FBC Podcast: STOKE [H] the verdict .... play offs not out of the question!

[W-S-M Seagull]

Just now, Sir Geoff said:

That was my point so not too sure why you quoted me.

I was agreeing with you and adding my thoughts upon it also. 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

You're definitely Ian. 

Wrong on so many levels

[IAmNick]

19 minutes ago, Tafkarmlf said:

I didnt say you were fuelled up, nor did I say anything about not asking questions. 

I made my post, the two of you seem more interested in discussing the reasons behind it than the actual content, there is a name for that.. 

 

Just to reiterate 

We're poor from a disciplinary perspective, utterly dispelling we need to be 'hard:

We've also conceded loads and where we we're last season or there abouts in terms of joint  4th most conceded 

Read to respond, not jump in with both feet.. 

I don't think being "hard" is that related to fair play personally. It's about determination, bravery, putting your head/body where it hurts, and getting stuck in. You're not hard if you scythe a player down and get a yellow in my opinion, but more so if you go full bloodied but fairly into a 30/70 challenge. That's very different from committing fouls. You can pick up bookings for all kinds of reasons that are nothing to do with being "hard". I think that's very simplistic thinking to try and equate the two and dispels nothing.

We've obviously conceded way too many - but we're also around the 3rd or 4th highest scoring team. They kind of cancel each other out in my opinion. It's not good, and it's not a good way to perform over an entire season but you have to be balanced when discussing these things imo.

Pointing at individual stats like that as proof of anything is ridiculous. That's almost never how stats work.

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I think by and large, we've played well at home this season. We had done enough to have won against Coventry, Swansea, Sheffield, Watford and probably Stoke too. Win all those and we would be sitting comfortably in the play offs. It's very fine margins. I've been frustrated we've not won more at home but on very few occasions have I walked away and thought we were trash. 

Progress has been made as it wasn't that long ago that we were playing terrible at home. 

Performance wise, we are doing just fine. Its the individual mistakes in both boxes that are costing us. We could have had at least 2 goals in the second half. Unfortunately people look at the result and that dictates what they thought of the performance. 

Would agree that performances at home have for the most part been decent but think there is a bit of optimism bias there.

Swansea game we got pushed back at times 2nd half, feels more like draw territory, Coventry that point looks okay given they were in a bit of a false position.

On the flipside, we arguably rode our luck to get 3 points at WBA, certainly 2nd half we had to absorb a lot, fortunate to get points at Middlesbrough and Wigan arguably. Blackpool away, could have won or lost tbh. The goal conceded was a poor one at the end but they definitely had their chances too. Up near playoffs dunno, more points certainly. Norwich away we probably deserved a point too.

Edited December 19, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, Tafkarmlf said:

We're poor from a disciplinary perspective, utterly dispelling we need to be 'hard:

As per @IAmNickpost, picking up yellows / disciplinary and being hard / physical aren’t necessarily linked.

We are a team over several seasons that pick up yellow cards for stupid things like back chat and tippy tippy fouls because we anticipate poorly and then can’t make a better technical tackle.  Scott is the rare one in that he picks up yellows for trying to win 45:55s (or whatever percentage you want to throw at it).

Zak Vyner fouled Liam Delap on Saturday by being physical, I think he unintentionally got his knee into Delap’s arse, but he got proper tight.  Foul given, no hint of a yellow, and guess what, the next time the ball goes into Delap’s feet he mis-controls because he’s mindful of what happened 2 minutes previously.  That should be a lessen to Zak, that he can be more physical to gain a mental advantage over his opponent, with fear of getting booked.  And doing it in the centre circle is smart too.  Zak has improved a bit in that respect, but he then let Delap’s run short a couple of times getting easy ball into feet.  That’s not even about being hard, thats Nige confirming that the best defenders know when to defend when we have the ball.  How is it that I can see Morgan Fox getting pressed and about to clear, and my first reaction is to check my CBs position (Zak) to see if he’s switched on to anticipate an out-ball and regain possession?  Zak has let him run 5 yards towards the intended clearance (still yet to be cleared), and has no chance of putting Delap’s touch under pressure, should the ball come to him.  That’s where we are soft.  We need to be harder, but smarter with it, and I don’t mean sly / snide either.  We can be much harder, without it leading to more yellow / red cards.

[W-S-M Seagull]

2 hours ago, Tafkarmlf said:

I know right, it's almost like they want to try and get away from any challenge despite 'wanting' discussions

No Ian. You were very rude in your reply to me. Like you often are to others on the pod. There is a word for that too. So therefore your rudeness does not deserve a well thought out reply. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

3 minutes ago, Tafkarmlf said:

Mate, you've a few issues there 

I'm not Ian

Not on any pods

I suggest you try again 

This will be the third time 

I'll the apology when you're ready like. 

