, regardless of whether we were with or without Suarez. Overall, we continuously improved during the last year. Suarez carried us for most of the first half, when we were not yet very good overall because we lacked a player like Coutinho and because of Rodgers' new style the team needed to get used to.

    Suarez will improve us (or any other team that would sign him), just as long as Sturridge continues to play centrally as main striker with Suarez roaming around and supporting him.

  14. I think Suarez will be used wide and interchange with Sturridge and Coutinho, if Rodgers sticks to his plan of having Coutinho as the primary number 10 or at least in the long term.

  15. Someone go and tell rodgers "hey we play better without suarez and we score more, so dont play him now even after his ban, just leave him on bench all the time" lol, what an incredible hate on suarez just hilarious coming from" lfc fan" non stop for two full years now and never stopping im just speechless, amazing incredible effort for chasing him away that deserves some credit, amazing tireless work, bravo really, not anyone could do this, special work.

  16. Peter (Warrington)3:50 pm, September 19, 2013

    For the comparisons to be statistically significant other variables need to remain the same, which they are not. For example you need to consider which players were in the team for each match played, who the match was played against, who was playing in the opposing team, whether the match was at home or away, what the weather conditions were at each game, the tactics employed by each manager and so on. These are just a few of the variables that exist.
    If the only variable factor was Suarez himself then the comparisons would have validity.

  17. Shit statistics. With Suarez we will be much better, and he will shot that.

  18. Where did I say that Suarez is responsible? I didn't. I simply stated a fact: Liverpool concede less goals without Suarez. That is irrefutable based on the stats. I'm not attributing blame.

  19. With all due respect you should take into account that Liverpool's results improved dramatically since we bought Sturridge and Couthinio.....you should repeat the same exercise from last years January transfer window onwards.

  20. This. Well not to the same extent (e.g., weather) as some variables are overkill but certainly in terms of the lack of Sturridge and Coutinho prior to January is a big noticeable variable.

  21. Ah yes, the predictable 'variables' argument. This is just a way to muddy the waters. The fact is, even if I'd included those stats, you'd come back and say 'yes, but what this, this and this' and this would go on and on.

    When people agree with stats, they just lap them up without question. When they disagree, they suddenly come up with a million exceptions/additions/exclusions etc, and argue that the stats cannot be valid unless these exceptions are included.

    Funny that.

  22. Why is it a 'big noticeable variable'? Because you want it to be? What about the 16-17 other players who played for LFC from january onwards? Did they have no impact whatsoever on the team? Did Sturridge and Coutinho just do everything themselves? No. Without other players, those two would've have been successful, and many of the players around them also played alongside Suarez in the first 5 months of the season.

  23. More excuses. And by the way, the stats include the last two January transfer windows, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

  24. I find it interesting that you prioritise 4.5 months of one season (jan-May 2013) over the 18 months that came before. Why does that 5 month period take precedence? The stats here are not just for last season, they're from 2011-2013, i.e two full seasons.

    As for 'considerably different tactics' - I feel you're exaggerating here in a bid to support your argument. You make it sound like Liverpool of Jan-May played 1000% differently to the first half of the season, and that just isn't (IMO) true.

  25. You implied it as a direct consequence of leaving Suarez out. Just as you did for the increased win %.
    No matter, it's a small point.

  26. I implied nothing. I simply listed the key factual points from each table, which are then open to interpretation.

  27. Because I start from the Brendan Rodgers era, which is a big different variable to the previous season.

    We had a deeper defensive line (as well as the regular inclusion of Carra in said tactics). There was more focus on counter attacking football. Some big variables in the tactics, thus therefore I feel that justifies my claim that it was 'considerably different tactics'. I stand by that.

    I don't see that as '1000%' different but I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder, i.e., subjectivity.

  28. Sorry, but Suarez did not 'carry' LFC, and the stats show that. You can keep saying it but it doesn't make it true.

    Suarez has not improved LFC over the last two years; the team performs better every time he is not in the team. Additionally, the team performs *better* with a different kind of striker in the team, i.e. Sturridge.

  29. Tactics may be different, but that still doesn't change the fact that the stats show the same result both pro-and post Rodgers, i.e. LFC performing significantly better without Suarez in the team.

  30. That is stats for you, they are narrow-minded and simplistic. They don't fully take into account variables. And there were plenty of differing variables from tactics, managers, players, etc. That alone is enough to put doubts on the use of said stats to come to said conclusion.

  31. I'm not arguing that the facts are accurate. Are you being deliberately dismissive of the fact that such a small sample size can have a distorting effect on comparisons?

    Suarez has only missed 20 games. Compare those 20 games to 20 with him in the side, ideally against the same opposition, and you have a pretty good case for one v the other.

    But comparing those 20 games to 83 others in an inconsistent side ISN'T.

    That's not MY opinion. That's basic statistical analysis .

    You HAVE extrapolated when you compared a sample of 20 to a sample of 83. You HAD to, to make such a direct comparison in percentages. You have to make the assumption that the smaller sample % would remain valid in a larger sample situation.
    You highlighted the fact that Suarez WILL need to, fit in to LFC's methodology, not the other way round.
    But with respect, directly comparing 20 to 83 IS statistically flawed.


    There's a FACT for you.

  32. Because Coutinho and Sturridge made a big impact. There is no doubting that, regardless of the subjectivity behind it.

    As for the rest of it, your making a mountain out of a molehill, etc, you are taking what I said and stretching it....in a rather convenient way :)

  33. It is funny how people waiver but there is merit in the variables angle.

  34. The 'variables' argument is a red herring. If you look at any standard analysis of anything football related, you rarely see the stats going into the depth you seek. It just isn't feasible.

    As I stated elsewhere: when people agree with stats, they will accept them without question. When they disagree, then suddenly the stats are 'simplistic'; don't take account of a million different variables; need to be reorganised to add endless ancillary points etc. This is standard practice, and it's the age-old way of trying to discredit stats.

