What difference a free week ..

[ExiledAjax]

16 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I think we executed a “game-plan” well.  A game-plan that was well constructed too.  That’s a good start isn’t it?

When I look at games like Rotherham where our players were like rabbits in the headlights, looking like they were completely unprepared (naive that we would impose our game on them), then I’m not looking for pretty passing patterns.  I’m looking at players winning battles, and we did that yesterday.

Is it easier to win your battles and execute your game-plan against crap teams?  Absolutely.  But we’ve seen some dire stuff at times over the past 2 / 2.5 seasons to make me wonder whether there even was a game-plan or worse still, little acknowledgement of there being an opposition intent on stopping us.  Imho we’ve gone into game naively, not prepared to work hard to earn the right.

So, were we good?  Analysis based on non-analysis based - Yes.

Were we good because Birmingham were bad? Maybe

Were Birmingham bad because we were good? Maybe

So, when you say “can we truly answer that question right now” and “I’ll reserve judgment for now....I think you’re trying to ask and answer a different question, which might be....

Do I think NP is having an effect?  I think he is.  How much of an effect, might depend on his evaluation of the squad he has inherited, and it’s ability to execute the game-plan.

 

I do agree that we were improved yesterday. I agree that winning battles and being organised is something that we've not seen for a while. I recognise the signs of improvement.

However, I do remember a conversation between us some 9 months ago, when our last head coach had been in charge for 4 or 5 games. It was similar. You saw bright green shoots of improvement, things on the pitch we'd not seen for a while. I counseled caution as for all that, we had barely upped our output in terms of shots, passes, xG, etc. This time we've not even upped those stats, 9 shots, 4 on target, xG of just over 1 from Saturday, and over Nige's first 4 games the average is 8, 3, 0.8 respectively. So both for Saturday's game and the 4 match as a group we see final output that broadly matches our average output for the season, regardless of how much Palmer tracks back or whether Sess had Sanchez in his pocket.

Having slept on this I think it's that memory of seeing in July 2020 the same improvement on the pitch but stagnation in the output. This is again creating the caution within me. Is Nige having an effect? Maybe, maybe even probably. Did we play a crap side on Saturday? Certainly. My worry is that perhaps we've simply discovered a new way to skin a bad cat?

 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

I do agree that we were improved yesterday. I agree that winning battles and being organised is something that we've not seen for a while. I recognise the signs of improvement.

However, I do remember a conversation between us some 9 months ago, when our last head coach had been in charge for 4 or 5 games. It was similar. You saw bright green shoots of improvement, things on the pitch we'd not seen for a while. I counseled caution as for all that, we had barely upped our output in terms of shots, passes, xG, etc. This time we've not even upped those stats, 9 shots, 4 on target, xG of just over 1 from Saturday, and over Nige's first 4 games the average is 8, 3, 0.8 respectively. So both for Saturday's game and the 4 match as a group we see final output that broadly matches our average output for the season, regardless of how much Palmer tracks back or whether Sess had Sanchez in his pocket.

Having slept on this I think it's that memory of seeing in July 2020 the same improvement on the pitch but stagnation in the output. This is again creating the caution within me. Is Nige having an effect? Maybe, maybe even probably. Did we play a crap side on Saturday? Certainly. My worry is that perhaps we've simply discovered a new way to skin a bad cat?

 

I think the possible issue is trying to correlate everything to stats.  That sounds hypocritical from me, but my first instinct is from what I’ve watched.  It’s why until I discovered VPN airlines early last season, I was much quieter on OTIB after an away game, because I’d not seen it.

My 15 page, 3.5k word, 12 pic season review / preview focussed on the differences between LJ and DH, much of which was initially gleaned from watching those 5 caretaker games and supported by stats.  Early season that continued.  If you want that doc.

https://beesanalytica.substack.com/p/article-6-bristol-city?r=89574&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=copy

I am still adamant that I saw a big improvement (define big?) in the way we played.  A number of stats supported that.  But it dropped off a cliff.  Counselling caution was fine, I agreed at the time - I always thought we needed to see different games v different opponents / different opponent systems, but I can’t take back what I saw from that group of games...and there was definite improvement in certain stats whether than be an increase in some, or a decrease in opposition numbers.  I certainly wasn’t tipping automatic promotion based on a month of the season.  I commented on what I saw and guarded against getting carried away.

