ExiledAjax

I assumed you were still in your sick bunker! Sorry, didn't want to nag. So yep, those charts show exactly what I expected, big peaks in playing minutes at ages 23 and 30. In the prime years it is desolate other than Kalas and Bentley giving a big peak at 28. Look at the strike force - 32, 31, 30, two 21 year old's and a 19 year old boy. Going into a season like that, and expecting success, is borderline delusional imo. I repeat my point on the midfield as well. Two old heads, a hit and miss winger aged 25, and then a group of guys 24 and younger. Yes some, like Williams, have over 100 appearances at champ level, but I wonder (just wondering, don't go off and spend hours finding out just for me) how in how many of those 100+ apps he was the senior midfielder when playing for Barnsley, Bolton and Wigan at the ages of 20 - 22? In my opinion that is unbalanced, and was so before anyone got injured. In the summer we saw 3 players in their prime years leave. Nagy (26 IIRC), Diedhiou (28), and Paterson (29) They were essentially replaced with James, King, and the re-signing of Weimann. So that's 3 out in their prime (all for free - or did we get a small fee for Nagy? - I might add) and 3 replacements aged 30+. I understand we are struggling with money and I'm not saying "why didn't we sign a 27 year old 15-goal striker for £10m". I am more pointing out that over several years of transfers we pruned ourselves of the long term core of a first team.

For the purposes of discussion let's assume that this is correct. That there is a formal order from SL that the squad must contain a 'mix' of youngsters and experienced players, and that Pearson is being a good boy in implementing that. If true, then for me that brings up a few points: We can't blame errors, poor form or bad results on having youngsters in the team. If it's an order from the powers that be, then we have to live with it, and accept that we are going to get inconsistent performances as those young guys learn on the job. We have to readjust our definition of 'success' accordingly, to account for the quantity and quality of the younger players. We have to constantly assess whether the balance of youth and experience is correct. That includes Lansdown constantly assessing whether his order remains appropriate, and whether the balance is sufficient in order to deliver the results and level of success that he demands. If the balance is out of whack, if it starts to shift too much one way or the other, then (within the constraints imposed by finances, injuries and suspensions) action has to be taken. Every team will have a range of ages and experience levels. My opinion is that we began this season with too many players at either ends of the spectrum, and too few in the ideal goldilocks range. I understand that players in their prime, who are also talented, are expensive to buy and pay, and attract high value offers if we already own them. Is it the injuries? All 5 players aged 25 - 29 are fit to play as it stands (although two are goalkeepers so we can only ever play 4 of the 5 at any one time). The injuries are mostly in the older or younger players, those aged 30+ or 24-. It's not the injuries, it's the lack of payers in their prime to start with. In our entire squad we have a single midfielder currently aged between 25 - 29. That's COD. On top of that King and James are the only midfielders older than him. So any injury to those two and unless you play COD then you're rolling out a midfield aged 24 and younger. That's just an unbalanced squad.

Agreed, and that's why I asked Fevs for some minutes played stuff. Worth noting as well that the four guys you mention - Pring, Atkinson, Scott and Tanner - are all 23 or under, and in their first season of Champ football. So that's our first choice RB, first choice CB, plus two who are regularly in the match day 18, and start often enough. 4 of the 18 - about 20% of the match day squad, are simultaneously young and inexperienced at this level.

The Robins' Training Centre would be fine as well if they wanted to be little more "on brand". I agree and said at the time it was stupid name laced with hubris.

Yep, and I made the point in the summer that we had too few in their prime. Bentley in the press conference says a lot of the young guys are learning on the job. Ok, that's to be admired...but if it's 13 out of 24 doing that then you're inevitably going to see a lot of mistakes, naivety, and struggle. It also puts huge pressure on the other players to effectively teach/coach those young lads through each game, simultaneously trying to do their own jobs as well. You see it in action when James has to come off v Brum. Bakinson loses his mentor, who is replaced by HNM. Bakinson instantly goes from a midfield partner 7 years his senior, who is a very experienced, ex-Premier League player who understands the manger, to one who is 3 years younger than him and bar a few apps in some dead rubber Champs League games, has not much more experience than himself. Try doing similar in any job and you're going to get slower, less precise work. I think this is a statistical case where the mean average is misleading and the mode is actually more useful. The two most frequent ages in our squad are 23 and 24. We have four players aged 23, and 4 aged 24. We then have 3 aged 30. So although our mean is 26.1, that is being dragged up by Martin, King, and Simpson. In effect the most likely age of any of our players, is 23.5 - which is young. In answer to the other point, again using transfermarkt - Tanner and Semenyo are 21, HNM 20, Wiles-Richards is 19, and Scott is 18. Benarous and Bell were on the bench v Brum, but aren't officially first team squad members. Benarous is 18, Bell is 19.

We're a squad that has a very young element to it, plus a few 30+, and not too many in the prime ages of 26 - 29. So to an extent yes we are young, despite having James, King, Simpson etc on the books. We have 7 players 30 or over (Weimann, James, Baker, Wells, Martin, King and Simpson). Interesting that all 3 of our main forward line are 30+. We have 3 aged 26 - 29 (COD, Bentley and Kalas). O'Leary is 25. The rest of the squad is then aged 24 or under, some 13 players. You can argue about age just being a number, there's a discussion over what exactly constitutes "young", and of course the old adage that if you're good enough you're old enough comes into play. However, I think it is fair to say that overall we have a "young" squad that is bloated at either end of the age spectrum, with very few in the prime years. It was something I worried about in the summer, too may older and younger players, the older relying on younger bodies, and the younger relying on older minds, but too few that enjoy having both legs and mental fortitude. @Davefevs, can you perhaps furnish some minutes played data to supplement the above. How many minutes are seeing played by the different age brackets?

