ExiledAjax

Good lord look at the difference a couple of premier League seasons make. ******* hell Norwich. Calm down.

Although since then the FIFA Tribunal and then CAS have determined that the signing was complete. So at that point the question of insurance does arise. The insurance case is in the High Court as a domestic UK dispute over which FIFA has no jurisdiction. So yes whilst they have changed their story, it's because of the conclusion of related cases. Their lawyers are basically going down the list of attempts they can make to either get out, or cover the cost of, signing Sala. Honestly the total legal fees spent so far must be in the millions.

Sorry, are they commenting on an ongoing case? Whatever that last paragraph might say I'd suggest that they clearly are trying to litigate in the media. If what they say is true then they need only say it in court and they will be vindicated. As an aside, my reading of that is that Cardiff didn't read, or didn't understand, or didn't pay attention to, the terms of their insurance. Bad luck, but don't sue your insurers for your own incompetence.

Heard on the Guardian podcast today that Liverpool's squad is in a similar shape as ours. Standards are obviously higher but in terms of age spread they've basically got players in their early twenties and early thirties, but very few in those prime years of 26 - 29. Checking on Transfermarkt shows this to be a little bit of a lie, and they're not as bereft of those players as we are, but it might well be an issue for them. Essentially they have: Age 26 - Tsimikas, Jota, Melo, and Diaz - two are injured and two aren't first team regulars; Age 27 - Keita; Age 28 - Robertson; and Age 29 - Oxlade-Chamberlain, and Fabinho. The bulk of their first team, and all of their spine of Salah, Henderson, van Dijk and Alisson are 30 or over. Of those players aged 26 - 29, only Robertson and Fabinho have played more than 1,000 minutes this season. It's an issue that we have as well. We have only four (4) players in this age bracket. Williams and O'Leary are 26, and Bentley and Kalas are 29. Given two of those are goalkeepers we can, even with everyone fit, only ever field 3 players in their traditional prime years. Now of course age isn't everything, we have players like Scott with over 5,000 first team league minutes at 19, or Vyner who is 25 but has over 15,000 minutes in the league. But they are exceptional. Most players will retire between the ages of 30 and 35 and with something around 30,000 - 40,000 minutes played at first team level (Martin has 39,000, James 30,000, King 27,000).

It's good when we get reasonable Gas fans come and post in this thread. Just a shame he was so, so far from "reasonable".

Brilliant point made that when people in positions such as the Chief Constable pedal these misconceptions, when they misconstrue correlation and causation, or when they draw links between event A and event B, they fire up those stereotypes, reinforce that behaviour, as well as reinforcing their misguided belief in it. Believe in the best in people, give them a real and honest opportunity to prove themselves, and invariably they will do so. @Blagdon red is another who would find this interesting.

?

Any slightly eccentric German with a statistical and system-based mindset and a mild-mannered voice. Preferably coming to our shores from relative obscurity, ideally as an assistant or first team coach of a Bundesliga 2 team. Daniel Farke is the epitome of this but you've also got Jurgen Klopp, David Wagner, Ralph Hassenhüttel* perhaps even Tommy Tuchel who fulfil some or all of those criteria. *yes I know he is Austrian.

What is this lie? When was this? This is absolutely not true. You clearly have very little understanding of the finances of Championship teams. This is understandable given your club has never been subject to the FFP rules that we abide by, and that your club is so small that you only file accounts for a small company with Companies House.

Has to go some to best his dad's tally for us right. Wikipedia has Micky on 292 appearances and 34 goals. Mostly scored in what is now League 1 though. Maybe a goal in the Championship is worth 1.2 old Second Division goals? Regardless, if Sam Bell gets to 292 appearances for us as a forward he should comfortably eclipse his old man's goal tally.

Yep he turns 26 in May. So the next three seasons 23/24, 24/25 and 25/26 are his prime years of 26-29.

Given we are led to believe that most of the "E34 movers" are Under-22, I should think that a lot of them will be able to scrape £8 together for a ticket in E34.

Prices for 4th round game.

Something like this perhaps next season? Maybe not in August, but towards this time next year? Exact positions of midfielders to be finalised but as a rough starting XI it's possible I think. Perhaps adding a proper LW or RW would help as Bell may be needed to cover an injured forward, Benarous likewise re CM. It's 6 academy products in a starting XI! With Weimann, James, and Naismith as experience to switch into this young (bar old man Wells) XI I think you're getting towards a balanced squad. Questions would remain over the number of players in their prime years, and I'd be amazed if we troubled the top 6, but it's moving in the right direction. Back of a fag packet stuff but it's possible.