Unfortunately things (excuses?) like injuries to key players, Holden changing system several times, etc, means that comparing data from one period to another become difficult. Much of my rationale for positivity was the players looking structured in a system where they all appeared to be understanding of each other’s role, whilst being mindful it could change - it did.  In the last 2 months of his reign I couldn’t even recognise a system and / or game plan.  I saw individual performances that somehow managed to eke the odd result, e.g. Bentley or Kalas.

But going back to my opening sentence:

- you can’t judge passing patterns from raw passing numbers

- you can’t judge winning individual battles by looking at successful duels

- you can’t judge who should win a game by xG or shots / on target for and against

- you can’t judge how organise we appeared

- you can’t judge strength of opponent and impact on us

Am I enthused by the win on Saturday?  Yep (partly because it was a win and wins have been in short supply!).  Is it repeatable?  Who knows!  Was it purely because Birmingham were bad?  Dunno!

I’m probably not clamouring to define Pearson as “the difference”, although he certainly has the calibre to be that.

 

 

[ExiledAjax]

40 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I think the possible issue is trying to correlate everything to stats.  That sounds hypocritical from me, but my first instinct is from what I’ve watched.  It’s why until I discovered VPN airlines early last season, I was much quieter on OTIB after an away game, because I’d not seen it.

I'm aware I am prone to doing this too. You know I have watched us almost exclusively through TV for nigh on three seasons now, due to my position living abroad. It is partially what has seen me drift towards stats, but that doesn't mean they don't count.

My 15 page, 3.5k word, 12 pic season review / preview focussed on the differences between LJ and DH, much of which was initially gleaned from watching those 5 caretaker games and supported by stats.  Early season that continued.  If you want that doc.

https://beesanalytica.substack.com/p/article-6-bristol-city?r=89574&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=copy

I am still adamant that I saw a big improvement (define big?) in the way we played.  A number of stats supported that.  But it dropped off a cliff.  Counselling caution was fine, I agreed at the time - I always thought we needed to see different games v different opponents / different opponent systems, but I can’t take back what I saw from that group of games...and there was definite improvement in certain stats whether than be an increase in some, or a decrease in opposition numbers.  I certainly wasn’t tipping automatic promotion based on a month of the season.  I commented on what I saw and guarded against getting carried away.

Let's not go over what we discussed in that conversation last year. You rightly won't retract what you saw, and I won't retract my more cautious position at the time. I'm still adamant that any improvement in those five caretaker games was limited, started from a low base, and at the time was a little over-hyped. I'm not trying to points score and declare that I was proven right by the passage of time, I'm just saying that I am again taking a more cautious approach. I know you weren't proclaiming Holden to be the messiah, but it feels like after Saturday some - not necessarily you - are desperate to do so with Pearson.

Unfortunately things (excuses?) like injuries to key players, Holden changing system several times, etc, means that comparing data from one period to another become difficult. Much of my rationale for positivity was the players looking structured in a system where they all appeared to be understanding of each other’s role, whilst being mindful it could change - it did.  In the last 2 months of his reign I couldn’t even recognise a system and / or game plan.  I saw individual performances that somehow managed to eke the odd result, e.g. Bentley or Kalas.

Agreed, it went off a cliff, the excuses/reasons are well documented and discussed, I was saying we relied on individual performances saving us points as early as the Forest away game when Bentley single-handedly won the game.

