IAmNick

Interesting stuff. On the final graphic, I think it'd be good to normalise it by using minutes played or something. That way we could see (for example) if Williams 14 is actually pretty impressive for the time he was on the pitch. Also interested in the 6 passes he played to himself at a overall negative expected threat! Second comment is that while I do like pass maps, they look so chaotic to me. I've looked before at using k-means clustering to pick trends of passes, then overlay them on top. Is that something you've thought of? I think it looks decent and the info is much more readable and valuable.

Yeah that's fair. I think part of me just wants to make sure we protect our bright youngsters - I'm really excited by Scott but also think he's looked pretty lost/overwhelmed in a couple of games. If we go behind against a "must win" v Barnsley it could get pretty rough, that's all that's in my mind really. I'd be more excited taking my seat on Saturday if it was Scott behind Wells that's for sure. On reflection I think I'd probably play: Bentley Tanner / Kalas / Atkinson / Pring Massengo / James Weimann / Scott / O'Dowda Wells I'm also not a fan of O'Dowda but he fits as you said above. I'd be happy with Dasilva for Pring too, I really rate Jay - don't know enough about Barnsley to make a decision there as that's what it'd probably come down to for me. I'd love to see Massengo in Scott's position really, but I'm not that happy with anyone else to partner James with Williams out.

Of the 3 (Martin/Wells/Weimann) Martin was the most prolific at this level in his prime Weimann is the youngest of the three Conclusion: Start Wells! Not saying I disagree, just being awkward In fact I'd probably do the same, but with Weimann behind him.

Then why did you ask him where he'd been a few pages ago

Yeah I agree. I also (usually) disagree with the insinuation some players were lazy or whatever - I think they probably joined with good intentions then quickly found out the weird situation, and like any of us at a job where we feel unappreciated or unwanted morale dropped, and that doesn't take long to spread. Could certainly argue they could have been more professional etc. but I do have some sympathy with them. Yep, I really hope he can! Well, table wise we're roughly where I expected or a bit better until recently. I also expected some good bits, and some crap runs... so I'm not panicking about the last week or two (yet). What I want to see now though is this current little run come to an end, and the team to look a bit more cohesive. Saturday is really important for me, for squad morale as much as the 3 points. Overall results have been a bit better than I expected, but the "team" are now looking a bit worse I'd say. Squad is decent enough I agree and certainly good enough to stay up with the right person in charge.

I think there's a lot more to a player being good that just whether they're, well, good. Look at Torres. 65 goals in 100 for Liverpool, one of the best strikers in the world... then at Chelsea? Players suit teams, systems, and those around them. You need to sign players who fit in to your system, tactics, and how you want to play - not sign players then change your system/tactics to suit them. My guess is Luton did a better job at assessing where and how Lansbury fit into their system than us. Our problem imo has been that recruitment and system/tactics have been treated as two separate entities because we've had non football people in charge of one of those things - and we desperately need someone to bridge that gap. We sign lots of decent players, they get here, and they're crap... or rather, they look crap. They haven't become crap overnight, they're still good players, but they don't fit our team. At our level simply signing good players isn't enough. I think we kind of agree overall, but I come down on the side of saying that it's a recruitment issue, as it's a lot easier to change who you're signing than to change your footballing philosophy/system/tactics/whatever.

"Without a complaint in sight" - currently being investigated by UEFA. Many European countries also require fans submit applications for pyro displays and I believe they're actually quite controlled, in specific areas etc. Totally different from a random away concourse.

Hah. Yet if we hadn't done the above you can bet you'd be using it as an example of us not progressing. If you don't recognise the importance of those things (ground, training facilities) in moving forwards then I don't know what to tell you. Not realising potential isn't going backwards, it's not going forwards as quickly as you wanted. Second half is just waffle. Sorry, you think: Wolves (3rd in div 1) Leeds (5th in PL) Southampton (11th in PL) Were our peers when SL took over and historically? Hmm. Ok, not sure I really agree there. Barnsley and Brighton maybe - but we were also in the same division as Chesterfield, Northampton, Bury, Wrexham, Cambridge, Swindon, Port vale, Colshester. Some teams have definitely surpassed us, and we're surpassed some others as well. If you pick out all the winners and ignore the losers that's not a great argument for us "going backwards" though is it? Forest? Our peers? You can't be serious. Ok so if we ignore all the off the pitch progress, and ignore the on the pitch progress, we haven't made progress. Great argument! Lets remember you said we'd gone backwards. In reality we just haven't gone forwards as quickly as you wanted, or thought we should have - huge difference there, and I might even agree with you. What's that got to do with us making progress or not? Problem is you've started at your conclusion and are trying to work backwards.

So good enough on ability for our joint best season in the last 14 years? Hmm. Not convinced personally. Not even close. I'd say our squad is weaker now than the last few years, and we've only managed top 10 once since rejoining the Championship.

Out of interest where do you think an average season for our current squad would have us finishing?

I think Tanner, Atkinson, and James have all made the team better. Tanner and Atkinson are just the type of player I'd like us to be signing, and James is a better quality than we're used to imo. I'd say Massengo has markedly improved since Pearson has been here. I agree it's disappointing we haven't brought in a forward, but I'd also rather we concentrated on being solid before that - whether that's happened or not is another discussion, but I think it's the right approach. We weren't going to challenge at the right end of the table this year, and that's what a forward can do you for you. I'd be interested who or what you'd have sacrificed for that forward?

