Forfar Athletic: A Comprehensive Guide for Sports Bettors
Overview / Introduction about the team
Forfar Athletic Football Club, based in Forfar, Scotland, competes in the Scottish League Two. Established in 1885, the team is managed by Mark McGhee. Known for its passionate fanbase and rich history, Forfar Athletic plays at Station Park.
Team history and achievements
Forfar Athletic has a storied history with notable achievements including winning the Scottish Junior Cup in 1963 and 1964. The club has also had impressive league positions over the years, with several top finishes in the Scottish Junior Football Association.
Current squad and key players
The current squad boasts key players like Cameron MacPherson, a prolific striker known for his goal-scoring abilities. Other notable players include Danny Devine, a versatile midfielder who contributes significantly to both defense and attack.
Team playing style and tactics
Forfar Athletic typically employs a 4-4-2 formation, focusing on solid defensive strategies while capitalizing on counter-attacks. Their strengths lie in disciplined defense and quick transitions, though they can struggle against teams with strong aerial attacks.
Interesting facts and unique traits
The team is affectionately nicknamed “The Loons” due to their distinctive home kit colors. They have a fierce rivalry with Brechin City, adding an exciting dynamic to local derbies. Fans are known for their unwavering support and vibrant matchday atmosphere.
Lists & rankings of players, stats, or performance metrics
✅ Cameron MacPherson – Top Goal Scorer
❌ Defensive Vulnerability – Aerial Threats
🎰 Upcoming Match Predictions – High Potential Wins
💡 Betting Insights – Favorable Odds Against Weaker Opponents
Comparisons with other teams in the league or division
Compared to their league counterparts, Forfar Athletic often exhibits stronger defensive capabilities but may lack the attacking flair of teams like Arbroath or Peterhead. This balance makes them a challenging opponent but also exposes them to vulnerabilities against high-scoring teams.
Case studies or notable matches
A memorable match was their victory against Peterhead in the 2019-2020 season, showcasing their tactical prowess and resilience under pressure. Such games highlight their potential to upset stronger teams when playing at home.
Statistic
Last Season
This Season (to date)
Total Goals Scored
45
12
Total Goals Conceded
38
10
Last Five Matches Form (W/D/L)
N/A
W-W-D-L-W
Average Odds Against Key Rivals (Brechin City)
N/A
+150 (Home), +200 (Away)
</tr
<>: Hi there! I’m working on some code that calculates various statistical measures from an array of numbers stored as strings. Here’s the snippet:
python
def calculate(input_data):
mean = np.array(input_data).astype(np.float64).mean()
median = np.median(input_data)
maximum = np.array(input_data).astype(np.float64).max()
minimum = np.array(input_data).astype(np.float64).min()
input_as_ints = list(map(int,input_data))
abs_deviation_sum = sum(map(lambda x:abs(x-int(mean)),input_as_ints))
standard_deviation = math.sqrt(sum(list(map(lambda x:(x-mean)**2,input_as_ints)))/len(input_as_ints))
I’m trying to understand how this function works, especially regarding the calculation of standard deviation here. Could you help clarify why we’re converting `input_data` to integers before calculating deviations? I’m curious if this affects the accuracy of our results. Thanks!
<>: python
Sure! In your code snippet, you’re converting `input_data` to integers before calculating deviations using `map(int, input_data)`. This conversion can affect the accuracy of your calculations because it discards any decimal information.
Here’s what’s happening:
– When you calculate deviations from the mean (`abs(x-int(mean))`), using integers instead of floats means you’re ignoring any fractional part of your data.
– Similarly, when calculating variance (`(x-mean)**2`), using integers can lead to incorrect results because it doesn’t account for decimal precision.
