LondonBristolian

In fairness, when Tinnion was on a couple of months back, he did get asked some of the questions that I was hoping for so hopefully they will probe Jon Lansdown a bit on some of the PR cock-ups of the season.

I think very often people criticise statistics when the real issue is the fact that most of us - including within the media - haven't been taught how to interpret statistics anywhere near well enough. To use a simple example, if a team has a 60% chance of winning a cup final, that will mean there is a 4 in 10 chance they will lose. But if the team that are 60% favourites lose, everyone immediately goes "well, the stats were wrong" but actually the stats clearly implied that - whilst they were more likely to win than lose - them losing was also a strong possibility. But far too often people see a 6 in 10 chance as meaning that will definitely happen and then feel something has gone wrong with the stats if a reasonable possibility doesn't come to fruition. Expected goals is one indicator of how well a team will do. It's certainly not the only indicator and it can only underpin a story rather than wholly tell it. Is a team that concedes less than "expected" lucky or do they have a really good goalkeeper? Is a team that scores more than "expected" riding their luck or working really hard on finishing on the training pitch? We don't know from expected goals alone. Both @Silvio Danteand @IAmNickhave provided tables that show there is very clearly (and unsurprisingly) correlation between expected goals and position in the table. In the past people have also shown there is a correlation between league position and possession, and (depressingly) league position and salary spend. (Some research suggests that the number of shots taken or faced and transfer spend are not linked anywhere near as much with league position). Expected goals very obviously isn't nonsense. It's worth a manager and a club understanding their expected goals - expected goals against so that, if they're in a position of unexpectedly good or unexpectedly bad results - they can get a sense of whether it is likely to be a temporary anomaly or part of a deeper pattern. People relying on expected goals as the only indicator or the whole picture is nonsense but I don't see anyone on this thread doing that.

Ah - my mistake. I think we're meant to add them. He must be 20.

For goodness' sake, man, read the shirt. It makes very clear it is their Daddy who is 10 years old.

I don't know what he's on but I think he likely has given us value. Whoever we have in team, we're always going to need at least a handful of squad players who can cover a couple of roles, and step in when needed without souring the atmosphere if they're not being picked. Obviously it'd be a mistake to have - as we have at points in the past - a squad full of ageing professionals with inflated wages and limited sell-on value - but I'd not put King in that bracket and his time here has been one where he's often been one of the few older players supporting a young squad. Ultimately we need a balanced squad and I think a veteran model professional on a reasonable salary can certainly be a part of that.

I hope we don’t play silly buggers and offer an appropriate and fair salary that reflects what he’s worth to us. We shouldn’t go overboard - ultimately any player out of contract could get a better offer and we should have a contingency rather than over-paying, whoever the player is - but it is more in our interests to secure an extension for a player who is here, settled and playing well than it is to pay a fee to bring someone else in. So I hope the club make a fair offer and see what happens rather than any fact attempt to low ball him.

I still think there is a strong chance that there will be too much of a gap between what Burnley want for Twine and what it is worth to sign him. He’s a good player and I would want us to keep him but I wouldn’t want us to spend £5 million to do so, especially if that impacts what we can afford for a striker. I think the only way it is likely to happen is if Burnley either stay up or decide that his performances for us and Hull - whilst good - aren’t quite enough to convince them he can play a key role for a title challenging side next season and if there aren’t any other clubs willing to pursue a bidding war.

I can’t help thinking that - much as it’s not what the club would want - his best option would be to stay for the last year of his contract and see what his options are next summer.

Sounds like we'd better keep an eye on Taylor Garnder-Hickman...

That might depend on Hull's result tonight though. If Norwich go into the final day 1 point ahead of Hull and level with West Brom then saving themselves for the play-offs might be a risky strategy.

I don't really get what will have changed since January, though. Bird will have known all along there was a good possibility Derby would go up and he'd have known about Bristol City, who our players were and what our results were like. We've got the same manager as January and results have improved rather than got worse. Bird would have had the option in January of staying put to the end of the season and seeing if Derby went up or if he got other options. He decided not to do that and to sign for us. To be honest, pleased though I was he did that, I was also a little surprised. But, surprised or not. the fact is nothing whatsoever has happened since then that has materially changed the facts so I don't understand at all why people think he would have changed his mind.