    For example, if these stats showed that Liverpool are significantly *better* with Suarez in the team, I sincerely doubt you and others would be going on about variables (!)

  35. There's no 'mountain out of a molehill' here - I'm just addressing your points. Sturridge and Coutinho made an impact, but they could only do so with the help of their team-mates, and the same applies to Suarez.

  36. Thank you for taking the time to do this. Something that I would have liked to have seen was to take into account the opposition. Perhaps Suarez did not play in some of the games that B. Rodgers considered "easy" and this may have inflated the results. For example, it is common to rest key players against weaker teams. I would love to see how we perform against the same opponent at the same venue with or without Suarez.

    Secondly, my biggest concern that arises from this statistic is that perhaps Suarez limits our flexibility in attack. This is not a fault of Luis's, but if the team always attempts to begin an attack through him, we become:

    1) Reliant on Suarez. So if he is having a poor game then it follows that the team will have a poor offensive performance.

    2) Predictable. A predictable offense is much easier to contain for defenses than an unpredictable dynamic offense.

    That being said, I think the key for us to continue our success is for Suarez to play a different role when he returns. Rather than relying heavily on him to create chances, we should hope that he will keep the ball moving, not give it away cheaply, and not assume responsibility for the whole offense.

  37. So, when Borini got injured, we should have left Suarez out of the team and played someone else, since using your logic, the team would have amassed a higher points total?
    Your basic premise is that this would be true.
    This is why footballing performance cannot ever be determined solely via statistics

  38. I think the stats are significant. The % differences in win:loss w and wo LS, over such a large sample size, must be taken seriously.

    Even without stats though it is clear that we play differently with him in the team. There is less one touch interplay. Whenever the ball comes to Suarez he slows the game down and allowing defenders to get back into position. He is excellent at holding the ball up and dribbling past defenders, but he does it perhaps too much and fails to see or take heed of runs by teammates into advantageous positions.
    I think if Suarez adapts his style a bit and plays more the role of creator than finisher, then the team performances would imprive

  39. The facts do speak for themselves yes, and are hard to put a logical arguement up to dispute them. But there are other things to football, confidence a run of good results can give, managers philosephy taking shape, new players coming in. I think we were evolving as a team in the games leading up to Suarezs ban, and continued after it.
    I do feel his return will add to our performances, not detract. This is not based on fact, just the feeling we are in a better place as a team.
    The stats are hard to dispute, but i guess its faith "things will be different this time" :)

  40. What has this got to do with Borini? Seriously, please stop twisting my words and going off on spurious tangents. I haven't made any judgment about whether Suarez should/should not have been in the team; I've merely showed how the team performs better without him.

  41. A difficult one this. The 11/12 stats were marginal but the 12/13/13/14 seem massive. There is a question of who we have faced in the latter stage as well as the fact that the new manager bedding in and new signings come Jan. It can't be argued we haven't done alright without him but I am still convinced we will be better when he is back.

  42. Of course, it isn't feasible. Hence why stats aren't the be all and end all, when it comes to analysis in football. They are incomplete in that way. That is why subjectivity has a place in football analysis. As the eye goes to places that stats don't.

    I don't like stats when it comes to analysis in football and have said that time and time again. I've used stats to illustrates goal/assists ratio but if someone were to challenge the narrow-minded nature of it, I would happily agree with them if it had merit.

  43. And when Suarez' stats support him YOU ignore it' When they don't, you spend hours compiling tables like these......

  44. On the surface, I think the argument is an incredibly valid one to have.

    What I'd be curious to see though to further the argument is who the games were against where he played and didn't play.

    For instance, if we played with him and lost to ManU that would count against him for the stats because he played and we lost.

    But if we played without him (rest/suspended/etc) against someone like a Wolves, well then the stats would count against him because he didn't play and we won.

    It doesn't take into account the quality of opponent.

    If there's a way to break it down by results with/without him to compare how we play against Top half teams, Top 4 teams, and Bottom Half teams, I think that would really make the statistics have more meaning.

  45. The argument is 100% correct, you can't imply causation unless all other variables remain the same, and they are not. There's some correlation - irrefutible as you say, but it doesn't mean that this is significant, or causal.
    Look at the last 4 games last year, Newcastle, Fullham, Everton, QPR. The team had the additions of Coutinho and Sturridge, but didn't have Suarez.
    W/ Suarez Tied Newcaslte 1-1, without 6-0 (though New Castle were terrible)
    W/ Suarez tied Everton 2-2 (should have been 3-2!), without 0-0.
    W/ Suarez beat fulham 4-0. Without beat fullham 3-1
    W/Suarez beat QPR 3-0. without Suarez beat fulham 1-0.
    The results aren't much different, in fact if it weren't for dodgy reffing,the points tally would be equal - but this was a team without DS or PC.

  46. I have never explicitly or even heavily implied that Coutinho and Sturridge were the only contributors but they were the new contributors and they made a big impact. I haven't once heavily implied that their team teams didn't have a hand.

  47. Stats are undoubtedly far more accurate when assessing performance than subjective interpretation. Human perception is flawed at the best of times; stats do not suffer from personal prejudice, life-experience, expectations, grudges etc.

    At the end of the day, it's an ego thing: people like to think that they know everything, and what they believe has merit. The idea that cold, heartless stats can create a more accurate picture doesn't sit well, which is why stats are constantly attacked, even though, objectively, it is patently obvious that stats are a much more accurate mode of measuring anything and everything.

    They're not the be all and end all, but there is a reason we live in a world that is basically built on statistical analysis: it works.

  48. Nonsense. What Suarez stats 'that support him' are you talking about? That's right, they don't exist.

    And it didn't take me hours to compile these tables. It took less than an hour, actually.

    Clearly, the truth hurts. People just don't like to face reality. These stats are illuminating and important, whether you like it or not.