Jesus Wept

Issues for being offended by you ridiculing my post for no reason other than you dont agree?

Apologies for assuming you're Ian. You do come across very much like Ian tho. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

8 minutes ago, Tafkarmlf said:

 

You are now on 9 mebbe 10 posts since on deflection. 

You didn't like the challenge, that's cool, but to still go on about someone I don't know and ive never met would suggest that yes still a few things to work out. 

Get offended, reply stating why im wrong that's how discussion works not endless accusations im someone else. 

Oh no I could rip your reply to shreds. But once again. You don't deserve a well thought out reply due to your rudeness. 

[GrahamC]

5 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Your post doesn't deserve a well thought out reply.

It’s embarrassing.                                        

I presume the “36 year old CM” referred to is supposed to be Andy King, who was 34 a couple of months ago.

The stuff about our position in the fair play table is frankly bizarre too, there is absolutely no correlation between this & success.

Plus let’s face it, saying we let in too many goals is Lee Hendrie levels of punditry.

Put them on ignore, I did ages ago, doesn’t actually watch us & comes out with utter nonsense.

Edited December 19, 2022 by GrahamC

[GrahamC]

5 minutes ago, Tafkarmlf said:

Well thanks for the consideration 

Qpr who are winning the fair play table are sixth. 

Yup no correlation there. As in dont have to be 'strong' to do welll. 

Lee Hendrie, you say. Getting paid for football commentary and analysis, probably unlike you though?

Amazing isn't it how the we dont agree, just ends in insults because you've got nothing, hold people you disagree with to ridiculous standards and come out with the same old bollocks on challenge. 

Oh no, I wasn't in days and years for a Cm as CB, like that somehow negates the point. 

It doesn't. I got the age wrong. Shit happens. It gets corrected, life moves on. 

Your next moan is... 

We can all pick a club to suit our argument Sheffield United are 2nd but 20th in the fair play league, but of course being in an automatic promotion place with one of the worst disciplinary records means absolutely nothing, doesn’t it?

The last post of yours I saw understated the number of goals we scored & overstated the amount we had conceded, you’ve got a real issue with facts, haven’t you?

As for “same old bollocks”, you’ve never spoken a truer word.

[Davefevs]

4 hours ago, Tafkarmlf said:

Dave thanks for the post 

Aren't necessarily, doesn't mean doesn't

I was trying to be polite, see table below

Especially as you go on to discuss Alex whos 9 in23 does stifle his play.

how does it stifle his play?

We've also gotta stop blame throwing.

blaming whom?

Urrgh it's so unfair. Player X does this, but we dont get the same.

can you point to the example?  I’ve no idea what you are referring to?

We can moan about it, or we can stop being victims. We get caught. It isnt working

We can change it

Anticipated poorly will agree with. We have some excellent close tacklers not played *cough* Massengo et al

Yet play those who pick up stupid bookings because as said out of position, wtong footed or caught out, trying to show 'gousto'

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all.  Pretty much completely the opposite is what I’m saying.

 

It's effing maddening and when it clicks you can can pretty much predict bookings. These aren't 'one for the team' these are shape failed reckless or tit for tat for show to management as fans just groan

I really don’t believe that’s the case at all.

We don't need to be 'harder' we need to be less shit.

It’s a pretty weak correlation.  I’ve shaded top 6 / bottom 6.  If I’d done too 4 / bottom 4 of top 8 / bottom 8 it’s also just as inconclusive.  It’s too simplistic…many other factors influence what you’re trying to conclude (incorrectly imho) by a single data point.

[exAtyeoMax]

13 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Pearsons comments about a lack of enthusiasm by Atkinson is very broad. However it kind of suggests that he hasn't been training well etc. 

As fans, we need to accept there is going to be some short term pain. You can't install a culture of players working their socks off in training and in a match if you're simply going to pick players who've not put that effort in out of need.

That could disrupt everything and then make the players that have been working hard think well why should I bother working hard when he's not but he's still playing? 

Playing King at CB sends a very strong message to the other players that even if there is no one else to take their place, we'll play someone there out of position who has worked harder than them. I like that. 

Why aren’t they making them work harder in training then? Just let them get away with it and then the whole team suffers…

it just seems a bit silly to me

[bearded_red]

2 hours ago, Tafkarmlf said:

 

We remain susceptible to high balls, something as mentioned we cracked with Cundy and idenhen in the side towards the end of last season, 

 

Fair play, that’s a cracking effort from Idehen to have that impact without even starting one game.