But going back to my opening sentence:

- you can’t judge passing patterns from raw passing numbers

- you can’t judge winning individual battles by looking at successful duels

- you can’t judge who should win a game by xG or shots / on target for and against

- you can’t judge how organise we appeared

- you can’t judge strength of opponent and impact on us

Correct, but what you can do is analyse whether the improvements in passing patterns, winning battles, organisation etc are feeding through into an improvement in the overall output of a team. We can be crap at passing and pressing and shoot 9 times in a match, or we can pass the ball around at will and win every tackle - and still only shoot 9 times. It's all huff-and-puff until you actually start to pump up your numbers at the business end of the pitch.

As we both know, in the initial Holden period we did see the output increase. Across his first 10 games shots for went up from 8.5 per match in LJ's final ten games, to 11.3. On Target went from 2.8 to 4.6. xG from 1.11 to 1.4. So there we saw that the improvements in the system you identify in your article fed through into real improvements in output. You note this as well.

Now I will admit to reassessing my previous post. If we compare output in Pearson's first 4 games to Holden's final 10 we do see improvements in those metrics. Shots for from 6.4 up to 8, and of those our on target figure goes from 2.1 to 3.0. xG went from 0.6 (Jesus wept) to 0.8. So there I have not fully considered the change, my fault being comparing Pearson to Holden's entire 35 game tenure, which encompassed the initial good stuff and diluted the dire football at the end. I can admit that. Pearson starts from an even lower base than Holden did, and he's done well.

Am I enthused by the win on Saturday?  Yep (partly because it was a win and wins have been in short supply!).  Is it repeatable?  Who knows!  Was it purely because Birmingham were bad?  Dunno!

Of course, is it repeatable is exactly what we are attempting to divine as we all attempt to predict where we finish this season, and what might happen over the Summer. You and others are leaning towards "yes" because you believe that underpinning the improved performance and ultimately the 0-3 result was the effect NP has had on the team. Linear progression would suggest that the longer NP is at the club the better we will get and so the more likely we will win. What I am saying is that I see less likelihood of Saturday being repeated or improved upon as frankly, we're not even back to pre-Holden Johnson levels of product and output.

Now, I should say that despite this position I suspect we will collect points in our next two games, as Blackburn and Rotherham are both in pretty dire straits. Blackburn have gone off the boil following their barnstorming start to the season, and Rotherham are about as bad as Birmingham. I therefore wouldn't be surprised if, in the short-term, we do see some repetition of Saturday.

I’m probably not clamouring to define Pearson as “the difference”, although he certainly has the calibre to be that.

Likewise I am not, absolutely not, saying NP was the wrong appointment, or that we should get rid. Of course he has the calibre, background, and pedigree to forge a strong squad. He's clearly going to need more than four games in two weeks to make real changes, and that's why I'm counseling caution when I see the hype on here after one 3-0 away win against a next-to-useless Birmingham side. 

 

Answers above.

I've reassessed and am more optimistic, but still think there needs to be more time, and I'll remain a little less enthusiastic than most.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

Answers above.

I've reassessed and am more optimistic, but still think there needs to be more time, and I'll remain a little less enthusiastic than most.

Picking up on some of your responses.

When I say I’m “adamant” etc, I was only pointing to what I saw, I can’t undo that.  It was from a low base, that’s why I saw an improvement.  If you’d asked me to compare to halcyon 17/18 I wouldn’t have been proclaiming an improvement.  But I was comparing it to LJ 19/20, which was quite shit in many ways.  I’m not asking you to retract, but look at what I was comparing.  I agreed with you then, I agree with you now....Small sample = caution.

Correct, but what you can do is analyse whether the improvements in passing patterns, winning battles, organisation etc are feeding through into an improvement in the overall output of a team. We can be crap at passing and pressing and shoot 9 times in a match, or we can pass the ball around at will and win every tackle - and still only shoot 9 times. It's all huff-and-puff until you actually start to pump up your numbers at the business end of the pitch.

I don’t agree that it’s huff and puff until you pump up your numbers.  Positive “jaws” can be achieved in 3 ways....increasing your output, decreasing opponents output or a combo of both.  We saw elements of all three.  You confirm that below.