No worries, it's a pretty niche request. I think the comparison remains valid.

Just to pick up on this, all of the below is league games only. Overall our attacking prowess as a team/squad is oddly consistent with last season. After 27 games last year we had 35 goals from 96 shots on target and a cumulative xG of 33.65. This season we are on 36 goals from 86 shots on target and cumulative xG of 33.66. So a small decrease in shots on target, but in both seasons we've broadly scored about as many goals as our attacking threat suggests we would. There's a slight overperformance in both season, but it is marginal. Individually this season we've got 9 goal scorers, no one has scored more than 9, and the three leaders are Wells with 9 in 1,784 minutes (198 mins per goal), Conway has 6 in 1,510 minutes (251 minutes per goal) and Semenyo has 5 in 1,151 minutes (230 mins per goal). Fbref breaks it down here: There has been some really lovely consistency from our three main attackers. Wells and Semenyo are shooting often. 2.5 shots per game is high. Antoine in particular is coupling this with a very good SoT% of 44.1%, so he's shooting a lot and those shots are on target almost half the time. Dangerous, that tests the goalkeeper. Considering he is also shooting from 14 yards on average, that accuracy is impressive. All three are also slightly outperforming their personal xG. However none of them are doing so to an unsustainable or unbelievable extent. This is good, this tells us that they are performing at a sustainable level that we can reasonably expect to continue through the rest of this season. We aren't in a 'purple patch' and assuming all other things remain equal, we should see a consistent goals scoring return form our main three strikers. Encouraging, and delectable. I included Weimann here because it shows that he's perhaps our only concern. He's played a different role this season, but even in that role we might reasonably expect him to have five goals instead of four. However, given the low number of shots and SoT (28 and 8 ) that he has taken we should be wary of giving too much credibility to the small numbers. Ultimately 4 goals form 8 shots on target is ******* sniper elite levels of conversion, and holds up well against Wells and the other two. He's not going to match his freak season in 21/22, but any reasonable person should never have expected that anyway. He remains 3 goals away from getting 50 for the club, and that is still quite likely to happen this season. It's hard to find stats for last season frozen at the 27 game point, so I can't do a direct comparison (@Davefevs do you have that?). But, we can look at the final 46 game position of three of the above players (Conway got so few minutes last season that it is pointless including him) plus Martin. Some difference. Look at Goals Scored G/SoT, and xG. You see immediately how Weimann was astounding last year. Like seriously overperforming. Also, that compensated for the relative underperformance of the other strikers. Martin, Semenyo and Wells both had pretty poor G/SoT rates of just about 1/3, and both ultimately netted roughly 2 fewer goals than they perhaps could have done based on the quality of the shots they took through the season. Weimann saved our goals conceded column last season. So really I am happier this season. I've always said I'd much rather have three 10-goal a season strikers than one 30-goal man. It leads to a better balance, and protects against injury or loss of form in that main striker. We're in a nice spot attacking-wise. We're a threat, but it's balanced and the load and responsibility can therefore be shared. I think that is proven by the situation with Conway. He's dropped out, and Semenyo has stepped up. We're unlikely to have the 20-goal striker that some demand (although Wells may finally claim that elusive medal that some award him already) but we will probably have 3 strikers in double-figures as opposed to the two last season. Couple that with some goals from the rest of the team, the aforementioned defensive improvement, and the good will of lady luck and we'll be just fine for a lower mid-table finish, an improvement on last season.

Their away form is far worse than their home form as well. Ignore their Rotherham result last week, there's no way that was a 4-0 game. Bit of a fluke result. Still, they're all about the home form as this record shows. I checked this. We were in the relegation zone (23rd) after the 2nd and 3rd games this season. Other than that we've never been lower than 20th under Pearson, and actually haven't been in the relegation zone since day one of the 2019/20 season.

