Fuber

Worth noting I think in their last three theyve had zero shots on target. Even missing a goalscorer thats pretty dire.

Not sure I completely agree with that, think it's more likely in the middle. I.e. Ligue 1 being down to mid Championship or Lower and Ligue 2 being Lower Champ down to upper League 2. I don't think someone like Kodjia was League 1 standard. Equally Arnie Garita did decent at Plym in L2 and he was National level.

Underrated part for me. Bentley never was at all preemptive with communicating with his defenders. O'Leary is less vocal than Bents was, the problem with Bents was it was all reactive - used to give me kittens when he'd come and and try punching it without a shout to his defenders. Can't remember the game it was against, but earlier in the season before he got injured Kalas all but headed a ball out of a waiting pair of gloves that O'Leary gave a clear shout for, still can't believe people thought it was Max's fault - simply because Bents never left his line nor commanded his area. Max still gives a me kittens with his distribution at times, but that mostly comes down to lack of experience, easy to forget that he only has circa 80+apps above non-league. For context, Zak has 180+.

We don't have the cutting edge in possession and it shows. Add in Andi not match fit, no end product, and it was a disjointed performance. Would have preferred Cornick on the right and Weimann through the middle, where the latter's press would have been a bit more consistent - not that Cornick did too much wrong, just think he needs to get a bit more match fit and then possibly moved across once a bit more comfortable and up to speed. Anyhow - we go again, remain unbeaten, and in Nige we trust. On the bright side, Wigan made me realise that we could be much, much worse.

Retires.

True - it would just be great if said counterpoint/debate was within the pod itself and discussed, not unquestionable 'fact'. Sometimes, something akin to "Do you have a source?" for some of his supposed figures would be interesting.

Some take disagreement as some kind of personal attack, not constructive criticism. Agree with you as to why block Fevs - but then to be fair I tend to agree with his viewpoints myself.

To be fair HH, no one doubts the podcast itself to any degree, and in spite of many views, with regards to podcasts - more the merrier, more content for us fans, etc. Its going to do well as people will always want to see the contrasting opinion(s) across the fanbase - I can guarantee a portion of fans likely listen to all three for some context. As for the bit of bold, that's basically nail on head. I'd amend it and say the biggest gripe with people, myself included, who quite like digging into the performance numbers - is that if he simply stopped saying "I've done the analysis" and said "In my point of view" instead, he'd get a lot less frictional views from members on here. I have to agree with Fevs; he literally plucks numbers and draws his own conclusions with not much foundation. That is not analysis, as there's no balanced counterpoints to his own arguments to lend his views any credence, and the problem is there's nobody to bounce off of on the pod when he does raise points to encourage said further debate and analysis, at least with any statistical knowledge - I know myself and a few others have cursory coaching badges etc. When he is questioned - usually such as the twitter take below, its all evidently very shallow analysis, or at the very least lacking any context with regards to tactical system within which the players operate. ^ This being a prime example. If we were to use the logic above, James, et al, are going to be 6/10 every week based on what they can do and no better - they're playing on a system where job is essentially to screen, turnover, and play the ball up the pitch on the counter-press as quickly as possible - usually via the channels. Despite the fact even the statistical rating systems have the three of them rounded 8 (Williams), 7 (Scott), and 7 (James) respectively on whoscsored. Are whoscored always accurate? - by no means, however its worth noting that Sergeant (James' man), had 22 touches. Which is what I'd bring Ian up on - as he was marked from the game so thoroughly he was subbed off at the 60 mark for Idah. If that doesn't speak to James' performance I don't know what does. In a team whose biggest weakness is defensive - to then turnaround and complain about a players attacking/creativity output in a defensive role?

Not sure we can complain ala Nakhi v Preston - that at least was albeit arguably consistent.

For some reason I read this in Jamie Vardy Danish Friends vibe and now can't unimagine it. Goddammit.

The part that beats me, is that he's literally listed all the reasons we have 35% possession (playstyle, player output, etc), and can't seem to work out the manager has realised - why play possession if we don't have the players for it, ergo playing a system to fundamentally get the best out of them? By that logic he should go study Reading's record breaking season under Coppell - who averaged something like 42% possession and guess how many points they had. That would be interesting. As for the input output comment - that's just tripe. As Mourinho said when we beat his United side, and many others have said the same - you make your own luck. I usually take Ians post with a pinch of salt, but that's one of the most stupid comments I've seen be amended to football in a long long time.

Doesn't just put Norwich's recruitment into Context, as the three most expensive players are by far LJs, one of which started.

Correct. Figure that I recall from the times was £1m. As Wigan fans were furious he went that cheap.

Cornick can play anywhere across the front three, is fairly quick, and from all accounts a hard worker. All it takes is Sykes or Sykes getting a knock and he's starting. Same with Mehmeti if Bell gets a knock. You then have Weim It's, for me, about options. Cornick may not be as clinical as Andi (who for me before his injury struggled slightly), but he's very similar to Baldock albeit not quite as fast - but then better aerially. Baldock also used to be awful at 1v1s, then got a bit of confidence and started bagging them. Compare that with CM - one position, no versatility, lack of mobility. Add that to the way we play and a lack of depth, and it's a very straight forward signing.

