STFC Transfer Rumours

[Reg Smeeton]

OK, I will state the obvious. David Kerslake and Phil King have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether Paul Caddis can still do a job for us. Neither for that matter does Paul Bodin. How can it possibly have any relevance? It's like the old "we've not won at such and such a bogy team in 35 years so we have no chance today" argument. It boggles my mind...

Its called empiricism, the foundation of the scientific method.  It evolved during the European Enlightenment, sadly something receding into another Dark Age.

In a nutshell, you observe and consider whether the observations are repeatable. If they are, what might the reasons be?

Because we're dealing with people this is more a social science than a pure science, so definitely open to interpretation.  But the observation is that players returning after a lengthy gap, don't do much.  There are obvious resaons why that might be so.

The bogey obsevation goes something like this.... look we've never won at Whaddon Road, despite them never having finished above us in the same league, was this repeatable earlier in the season? Yes it was.

[Peter Venkman]

Caddis is only 30 still isnt he?

How old were Kerslake and King when they resigned

31 now.

Kerslake was 30 for his first return and 32 for his 2nd.
King was 30 on his return.

[pauld]

Its called empiricism, the foundation of the scientific method.

It really isn't. Scientific empiricism seeks to rule out the variable factors, in these scenarios there are far too many variables left to consider to be able to make any kind of meaningful comparison. The examples you have given happen to have one thing in common, but hundreds of other things which are different. They are better examples of coincidence than anything.

[Reg Smeeton]

It really isn't. Scientific empiricism seeks to rule out the variable factors, in these scenarios there are far too many variables left to consider to be able to make any kind of meaningful comparison. The examples you have given happen to have one thing in common, but hundreds of other things which are different. They are better examples of coincidence than anything.

As I said open to interpretation, why not have a go at interpreting the data we have to go on? This after all is a football forum.... go on let's see how you interpret the data.

[RobertT]

I'll have a go, some things happened in the past, they seem similar in detail.  There is no evidence to suggest we can predict the future outcome of other such similar events, scientifically speaking.

[Flashheart]

'empiricism'

Lolz.

[Richie Wellen-Dowd]

Returning ex-player after long period away, is also an experienced right-back

My head hurts.

[pauld]

As I said open to interpretation, why not have a go at interpreting the data we have to go on? This after all is a football forum.... go on let's see how you interpret the data.

It's not data though, it's little more than "I remember when..." anecdotes. It's all very interesting and all that but please don't try to pretend it forms some kind of scientific analysis.

[Reg Smeeton]

I'll have a go, some things happened in the past, they seem similar in detail.  There is no evidence to suggest we can predict the future outcome of other such similar events, scientifically speaking.

All very reasonable, but this hasn't happened yet..... if it does, presumably Davis and yourself think re-sgining Caddis would be good?   As my sort of evidence has no meaning?

[pauld]

All very reasonable, but this hasn't happened yet..... if it does, presumably Davis and yourself think re-sgining Caddis would be good?   As my sort of evidence has no meaning?

I have no idea whether re-signing Caddis would be a good move or not. That doesn't mean your arbitary selection of anecdotes is "evidence".

[Reg Smeeton]

Returning ex-player after long period away, is also an experienced right-back

My head hurts.

It shouldn't... re-visit the RB classic.  We signed Reid, a lad with 3 games, I pointed out not a reliable way of building an auto squad, as he'd need to focus on trying to get established as a pro, when all our promotion sides had a RB with at least a couple of years behind them.

The usual suspects all come in with no Reid will be fine.... remembering back in the summer this was as it stands, but Wellens then got Hunt, a fella with a couple of seasons behind him, and it shows relative to Reid.

No matter, but apparently according to some, Caddis has been playing more as a midfielder of late.

[Flashheart]

We do have some information to go by: We know that Caddis can play - we've seen him do it. At only 31 I doubt he's lost his mojo.

That doesn't guarantee anything of course but to claim it will not work simply because he has played for us before is, well... Regtastic.

What a silly discussion.

[Reg Smeeton]

I have no idea whether re-signing Caddis would be a good move or not. That doesn't mean your arbitary selection of anecdotes is "evidence".

There are 14 ex players who've re-signed, not arbitary. You could look into their cases as well.

[Reg Smeeton]

We do have some information to go by: We know that Caddis can play - we've seen him do it. At only 31 I doubt he's lost his mojo.

That doesn't guarantee anything of course but to claim it will not work simply because he has played for us before is, well... Regtastic.

What a silly discussion.

What is silly is on an STFC forum not discussing the relative merits of re-signing ex players, and making a case for or against on what we know.

[Red Frog]

There's often misplaced romance about re-signing former players on the basis of their previous capabilities. By definition, they were on the up and went on to greater things, and when they re-sign are typically on their way back down, so usually tarnish some of their former glory. I wouldn't really call it science: it's just a career curve.

Signing any player past their peak is only a question of how much they've lost: Peacock, Culverhouse and Hoddle still had it; Diagouraga, Nalis, Fenwick, Ince and so many others, not so much.