Was who I wanted when Holden left, but he signed a new contract a few days before that, and is now presumably more expensive. He's also doing well at Plymouth so I think will be pretty unrealistic for a while. It's a shame as I think he could do well with us.

Barnsley beating Derby is pretty sweet. Actually does now have that if the Reading -9 was applied now, then they would drop to 22nd. Hull lost as well. Interesting set of results.

Especially when we are on 1.1 ppg over the past 10 games. I'd suggest that 1.1 is about all we need to maintain in order to avoid relegation. Gives us 33 more points, for a final tally of 52. Rubbish, but enough to avoid the bottom three. Can we do 7 wins, 12 draws, 11 losses?

Every little helps. Also, it's good to see a club accept their punishment rather than file frivolous appeals.

Yep, it is just a theory. Equally possible is that Weimann gets crocked next week, Bentley gets Covid, and we're utterly buggered. I'm just saying, I'm not writing us off just yet.

Regressing from what though? From where we were when NP took over? I don't think so. We're fractionally better in terms of output than we were then. We're taking more shots, more on target, scoring more, conceding fewer etc. We're not brilliant, and it started from a very low place, but we're better than we were. Have we regressed from where we were after 6 games this season, perhaps yes, but in my opinion there is still time to get back closer to that early season stuff if we make a few changes and get one or two back to their fitness or full potential. Doing that would hopefully reconstruct the confidence, belief and organisation that you rightly point out is missing. There's no doubt we are in trouble, but it remains possible to get out of it with what we currently have.

So I've said a few times over the past few seasons that xG gives a decent indication of where we might be heading. It's yet to let me down significantly, although last season's bumper first ten games gave us enough of a cushion that we never fully caught up - pointswise at least - with the indication. Well right now if I look at the data that hasn't failed me for 5 seasons...we are right down in the relegation mix in most tables I see. Bottom three in some, others have us 18th or 19th. So, on that basis we still have time. It's not a dead cert right now, with a little luck, a little more nous, and a big effort from everyone, we can pull clear and finish one or to places safe. It's what I expected tbh, a tricky season, a dip into the bottom three at some point, but ultimately just having enough to get 50 - 55 points and landing 17th - 19th. Derby's points deduction is one hell of a boon for us as well it has to be said.

At the time of departure though...I loved Niki, at times he was absolutely better than Bentley. But on the day he left? I think he was injured tbh ? I say think as IIRC the club never really announced him leaving. Stoke just quietly signed him and our club didn't even acknowledge it.

Webster and Ayling, my kingdom for Webster and Ayling. I'd have Brownhill back in a heartbeat as well, probably at the expense of Smith in your list. That tenacity in the midfield is so desperately missing. Reid over Eliasson as well. Eliasson never really found his place in our system, and I think the same would be true under Pearson. Then if I can't have Tammy I guess Kodjia is the one...over Diedhiou...I'm torn as imo peak, invested, interested Diedhiou is a solid 15 goals a season guy. But ok we'll go Kodjia if we're judging players at the time of their departure. So Webster, Ayling, Brownhill, Reid and Kodjia.

Whilst I don't think Bentley is having his finest season, I think we have bigger issues than the keeper right now. I can't think of many goals where it's been totally his fault. I think firstly we need to stop the shots. It's been a longstanding issue but for me the midfielders need to do more to screen, harry, hassle, and generally disrupt our opponents play in the first half of our half. Stop the build up, stop the shots. Bentley is currently having to deal with about 5 shots on target every game. That's high, most goalies will face around 3. Five a game (plus 10 more off target) creates a very high chance of something going wrong. Deflections, unpunished fouls, miscommunication etc, all get amplified. Just looking at last night's goals. He has no chance with the first. The second he comes out to close the angle, which I think is the right thing there. The finish is good though and beats him. The third he's pressured into a hasty clearance which finds a blue player, Brum then happily pass through our midfield, take a free cross, and he's beaten at the post with a textbook header. Does Max save all of those and so keep a clean sheet? I don't think so. Secondly, do we want to disrupt this team even further by dropping one of the senior players, who last night captained the team? I'm not sure. You might argue that right now any change is good as we are that dreadful...but for me making changes for the sake of it isn't the answer. Essentially, I think we've bigger issues in the outfield, and that's what we need to solve.

We don't know what he's saying day in day out. If he's feeling like he's been trying the same thing, the things that have worked for him in the past, for 9 months and people aren't getting it...and then get 4 brutal losses and one poor win in a short period, well yeh that's gonna break you. I'm not surprised if he's feeling pretty crap.

Pretty fair. On clean sheets. We've had 4 in the league during his tenure. 3 of them were last season.

Maybe the problem is that all of our High Performances happen at the High Performance Centre. Rename AG "The Really High Performance Centre" and we'll be sorted.

Nice cross by Dasilva. He's had some joy on the left, has been in space a few times. I think if we gave him a bit more of the ball in their half then that could be a route to a goal.

Nuance? Balance? An opinion that considers multiple factors? What is this madness!?!? It's been the poor quality game that many predicted. We're relatively poor, and teams struggling to really click. That means that the game will be decided by single moments of luck, talent, or hotheadedness. So far we've suffered the luck, but this Birmingham defence has its weaknesses.

Certainly one for the Dubious Goals Committee to take a look at.

I'd that why the bottom tier is empty? Sounds like a game from last season on Robinstv.

Where are the fans?

Suspect both would try and sell it as a 3412, but it's two sides of the same coin. As I said earlier. I predict a lot of long balls as both teams that and bypass midfield.