chinapig

No doubt Barton will give a deeply respectful interview as usual.

Quite, I suppose that was the assumption behind my post. I remember David Moyes when he was at Man Utd (after a home draw I think) stressing how many crosses they had got in as if that was an end in itself. Edit: though I'll state the obvious that if you don't get in the box in the first place you won't create high quality chances.

Which means that despite the mockery box entries do in fact matter!

Which are a result of how many chances you create, the quality of those chances and how efficient you are at converting them into actual goals. Though performance, in football or any business, should not be judged on a single metric.

Taunton, part of Greater Bristol.?

No, I just think he was emphasising that we have a management structure and it's not for him to be making appointments outside his remit. The football operation seems to be united from top to bottom and people are trusted to do their jobs.

King Charles has taken over the reigns Dave. ?

I take it you are not familiar with the recent history of fan violence in France? Marseilles fans have been notorious for a long time in any event.

Have you got any stats predicting how old he will be next birthday Dave??

I'm sure that would be the view of most if not all managers especially as DCMS said postponements were not necessary. I'm convinced the motive was distrust of fans, given the disdain we usually get from the football authorities. It was clear to any sensible person (ie anybody other than the incompetents running the game) that postponements would be inevitable next weekend so they have created a further problem that was avoidable. The Queen was 96 yet rather than having a contingency plan for the inevitable they hurriedly convened a meeting and equally inevitably got it wrong. The usual p1ss up and brewery combination then.

I know Dave, men buy toys for their kids then the kids spoil it by insisting on playing with them themselves!

And it precludes Boris Johnson from usurping the throne as a means of achieving his childhood ambition to be World King.?

Understood, my point being that there was no requirement under protocol as advised by DCMS to move the fixture. That has led to an unnecessary cost for no purpose. Football clubs will doubtless also incur extra costs as a result of postponing games unnecessarily. As an aside I see also this morning that the Premier League is now concerned that it may not be possible to play all the games next weekend due to insufficient police being available, particularly in London. The governing bodies really didn't think this through did they?

The cost of ignoring DCMS advice that there was no need to postpone sporting fixtures as a matter of protocol. I actually think it's disrespectful to the royal family to assume they would be so small minded as to object. Or that it would even cross their minds at their time of loss. Hold the game, have a minutes silence, play the national anthem, wear black arm bands. That's respectful.

I do wonder why it would have been disrespectful for them to play last night but not this afternoon. There's obviously something subtle I don't understand.?

Thanks, fascinating stuff. It's a long road from the divine right of monarchs! I learned the basics of the Constitution at my bog standard comprehensive school so not to your level of understanding. Though I later read Peter (now Baron) Hennessy's excellent book The Hidden Wiring: Unearthing the British Constitution. I have long thought it essential that people should have some understanding of that and of how Parliament works, or should work, if they are to hold politicians to account. Though I suspect politicians would rather they didn't.? Anyway, off topic stuff so I'll stop there.

For the more academically minded with an interest in Constitutional history (which may just be me!) I recommend a series of videos by Professor Vernon Bogdanor on the Gresham College YouTube channel on monarchs from Victoria to Elisabeth. I learned a lot about the development of the Constitutional Monarchy (a concept basically made up by Walter Bagehot on the hoof rather than through any formal process). My short conclusion: Victoria wasn't a fan of democracy, Elizabeth was the first to fully embrace the concept and carried it out to perfection.

As you well know I am referring to ordinary football fans not disrespecting the royal family. It was made clear by DCMS that there was no requirement in protocol to postpone sporting events except on the day of the funeral. I endorse the FSA view that fans have lost an opportunity to show their respects. I'd be interested in an explanation from the football authorities as to why that was denied when other sports did not do so. I can't imagine either that the royal family would want the FA to tell children they are not allowed to play matches this weekend, Prince William especially as patron. A misjudgement all round in my view. Edit: for the avoidance of doubt in my original post I was speculating on the motives of the football authorities not the royal family, who are blameless in the matter. Football authorities who have shown crass judgement on so many occasions in the past. Even if I was inclined to be generous to them I would say at best they thought it was good PR.

And the England vs South Africa Test Match will resume tomorrow. I await the outrage in the media at the lack of respect. Or not. Could it be that cricket and rugby union are considered safely middle class but that football fans are oiks who can't be trusted to be as respectful as those decent chaps? Needless to say the FSA's view that the games would have been a chance for fans to show their respects was ignored.

Indeed. There is a big difference between saying somebody is the ultimate controller and saying they are considered to be. Considered by whom exactly?

It's not the Premier League so they aren't interested.

First I agree with your earlier point about statistical analysis. I doubt football clubs often use the Pearson (no relation!) product moment coefficient of correlation for instance. Or maybe they do.? But we're being pedantic about terminology. In a day to day sense analysis can be useful in revealing trends and comparisons that are not necessarily obvious to the eye or even show that what you think you observe is wrong. Our own @Davefevsis a great example of that. As to your first sentence above it seems tautological. Do you mean results will always match performance or something else? And is it a matter of opinion or fact, or at least probability? What you say about Conway is true of course but as you also suggest there is not enough data to reach a conclusion yet. I have a feeling he may prove to be exceptional compared to his peers but that's just unsupported guesswork.

The problem with the eye test is that we are all subject to biases. Add to that the established unreliability of eye witness testimony and relying on what you see, or think you saw, alone is not ideal. I offer up all those who blame Vyner whenever we concede a goal in evidence.? Which is why clubs use analytics as an additional tool in their decision making. There is an interesting Tifo vodcast on YouTube today with a data scientist who has worked with Premier League clubs that you might find informative. In any event it's not difficult to find out what football analytics actually does before rushing to judgement if you are genuinely interested.

But then they'd miss the chance to be angry about it. Which is no fun at all.?

Conte invariably wants ready made players. Scott would be what he likes to call a project for the club ie someone he doesn't want.