He's one of those players, ala Skuse and Cisse, where you notice when he's not there. He's disciplined, knows the game well, cuts off passing lanes, and plays the simple passes - not as expansive as Naismith - but mentally mu h more switched on and less prone to errors, Every team needs that 7/10 man in midfield, in the Cotts side it was Korey - and we missed having one under LJ when Korey was out and Pack was sold. Fact of the matter is, if you have a deep lying midfielder in a three, and the opposition struggle to play through you and fail to score, but more importantly only have one shot on target? 8/10. Every time.

Are there any Academy players that could make the step up as cover? I.e. Omar Taylor-Clarke, or Jamie Knight-Lebel?

Nope. Not taking another risk with injuries again imo. Wells I could understand due to his availability.

It doesn't kill my argument - it supports it and is quite literally my main point. SL gets equal blame along with Jon, MA, and LJ, I've never stated I don't include SL as accountable as I thought that was a given - I'm very critical of his role in all this as well as his general running of the club. The buck stops with LJ, for me, simply due to the fact the latter can simply have said he no longer needed players, if he was being overridden in his role of manager then he should have resigned - it's quite literally that straight forward if he has/had any integrity on the assumption that was the situation. So for my view of LJ, and this is purely my opinion not fact - he loses face for myself in either situation. My point is that we were reliant on just one or two transfers - but we were relying on keeping that up. Before Semenyo's emergence the last twelve months and Pearson blooding the like of Vyner, Scott, Pring, and others, we were in the proverbial shitter. With regards to a chairman whose message was - 'sustainability' - from the outside in, I view it as utter incompetence and stupidity when contrasting that with the club accounts. For example, we would of needed net transfers profit of £10m per annum to keep anywhere near FFP guidelines, never mind being self-sustaining under the strategy. Demand from outside can not be managed or assumed - ergo its a high exposure risk that should not have been undertaken in that setting. You must reinvest wisely and not blow huge fees out for that system to work, including wages, to emulate the likes of Brentford which is what we in effect needed to do, between academy players, free agents', loans, and a good scouting network getting value for money where possible. The fact that the previous scouting setup was loyal to MA and not the club, speaks greater volumes than anything else. There was nothing sustainable about that period, so no quarter should be given for such. SL is bankrolling his own ****-ups currently, appointing both MA and LJ, and we're in the climax of the storm in terms of weathering the impact of it. Doubt there was one, Nepotism at its finest with zero checks in place to balance actions from the top.

We were if it wasn't for the inflated Webster fees - literally the only reason, we're currently only under it now thanks to NP and Gould. If LJ/MA had kept wages around the 16/17 margin of £20-21m mark, we would have had a wages to turnover ratio of circa 80% and would have been partially sustainable. Only reason why it never happened under early LJ and the Cotts era was due to the stadium revamp capping turnover up to £12-14m, which we were allowed allowances for. If you apply a wage cap of £23m, i e. Up to a 10% increase, between 17-19 would have been sustainable. Not bloating that to £33mpa - which even the likes of Tomlin and Szmodics etc contribute towards as irrespective of breaking even on the transfer fees we still had to pay their wages. The sheer turnover of playing staff was stupidity. Irrespective of it being LJ or MAs responsibility. LJ doesn't help himself when he himself coined the clubs in bag tagline. It was an idiotic strategy that if not for SL would have had us in utter financial peril. Ergo it was never sustainable.

No we were not. As fees received were never guaranteed. On a simple turnover versus playing wages comparison, we were over.

The spending wasn't the problem - the wage spending exacerbated by the bloated squad was, still is, and remains the issue. Fact of the matter is we're in the hole now entirely due to LJs clubs in bags approach, for every good deal - Brownhill, Webster; there is countless others that didn't work, Engvall, Djuric, Adelakun, Szmodics, Eisa, Hegeler, Marinovic, Rodri, Kent, Giefer, Palmer among others.

Only at the backing of £45m in transfer fees and 110% increase in wages. By comparison. Cotts only spent £3m the one window he had. And the former only worked thanks to fees we received for Kodjia, among others.

Anybody could see the wage spending was becoming comical. If LJ didn't, then that's on him. He had dverything he could need at his disposal, he was just a very poor manager. No squad building ability, no singular style of play, no man management, no common sense. He's a decent coach. But that was it. Should never have been our manager. If we had someone like McCarthy or Pearson in charge over that same period (16-19), we would have at least a couple play off finishes. They'd have streamlined the squad, told Ashton to bugger off, and had a backbone, and at least have a set tactic.

By all accounts, my cousin is a Reading fan (poor bastard). In his own words, "Dave Kitson is a c**k".

Does make sense and was the reason for the my suggestion. Thought it may have already been changed to such and missed it. Make more sense now I think about with regards to Kelly's fee and the impact on our FFP outlook when that's outside frame of reference for the calculation. Was not, however, aware of the first point under current rules.