Two very different points here. Money spent and wasted? Definitely. Same as every club. Have we done more so than others? Arguably yeah. Under his involvement gone backwards? Now that's a load of bollocks. He took over as Chairman in what, 2001? From a quick look, in the 20 years before we spent time in these divisions: L2: 2 L1: 12 Champ: 6 Since he took over: L2: 0 L1: 9 Champ: 12 Including 8 of the last 10 years in the Championship . In fact from looking at it we have only ONCE in the last 20 years since he took over finished lower than the position he took us over in. We're now an established mid table Championship side, that wasn't the case for a long time before Lansdown. There's a lot to criticise Lansdown for, but "we've gone backwards" is nonsense - and this isn't even taking into account our brand new ground, training facilities, etc. We just haven't gone forwards as quickly as we'd like. When's your next tedious "The emperor is naked" post by the way?

WBA third: https://streamja.com/kqNKo

Ok that's pretty hilarious after he took Tanner off

I'd leave the team how it is - the problem is to win battles on the pitch, you need to be fighting them in the bloody first place. We're not even doing that. Get out there, get stuck in, and lose 3 - 1. I don't care, just give them a game of football ffs and stop it being so easy

WBA goal: https://streamja.com/JL953 City disallowed goal: https://streamja.com/gOV40

I agree, must admit I gave up reading them most weeks last year (and before quite often now I think about it) but am really enjoying them again now. Nice mix of history and football just like Hav did.

Not sure what being left/green has to do with riots or rage really - I doubt you're implying the groups you mentioned above were right wing, like punks etc. I'd also point out Bristol has had some extremely high profile "civil disobedience" in the last few years. The Colston statue, obviously, and the stuff at the police station in the last year when the police van got set on fire. Both made national (or international) news. The real difference? This time the City fans were on the side of tradition, stability, and law and order, rather than the disobedient side maybe that's the problem. The rage is still there as it always way, it's just directed at larger power structures now rather than other people imo... for better or for worse.

I think it's for both. Players often talk about it don't they, and if they're going to have 20k people scrutinising their every move for 90m surely support is better than anything else? You've never experienced the effect of a crowd on a game - either positive or negative? Your argument is really odd and seems a bit hung up on the amount they make. They didn't decide that, it's the going rate and it's not their fault. Money doesn't make you feel "less shit" on a Tuesday night if you're playing like crap, losing, and the crowd are on your back. I seriously doubt almost any player will be going "Ah well another 5k at the end of the week never mind eh, who's in charge of the half time orange slices this week?". If you were one of the best in the world you probably would be paid 10k a week for that spreadsheet and have a group of people hanging off your every word at conferences or whatever!

Money is demonstrably a pretty poor motivator of people... Maybe you'd rather watch a team who are motivated based on their wage but I wouldn't. I suspect you don't have 20k people who have paid to watch you fill in that spreadsheet! I remember complaints about the atmosphere back when the EE was open, endless arguments between the "netters" and the others about who was singing too fast, the rest of the ground saying they couldn't hear it properly due to the roof etc. etc. What gets an atmosphere going is exciting football. When we play it, the atmosphere is decent imo... but we've had a severe lack of that for years now. Maybe the possession based slowly slowly approach is one to get the purists going but quick, incisive, attacking football - or even players fighting battles and winning tackles will get the atmosphere back. Imo you could shuffle the fans and it's not going to change anything. Put the main singers in the worst bit of the ground and an exciting game in front of them and the ground will be rocking regardless.

Of course, and as someone with a season ticket who doesn't go to away games currently I'm not exactly saying it's great. It's still better than I expected at the start of the season though so I'll take it. Overall I'm happy enough currently - although If every game starts trending towards performances like yesterday I'd probably change my tune. I'm reasonably confident that wont happen though! Given I consider us a lower mid table team I'm trying to be a bit more stoic this year in the face of crap performances, as that's exactly what I'm expecting a few of unfortunately...

If there was a widely accepted risk of relegation and he currently had them in 11th I'd strongly disagree, crap home form or not. At the start of the year most were talking about survival, building, and finishing 20th if we have to. Now we're pretty happily mid table and people are calling for him to get the sack. Absolutely madness.

Thought this was the first game this season we were totally outclassed, and given we're 12 games in that's better than I was expecting. That said though, I'm struggling with where we were on the scale between being outclassed because they were so much better, and outclassed because we were awful. A team playing very well can make you look awful, and clearly we had a pretty awful start with still no Massengo, Atkinson out, and Williams off after 10m... but I was still disappointed that it didn't feel we were at least battling all over the pitch - even if we were losing all those battles. I could accept that, but feel like apart from a few (like Kalas) we didn't even get that far. I'd rather we fought and lost the fight, than didn't fight at all. I was just desperate for us to let them have the ball then get properly stuck in to them once they got forward rather than randomly attempt some poorly executed "press" high up the pitch. They were good enough they just passed around it and made us look a bit foolish, and I thought the whole attempt was rather pointless against a team that good. Oh well. 12 games in and we're 11th. Better than I was expecting and I can accept one very poor performance... not seeing a win at home is really starting to get to me though I have to say!

As we all do I generally surround myself with people who broadly have similar opinions to me. I like coming on here for a "discussion" as I get a whole range of stuff I don't normally get first hand. It's interesting. Also I'm just an argumentative bugger as well of course

Can you link some info about this please? Were they prevented due to white privilege? Just had a look and all I can find that even seems to be slightly related is A&S having to pay out to a single white person fifteen years ago, with this Colin Port admitting it was wrong to discriminate based on his race. Not so accepted then..? Maybe I'm missing something. A study in the US found exactly this. They can feel guilty if they want, but excesses of virtue are worse than excesses of vice as the former isn’t subject to the regulation of conscience. Can you link the study please? What do you classify as an excess of virtue? Who judges that? What excessively virtuous opinions do you regularly come across, on this thread for example?