  49. Last season we lost to WBA with Suarez in the team. Does the opponent matter that much?

  50. Jaimie the fact that the stats don't factor in variables doesn't make the variables a red herring but can make the stats a red herring. For instance jst the teams we played at the beggining of last season compared to the teams we played at the end of last season and beginning of this should be considered. And although the sample size of Saurez being available is large without is much smaller. Its always important to look outside the maths. Looking solely at statistics can give a false idea.

    I would be arguing the opposite point Jaimie I promise. Especially if the variables that I have mentioned were reversed. They do need consideration.

    On a separate note well done on the articles, man you are prolific.

  51. Yes, stats alone may work well in other areas in life but that doesn't mean it necessarily always works well alone in football analysis.

    Relying on stats alone is flawed. Stats with subjectivity is better analysis than stats alone, when it comes to football, due to the level of variables.

    You go on and on about how people conveniently one minute are ok with stats and the next arent but there is merit in some of the cons against stats.

    At the end of the day, we're going round in circles now but to conclude, I disagree with your reliance on stats alone when it comes to football analysis.

  52. What? Suarez slow? Even though I hate him for his on field antics still he is the best player that we currently have. When your best player comes back it boosts a lot of morale in and around the team so I hope he comes as soon as possible and makes an impact so hard that we stay in the top 4 or even at the top at least till the Winter starts.

  53. He was our main goal scorer for a while is what I think Mike is alluding to. Without Suarez we may not have scored as many goals and been worse without him. It just so happens that when we lost Suarez we had a new striker and Coutinho. That surely has to be factored in.

  54. So we played 20 games without him, 63 games with. And on this base you draw your conclusions? It may work in a blog like this but hardly in any stat class at beginners level I'm afraid.. So please don't use the word SIGNIFICANTLY so sloppy! Thanks.

  55. With respect, I don't get the argument, and it sounds like an excuse to me. Over the last two years, Suarez has played in 76% of LFC's games overall; with that in mind, isn't it likely that he's played against most teams - big and small - in that time?

    Suarez has played against Man United, Chelsea, Man City, Spurs, Arsenal etc, but he's also missed a Man United game.

    For the record, last season, he missed: Newcastle, Everton, Fulham. QPR (plus Stoke, Villa, Man United , Notts County and Swansea this season)

    In 2011-12, he missed: Newcastle, Man City (x 3: 2 cup; 1 league), Oldham, Stoke, Man Utd and Wolves).

    However, Suarez also played against all these teams - including the top teams - in the times when he wasn't suspended.

    As such, I'm not sure I see the point you're making...

  56. I don't rely on stats alone; I prioritise stats because they are categorically more accurate than the 'I see therefore I know' school of assessment.

  57. Ok, I'll change it to 'stats alone or stats heavily'. Either way, I don't agree with your view on the way stats are used in football analysis.

  58. I still don't see why that is all important. LFC had a new striker/Coutinho for only 4.5 months of the entire 2 year period of analysis (!) Why does that take precedence over the previous 18 months? Simple: people who disagree with the stats deliberately focus on that small timeframe because it's something to hang onto when trying to discredit the stats. They conveniently ignore the other 18 months.

  59. What point are you trying to make here because I can't see how it refutes the overall notion that LFC perform better without Suarez in the team.

  60. I'm not asking you to agree with me (!) You're defending your POV, I'm defending mine.

  61. I didn't say or heavily imply you requested a agreement or disagreement. Pedantry, don't you just love it(!) ;)

  62. Sorry man but that is not wholly true. sample size is very important in stats to know the difference between correlation and causation. As well as that all factors need to be assessed. That stats you put up show a very good argument to say that we can still win games without Suarez but when you look at other factors such as teams played, momentum, bedding in of players, manager, ideas etc. Lets also not forget that all teams did better in the second half of the season. Notice that the stats for 11/12 were not as large as the stats for 12/13. One of those reasons is because of players like Lucas. Stats show that we win more games and concede less goals with Lucas in the team. Now look at that season when we got worse when Lucas was injured for the latter half of the season and look at how we got better when Lucas was available in the latter half of last season. So it shows that the variable of one singular player can affect the stats being put together about another. To not include this makes the argument too simplistic.

  63. I think it's encouraging to know because in the summer i think SUAREZ will leave.We have a system in place that our best players seem to enhance but when you break it down we pick up better results without them.
    We don't crumble and the team collectively steps up when our stars are missing.With all that being said if SUAREZ is fit and ban free for me he goes straight back into the team.The magic he produces on a regular basis outweighs any stats that support him being left out of the side.
    I remember a time when SPURS lost every time BALE started.A world record fee later, that stat now looks stupid.
    The season ARSENAL sold RVP.They finished up scoring more goals than the previous season with him in the side.I'm more than happy to try and replicate WENGER's bombproof football foundations.

  64. There clearly is a place for stats in football, I don't think I have denied that (I may well dislike it but that I still see its merits) but in football analysis like yours, they are rather narrow-minded.

  65. Pedantry? Yes, on your part. My point about agreement is just a general comment, but you've read into it something that isn't there.

  66. So now your asking questions then answering them in the same sentence?
    Such remarks patronise people by dismissively stating that they don't like to face reality. The truth is that I only want Suarez in the team if he will improve us and the fact is that the stats you show are fundamentally flawed from a statistical viewpoint.
    You don't like that idea, and I feel that you have resorted to oft -used tactics to marginalise dissenting voices.
    If I'm wrong, then explain to all of us here how a representative sample of 20 can legitimately be compared in % terms DIRECTLY to a sample of 83.
    Explain to me (because I seem to remember this differently at Uni) why there need not be broadly similar sample sizes when one sample size is comparatively small. As a scientist, that level of inequality would be enough to render potential conclusions highly suspect.
    You ignored these questions last time I asked.
    But it's the whole basis of your arguments

  67. Come on now there is no need to get personal! Is this about opinion? So if someone has a different one they are simple? It is not ALL IMPORTANT. Just another factor that has to be considered, such as teams played, bedding in of manager and ideas as well as change in tactics, players available etc etc. The first set of stats are not nearly as stark as the second. 11/12 does not leap out at you like 12/13 does and people are suggesting reasons why. Don't take that so much as an attack. You seem quite defensive.

