Peg Leg wrote:Im talking about confirmation bias. A trend is noted at a point in time. It is taken as a consistency at that point in time and regardless of the decrease in frequency of said trend being repeated, every instance thereafter is treated as proof of the original noted trend (regardless of the passing of time or changes made).
Oh I know what you're talking about. But it's not confirmation bias if you don't have to go searching for false examples to confirm your bias.
The trend is being repeated this season.
As a wise man once said, "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?".
The information hasn't changed all that much. If it does, I'll alter my opinion.
You're accusing people of confirmation bias, but ironically you're falling prey to the very same thing by seeing looking for reasons to back up your feeling that every negative point around this issue is down to bias! You've fallen into The Matrix!
It's factually correct to say that Byrne has issues with his defence, particularly his positioning and tentativeness, and they've continued into this year.
It's not factually correct to say that tackle stats would indicate otherwise, since they don't actually measure this. It's not factually correct to add an arbitrary number to tackle stats to try to make up some argument. It's not factually correct to say that pointing out annoying, recurring, solveable flaws in an otherwise excellent young player's game is 'conformation bias'.