Yeh. I don't think Nige is the manager to take us to the Premier League. I also don't think he will ever take us to League 1. I didn't really want him appointed when he came in, I thought he's got a history of liking 4 at the back and he'd struggle to play his favoured variation on a 4231. That happened, he tried 4 at the back, realised that we didn't have the players to do it - at the time and in his opinion - and so we've had a year and a half of a bit of a bodged 5 at the back, with a bit of recruitment towards it as well. I'll still criticise him for the Simpson signing as well, not just because the lad's legs were gone, but also because of the off the pitch issues with Simpson, and the contradiction that had with the Club's supposed official stance on domestic violence. I also don't particularly find his press conferences funny, I didn't like the way he dealt with Gregor MacGregor, and I don't find him particularly engaging to listen to in interviews. But to give him his due he's managed the team that he's got reasonably well. He's been ruthless with coaches and players as needed, and he has had a good working relationship with Gould and Tinnion. We've improved hugely from the last 15 games under Holden, Simpson and Downing and that improvement is more than just the luck of results. It's borne out in improved underlying statistics that stay largely consistent through wins, draws and losses. That nadir of shite seems a long time ago now. We've never been in any real danger of relegation under Pearson (someone will probably correct me but I'm pretty sure that Pearson has never actually had us in the relegation zone* despite all the doom-mongering), and the new stability has allowed the financial reset to take place. The fact that he's managed to do that under the financial constraints is very, very impressive and I am happy to give him that credit that I never thought I would. He has steadied the ship very well. So that's my position. I don't love him or his football, I think the squad is still thin and unbalanced and needs a lot of improving if we are to challenge into the top ten in the near future, and I suspect we will need a new manager to take us that next step. However, that new manager will inherit a steady financial ship with a solid core of driven and competent players, and with a few additions and some tweaking, we will be able to make that next step. I'm more than happy to let Pearson see out his contract to the end of next season. Given what's gone on off the pitch I don't think we could hope for much better right now. Changing manager now would take us two or three steps back and needlessly rock the boat that has been steadied. *at any meaningful point in the season.

Two wins in two.

Yeh I'd forgotten about this as well.

Yeh and this is why the Birmingham game wasn't a "must win" and why we're in very, very little danger of being relegated. Our baseline figures are ok, and they're better than last season. Over the next 19 games that will show through, and we should get 20 - 25 points, so landing on something around 55, and comfortably safe. With a bit of luck (and maybe even a penalty or two) we might get towards 60. Add a positive GD to that and there's no way you go down. Remember as well that last season was already a big improvement on the Holden/Pearson season. I'd honestly be happy to let Pearson see out his contract. IIRC that runs until the end of April next year. At that point (or maybe a little earlier in reality, probably this time next year) we should be done with the "financial reset" and will likely be somewhere around 8th-12th as per our wage budget. Pearson can assess if he can be arsed, the new CEO can assess how we're looking. It's a good time to look at how 2024-27 might look at our club.

Essentially this season our "average game" is a 1-1 draw. Last season it was more like a 1-2 defeat.

Good to bring GD up. GD is your gold standard quick and dirty reference for "are we where we "should" be?" We've played 27 games. Last season we were on GD of -12. Minus bloody 12! The table (roughly as team number of games was less uniform last year) was as below. As you can see, we are the highest placed team with negative goal difference in double figures, and are well above most of our GD peers. This season we're on -1, and in fact should probably feel like we should be above Hull with -10, and even maybe Reading (-7) and Preston (-6). So you can make a reasonable argument that our true position is 2 or 3 places higher than we currently are, putting us around 14th or 15th. Note that had we won the Sheff Utd home game that we were comfortably the better team in - then we'd have the 3 extra points needed to get us into 15th place (assuming we won by one goal we'd be on 35 points with GD of 0). So that's the tiny margins we're dealing with. The improvement in GD has almost entirely come in defence. For all of the moans about Naismith's errors and King at CB, we are actually much meaner than last season. Last season, after 27 games, we'd scored 35 (1.29 per game) and conceded 47 goals (1.74 per game). This season we've scored 36 and conceded 37. xG against this season is 1.4 whereas last season it was 1.67 per game after 27 games. Shots on target against is down from 4.7 per game to 3.7. So the improvement is seemingly deserved and is likely a reflection of proper underlying defensive improvement (or of course a division-wide failure to create dangerous chances, but it's more likely that our defending is quite a bit better).

This is Pearson's cumulative win rate plotted against the xG differential between Naismith's PPDA and Wells' Shot/Shots on target ratio isn't it? Thanks, had been meaning to make that myself.

Note that this doesn't seems to account for the prize money they are guaranteed for the second round. So they will still make a decent wedge from defeating the quarterz, but the game itself is basically covering its own costs.