  68. On your part too but I'll leave it there as this is getti

  69. assists are always up to the guy that converts the passes - we didn´t have much players that could do that constantly to be fair, much more interesting: suarez made 90 key passes - that´s only 3 passes less than Stevie G, the master himself, while Gerrard had much more minutes on the pitch. Don´t know how much more pitchtime mata, cazorla and silva had but they are playing in a position that is much more designed for key passes - those 3 (the best offensive midfielders in the BPL IMO) had 95 - 104 key passes, not much of a difference isn´t it?

  70. Yes, compared to Coutinho, Ibe, Sterling, Moses, Sturridge, Lucas, Henderson, Johnson, Enrique, Sakho and Toure he is pretty slow. Come to think of it, he probably is our slowest player on the pitch if it isn't Joe Allen.

    Yes, he is our best player in terms of determination in combination with ball skill, guile, trickery and gamesmanship, but whenever he is on the pitch, our game becomes about getting the ball to him. Without him, our game is about getting the ball to the back of the net.

    Indeed Suarez was the second highest scorer in the league last season, but he ought to be considering he shoots the most by far. His conversion rate is pretty appalling, especially given Sturridge's almost Fowler-esque record for us. That said, if we would like to know how the old Torres and Suarez would have combined, Sturridge happens to be almost everything Torres used to be except white, Spanish and sulky.

  71. Aston Villa last season at Anfield?

    Again, what difference does the opponent make?

  72. There's some truth to this, the over reliance Suarez might cause some slacking by the rest. When he's away, they pick up they're game. Johson's lone goal last year was in Suarez's absence, Downing had some good games while suarez was away. If everyone gives 100% there's no doubt that the team is better with Suarez.

  73. No worries, Greg. I've attached a list of all the 20 games Suarez has missed since he's been at LFC.

  74. More assumptions by you, and unbelievably patronising statements to boot.
    I clearly don't get what it means? You have no idea of my educative standards in mathematics, statistical or otherwise.
    What I do know, is that the sample size ratio , in this case, 1:4 means that ANY conclusions drawn where DIRECT comparisons are made ( win% ,points per game etc in this case) are questionable as a result IF one of the sample sizes is small.
    I did NOT say that all sample sizes should be equal
    Your world hunger example misses the point wildly.
    Small sample size = questionable conclusions

  75. Statistically last season Liverpool were far better without Steven Gerrard in the team. With gerrard they won 14/36 or 39% of the time. Without Gerrard they won 2/2 or 100%. This is fact, stats don't lie, and sample size doesn't matter.

  76. And if we had Sturridge from the start of the 2013 season? Would Suarez have seen as much of the ball as he did last season?

  77. Ha, yes. You're taking it to a pointless degree now. No one in their right mind would use only two games as a comparison. The Suarez comparison is totally different: it is 20 games, which is over half a season's worth of league games. It is a fair sample size. Plus, it is an enforced absence, which dictates the sample size.

  78. Sorry Jaimie where is it attached?

  79. last season, we had nearly nobody who had the 'gamechanging-factor'. imagine if you were gerrard and you have to decide between passing to suarez on the left or downing on the right - who would you rather pass to? suarez had so many shots - had so many chances because he was the main man of the team, noone else upfront filled me with confidence when he had the ball - neither downing, cole or borini - noone of them had the individual skills to win your team constantly games... last year first half of the season it clearly was suarez carrying us...

    the only really constructive fact i take out of this is that our team was to overrelient on suarez, and yeah probably they improved as a team when suarez wasn´t on the pitch, but just because they realised that the uruguayan isn´t there and they have to step up... Our team improved overal, and with suarez comming back, i don´t expect the rest of the team to stop playing their game and start again to only rely on him - were not a 1 man team at the moment and we won´t be with suarez included... you´re picking out on suarez for something that absolutely isn´t his fault... If the others only watch him play his game, lean back and wait for suarez doing his magic, it´s clearly not his fault the others were so damn reliant on him...

  80. If you say that LFC get more points, goals per game etc etc from NOT having Suarez in the side, then it logically follows that having Suarez in the side COST LFC the points the stats say they would have had if he had not played.
    If we accept your stats as argued
    How is that twisting your words?

  81. Sure he missed a lot of chances, but also created 89 for teammates, only 5 of those saw the back of the net - the rest of the team was more wasteful with the chances they got than Suarez. Glen Johnson anyone? Steward Downing?

  82. I'd just seen it afterwards. Cheers

  83. different season - different managers (on both sides) etc.
    if you really want to compare one to one, your should compare those that are the most simmilar (in terms of line-up, tactics ... ) that will clearly be the game in 6 days... the only major difference to the two ManU matches will be Suarez, let´s see how this effects the score and make a comparison then :)

  84. exactly my words, noone was there to score constantly in the first half of last season except suarez, so what should he have done? assist himself?

  85. Yeah it shows how difficult getting good comparable statistics are. Its not a simplistic art.

  86. Suarez had the most shots at goal out of in player in the league last season yet had one of the worst conversion rates.

    He is so very wasteful.

  87. absolutely not, that´s why i think people shouldn´t get carried away by these... but there are still a lot of points to take out of them, for example the over-reliance on suarez we used to have

  88. Overreliant on Suarez when when finished 7th with his goals?

    I think not.

  89. It could be argued that some of his dribbles were really a short pass to himself - he should collect both the assist and the goal! Really how many sitters did Shelvey, Sterling, Downing et al miss that were laid on by Suarez - Wisdom too could have had one, but totally wasted the shot.

  90. Who else stepped up??

  91. The team scores more goals without him.

    Sorry, what was the question?

  92. yeah after sturr has been bought in - another individual gamewinner ...

  93. Individual game winner?

    Please provide the facts to your claims.

  94. scored 6 goals in our last 5 games... do you think anybody else in our team (except suarez) would have managed that?

  95. Sturridge is our striker. It is his job to score goals.

    If anything it again proves that we do not need Suarez.

