ExiledAjax

Pretty poor when WBA have this as a third kit:

So the Laws of the Game published by the FA requires only that: The two teams must wear colours that distinguish them from each other and the match officials; and Each goalkeeper must wear colours that are distinguishable from the other players and the match officials; and If the two goalkeepers’ shirts are the same colour and neither has another shirt, the referee allows the match to be played. That's it. I believe it is then up to the teams to decide what kit they will wear, and for referees to then approve prior to the game that the two kits comply with the above. Referees might have some further guidance, but ultimately if team A turns up with Red, and team B turns up with Green...what can they really do. I believe most teams take two kits to games, but I suspect this isn't always the case. Of course there was a famous case involving Mansfield and some other club in 2014 where a spare kit was used...but I don't think that was to do with the colours. I also remember Man Utd changing kit at half time back in the 90's - I think that was a case of players struggling to distinguish each other. There is some small precedent there. On last night's game, honestly I understand that to 'normal' sighted people Red v Dark Blue is fine. I suspect down on the ground it was better than it was on TV as well. However, I agree with you that when the long camera shot was used, on a fairly low resolution stream like RobinsTV, under floodlights, well it was tricky to distinguish people. For me it wasn't as bad as the Celtic friendly or the Boro game in the summer, but it wasn't comfortable. To be fair to Scotty and the club - if no one raises the issue to them then I wouldn't expect them to think of it independently. As I said, the SC&T told me today that the club have noted my email and will take the FA guidance under consideration when designing future kits. I then listened to the @3 Peaps In A PodCast episode with JL, and he said that 2022/23's kits have been signed off a few weeks ago, so I suspect the first kits we would see that have expressly had regard to the guidance will be for 2023/24. However, I hope that doesn't stop us working with our remaining opponents this season to try and minimise these kit blends in our remaining fixtures. Hearing from others on this thread is useful btw as it means that if we approach the Club about this we have a record showing that this isn't just a tiny fraction of the fanbase.

An update. After the Boro v City game in the summer I emailed the Club/SLO/SC&T to ask if they (and Hummel) would take the FA/FIFA guidelines - linked in the quoted post below - into consideration when designing next seasons kits, and if possible, when deciding what kit to wear in each match. The SC&T (I think @Blagdon red perhaps?) brought this to the clubs attention in one of their recent Zoom meetings. I have been told that although it was the final item on a very lengthy agenda, Richard Gould and the others said that yes, they would consider the guidance and take it into consideration. This is great news. As a club we already have three traditional distinctive kits - Red/White home, White/Black away, and Purple/Green third. With those three colour palettes to choose from we really should be able to have a kit clash that works for everyone in every game we play. We will see what we get in in the spring, but I am hopeful we won't have too many repeats of the Celtic friendly, the Boro game, or even to a lesser extent last night's match with Millwall. @Leveller @Tinmans Love Child @Slacker

This game has been an average force meeting a mediocre object.

Neither the club nor RobinsTV have said why COD replaced Wells. Guess it'll be question put to Fleming post match.

Wells is not on the bench.

And there you go.

I'm an optimist tonight.

Apparently replaced Wells on the bench moments before KO. No explanation why.

This game. Honestly. Just one little piece of competence will decide this.

Oh ffs lads. At least shoot when you go through like that.

I hope we're all enjoying the RobinsTV mics picking up the mother and child discussing toilet breaks and the like.

Neither do the floodlights - night games are always worse I find. After we played Boro (Black v Red in a night game) I emailed the club and SC&T to see if they'd take UEFA's colourblind kit guidance into consideration when choosing next season's away/third kits. I've been told it's been brought to the clubs attention.

Yep same. Long camera shots it's almost impossible isn't it.

Yeh it's live only. And I doubt they get the number of viewers required to make it worth it.

At the moment he kind of is...but just in reverse.

1.6 or 1.4 points per game, as a set of 10 it's good. The below is perhaps interesting - and perhaps it means nothing at all. Just a quick table to show the 10 game totals for Holden's first and final 10 games, and for Pearson's first 10, and the current 9 game run a the start of this season. It's clear that we are closer to Holden's first ten than the dirge of the latter half of last term, but we won't be bettering it in terms of points on the board.

If I did read it then then sorry but I don't recall it specifically. But I agree with the summary and my view was that LJ was, as a generalisation, reactive rather than proactive. He reacted to wins by keeping the same team, and to losses by changing everything. That was what I saw when you say he 'winged it'. However one describes it, it was a nightmare and would only ever lead to what you describe. Honestly my favourite bit of Pearson so far is the changes he made pre-Cardiff, getting the win, and then reverting to his preferred overall method, but keeping a little bit of Baker at LB that worked so well in that game. He was proactive before the game, then analysed what particularly worked, but didn't get carried away with his own genius, and recognised that the squad needs consistency. That's how I saw it anyway. Every team wants a striker, all the time.

Yep, I am finally getting to a game when we play Forest at home in a couple of week's time. I am looking forward to seeing the Pearson iteration of BCFC live for the first time.

This is true, but honestly I wouldn't ever say that the statistics 'cause' the better performance. As you say, that isn't the case. I've come to see the stats as one of three ways in which you can judge a club's performance. The others are i) the performance as one sees it, and ii) the result. By looking at each of those three aspects, and checking whether each supports or alternatively casts doubt on the others, you generally are able to arrive at a measured and relatively accurate view of the likelihood of a squad achieving its aims. For a large part of the past 3 years our results have been far better than our performances and statistics suggest they should be. That road leads to success bias, where an organisation or person ignores underlying problems because the results continue to be good. In the long run that has the potential to lead to issues like we had in the summer (and in the summer of 2020) with a faltering team, contracts expiring, the club's finances (notwithstanding the pandemic) in trouble, and a hard reset needed. In reality that hard rest was needed in summer 2019, but this is the tendency to rest on ones laurels. Right now there is better alignment between the three aspects. The performances look better to the eye, the statistics confirm that there are real improvements in key areas, and the results have broadly been in alignment with what those two aspects suggest. I would not pinpoint games and say "we should have won that one, or lost this one", but looking at the numbers you'd expect us to have around about 12 points and a GD of +2 right now, and we have 13 points and GD of +1. Therefore we are perhaps a couple of places higher up the table than I would expect, but at this stage of the season you can expect a greater degree of variance due to the very small sample size of 9 games.

I have to admit to struggling to see the value in this particular plot (to those reading this, this is not @Davefevs work so this is no slight on his good name). It is interesting to see how each team plays, but there's such little correlation between a team's position on this graph and their position in the table, or to who they beat and who they don't, that I find it hard to see the wood for the trees. I guess it perhaps shows just how many ways there are to skin the proverbial cat?

Fulham 1st, QPR 4th. Interesting take on this particular point. My theory for the lack of long range shots under LJ and DH was that it was an instruction not to do so. We were so, so far below the divisional average that I really don't think it was just the players. Coupling that with LJs talk about box entries and the like, I deduced it was a tactical instruction to cross/pass it into the box when in positions outside the box that might normally allow for a shot. It's interesting though that whilst we are up slightly in this department this term, we are still way below the division's average, and the increase is marginal at best. Perhaps that supports your theory that it's the players themselves who don't fancy it from range? Ultimately, not many goals are scored from range, although I do think it is good to test Championship keepers, and long shots are a decent source of corners. It's not my top priority on the list of things to improve, but at the same time I don't think it would hurt to have a few more goes from range.

Yep. Your displays are looking much better than those you showed me a couple of weeks ago. Good work mate.