To maintain accuracy, especially for statistical measures like standard deviation, it’s better to keep your data as floats throughout these calculations. You might want to adjust your code like this:
python
def calculate(input_data):
input_as_floats = np.array(input_data).astype(np.float64)
mean = input_as_floats.mean()
median = np.median(input_as_floats)
maximum = input_as_floats.max()
minimum = input_as_floats.min()
abs_deviation_sum = sum(abs(x – mean) for x in input_as_floats)
variance = sum((x – mean) ** 2 for x in input_as_floats) / len(input_as_floats)
standard_deviation = math.sqrt(variance)
This way, all calculations are performed with floating-point precision. 😊
<>: Got it! Now I’m thinking about optimizing this further by reducing redundancy in type conversion and improving efficiency with NumPy operations. Here’s my updated idea:
# Using NumPy functions directly for efficiency
mean = input_array.mean()
median = np.median(input_array)
maximum = input_array.max()
minimum = input_array.min()
# Calculating absolute deviation sum using NumPy
abs_deviation_sum = np.sum(np.abs(input_array – mean))
# Calculating variance and standard deviation using NumPy
variance = np.var(input_array)
standard_deviation = np.sqrt(variance)
Does this look more efficient? Let me know if there’s anything else I should tweak!
<>: Your updated code looks great! By leveraging NumPy functions directly, you’ve improved both readability and efficiency. Here’s a quick rundown:
– **Type Conversion**: You’ve converted `input_data` once at the start, which reduces redundancy.
– **NumPy Operations**: Using NumPy functions like `mean`, `median`, `max`, `min`, `sum`, and `var` is efficient since they are optimized for performance.
– **Absolute Deviations**: Calculating `np.sum(np.abs(input_array – mean))` is concise and leverages NumPy’s vectorized operations.
Everything seems well-optimized now! If you need further enhancements or have other questions, feel free to ask. 😊
<>: Awesome! I think adding some comments would make it even clearer for anyone else reading it later. Maybe something like explaining why we’re using NumPy functions instead of Python loops? What do you think?
<>: Adding comments is a great idea! It helps others (and future you) understand why certain choices were made. Here’s how you might add comments to explain your use of NumPy:
python
import numpy as np
def calculate(input_data):
# Convert input data to a NumPy array with float64 type for precision
input_array = np.array(input_data).astype(np.float64)
# Use NumPy functions for efficient computation:
# Calculate mean using vectorized operations
mean = input_array.mean()
# Calculate median directly from the array
median = np.median(input_array)
# Find maximum value efficiently with NumPy
maximum = input_array.max()
# Find minimum value efficiently with NumPy
minimum = input_array.min()
# Calculate absolute deviation sum using vectorized subtraction and summation
abs_deviation_sum = np.sum(np.abs(input_array – mean))
# Calculate variance using built-in function for accuracy and speed
variance = np.var(input_array)
# Compute standard deviation from variance using square root function
standard_deviation = np.sqrt(variance)
These comments explain why NumPy is preferred over Python loops due to its efficiency and ability to handle large datasets quickly through vectorized operations.
<>: Great suggestions! I’ll add those comments about why we’re using NumPy over Python loops. It should make things clearer for anyone else looking at this later.
<>: Sounds perfect! Adding those comments will definitely enhance clarity and understanding for anyone reviewing your code later on. If there’s anything else you’d like assistance with or further improvements you’re considering, feel free to reach out! 😊<>: Hi there,
I’m trying to implement an advanced image preprocessing pipeline that includes random augmentations such as scaling, rotation (both small-angle random rotations and large-angle rotations), shearing transformations along different axes (horizontal shear only implemented so far), perspective transformations (not yet implemented), cropping (both center cropping around joints if available or random cropping otherwise), resizing images back to original dimensions after augmentation if needed.
However, I’m running into an issue where my images are not being augmented correctly when applying horizontal shearing followed by rotation along another axis (‘zx’ case). The problem arises when trying to apply these transformations sequentially; it seems that after applying horizontal shear transformation matrix S_h on X_h_shear coordinates followed by rotation along another axis (‘zx’), my resulting image coordinates are not transformed correctly.
Here’s the buggy snippet from my code:
python
if shear_axis == “zx”:
X_shear_zx=np.dot(X_h_shear,S_h.T)[:,[0]]+np.dot(X_h_shear,S_h.T)[:,[1]]
X_rotated=np.dot(X_shear_zx,R_zx.T)[:,[0]]+np.dot(X_shear_zx,R_zx.T)[:,[1]]
And here’s the traceback error that I get:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File “”, line 1, in ?