  96. Until the amount of games played with and without Suarez is close to equal the stats will never give a true reflection of your key points.

    At a basic level it's a bit like saying I flipped a coin 10 times with my right hand and got 4 heads (40%) then I flipped it twice with my left hand and got 1 head (50%) so my left hand must be better at flipping heads.

    There's a lot more to consider alongside the stats too; the progress of the teams understanding between each other as just one example that is hard to quantify statistically going forward.

    I'm not saying you've got it all wrong but I'll be more inclined to believe we're not as dangerous with Suarez in the team once we've played as many similar games without him as we have with him.

  97. he´s not the out and out stiker type (i think youre asking for) like gomez, soldado, who puts in every chance to score directly in front of the goal. we´re lacking such a player for years now (believed to had someone like this in carroll ;) ) well suarez may waste some chances but on the other hand suarez workrate, his passion, will to fight flair and his build up play and his eye for the deadly pass is absolutely outstanding... you can´t have everything in one player...

  98. The facts are that there's no evidence supporting your claim that they're better without him as the evidence you have is circumstantial. Not saying either of us is right or wrong.

  99. is it his fault, noone else managed to score regular goals (until jan) ?

  100. I don't care if you rate him 4th 5th or 6th,i still like to watch him play football.

  101. He was the focal point of the team. He was the main man at the time. Would Suarez have scored as many if we we had signed Sturridge at the start of 2013?

  102. Yes, Suarez is not needed and is a best superfluous to the teams needs, and at worst detrimental.
    Liverpool have been winning games so easily this season, and don't need a player like Suarez. :P

  103. oh c´mon you´re comments are getting embarrassing... suarez, whos playing as a stiker too scored 23 goals last season, he made the 6th most key passes of last years season, and youre really criticising suarez for 'wasting too many chanes' etc? hes been one of the best players last year, that´s a fact - he will come back in our first 11 and he will improve the squad overall dramatically... the stats prove we lost more games with suarez than without, but jaimie doesn´t anywhere state that suarez is a bad player (like you´re doing ├íla 'had one of the worst conversion rates.
    He is so very wasteful.' etc...)
    since suarez got banned (wich was IMO a really good thing for our team - because they had to step up and show what they can do - without relying on one certain individual) our team improved really well - but i think with suarez comming back that wont effect the rest of the teams form, so i expect us being the same team with just one world class player more which clearly can´t be too bad, hm?

    just to throw light on your deluded statements (suarez is wasting too many chances...): Suarez needed 143 shots to score 23 goals (6,22 shots per goal) , while bale shot 133 times to score 21 (6,33' shots per goal) ... Even though stats are nearly the same - suarez ratio is a little bit better, but the certain Mr. Gareth Bale flew to madrid about 3 weeks ago for not less than 100m € - a significant sum for somebody who´s wasting too many chances ;)

  104. He would have arguably scored more as he would have more room to move and less pressure on him in goal scroing situations - not to mention more assists, as DS knows how to shoot.

  105. no but he would have probably scored 1-2 and assisted another 1-2, which is surely not a bad outcome compared to some of the other regulars ;)

  106. I am deluded? Is that you Rafael Benitez?

  107. exactly, good players dont disrupt themselfes, they find a way to play together and to harmonise - that´s why suarez and sturridge will work together in a good way!

  108. apart from that - read the rest of my arguments and you won´t find any point that is strong enough to counter!
    SUMMARIZING : suarez IS a quality player, our team improved in playing without him because they stepped up and gave 120% all the time, why should it be worse for us to have an extra world class player on the pitch? (his stats prove the status worldclass)

    Jaimies analysis and stats are interessting and point out some important points here - but they don´t state suarez is a bad player - and IMO he will definitely improve our squad with his presence his passion, flair, and much much more!!!!

  109. Just wondering, what do you mean by wasteful? is what you mean by wasteful, is that he takes too many ambitious shots? or do you mean he wastes too many good chances?

  110. He is a quality player, where have I denied that?

    Who is the deluded one now?

    My points are that we are coping pretty good without him which brings me back to the fact that we do not need him and will not suffer when he leaves.

  111. Yeah there is definitely something to take from it, just maybe not the definitive conclusion the author comes to.

  112. So basically, most our other players, under preform with suarez in the team. I totally agree he should be sold but thats a bit worrying, will the same happen if his replacement is also world class, because he is, and that should improve a team, I think, they know they have to up their game without him, sad, really sad.

  113. Yeah were doing really good at the moment, I'm not denying that either ;) , but adding another quality player to the fist 11 can't be wrong right? RIGHT! That's why I think as long as the club pays for his many qualities on the pitch - we should use them!

  114. Dear Jamie, in this article http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2013/03/luis-suarez-player-of-the-year-john-barnes-kevin-keegan.html you wrote that Suarez deserved the player of the year award,ie best player in EPL now you are saying that with Suarez, Liverpool are a worse team! Wake up.

  115. I would still have Suarez. Other players don't up their game when he in on the field as they expect him to do something all the time. So, basically its the mentality of other players I would like to change rather than trying to keep Suarez on the bench.

  116. Exactly my words, you can't really blame suarez for that... some guys are doing that pretty strongly here ..

  117. statistics and the tory party show one can do anything with them to prove anything - goals are what matter and he scored the most of them.
    and classy moyes or kenwright could never bring themselves to utter the word Liverpool in connection with football, petty jealous luvvie and jock more like.

  118. Statistically speaking you are correct about him being wasteful. I don't have a problem with your argument there.

    All I have an issue with is the idea that if we took away his contributions (positive and negative), that everything else would have happened in the exact same fashion.

  119. Causality is the area of statistics that is commonly
    misunderstood and misused by people in the mistaken belief that because
    the data shows a correlation that there is necessarily an underlying
    causal relationship.

    There are in the case you have highlighted,as in most cases, many variables to be taken into a/c. You simply can't keep stating facts are facts whilst at the same time dismiss people who challenge you on the fundamentals of statistical analysis.