[glynriley]

12 minutes ago, bearded_red said:

Fair play, that’s a cracking effort from Idehen to have that impact without even starting one game.

Tsk,tsk,tsk.

Surely you realise he'd solved (cracked, that's appropriate) all our problems in the 34 minutes he was on the pitch last season..?!

[bearded_red]

Jesus Christ. 

[IAmNick]

  

14 hours ago, Tafkarmlf said:

Nick thanks for actually discussing. 

Much appreciated. 

Okays so, the fans calling for more blood and guts style, want that without the additional load on bookings and sending offs? 

How does that work, given missed full blooded tackles etc, often leave players out of position if a miss, or doesnt work. Alternatively leads to a foul if messed up or bookings. 

Could you say we want to play a type of game that is penalised, in modern times?? 

 

The scoring thing would work if we weren't like hovering above relegation. 

Ade Akinibiyi iirc was one of the league top scorers when we were relegated. 

Ditto others.. 

Consistant issue for us?? 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Davefevs said:

It’s a pretty weak correlation.  I’ve shaded top 6 / bottom 6.  If I’d done too 4 / bottom 4 of top 8 / bottom 8 it’s also just as inconclusive.  It’s too simplistic…many other factors influence what you’re trying to conclude (incorrectly imho) by a single data point.

Going to put these two together as I think they're a good example of potentially misusing, or misinterpreting statistics. There is probably a slight correlation - but that isn't enough to say that conceeding less fouls makes you a better team. As always, the old "correlation does not equal causation" applies.

I agree with Dave (no surprise there maybe ) about the other factors. For example I would expect in general a team near the bottom of the table to have less possession - and when do you almost always commit a foul? When you are trying to win the ball back, or challenge for a ball you're not in control of. Teams nearer the bottom will also likely have less skilled players, who are more likely to mistime a challenge and be punished for it. They're also more likely to let runners go, be out of position, or be making "last ditch" challenges.

It's too simplistic to simply draw a line between two data points like that. If we make an effort and go up the fair play table that won't make us a better team or more likely to be a better team. It's the equivalent of a O'Driscoll style where you keep possession at all costs because good teams have a lot of possession... so obviously if you make sure you keep the ball as much as them you'll be as good as them!

3 hours ago, Tafkarmlf said:

We remain susceptible to high balls, something as mentioned we cracked with Cundy and idenhen in the side towards the end of last season, 

 

Wait, but in King's last 3 at CB we're W1 D1 L1, 4 points. Scored 4, conceded 3. Why not use the same logic there?

It's way too simplistic to do something like that though, the sample size is far too small. It'd be like a striker coming on in the 85th minute, scoring, and concluding he'd finish the season on around 800 goals if he played every game.

3 hours ago, Tafkarmlf said:

I quite often go with gut feelings and hunches, and that serves me well. May do a lil bit of reading around it like FFP, where I was right, despite not spending hours pouring over spreadsheets etc and identified other things successfully too. 

 

I recommend you do some reading about going with "gut feelings and hunches"! It's an absolutely awful way to do things. I highly recommend "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman if you're interested in it (genuinely).

Edited December 20, 2022 by IAmNick

[Sir Geoff]

13 minutes ago, Tafkarmlf said:

Lets see 

Feb 2022

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/bristol-city-set-pieces-training-6618222

Lets also see

Robbie Cundy where goals conceded went down dramatically 

https://www.soccerbase.com/players/player.sd?player_id=86067&season_id=154

Dunc played two, match vs Derby where we won 3-1, also the 0-2 versus Huddersfield. 

Before that our average conceding was much, much higher. 

Not sure what 'starting' has to do with it. 

We were generally better at the back with them two playing, which was my point. 

After the training stuff I mentioned as well. 

Can see it's going to be another day of assholery. 

Have a fab Xmas

Is there any correlation between Cundy starting and goals conceded going down?  We still conceded too many when he was in the side i.e 3 v Birmingham, 2 v WBA, 2 V Barnsley.

We then played Peterborough who sat back for 90 minutes for a point and still managed to concede a goal. We then only conceded 2 in 4 games but 2 of those games were against already relegated Derby and a woeful Hull before conceding 2 in the final game where Cundy was replaced by Idehan.

[GrahamC]

1 hour ago, bearded_red said:

Fair play, that’s a cracking effort from Idehen to have that impact without even starting one game.

34 minutes for us against a Derby side who were relegated the game before & Huddersfield who were already 2-0 up at the time, so effectively had the game won & had the playoffs to think about.

This is the same sort of sample size that had posters on here saying Louis Britton was going to score consistently in the Championship.

