Some people would dismiss a useful tool simply because they've seen someone use it wrong. As if "evidence of the eye" has a good success rate. You're welcome to engage with the sport in whatever way you wish, but data and analysis has been a big part of football for a long time now, be it Russell Martin quoting his improving metrics to avoid blame, or Sam Allardyce picking his starting 11 off a spreadsheet while on holiday in Dubai.
I don't think Martin is a stats-driven manager, or else we would have changed how we play long before now. He uses stats only where they can back up his ideology; he has a fixed vision of how the game should be played, copying things more-successful managers do even when they don't work for us, and will quote whatever he feels supports him in his beliefs if the results do not. Stats that don't agree are conveniently ignored.
For some people it seems that stats = bad therefore bad manager = stats manager. Which is daft and dishonest on a very Saunders-like level.
