Fellaini stat mentioned on football weekly

United with Fellaini: 0.9 points per game.

United without Fellaini: 2.4 points per game.

So if we hadn't used Fellaini at all this season we would be 8 points clear of Arsenal at the top of the league.

The only stat you need to know - he's one useless @#%&!

Things don't work like that - you can't extrapolate from that data that we definitely would have won games we actually lost simply because we played one player and not another.

Yes he's crap but you just can't claim that if we'd played someone else (who??) instead of him we would have won games we lost.

Football is a game that is very resistant to statistical analysis

Originally Posted by saffers

United with Fellaini: 0.9 points per game.

United without Fellaini: 2.4 points per game.

So if we hadn't used Fellaini at all this season we would be 8 points clear of Arsenal at the top of the league.

When he hasn't played, we are unbeaten.

nft.

So basically...he's even worse than we thought he was?

he's an embarrassment.

I agree with the general point that Stats can be misleading at times, but I go with what I see.
He's a liability, he offers nothing, he makes us look cheap & beaten, he's clumsy, he's not even any good at what he's supposed to be good at (shite in the air & a £#%&!ing @#%&!)
When I see his name in the teamsheet I feel sorry for my eyes & what they're about to endure.

He'll still be here this time next year. Mark my £#%&!ing words.
Worst signing in the Clubs history for all sorts of reasons.

Originally Posted by doudou

Things don't work like that - you can't extrapolate from that data that we definitely would have won games we actually lost simply because we played one player and not another.

Yes he's crap but you just can't claim that if we'd played someone else (who??) instead of him we would have won games we lost.

Football is a game that is very resistant to statistical analysis

Agreed on your last line but the dramatic difference in the points average has to be taken into account. I mean many could have guessed we were worse with him than without but that stat is surely alarming no? Especially when our manager keeps starting him.

Originally Posted by saffers

United with Fellaini: 0.9 points per game.

United without Fellaini: 2.4 points per game.

So if we hadn't used Fellaini at all this season we would be 8 points clear of Arsenal at the top of the league.

Yes, that's exactly how it works tbf.

Originally Posted by doudou

Things don't work like that - you can't extrapolate from that data that we definitely would have won games we actually lost simply because we played one player and not another.

Yes he's crap but you just can't claim that if we'd played someone else (who??) instead of him we would have won games we lost.

Football is a game that is very resistant to statistical analysis

Originally Posted by Ethers

Yes, that's exactly how it works tbf.

Wummed by saffers, nqat.

Obviously you can't say we would have won had anyone played instead of him. It's a damning stat though.

Originally Posted by saffers

Agreed on your last line but the dramatic difference in the points average has to be taken into account. I mean many could have guessed we were worse with him than without but that stat is surely alarming no? Especially when our manager keeps starting him.

I think the data's less important that what we can see - he's just not very good. No offence to anyone but I'm just not all that interested in the numbers.

Originally Posted by Grimson

Wummed by saffers, nqat.

Obviously you can't say we would have won had anyone played instead of him. It's a damning stat though.

Fellaini typically gets thrown on as a substitute when we're looking for a goal, ie either drawing or losing already, so the statistic Saffers has used is obviously going to be skewed.

We've only lost 1 game when he's actually started. If you go back to last season he started almost all of our best performances.

You don't need stats to see that he's shit. Especially not bad stats.

I've got a theory that he's Jonjo Shelvey and dons a wig to play for us. Apparently always speaks english to Belgian teammates, just showed up there one day and got a trial.

Remarkable if true.

Originally Posted by doudou

Things don't work like that - you can't extrapolate from that data that we definitely would have won games we actually lost simply because we played one player and not another.

Yes he's crap but you just can't claim that if we'd played someone else (who??) instead of him we would have won games we lost.

Football is a game that is very resistant to statistical analysis

Neymar or Bale

https://twitter.com/ManUnitedWorld/status/687901129062137856

What are the stats on the rest of the team it is the only way to compare?

Originally Posted by MOE

What are the stats on the rest of the team it is the only way to compare?

The rest of the team won 9 drew 3 lost 0

One of the worst players in the league, and he's ours!

Couldn't give a £#%&! if we averaged more points with him in the team, would still want the useless @#%&! gone.

Originally Posted by MOE

What are the stats on the rest of the team it is the only way to compare?

It's not worth comparing. He's a bad player, we all hate him, end of story.

Originally Posted by Grimson

It's not worth comparing. He's a bad player, we all hate him, end of story.

Not arguing that, are those 8 losses games he started or a mix of already lost games when he came on as a sub?

Originally Posted by MOE

Not arguing that, are those 8 losses games he started or a mix of already lost games when he came on as a sub?

Seems to mostly be games he came on as a sub. It's not a stat to take very seriously.