  120. Jaimie, thanks for posting this.

    This helps clarify what I was trying to get at before.

    I think that one could make a better case now since it shows that without him we take care of the also-rans (for the most part at least) and that we are split with the big clubs.

    Of course there are always ifs, ands, or buts; the bottom line is that based on this data, it shows that the club can survive without him. It's not as if we don't have a shot when we play a big club. We've beaten a few on the list including ManU most recently.

    In my view, are we more talented with Luis Suarez in the team? Yes.

    But when Suarez eventually leaves, will this team continue to perform at a high level? Absolutely!

  121. You forgot the Westham game in dec 2012. Liverpool won 3-2.

  122. It isn't different, it's exactly the same. Ask any credible mathematician and they will tell you.

    Why do our political parties argue so much over statistics for this, that and the other? It's because statistics are not hard and fast 100% accurate as they can be manipulated quite credibly to show more than 1 result once all other influencing attributes are taken into account.

    In the long run you may be proved right but until then the individual facts are only individual facts in themselves, not facts that prove anything absolutely conclusive in comparison to each other.

    Statistically Wigan shouldn't be playing their first game in Europe tonight, do you think their fans will accept that as fact?

  123. "When people agree with stats, they just lap them up without question"

    You couldn't have said it better yourself, oh hang on... I think you may have argued yourself in circles here.

    There is nothing wrong in sometimes saying "you all might have a point in this case"

  124. Peter (Warrington)8:59 pm, September 19, 2013

    I am simply stating the facts as are you. As you point out It is a fact that we have performed better in all the ways you highlight without Suarez, as opposed to with him. We can also presume that his absence is a cause of this - we could also say it is likely that this is the case.
    I am not trying to ridicule your observations (as you have my reply). You may scoff about 'the predictable variables argument', but I would just refer you to any elementary text about statistics, which is after all a branch of mathematics, where you would see that my earlier comments are valid as they too are a matter of fact.
    To finish I don't disagree that it is likely that we perform better without him - what you cannot deduce from you analysis is that it is for certain.

  125. Yes, when I defend my opinion it's 'dismissing' people, but when dozens of others defend their POV, they're just arguing their point. Funny how that works. I'm not dismissing anyone; I simply disagree. Is that okay with you, or shall ask permission next time?

  126. Sorry, but that's just not true. If I had to prove in a court of law that LFC are better without Suarez, these stats would prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Bottom line: there is persuasive evidence to show that LFC perform better without Suarez. There is no evidence to show that LFC perform better WITH Suarez. If there is, please present it.

  127. No, the difference is if someone presents a credible statistical argument about something, I *never* try and negate the argument by coming up with a whole mass of generalises, unquantifiable exceptions/variables. People do that because thety don't want to accept probable truth about something. They invent excuses, reasons, obstacles to get in the way of actually considering the data on its merits. There's always some other exception/variable. And even when you factor these in and do what people ask, they then come up with some other variable, and they keep doing that until the result matches their expectation, and then, magically, they agree that the stats have credibility.

  128. Peter - where have I 'ridiculed' your observation? I have not responded to any of your posts in this thread (this is the first response).

  129. I think you raise several valid points, all of which I agree with from a perspective of analyzing the stats.

    I wouldn't go so far as to say that this concretely proves it one way or the other. There are simply too many variables to take into account of deciding a match, especially when they are somewhat random considering the various spurts that they took place.

    I think both sides have a case. Now that the overall team is better (I think most would agree with that), I'm curious to see how he fits in and if our style of play resorts to going through him or if he's going to adjust to our style of play we've been using since he's been out.

  130. I'm not questioning your right to defend your opinion.. but in this case your not defending your opinion.. your defending your statistics.. there's a big difference.

    All I'm saying is anybody who has challenged your statistics is accused of muddying the waters or being in denial to the 'facts'.

    This is not the case. You treat 'variables' as a misnomer.. when they are an integral part of statistics and deriving viable information from any collected data.. and should be taken into a/c.

    Your statistics are not as you suggest in your opening paragraph 'irrefutable fact based reality'. Most statistics themselves alone cannot be considered facts and what I and others have brought to your attention is the methodology and the interpretation of statistics. And this, of
    course, always varies based upon available data.

    I appreciate your time that went into this article.. but in all fairness you haven't done a thorough enough statistical analysis of Suarez's game time to call them 'irrefutable facts' .. sorry but that's a fact !

  131. You generalize the opposite but surely is it not possible at all that people don't mind an outcome but mind the method behind it? Is it not possible for a person not to have a bias vested interest in the outcome, instead just doesn't agree with the method behind the outcome?

    What do you think of the phrase (and what it supposedly traditionally means) 'lies, damned lies and statistics'?

  132. It's really unbelievable...

  133. You generalize the opposite but surely is it not possible at all that some people don't mind an outcome but mind the method behind it (or at least mind the way the method is done)?

    What do you think of the phrase (and what it supposedly traditionally means and the merits of it) "lies, damned lies and statistics"?

  134. interestingly, I sought more bto point out the potential flaws in JK's argument re sample sizes, than to completely pooh pooh his conclusions. There is no doubt that we can effectively compete with Suarez out of the side; find that most heartening.
    What I contested was the conclusion that those 20 games vs the other 83 supported the conclusion that we WILL BE , indeed ARE better off without him

  135. " Ah yes, the predictable 'variables' argument. This is just a way to muddy the waters"
    was your earlier response to Peter.
    I think that's why he felt ridiculed. To be honest, it's nigh on impossible for you to keep track of all your responses, you do pretty well as it is.
    To clarify- your article does have considerable merit. In my view though, despite you arguing earlier that you simply posted facts without conclusions as to whether or not LS was good or bad, or should be included, or was 'to blame, by stating

  136. Give me a break. It's amazing how people are so sensitive when it's me questioning their arguments. Saying someone is 'muddying the water' is a perfectly polite and fair comment, and if people think that's ridicule then a thicker skin is needed, especially in light of actual insult/ridicule/trolling that happens online. (Or is that sentence 'ridicule' too?)