Weird how Idehen didn’t manage to get a single league start in nearly 4 months at Carlisle seeing as he was part of cracking our defensive deficiencies, isn’t it?

Cundy hasn’t managed to hold down a regular starting spot in League One this season, either.

Think it was the right move for him but he’s not our panacea, either.

[Davefevs]

6 hours ago, Tafkarmlf said:

Morning Dave, 

Thanks for looking into that. 

Just so I'm clear your table there looking at everything or just Yellows. 

As the other table in includes reds and doesn't correlate. 

I'm also not a 'fanistician' or whatever the name is and going off a hunch, backed up by a table. 

It also does not negate the point that going in faster, harder stronger works. It doesn't we're still near the bottom of the table on that score. 

That's not a loose correlation either. We're technically according to the fair play table a 'dirty' side, yet that doesn't marry up to the supppsed improvement that people are suggesting being that way would bring. 

The goals conceded is still brushed off too, and there we've played a myriad of non defending Defenders or player out of position and remains undiscussed

We remain susceptible to high balls, something as mentioned we cracked with Cundy and idenhen in the side towards the end of last season, 

I'm hoping Naismith has removed the suicide pass out of his game 9n return. 

I quite often go with gut feelings and hunches, and that serves me well. May do a lil bit of reading around it like FFP, where I was right, despite not spending hours pouring over spreadsheets etc and identified other things successfully too. 

Sure I'll cock up with ages or something or may not have a statistical array, however it opens up different avenues of discussion. 

You have it down as a pretty weak argument, thus confirming its valid to an extent. I'll leave the multiple data pivots to you, as it's not that interesting to me.. Sometimes simple is better as it opens up rather than closes down discourse. . 

 

3 hours ago, IAmNick said:

  

 

 

Going to put these two together as I think they're a good example of potentially misusing, or misinterpreting statistics. There is probably a slight correlation - but that isn't enough to say that conceeding less fouls makes you a better team. As always, the old "correlation does not equal causation" applies.

I agree with Dave (no surprise there maybe ) about the other factors. For example I would expect in general a team near the bottom of the table to have less possession - and when do you almost always commit a foul? When you are trying to win the ball back, or challenge for a ball you're not in control of. Teams nearer the bottom will also likely have less skilled players, who are more likely to mistime a challenge and be punished for it. They're also more likely to let runners go, be out of position, or be making "last ditch" challenges.

It's too simplistic to simply draw a line between two data points like that. If we make an effort and go up the fair play table that won't make us a better team or more likely to be a better team. It's the equivalent of a O'Driscoll style where you keep possession at all costs because good teams have a lot of possession... so obviously if you make sure you keep the ball as much as them you'll be as good as them!

Wait, but in King's last 3 at CB we're W1 D1 L1, 4 points. Scored 4, conceded 3. Why not use the same logic there?

It's way too simplistic to do something like that though, the sample size is far too small. It'd be like a striker coming on in the 85th minute, scoring, and concluding he'd finish the season on around 800 goals if he played every game.

I recommend you do some reading about going with "gut feelings and hunches"! It's an absolutely awful way to do things. I highly recommend "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman if you're interested in it (genuinely).

Here’s the red card card table:

Using a renowned statistical comparison method - Spearman’s rank correlation (feel free to Google it), I did one on yellow cards and red cards separately.  The range of a Spearman’s rank is between -1 and 1 or -100% to 100%.  In simple terms is it a positive correlation (near to 1), the more of one thing the more of something else.  Or is a negative correlation (near to -1), the more of one thing, the less of something else.  Or os there little to no correlation (near to 0) either way.  The results

Yellow Cards - 6% - no or negligible relationship *

Red Cards - 28% - weak relationship *

* from Dancy and Reidy, 2004

I’d suggest that your hunch / gut feeling may not have served you well on this occasion, because the table (alone) doesn’t back it up at all.  But I think if you factored in a whole host of other contributing factors you might be able to present a better argument, or it might further prove there isn’t a correlation.  But the method you’ve chosen doesn’t.

If you’d like to suggest a method of combining the reds and yellow other than just number of cards, please feel free to suggest, e.g. a red = 3 yellows.  I can perform another calculation.

Back in my A Level days, my Mathematics & Statistics course required me to do 6 different types of correlations to prove I understood the methods, because the exam itself wasn’t long enough to cover each and all the other parts of the curriculum, so we had to write up each as coursework and hand-in to prove we’d covered.  My Spearman’s example was - is there a correlation between league position and height of goalkeeper (from Rothmans Annual).

Yep, a stupid notion…but that wasn’t the point…read the causation correlation between number of murders and Nicholas Cage gross box office takings!!!

