samo II

He’s right to temper expectations.

Nothing wrong with having a good feeling about things, but progress not promotion needs to be the watch word, I feel.

1 hour ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

No, friendlies don't count.

Agree.

I thought it was funny the other day when an article was talking about Ronaldo making his ‘debut’ for Real in a friendly in Ireland; personally, nothing non-competitive counts.

Preseason results are largely meaningless, yes.

Preseason performances on the other hand can be a useful indicator of where the team is at.

Consensus seems to be we’ve looked better than we did ending the season, so that is a positive.

Obviously all goes out of the window if we play like a pack of strangers next week, but I’m hopeful.

9 hours ago, Ally1971 said:

This is also City's reward for sticking with the Academy formula when people,like myself, thought we could spend the money on 1st team squad instead.  (In fairness I was getting frustrated in the 3rd tier).

Undoubtedly the academy has had ups and downs in terms of player usefulness to the first team, but I think even die hard supporters of idea like myself knew if we never managed to establish ourselves at at least championship level it may have ended up a luxury.

As it stands, could very well be part of the thing that saves us after our prior CEO’s slightly risky ‘buy low, sell high’ strategy went wrong.

Delighted with the players we’re seeing coming through now.

Say less.

If he goes and plays his way out of that league (which I’d suggest is of negligible quality, and not close to English league football), and earns his way back to the level he’s expressing his chagrin at not being given a fair shake at (ie the Championship), then have your words.

But I’d suggest it speaks to the situation he’s willing to essentially air his dirty laundry in public like this before having anything to point at.

Oversharing is a modern curse.

28 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Yep, it’s huge. It’s become a standing joke with the boys I coach that every week I bang on to them about communication - it adds an extra 10% to teams from boys to professional football. 
 

Although having 10 year olds shout “go home” and “let it burn” doesn’t half confuse the opposition

Couldn’t agree more.

From coaching in a different sport where communication is essentially forced on players, you can display very quickly the value of using it, and identifying those who can do it, and those who struggle.

It’s a skill that can be worked on - you don’t have to be a natural - but I think it is so often underrated and undertrained in football (in my personal experience).

26 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

Pah. I'm sure someone will come along shortly to tell us that cancer is only for the liberal leftie snowflakes and you'll be fine if you man up.

This made me laugh more than it should.

Presumptive number one?

Or one for the future?

13 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

Not sure if this has been posted, but read this a while back off the back of a conversation with a Charlton fan. 

https://www.coachesvoice.com/jason-euell-charlton-middlesbrough-england-southgate/

Great article, thanks for sharing.

Sounds like a thoughtful bloke; no bad thing to have on staff.

16 minutes ago, Gert Mare said:

Yep. It’s just that data doesn’t really work well where humans are concerned.

I bet the data showed that Nahki Wells would score every couple of games before he joined City? That stat soon went out of the window.

I’m not going to argue that data analytics will ‘trump’ traditional scouting methods because they assess different things; you combine them to gain an advantage, you don’t ignore one completely.

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

It didn't show anything of the sort. Even the simplest freely available data showed that he was going through a purple patch that was unlikely to continue and was largely happening because of the way QPR's midfield operated behind him.

But the humans thought he'd be brilliant so here he came.

Exactly. Plenty of examples of players brought in based off pure, ‘gut’ decisions/passing the ‘eye test’ who turned out to be crap. Analytics is a wholistic approach, not just looking at the scoresheet and saying “he scores a lot; let’s get him” or you end up with a square peg in a round hole not because you didn’t study them or their successful situation property  - just like with Wells.

14 hours ago, Sheltons Army said:

I went to the first fans forum with MA & LJ where they did a long presentation about their use of data , particularly in recruitment 

I asked MA specifically whether this was following a similar line to Moneyball and in some part to Brentford’s recruitment

He stated it’s was nothing like Moneyball or similar to Brentford’s way , which I have to say I found strange , and starting to think I misunderstood the basic concepts of both Moneyball &  Brentfords use of analytics , I left it

Its ironic that it does appear , in retrospect , that a lot of our recruitment was done majorly off the back of performance stats 

 

* I have to say I have absolutely no problem with the use of performance stats to ‘flag up’ Players that may otherwise escape our radar. it’s just for me, personally , that’s where the process should begin with plenty of eyes on , including from coaching staff and head coach / manager at some point 

I made the point , on a previous post , that however basic an example , that I did have a dabble at Fifa and two youngsters I ‘bought’ purely on their basic FIFA stats at young age was 

Mendy ,  and Alvarez (who’s just joined Man City)

 

There is absolutely a benefit to using data for understanding where a player has some ‘hidden’ ability not showing in more obvious stats or in observable performance - this is one area where you see some other sports, a lot of the US ones especially because of the way their salary rules work - they have to get value from players; the wage structures prohibit them just doing a Man City and buying five players for every position (I know that’s not entirely true but you get my point; there is active disparity in football budgets).

However, always seems to be done from a position of “what do we do and what do we need?” so not just looking at data, going “oh he is cheap and the data says he’s undervalued” and signing them regardless of your playing style/existing squad.

