HiddenGem7

More "big" teams means more teams that will have an expectation of doing well, which they cannot all do, plus more chance of them all taking points off each other. Its more or less guaranteed that one or more of these teams will under-perform, resulting in sacked managers and even more turmoil.  We need to put ourselves in a position to take advantage if that happens.  I certainly don't see one team dominating the league.

Allianz is really good and Munich a fabulous city not on many peoples radar in my experience. Worth trying to get a game against a team that can give Bayern a game though (CL or top Bundesliga) as games against weaker teams or end of season dead rubbers can be quite dull. 

3 hours ago, Riaz said:

Compare the press conferences to the clubs interview!

I remember watching another teams press conference a number of years ago and at the time we didnt publish ours at the time. So i asked adam baker on twitter if we could start putting ours out and he duly obliged.

The interview by the club, asks really lame questions - which is to be expected i guess.

I find the press conferences have much better questions and answers. Far more interesting and you get more detail.

Pearson has, over the period of a year or more, trained local journalists to become better at their own jobs using Pavlov's techniques to punish poor questions and reward good ones. 

13 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Probably a bit of both, weird outlier but they have dominated most games...the strange thing is Karlan Grant on paper is a capable striker, unsure who else they have but with Wallace and Swift able to assist and score, well they should be doing much better than they are IMO.

And this highlights the other issue with xG - it takes no account of the players ability. A chance would get the same xG regardless if it fell to Haaland or Jay DaSilva (no disrespect intended to JD but he isn't a great finisher). Clearly one would have a greater likelihood of scoring any given chance than the other but the xG system simply ignores it. 

15 minutes ago, RedRoss said:

FGR played with three centre backs and wing backs.

They played a few different formations. Yes in some games they played 3 at the back with a midfield four with Wilson on the right, and in other games they played a back four with Wilson at FB, just as I said.  I didn't say he exclusively played in a four.

Pearson has said a few times in interview that he likes a back four but hasn't had the personnel - presumably his recruitment may be to remedy that.  Wilson played in a back four last season. Agree with you about Dasilva - maybe that's where Naismith will play? 

I suspect Nige is looking to play a 4-2-3-1 at some point in the future, something like:

                  Bentley

Wilson    Klose   Naismith  Dasilva

            James    Williams

Weimann      Scott     Semenyo

                 Martin

Sykes taking Semenyo's place while he is injured.

I feel like ticket price are cheaper today relative to average income than they were 30 years ago - i seem to recall (and I may be wrong) that at my first game in 1993, my dad paid £18 for his ticket in the Grandstand. That would be a much larger chunk of the average weekly pay pay packet than £40 odd quid would be today.

I'd like to see retrospective 3 match bans for clear diving i.e. no contact made at all.

Also not a rule as such but really liked when Lee Johnson wrote to all the clubs in our league saying we wouldn't kick the ball out if their players go down - that seemed to make a big difference to time-wasting.

I'm sure he is doing a great job, but the German scientist reminds me of the Human Centipede movie.

It's relevant because this whole argument revolves around whether moving from Chelsea Women to FGR men is a step up or a step down, which is a valid discussion point and is not being helped by some people immediately jumping on others with accusations of sexism and bigotry for expressing an opinion on that point.

I for one hope she is given the opportunity and does a great job, for me the move would be a step down in terms of club history/acheivements etc but a step up in quality of players, speed and power of the game and so on.

17 hours ago, And Its Smith said:

If I was Scott I’d be delighted with how this season has gone but also mindful of interest. If Pearson couldn’t assure me I wouldn’t be playing in a defensive role then I’d look to move 

You can't have listened to Pearson's interviews very much if you think he would ever give that sort of assurance.  He has said multiple times that he doesn't care about players being upset about not being selected or what position that they would "prefer" to play.  

Player chopping up mushrooms - "what are you making?" - "Oreo cheesecake" 

It seems clear that the advent of data analytics is starting to drive perverse behaviours on the pitch, with some players clearly more concerned with preserving their Pass Completion %age than making progressive passes.  Liam Walsh is one that always seemed to me to be doing this, and that may have been down to LJ's belief in stats.  Pearson seems less interested in data than previous managers, but its clearly still important and is discussed in group sessions.  

Pearson would be mad to renew COD's contract imo.  He has very very rarely contributed effectively, and his stats back it up - 9 goals in 155 apps is absolutely woeful for an advanced player, and his assist stats are almost as bad.  If we need a left sided attacking player, we need to look elsewhere, simple as.

The YouTube highlights thumbnail had the score as 0-0 as well. i think sometimes the quality is suffering in the rush to be current.

Its also making a lot more sense why Pearson seems to like buying 30+yr old ex-Prem players, players that younger ones can learn from, can manage games and provide experience when required.  I can see a team of 6-7 Academy products backed up by 4-5 older heads is going to be far less risky than spending millions on the likes of Wells, Kalas and Massengo - even though the latter two have worked out well, there is no denying the financial risk we've taken on them. 

I don't think we'll do that in the future, it will be a mix of older, experienced players, or only buying younger players from the lower leagues where no obvious Academy product exists, such as with Atkinson and Tanner.  

I think its a smart move, will be far cheaper in terms of transfer fees and wages, and far less risky as you don't have massive investment tied to players that needs to be recouped by onwards transfers, plus as others have said provides a route out of the top of the Academy and a return on those investments.  All just good business.

Jamie Patterson would be amazing at five-aside.

Thats true, but I wouldn't be surprised if the same is true of Bristol itself!

5 hours ago, pillred said:

British scientists are close to finding a vaccine for coronavirus apparently, let's keep our fingers crossed we may be nearer the end of this nightmare than we thought.

It will take months to do human trials and you cant fast track the process in case there are unforeseen side effects. Especially if the plan is to roll it out to millions of people in a short space of time.

37 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Quick question, which there may well be nobody on Otib qualified to answer.

Wuhan, where it first hit, and Italy, where it first hit in Europe, seem to have far higher mortality rate than anywhere else and there at least two cases - the doctor who died in China after contracting it from a patient said to have a "high viral load" and the first identified patient in Italy, who seem to have got it particularly badly despite not being in the age profile of people who get really hard by it.

So my question is - do illnesses like this lose some of their lethality the more they spread? I.e. so the death rate of the first 100 people is higher than the first 1000 people and that in turn is higher than the first 10000 people and so forth? Or is there another reason why areas and people who contract the disease early seem to be horrifically affected in a way that doesn't (yet) seem to be affecting everywhere else?

yes, viruses tend to become less lethal as they mutate and adapt through the population, but not quite as linear as the numbers you describe, that will happen over months and years, rather than days.

18 hours ago, ChippenhamRed said:

Yeah, we should make no attempt to stop the spread of a highly contagious infection at all, let it overwhelm our health services and just accept that 1 in every 200 healthy young people who get it will die.

The general mortality rate in the UK is 4.4 in 1000, or to put it another way a little under 1 in 200 people always die.  Coronavirus has had virtually zero impact on the normal mortality rate in China - there are literally dozens of illnesses that kill way more people every day, including as has been mentioned before, ordinary flu.

The whole thing has been blown massively out of proportion and the suggestion that sporting events should be cancelled is ridiculous. If that were true we should cancel everything forever, because of all the other illnesses out there that people might catch.