As we both know, in the initial Holden period we did see the output increase. Across his first 10 games shots for went up from 8.5 per match in LJ's final ten games, to 11.3. On Target went from 2.8 to 4.6. xG from 1.11 to 1.4. So there we saw that the improvements in the system you identify in your article fed through into real improvements in output. You note this as well.

Now I will admit to reassessing my previous post. If we compare output in Pearson's first 4 games to Holden's final 10 we do see improvements in those metrics. Shots for from 6.4 up to 8, and of those our on target figure goes from 2.1 to 3.0. xG went from 0.6 (Jesus wept) to 0.8. So there I have not fully considered the change, my fault being comparing Pearson to Holden's entire 35 game tenure, which encompassed the initial good stuff and diluted the dire football at the end. I can admit that. Pearson starts from an even lower base than Holden did, and he's done well.

I haven’t even looked at Pearson stats.  We’ve played multiple systems and personnel in just 4 games, so any data is pretty much game by game.  At least Holden was 10 games of 352, attempting to play the same way, with a good core of the same personnel.  Until I see some semblance of a Pearson-team I’ll sit and watch.  I do think it’s interesting that he has went to 4231, especially when many might’ve thought with Nagy and Vyner out, Bakinson on the naughty step, that a playing a previously unpaired HM and HL was very risky.

Of course, is it repeatable is exactly what we are attempting to divine as we all attempt to predict where we finish this season, and what might happen over the Summer. You and others are leaning towards "yes" because you believe that underpinning the improved performance and ultimately the 0-3 result was the effect NP has had on the team. Linear progression would suggest that the longer NP is at the club the better we will get and so the more likely we will win.

I’m not clamouring to predict where we’ll finish, apart from it being in this division this season.  I am however very  interested in how he sets his teams up, how he manages the players, etc.  That will give me an indication of where we are heading under him...next season.  One thing I’ll be amazed at is linear progression.  This is football...in the championship!!

What I am saying is that I see less likelihood of Saturday being repeated or improved upon as frankly, we're not even back to pre-Holden Johnson levels of product and output.

The big question is whether the things you measure as the benchmark are the right things?  Was LJ’s 351  passes at 77% the right benchmark anymore than DH’s peak 440 at 82%?  See the page from my doc below.  What if Pearson is gonna play direct like Saturday?  Was that because of the pitch, or a realisation that this squad is better playing direct?  Too early to say.  But if he is gonna play more direct, expecting LJ or DH levels on passing means you’re looking in the wrong place.

Now, I should say that despite this position I suspect we will collect points in our next two games, as Blackburn and Rotherham are both in pretty dire straits. Blackburn have gone off the boil following their barnstorming start to the season, and Rotherham areabout as bad as Birmingham. I therefore wouldn't be surprised if, in the short-term, we do see some repetition of Saturday.

I think I’m just gonna enjoy watching and see what manifests.  I’ll look for trends, data and non-data.

Likewise I am not, absolutely not, saying NP was the wrong appointment, or that we should get rid. Of course he has the calibre, background, and pedigree to forge a strong squad. He's clearly going to need more than four games in two weeks to make real changes, and that's why I'm counseling caution when I see the hype on here after one 3-0 away win against a next-to-useless Birmingham side.

Caution is fine.

I don’t think reassessing and being more optimistic was what I was expecting you to come back with!  I wasn’t trying to change anyone’s “view”, more that I was asking questions to try to get your angle on what you were expecting and gonna measure NP’s success against. I haven’t given that much thought to it myself.  I sat here quite relaxed that we aren’t going down, nor up....so a rare time in recent City years where we can watch how things play out without needing to worry about looking up / down or purely on results.

The pre-conceptions many posters had about “Big Nige’s” management, especially shouting and bawling (and even punching), have been pretty much dispelled already, by his calm, measured interviews.  Of course we don’t know what goes on at training or in the dressing room, but I think it’s fair to say he’s a bit different to what many initially thought.  Therefore Its a good time to just observe imho.  We will draw tentative conclusions, but we need to be prepared to tweak them over the next month or two.

Sorry, waffly response.