This isn't the biggest deal in the world but it is a little silly that Manning is saying in press conferences that no talks are taking place and then Tinnion is saying on Robins TV who we have and haven't offered a contract. I do feel there is a lack of a comms strategy at times...

I'm not even quite ready to believe that Adam Murphy exists. The possibility of the club being tricked by sophisticated AI cannnot yet be fully discounted...

On that basis, Sheffield Wednesday, Millwall and Plymouth would all have stuck with managers that clearly weren't working. I can only say that I utterly disagree. If there's significant evidence the wrong appointment has been made, why stick with something when there is no evidence that it is going to work out?

We'd won just 3 games in 14 in the league, lost against 2 of the bottom three and put in a drab performance at home against our biggest rivals in the division. On top of which, the "3 straight wins" you talk about is a misremembrance on your part - we won 2 in a row and the league game before that was arguably our worst performance of the season against an admittedly excellent Leeds side. FA Cup and the 2 game streak aside, our form from late December to early March was utterly atrocious over a 2 and a half month spell. Manning has done a great job of turning it round but there was nothing knee-jerk or unjustified about criticising Manning for our league performances from 29 December to 16 March and I can promise you I'm not going to apologise or feel embarrassed about thinking a manager who was showing relegation form in the league over a third of the season had to answer questions about his future in the role. For a long time, we weren't good enough under Manning. He's turned it round but it'd be nonsensical to rewrite history.

Personally I'm hoping we can hold off on the protests until at least October...

Back in early March, I said that what'd give me confidence in Manning for next season would be 16 points from the last 9 games. It seemed unlikely at the time - this was just after West Brom away and I thought Manning's time in charge was pretty much over bar the shouting - but we've got 15 from the last 8 and would hit that 16 if we get avoid defeat at Stoke. Manning has, to his credit, turned it around. As you say, we've got to carry that momentum into next season but I'm a lot more confident and upbeat now than I thought I'd be at this point.

It feels ridiculous to say this given where they were a few months ago but you’ve got to start thinking QPR might be dark horses next season…

Said this on another thread but, if the plan is to only bring in two over the summer then I think there has to be a belief that three or four players already at the club will step into the first team squad. I’d have thought Stokes would be very much in the frame to be in and around the squad at a minimum.

Thanks so much! I don't know much about the U-23s but get the impression from what others have posted that Bell and Boyd have both got stronger prospects in their position coming up behind them so guessing they're not likely to be extended. I know Leeson and Francois are both players who looked like they had a pathway to the first team at one point but obviously haven't made much of a mark this season. Not sure if they'd be seen as young enough to be worth a couple more years to see what happens or if the club would decide it was time to move them on. From the little I know, Backwell is the only one I'd see as a good bet for a new contract...

Sorry - I meant specifically, who from the U23s is OOC this summer?

I was thinking earlier about what the contract status was of our U-23s and who is likely to leave in the summer. I know a few expire in the summer - I think Acey, HWB and a couple of others but is there a list somewhere either on the site, transfermarket or on here? Every where I've looked I've only seen the senior players and I don't know if the list is hard to find or if I'm missing the obvious?

The decent thing would still be to explain the reasons on sacking. Or alternatively keep them private entirely. Not telling the manager and then revealing it in public is outright poor behaviour. And suggesting the manager caused it on purpose is frankly odd without evidence.

If Pearson had wanted to push it, there's a massive question in terms of whether the club followed their obligations under the Equality Act, although that would depend if his back issue is something that'd last for 12 months or longer...

To his credit, I felt he seemed quite magnanimous. He was really positive about the club, the fans and a lot of the staff and I felt his view of his sacking came across a basically "it happens, it's shit but why rake up all the mud?". Like you, I don't honestly think Nigel would have got us that much higher in the table. I could argue we could have been 8th or 9th maybe but I honestly think 8 of the 11 teams above us have better squads than us and would always have been favourites to finish above us. There's plenty I'd criticise Tinnion for but I find it entirely plausible he was as surprised as everyone else by JL's deconditioning comment and then had to manage the fallout.