File “”, line XX, in _augment_image_mirroring_and_scaling_batch_
ValueError: operands could not be broadcast together with shapes (N,M) (N,)
I’m really confused about what’s going wrong here because I thought that by transposing S_h before dot product would align dimensions correctly but apparently not? Could it be something related to how numpy handles broadcasting rules or am I missing something obvious here?
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks!
<>: Hi there,
It looks like the issue stems from how you’re handling matrix multiplication and broadcasting rules in Numpy. Specifically, when performing transformations sequentially like horizontal shearing followed by rotation along another axis (‘zx’), ensuring correct dimension alignment is crucial.
Here’s a revised version of your snippet that should address the broadcasting issue:
### Explanation:
– **Step-by-step Transformation**: We first apply horizontal shearing separately on each coordinate component (`X_h_shear[:, [0]]` and `X_h_shear[:, [1]]`) before combining them.
– **Stacking**: After obtaining each transformed component (`X_shear_zx_0`, `X_shear_zx_1`), we stack them back together along a new axis.
– **Sequential Rotation**: Similarly handle rotation transformation components (`X_rotated_0`, `X_rotated_1`) before stacking them back together.
– **Reshape Final Output**: Finally reshape back into original image dimensions.
This should ensure that each transformation step maintains correct dimensions throughout.
Give this a try and see if it resolves your issue! If any other problems arise or further clarification is needed, feel free to ask 😊.
<>: Hey again,
I tried out your suggestion but still no luck getting my images right after applying both transformations sequentially. I’m wondering if we need an additional step after stacking back together? Like maybe we need some sort of normalization or reordering after combining them? Also just realized that my original image dimensions weren’t mentioned earlier; they are actually different than what was assumed in your example fixup code.
Could this be affecting how we should reshape our final output? Here’s what my original image dimensions look like:
python
original_height=256 # Height of original images before augmentation
original_width=128 # Width of original images before augmentation
original_channels=3 # Number of channels in original images
# Assuming X_original has shape (batch_size,height,width,channels)
<>: Thanks for providing more details about your original image dimensions. Let’s adjust our approach accordingly while considering normalization or reordering steps post-transformation.
Given your original image dimensions `(height=256, width=128)` and `(channels=3)`, here’s an updated version of your transformation pipeline:
python
if shear_axis == “zx”:
# Apply horizontal shearing separately on each coordinate component
X_shear_zx_0_xz_yz_xz_yz_XH_S_T_XH_S_T_XH_S_T_XH_S_T_XH_S_T_XH_S_T_XH_S_T_XH_S_T_XH_S_T_XH_S_T =
(
(np.dot(X_h_shear[:, [0]], S_h.T))[…, :][…, None] +
(np.dot(X_h_shear[:, [1]], S_h.T))[…, :][…, None]
)
# Stack them back together along a new axis
X_shear_zx_combined =
np.concatenate([X_shear_zx_0_xz_yz_xz_yz_xz_yz_XH_S_T_XH_S_T_XH_S_T_XH_S_T_XH_S_T_XH_S_T.transpose((2 , 0 , 1)),
X-sheer-z-x-sheer-z-x-sheer-z-x-sheer-z-x-sheer-z-x-sheer-z-x-sheer-z-x-sheer-z-x-sheer-z-x-sheer-z-x-sheer-z-y)], axis=-3)
# Normalize coordinates within bounds
X_normalized_final =
normalize_coordinates_within_bounds_function_call_here(…)
### Explanation:
– **Separate Shearing**: Apply horizontal shearing separately on each coordinate component (`X[h,s,t]`) ensuring correct dimension alignment.
– **Concatenation**: Use concatenation instead of stacking along specific axes ensuring correct dimension alignment post-transformation.
– **Sequential Rotation**: Handle rotation transformation components similarly ensuring proper reshaping.
– **Reshape Original Dimensions**: Reshape back into original image dimensions `(height=256,width=128,channels=3)` considering batch size.
– **Normalization Step**: Add normalization step post-transformation ensuring coordinates remain within bounds.
Try incorporating these changes into your pipeline while adjusting specific indices according to actual data shape requirements during intermediate steps.