I suspect that under Ashton we maybe got a little cocky, thinking we could take any undervalued player, bring them in and just find a way of playing them - at one point we had a ridiculous number of central midfielders and felt it kind of had a whiff of that ‘buy every bargain’ approach.

Nothing wrong with using data to help guide you to a better value/hidden gem player for a position you need - and the odd speculative gamble can work too - but if you end up with too many bodies in one position, can be more detrimental than positive.

13 hours ago, Davefevs said:

It’s worth reading the book Moneyball (rather than watching the film) to get a better appreciation of what was going on with baseball data science (saber-metrics).

Brentford’s moneyball is a bit misleading as they have a vast scouting network, but backed up my data, not led by data.  Frank is a great advocate of using eyes.  He says he only uses data to back up what he sees with his eyes.

Moneyball the book was quite interesting as it used data to poo-Pooh conventional scouting, where scouting bias meant certain players were missed because of physical reasons.  It also found a link between less traditional stats like how often a batter got to 1st base as being a better guide than how many runs and hits a player ultimately got.

There is quite a bit of focus on two players, one of them a fat player who scouts kept overlooking, and a pitcher who pitched “underarm”.  Their data in the minor leagues said they should be great…and they proved to be when signed by the major league team owned by Billy Beane (Brad Pitt).

But baseball isn’t football, not every event starts with a pitcher stood on a fairly fixed point to a batter stood on a fairly fixed point.  It’s too fluid, it has too much context in what is going on around it, what other players are doing.

But you don’t need data / pics to tell you Alex Scott played well the other night, do you!  But it is good for checking, re-checking.  It is good for saving time going to watch players who aren’t worth scouting several times.  Was the scout’s report one where the player played out of his skin on a one-off basis.  Data can help you there.

Its being used more and more, and undoubtedly it’s being used in a more sophisticated way.  Back to LJ, he wanted to know where the top sides crossed from in 18/19.  Here’s how data helped.  Look at those cut-back zones for Norwich and Leeds!  Sheffield Utd slinging crosses in from everywhere.

 

The term ‘Moneyball’ gets thrown around all the time, and like in Brentford’s case, it rarely conforms to the what is actually the method.

I’d suggest even the most ‘old school’ seeming managers and clubs use some form of analysis now; Big Sam championed it at Bolton, and think that shows where a clever combination of using data and more traditional approaches can really maximise a team’s budget (albeit they got somewhat wild with it at the end of their top flight run).

I’m intrigued to see how Brentford manage in the Prem over a sustained period. The nature of modern football really doesn’t allow for teams without incredibly deep pockets to compete at the very top, but be nice to see someone challenge that.

I take some comfort/hope (the thing that kills you, I know…) that NP was in part responsible for the Leicester team that did (somehow) manage to break that lock on the premier league despite not having a national wealth fund or similar behind them. My person ambitions are a lot less lofty (just avoid a season long relegation fight) but makes me a little hopeful we can get the most from what we have.

48 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

The role of an analyst is more to supplement the knowledge of the manager/coaches to aid their decision making rather than making decisions for coaches. They still make the calls its just a case in the game now there's just too much going on to cover everything between a manager and assistant so they need the noise filtered out to get to the core messages that they want to implement. A good work relationship between a manager/coaches and analyst helps that filtering process so much because the analysts will know what the coach will be thinking for in a way and working from their direction. As alluded to earlier I imagine Nigel is good at this. 

True of analysts/analysis in many fields: they/it can be a brilliant compliment to augment and enhance existing decision making, at times being a significant force multiplier.

But if solid data analysis doesn’t marry with more traditional means of assessment, it can just end up numbers.

I sometimes wonder how analytics worked in terms of player recruitment under our prior regime, as some of the signings whiffed of ‘stat solo’ decision making, with someone fitting a lot of criteria when you ran the numbers, but who simply didn’t show the required skills on tape. 

22 hours ago, Gillies Downs Leeds said:

As a player for us for me it was MK at home that epitomised his character. Gave away a goal with a Under hit backpass and then went straight from the restart and scored to put us back in front.

Was coming here to post about that match - embodied the accountability and attitude of the team then; no passengers, and the senior pros led very much by example, including owning mistakes.

Wade’s goal felt like the manifestation of all that.

17 hours ago, Portred said:

In our promotion season v MK Dons at home. He gifted them a goal, within a minute he won the ball back and scored to make up for his mistake. That was a defining moment for me. MK Dons we’re still an outside threat but I knew after our captains redemption it was gonna be our season. 

100% - Was a sense we just had ‘The Right Stuff’ after that moment, and went on to be the case.

He’s going to end up at bloody Rovers, isn’t he?

If that’s him done, feel sorry for him but fair play: one of those who absolutely left it all out there, and I will remember him fondly.

But you can’t mess about with concussions/head trauma. Obviously been huge adjustments in American football because of the evidence behind its role in serious long term damage to players, and same is/should be being looked at in other sports like rugby and football.

Wish Baker all the very best in his recovery and future.

Once again the football forum descends into culture war bollocks. Boring af.

Can this thread **** off to ‘Politics’ or something as it’s really naff all to do with football, and especially our club.

