ExiledAjax

Like it, although if all are fit I think I'd be using Conway over Britton in the role you describe.

Most likely to be Fleming. Why would Steve Lansdown be the one telling people that anyway? On the team: I think we should stick to the flat 4, with hopefully Atkinson back to parter Kalas. Tanner, Kalas, Atkinson and Pring as a back 4 is ok, although very inexperienced at Champ level bar Kalas. Midfield depends on fitness. If James or Williams are fit then they need to play. Without them there's just yet more inexperience, and we need the few experienced heads on the pitch. If they aren't fit then I guess we are stuck with HNM, Bakinson, COD etc. Whoever it is, they have to be more intense, close Blackburn down, and stop the creation of so many shooting chances. Up front...2 of the 3. Does it matter? I'm not sure it does. Any combination is capable of capitalising on a Blackburn error. Any combination is also capable of creating the square root of F all.

Yes. I looked. It is a tad busy...possibly better as a scatter of our xg/shot against opponent xg/shot. Then if possible have the blob be a pie chart split between our total xg for and theirs? Just a suggestion.

xG per shot probably tells you the same story ultimately.

Is it odd that there's not actually been a press announcement regarding Pearson's step back? Nothing on the OS in print. Just the audio and video interviews from Gould.

Where's that from? I don't track that...maybe should. Can't see it in your tableau either. Straight WyScout stuff? We are seeing higher xG values against us this term, both in aggregate and per shot, so that supports the idea that closer, better shots are being allowed by us. Earlier in the season I was ok with a slight up tick in shots faced, as our shots for (and on target) was well up on last season (and in average for the whole season still is actually). I figured we'd sacrificed a little tightness in defence for an increase in attacking threat. In recent games though even that has dropped back towards the nadir of last season. Averaging 8 (3 on target) over the last 6 games versus 11 (4)* over the previous 11. The difference between 3 and 4, or 5 shots on target might not feel like much, but in % terms it's huge. Most goalies at our level have something between a 65 and 75% save rate. Increasing their work rate by 33% makes a huge difference. Bentley having to make 5 saves a match is a huge, huge ask. Interestingly though, the number of shots required by an opponent to score against us is 10 (3 on target) this season, and was 10 (3) last. The difference this season is that the raw number of shots against per game is up by about 6%...and goals conceded per game is up by 7%. That's a pretty close track. To me that suggests that it really is 'simply' a case of reducing the number of shots to reduce the number of goals conceded. Sounds obvious but sometimes it isn't. The above is me comparing numbers so far this season, to the averages for the whole of last, but I'm not sure that matters much. Screen the defence, stop the shots, through balls, crosses and corners. Close them down, make them hesitate. Make them think. Stop the shots. (All figures have been rounded to nearest integer.)

Yep. Goalkeeper is the last line of defence. He should be doing a minimal amount of work. 15 shots, 5 on target in 90 mins is a hell of a lot of work.

Because stopping goals isn't just down to CBs and Goalies. Re the OP's post. The Fulham points stat is about the least worrying, even if it's eye catching. Far more worrying is that we currently allow 15 shots, 5 of which are on target, in every game. That is roughly what an average promotion side take every game. In return we take 10, 3 of which will be on 5 target. That's about what a promotion candidate allows in a game. So, in effect, we are allowing our average opponent to play as though they are promotion candidates. Basically we literally are making Barnsley, Birmingham, Coventry etc look like Fulham and WBA.

I mean we all remember those two games last season when they did have to step up. They admitted at the time they didn't fancy it long term.

The article says "Gould told Bristol Live". That suggests this is separate to what Gould may tell BBC Bristol tonight.

Conjecture and speculation are the foundations of the internet.

Faked Expectations

Not sure how he solves any of the problems we have. I wouldn't be expecting success of any kind if that appointment came true. Might get some nice Chelsea loanees in January though I suppose. So possibly there's a short term solution to this season there...but as for the long term...I wouldn't be confident.

In which case we are picking a manager based upon his man management skills, and his ability to put together a system that fits an unbalanced squad of mixed ability, assembled by three different managers (plus one overbearing CEO). Tricky.

Trouble is. On what basis are we appinting a new guy? Is he tasked with saving us from the drop? Reorganising the club structure for the long term? Instant promotion next season? The answer dictates who we should feasibly look at.

Your very own Magwitch.

Hopefully it's that the High Perfomamce Centre is being renamed.

That would require explanation and clarification tbh. So maybe.

Would that merit a press conference? Transfers are normally three or four twitter announcements and a couple of OS articles. Press being convened (assuming true) is presumably because something unique, that requires explanation or clarification, is being announced.

To publicly give the board's backing to the manager? The kiss of death?

It is incredibly easy to find out who is on the board, the information is on both the OS or on Companies House. https://www.bcfc.co.uk/teams/board-of-directors/ https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03230871/officers Although, admittedly I think SL is not technically a director anymore, even though the OS lists him as such. It'll be the OS that is wrong rather than CH.

Not really a role for the Chairman of the Board. But someone should say something certainly.

I don't know which of the 30 threads to add my thoughts into, so this seems the best place. It's so frustrating that this has been building over three seasons, under three different managers, and 6 transfer windows. Something happened following the disappointing end to 2017/18, and the sale of Flint, Reid and Bryan, something changed in the way we approached the sport. Shot frequency dropped off a cliff, shots from outside the box evaporated. Passing sequences shortened and long balls crept in. We began trying to move the ball forward much more hastily, neglecting to build from the back and disposing of all patience, control, discipline, and grit in the process. I was a shit defender at school boy level. But I was 6 ft tall by the age of 14 and so always got put at CB. I had no confidence in my ability to play the ball, and so would just try and launch the thing towards the other end of the pitch. I had none of the below! I see that panic now in our squad. It's a lack of basic confidence in the ability to reset, to redress, and regain some control. Everything is geared to getting the ball as far away form our goal as possible, as quickly as possible...but there's no plan regarding what to then do with it. It often just comes straight back on us, and as others have said, the lackadaisical attitude of the midfielders means that often it is coming back towards an unprepared shape. And that is a disease that has crept into the club over the past few seasons. The warning signs have been there. A divisional all time record low shot count last season, allowing our opponents to pepper our goal at will, the number of times that our goalie has won MOTM in the past few seasons. Would changing the manager change this? I would suggest that recent evidence suggests that the problem runs deeper. We can prune the branches, even chop the tree down, but the roots are the issue. We've seen the underlying issues persist through the past two changes in management, and in my opinion it would be foolish to try and fix a long-term problem with a short-term solution. We've tried that twice now and it's getting us nowhere fast. So what happens then? I'm not a coach but if I had 10 minutes with Pearson and Fleming I'd ask them how do you rebuild that basic trust and confidence that seems to be missing? Get the players to trust each other, get them to know that each has a clear, basic role. Become predictable. We won't win every game like that, but hopefully we'd manage to get the shots against down below 15 again, get back to conceding fewer than 2 goals per game (ffs how on earth do you expect to regularly win games of football if you're conceding 2 per game?) and try to genuinely become tough to beat.

O'Hare just faded away from Tanner to find the space, got lucky the ball came to him. Decent shot. Pass poor that 10 men are having this much joy against us.

Things you love to hear.