chinapig

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.

Not an easy thing to do at his age. Or so I'm told.?

When Atkinson signed Nigel said he would play in the Premier League. If he maintains his current trajectory he may well do.

Weren't AC Milan banned from European competition for a year?

Any club at risk of breaching P&S is sure to claim a precedent. Stoke come to mind and we seem to be buddies with them on this so I'm sure Gould will be all over it.

Are you saying you agree with the OP that he's pants??

Has he not noticed how dwindled his own club's attendances already are? Despite the thrilling football they apparently play they couldn't fill the ground when the capacity was reduced despite once taking 40,000 to Wembley.* Has it also occurred to him that fans also want modern stadiums with quality facilities so might be deterred from watching football in the worst stadium in the EFL? All Shrewsbury's fault though. *may not be accurate.

Unlikely anybody will sign a player who looks still to be some way from fitness. Indeed because he played for so long with little or no break he's suffered a lot of wear and tear. Nigel has said in the past how much he likes him. I'm sure he would love to have a fully fit Kalas available, given he said today that we are short of centre backs.

Ah, Facebook, that reliable source of accurate information. There again perhaps Rangers fancy going out of business again by paying the kind of wages he commands.?

I think so in one sense. Nigel says he likes to play with high energy but that dissipates when you introduce the likes of James and King who lack the intensity of those they replace.

I disagree!

We'll just have to agree to agree then!?

I was referring specifically to the partial defensive improvement we have seen that is still work in progress. The improvement Nigel has delivered in our attacking play is off the scale and far more than I would have thought possible. Otherwise I agree with you.