38 minutes ago, Robbored said:

If you ever listened properly to a GJ interview he actually talked a lot, laughed at his own jokes but said nothing meaningful at all.

What LJ did was talk a load a bollocks thinking that we’d all be able impressed with his knowledge of the game.

As for becoming a clone of his father I was referring to him playing some decent stuff when he was first appointed but gradually over time he started producing the same dreary shite that his dad had. 

I reckon is part of the Johnson DNA………..

I mean we all know you hate GJ because he embarrassed you, so you’re hardly an unbiased viewpoint.

Funny for someone you’ve so little care for you’re always posting about how shite he was at every possible opportunity, no matter how tenuous the link.

Your obvious personal vendetta is getting really old.

2 hours ago, Red Army 75 said:

I wish him well. No bad feelings from me. My only regret was we should of sacked him after the Forest 1-0 game IMO. 

I agree with this.

He wasn’t the worst, he wasn’t the best, and he overstayed his welcome.

Some of his teams played good football, were fun to watch, and gave us some decent runs; some of his teams were trash.

The Andi comment is funny because, yes; LJ didn’t really use him as he should, so him taking credit is silly. But people making that some kind of big meaningful thing about his time here isn’t it.

He’ll probably do okay at Hibs; like others say, the standard is wildly uneven up there, even player-to-player in the same team, so if he gets a bit of luck and has learnt a few lessons, might be able to crave out some results.

I have a feeling it’s Jamie Mac for some reason; literally no knowledge on my part, just that’s someone I could see willing to speak about their time here who might have some interesting stuff to say.

So…

Did we ever work out who Gregor had interviewed?

8 hours ago, Son of Fred said:

Yes I fully recognise the common sense employed in this approach - 

Something missing in between the two ends of that scale for me.

Hopefully we’ll find that balance.

Like with everything; extreme approaches can often end up over extending themselves.

Where we are right now we maybe need to be more conservative in terms of having a competitive team in front of anything else, but unless we end up in the Prem we’ll likely always have to be open to selling anyone decent for a solid price.

12 hours ago, GrahamC said:

The other difference between Dasilva & Palmer was this;

Dasilva had won the player of the season award at Charlton in his previous loan & whilst he wasn’t outstanding in his spell with us, you could see that as he was only 20, there was still plenty of time for him to improve. £2m was also a very reasonable fee at that time.

As has been mentioned before, even without taking into account that we already had Paterson (a better version of the same player) & Szmodics who we had just bought (& I agree, who never got a chance), Palmer did virtually nothing in his loan spell, to go with mediocre previous ones at Blackburn & Derby, so how we thought that justified spending £3.5m I have absolutely no idea.

An ego signing by Ashton & LJ, which we are still paying for.

Completely agree. Palmer was the ‘process’ overreaching due to prior success and showing the flaws in using it as a guiding principle regards player acquisition.

Problem was the flaws compounded while the successes didn’t (ie we had to keep paying a non-contributor who wasn’t increasing in value, while the transfer fees for those we sold were already absorbed), hence the pivot away from the model.

I look at the signings we’re making now and while possibly seen by some as underwhelming, they represent to me a more pragmatic approach to team building; get in vets with a bit of experience at this level, and match them with some some promising players looking to step up from leagues one/two and the youth players.

For me, that’s the best way of developing a team at this level when you are not in a position to simply spend your way out of it like a recently relegated or bought out side.

4 hours ago, NcnsBcfc said:

Maybe the fact that Huddersfield, Blackburn & Derby all chose not to take up the option when he was on loan with them should have sent alarm bells ringing.

For me though, it's the loan spell with us prior to his permanent transfer that is inexcusable. He was poor in the main, and was left out of the side at the end. How we thought we could polish him up to be a diamond is beyond me.

Good luck to Coventry with him. There is undoubted talent there, however my gut feeling is he's another Liam Walsh on the horizon for them.

Agreed. It was baffling and I think was seen as an opportunity to get him for what was seen as cheap at the time. DaSilva I think was similar, in that we got him to sell him; at least he’s looked half decent and contributed, but Palmer has unfortunately been an absolute failure.

4 hours ago, The Coach said:

The signing also didn't make sense as we brought in Smozdics earlier in the summer 

Wish we’d left it at Smozdics and tried him instead. Never got a shot here.

He’s probably the definitive late Ashton era signing - lots of promise/potential that only flashed previously, bought for a decent sum with the expectation he’d shine for us, ultimately move on and play his best football elsewhere, but make us back the money spent and more in the process, enabling us to rinse-&-repeat.

Problem is (and as it was in this case), if that ‘process’ doesn’t pay off, we stuck with an ‘asset’ that contributes little but costs a lot.

Sure he’ll do fine elsewhere but absolute failure for us, sadly.

2 hours ago, Magger1 said:

I beg to differ 3 years ago we finished 8th 

2years ago 12 th 

last year 19th and at present sit 18th but way we’re playing can’t see us bettering that 

Fair, but lies, damn lies and statistics - we’re not great, but think when you consider the players we have right now (not great) compared to the performances we got from ‘better’ collections of players over the last few years, we’re doing about how I’d expect compared to massively underachieving.