    I can see your point about how it appears that I'm supporting the 'Suarez blame' position, and given my long opposition to his presence, it's probably inevitable that it's perceived that way.

  137. The phrase '"lies, damned lies and statistics"? is one the biggest cliches on the planet, and considering the huge merit and accuracy of statistics in every sphere of existence, it's now a tired, ironic parody of itself.

    That line in the same way the phrase 'conspiracy theory' is used to discredit any act/explanation etc that doesn't conform to a specific norm/expectation. It's used to belittle a belief/idea etc even if there is irrefutable evidence to support whatever idea/theory is in question.

    So, with statistics: whenever someone disagrees with the what a set of stats shows, they use that line, and instantly, the stats are belittled.

    As a comparison: for years, people refused to accept that the US Government planned to stage a series of false flag operations in the US, involving crashing planes, murdering its own citizens etc and blaming Cuba (as a pretext for invasion); they called it a 'conspiracy theory', and anyone with the temerity to mention it was instantly dismissed.

    Fast-forward 40 years, and lo and behold, declassified documents irrefutably prove that the US gov DID plan the above. It was called 'Operation Northwoods', and it is real.


    I've digressed a little, but you catch my drift.

    Re your overall point: I don't have any problem whatsoever with people having a problem with the reasoning/method here. I'm simply defending my opinion, just like everyone else on this thread. It seems that people want me to just give in and accept the group consensus, but why should I do that when I don't agree?!

    I do not agree that the method/reasoning is flawed. For me, the stats show categorically that LFC perform better without Suarez, so I defend that view.

  138. Its a persuasive argument but beyond reasonable doubt? No chance mate. To do that you would have to prove that other factors do not have a significance and that simply has not been done.

  139. I am defending my opinion; the stats are being used to back up my view, which is: LFC perform better without Suarez, and he is not integral to the club's onfield success. It's also my opinion that stats show an 'irrefutable fact based reality' re Suarez. It is irrefutable, is it not, that:

    a) Since 2011, LFC has performed better without Suarez in the team.

    b) LFC's performance has dropped with Suarez in the team.

    These two points are irrefutable, inalienable facts, whether people choose to accept it or not.

    We're talking about two whole years of football, and two separate periods with Suarez missing from the team. And in *both* periods, performance improved without Suarez in the team. This is not a coincidence.

    The variables argument IS a misnomer in this case. No one has come up with a set of actual variables here, or taken the time to produce their own analysis to prove their point. It's all wishy-washy generalisations and speculation, with people saying 'but if you sliced it this way, perhaps it would show this'.

    Ultimately, it boils down to this: I have presented persuasive evidence that shows that LFC perform better without Suarez. No one has provided a shred of counter evidence to show that LFC perform better WITH Suarez in the team, or that he improves the team.

    This is what I challenged people to do at the end of the article.

  140. What 'other factors'? Please list these factors to which you refer. Better still, provide a statistical example utilising these factors that backs up your point.

    With regards to 'beyond a reasonable doubt' - Do you really think a jury of 12 ordinary people has the patience or the inclination to listen to pointless, abstract statistical minutiae? When it comes to football statistics, there's only a certain level of depth you can go to before people lose all interest.

  141. Yes, he possibly deserved the award for his individual performance (i.e. goals scored) but that doesn't change the fact LFC perform better without him.

  142. OC - I respect your opinions, but please drop the antagonistic belittlement (i.e. use of the words silly, inept and tedious) - It is not warranted, and has nothing to do with the argument you're trying to make. Please attack the argument, not the person.

  143. Jaimie I have done it a few times now mate and you refer to them as excuses. Although that doesn't even make sense as I am not sure what I am supposed to making excuses about.

    Like you have said yourself the factors (other related variables) are too large and varied to statistically anaylse. Or at least would take the time and effort that I am not prepared to put in. Iam not saying your assertion is wholly wrong by the way I am just saying that there are things such as new players, manager bedding in, all top teams including ourselves doing better in the second half of the season, other players involved for prolonged periods of time such as Gerard and Lucas, teams we played when he wasn't playing compared to the teams we played when he was, how good those teams are. Or the statistical likelihood that if you do something more often you are bound to fail more. Withe the sample we have without Suarez how do we know that is not anomalous rather than the norm?

    As for the "beyond reasonable doubt" thing that is your chosen phrase not mine. Point of burden is on the prosecution, all of the things I just mentioned without giving too much detail can give "reasonable doubt" obviously as I would not have been arguing the toss so long as well as more than twelve other people I think have also shown their doubts.

    Truth is mate I think that the argument is decent and if you had of just added a "caveat at the end saying there are other factors that these stats don't show,but what they do show is that a Suarezless Liverpool is nothing to fear" I would have just posted good article. Instead I have been pedantic.

  144. No, it's not exactly the same. A sample of two games is not statistically significant. A sample of 20 games (in the context of Suarez's enforced bans) is statistically significant.

  145. With the greatest respect Greg, if the other factors/related variables 'are too large and varied to statistically analyse', then what actual merit or credibility do they have, and why should they be included in the discussion?

    You and others are basically arguing that *if* all these variables were factored into the equation that the result would possibly be different.

    This is just pure speculation on your part; it's also possible that the stats would show exactly the same as the tables above.

    If someone proposes an argument, they should have some kind of evidence to back it up, no? I have provided strong evidence. People may not accept the conclusions, but it's evidence all the same.

    No one on this thread has provided any counter-evidence to prove the conclusions I've advanced are incorrect. Everything is based on these 'variables' that you admit are 'too large and varied to analyse' (!)

    You make a good point that the stats without Suarez could be anomalous, but over a 20 game period? It's seems unlikely.

    You've made a lot of great points on this thread, and I appreciate the fact that you've debated in a civil manner. Thanks for that. Just because I disagree, doesn't mean I don't respect your view.