That year Arsenal had the tallest keeper (Lukic / Arsenal at 6’4”) and Ipswich the shortest (Cooper / Ipswich at 5’8”).  Arsenal finished high, Ipswich low and with a number of other similar results, the correlation came out as strong.  But the point if the method was also to discuss its flaws.  And I did this by taking the previous 3 seasons in turn where the correlation was weak, and used that as my argument that although one year was strong, over a bigger sample it wasn’t.

It’s not about shutting down discussion.

Its about adding to the discussion, and asking for your reaction back.

Imagine we treated Covid on hunches and the wrong data?  Actually, our government did in many respects.

As much as I love my numbers, my first viewpoint comes from observations.  Without being big headed I’m usually quite good.  But I also reflect on my observations in a number of ways…data, observing again, reading others viewpoints, reflecting on all that, and using what I’ve learned to improve my next set of observations.  It’s why I take photos during the game, it’s why I don’t follow the ball (all the time) when I watch.  I don’t steadfastly stick to my view if someone highlights something different.  There are some “good watchers” on this forum, and nor can my eyes scan everything at one point.

Going back to data, it’s why when I’ve seen a player I like (or someone else has brought a player to my attention) I look at them from 50+ data points, both individually and compared to their peers.  I take into account team style, and then drill down into a game by game view to look for consistency / inconsistency.  Sounds onerous, but it’s not because I’ve built a repeatable workflow.  You cannot judge a player on goals and assists, or headers won / tackles made.

2 hours ago, GrahamC said:

34 minutes for us against a Derby side who were relegated the game before & Huddersfield who were already 2-0 up at the time, so effectively had the game won & had the playoffs to think about.

This is the same sort of sample size that had posters on here saying Louis Britton was going to score consistently in the Championship.

Weird how Idehen didn’t manage to get a single league start in nearly 4 months at Carlisle seeing as he was part of cracking our defensive deficiencies, isn’t it?

Cundy hasn’t managed to hold down a regular starting spot in League One this season, either.

Think it was the right move for him but he’s not our panacea, either.

haha was about to mention Louis Britton’s 4.32 goals per 90!!!

 

[maxjak]

There have been some great contributions on this thread........I spent the weekend in Manchester, so did not see the game live....just on the computer.  At the risk of being glib, every one can see that we are just a soft touch, with a deep lack of cojones, and Andy King should never play at Centre Back, I find it absurd that he is picked there?   Short and sweet observations admittedly?  Ha!

[italian dave]

On 19/12/2022 at 10:01, GrahamC said:

After 23 games last season we had 27 points, after 23 games this season, we also have 27 points, so whilst we can all have an opinion about various players, this bit is clearly not true.

I think you can argue that either way to be honest.

Last season there were two teams with points deductions - as well as two teams who struggled to get any sort of result all season. This season there are no points deductions, and only one real struggler. 

So after 23 games, with 27 points, we were 8 points clear of the bottom three last season. Only 3 points clear this season.

So whilst we may have an identical games and points record, in terms of our league position and prospects (of avoiding the drop at least) we’re worse off. 

[Davefevs]

44 minutes ago, Tafkarmlf said:

I've wittered on long longer than I want to, but I stand by my gut, and intuition that we dont need to be more 'physical' and ties into the comments that seem like a million years ago. 

But you’ve misinterpreted the point made about “physical” earlier in the thread, and tried to firstly link league position to cards to justify it, then “running” type data.  You’re still not getting it though, because you’re debating the wrong thing with the wrong data.  Morecambe and Wise and Andre Previn springs to mind!!!

44 minutes ago, Tafkarmlf said:

You've looked at  a number of different things there, but the original table was pretty straightforward enough. It's you who has split it analysed separately and then gone naw, removing the original source for a re calculated source and ergo creating a science lab theoretical over a pub point of discussion. 

I don’t believe you shared the actual table, hence why I went to Wyscout and showed the forum it, and my conclusions.  For all we know you could’ve been plucking numbers from anywhere?

Was it from Transfermarkt?  I googled Championship Fair Play?

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/championship/fairnesstabelle/wettbewerb/GB2/saison_id/2022

I didn’t remove (“split it analysed it separately” your words) the original source, you didn’t provide it!  So why claim I went “naw, I’m changing the rules” (paraphrased).  Very disingenuous of you to claim that and childish in the way you claim it too.

You say you want people to debate the topics, but firstly you changed the focus of the topic, and then want to halt that debate when others have a different viewpoint.  That’s totally your prerogative, but it’s a bit “it’s my ball, I decide who plays, the rules, and when I’m taking it home”.  That’s not the way I thought a forum worked???