  146. I'm not saying it couldn't be done but I am certainly not going to do it. What Merit? Lots. Like you said before to someone Coutinho and Sturridge are playing with the same players as Luis did before them. Well that is not true as Lucas was coming back from injury at the beggining if last season and whether we won or drew those games without Lucas or main DM is very valid. That could be looked at by simply seeing how many games with and without Lucas we win, lose or draw. The we can cross reference with Suarez. But then we have to do that with every player. Form is something that can be taken in to account by statistically analysing ball retention, passing, crosses etc of each player prior and just after those games to get some more data.

    Then there is opposition. We can compare like for like games as well as possible, but then that is flawed as the players they have playing could also be taken in to account. We have all had arguments with our blue mates about what players were missing when we lost or vice versa. All factors that the right mind (not mine) could (if desired) work out qualitatively.

    This could go on.

    Saying they could is not speculation mate its an acknowledgement that we don't have ALL the facts. I am arguing you are taking facts and making larger assumptions that they do not necessarily PROVE. They certainly suggest them but they PROVE nothing definitively.

    I'll say it again I am not saying your wrong, not at all I am just saying I don't see from the data why you are convinced it's a fact.

    As for being respectful, thats what it's all about. I have not come on here to be agro with anyone I enjoy chatting about footy and like a debate. Although I think I have been way too pedantic on this one.

  147. And for the record I am certain Suarez will be gone by summer at the latest and I want us to be better without him.

  148. It would be great to check his stats at Ajax. The moment after he left, Ajax have won 3 successive league titles but had previously won just the KNVB cup with him.

  149. You replied to a post that contained those words but those words were used to criticise your post, not you the person. 'Just goes to show how silly and inept your tedious line of attack' - With this line, I criticise the argument and those words portray well my feelings at your generalisation/reasoning. If your offended by that and if I break the rules by doing that, so be it as this is your place, your dictatorship, fair enough and I'll take it on the chin. I'll apologise if I've attacked the 'person' elsewhere but here I do not attack the person, instead I attack the argument, albeit in a fashion you don't like. I've apologised to others a few times if I was rude in my posts, so its not beyond me to recognise that and apologise but in this case, I just see it as being no more than harsh. Antagonistic? No, that wasn't in my motivation when I made that comment but maybe else where. Anyway, I'm done here.

  150. Watever the stats show, we REALLY DO NEED SUAREZ. And thats a FACT. :)

  151. 78% of statistics are made up!

  152. Jaimie, there are numerous factors that would be hard to measure that merit inclusion.

    1) The team showing steady improvement under a new manager - Suarez in the team at the start of Rogers tenure and being being banned as the team has gotten better.

    2) Sturridge and Courtino coming in in January. Team gets better, but Suarez is banned for ten of those games.

    3) Liverpool having an easier run during Suarez ban? (I didnt look this one up, just guessing)

    Jaimie, you need to realise that correlation does not equal cause. This is one of the miggest mistakes in science. Let me give you an example -

    I record for a year every time I see people carrying umbrellas and every time it rains. The statistics show that 98% of the time people carry umbrellas it is raining. Therefore, carrying umbrellas makes it rain.

  153. Have you done the calculations for statistical significance or are you just saying that it is statistically significant?

  154. The way I read it is when Suarez is in the team, there's a reliance on him to score all our goals. So everyone tries to get the ball to him. Of course, he is going to waste a bunch of shot. When he is not in the team, the rest step up to score goals. Now, with Sturridge in the team, I would like to see if we are relying on him alone to score our goals. One thing BR needs to emphasize is that goals need to come from different people and not just the strikers. He recognized that and have brought in more depth in the squad for that.

  155. Suarez is not really a team player and he often loses the ball so that can also have an influence on the number of goals conceded

  156. Despite the facts Liverpool are in need for Suarez to get back in the first team. He's been missed ... for some odd reason Liverpool have been poor keeping the ball or being an attacking threat in the 2nd half of every game played this season and Suarez will add that extra quality needed up front.

  157. that was in the past loool...were a lot stronger this moment in time. yoou can argue that we reliedto heavily on suarez during that season and therefore when he didnt perform we lost or drew....but now were relying on each other so that means were strong in each area!! YNWA

  158. Have you taken into account the fact that suarez played a lot of his games without coutinho and sturridge? And these 2 have certainly made liverpool a stronger side. So perhaps we miss him less. When suarez first joined the team was less attack minded and the lack of decent players forced suarez to become selfish.

    Stats are like bikini's.What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

  159. It's a clear enough statistic and certainly a good sign for the club. I'd prefer to focus on how it means we're not overly dependent on the player, however ... there are plenty of issues with those statistics that could be talked about. It's a relatively small sample size, it doesn't consider the quality of the opposition, it doesn't consider the form of Liverpool as a team during those periods and it may not be technically significant. In purely mathematical terms I'm not sure a statistician would put much faith in the numbers, preferring instead to say "more data needed". That's based on my experience on actually dealing with statistical analysis at University but I'm not inclined to actually try and crunch the numbers properly. So take it with a grain of salt.

    The most important point I think is that while the statistics indicate a trend and it may seem like Liverpool are better without Suarez, it doesn't mean there is a direct causal relationship there. It certainly doesn't mean that Liverpool are likely in the future to win more games without Suarez. There are 20+ other players on the pitch and a long window of varying form that are involved. I think the biggest factor is that we all know Liverpool as a team have improved over time with Brendan Rodgers at the helm. Suarez simply happens to have been suspended for 10 games at the end of that period, when we've been at our best. He played at the start of Rodgers reign when we were rubbish and also at the end of Kenny's time, when we were equally bad. In fact most of his time at the club has been when Liverpool have massively struggled and while you could argue that Suarez has played his part in that, there is equally no "proof" that he's in any way responsible for it. He's overseen a change of management, twice. But then as Liverpool finally become a good team Suarez gets another long suspension. Even without him the team had momentum and good form so thankfully it didn't hurt us so much, but I'd call that good luck rather than a cause-effect relationship.