Forever Bristol City Podcast - SUNDERLAND [H] the verdict ..... we got away with that one & MOL was excellent

[chowie]

43 minutes ago, Tomo said:

Mr Gay is marmite as @headhunter has highighted.

If we all agreed with each others views, it would be a boring podcast. 

To make it more valuable, Ian does need to be challenged on certain occasions by the rest of the podders, (without having a slamming match and accepting others opinions in a debate format).

Keep listening

Ian does not help himself as he comes across like a bit of a ‘nasty man’… like his comment in response to a text comment  ‘because I speak to highly intelligent people’ haha, what a ****.

[Tomo]

5 minutes ago, chowie said:

Ian does not help himself as he comes across like a bit of a ‘nasty man’… like his comment in response to a text comment  ‘because I speak to highly intelligent people’ haha, what a ****.

That is the side of Ian Gay that infuriates some listeners.

[2015]

13 minutes ago, chowie said:

Ian does not help himself as he comes across like a bit of a ‘nasty man’… like his comment in response to a text comment  ‘because I speak to highly intelligent people’ haha, what a ****.

He comes across as very elitest at times to me, with some of his comments.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Tomo said:

Ian is still good value and makes several good points but can also make some 'howler comments' as well, like the Coventry lucky win comparison, which mirrored Sunderland on Saturday. In both games, we defended well and let's be thankful that both teams didn't convert their chances. The Coventry forward line should have put the game to bed in the 1st half, but they didn't and our defensive unit improved after numerous scares.

That's just Ian. He says he had nothing against NP, but on occasions his comments go against that. I'm sure he will have a pop at Liam after a few more defeats

Onwards and upwards...

He was very much anti NP on the other City fans forum, each to their own but my preference is for debate backed by facts and context, not ‘sun’ type headlines.

If the purpose is to gain listeners at the expense of  decent  thought out debate they could do worse than get JL and Tins on, now there’s a couple of Piers Morgan types.

2 hours ago, Tomo said:

Ian is still good value and makes several good points but can also make some 'howler comments' as well, like the Coventry lucky win comparison, which mirrored Sunderland on Saturday. In both games, we defended well and let's be thankful that both teams didn't convert their chances. The Coventry forward line should have put the game to bed in the 1st half, but they didn't and our defensive unit improved after numerous scares.

That's just Ian. He says he had nothing against NP, but on occasions his comments go against that. I'm sure he will have a pop at Liam after a few more defeats

Onwards and upwards...

He was very much anti NP on the other City fans forum, each to their own but my preference is for debate backed by facts and context, not ‘sun’ type headlines.

If the purpose is to gain listeners at the expense of  decent  thought out debate they could do worse than get JL and Tins on, now there’s a couple of Piers Morgan types.

[Tomo]

11 minutes ago, Countryfile said:

He was very much anti NP on the other City fans forum, each to their own but my preference is for debate backed by facts and context, not ‘sun’ type headlines.

If the purpose is to gain listeners at the expense of  decent  thought out debate they could do worse than get JL and Tins on, now there’s a couple of Piers Morgan types.

He was very much anti NP on the other City fans forum, each to their own but my preference is for debate backed by facts and context, not ‘sun’ type headlines.

If the purpose is to gain listeners at the expense of  decent  thought out debate they could do worse than get JL and Tins on, now there’s a couple of Piers Morgan types.

Other forum?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Tomo said:

Other forum?

I’m sure @phantom can provide a link

[Will Rollason]

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

Ian does make me laugh with the BS he comes out with sometimes. 

He claimed someone told him that when the reality is he listened to a NP interview where he learned that information. 

He then claimed he knows someone very intelligent at the HPC who told him the difference in coaching is night and day. 

He then also claimed that someone told him that Alex Scott is on 12x his wages. A quick Google search or common sense will tell you that. 

It reminds me of when he said he was meeting with Steve Lansdown, but conveniently forgot to mention he'd be meeting him with 100 other senior reds. 

 This is "Bristol boy"yes? Used to chat shit on here? 

[GrahamC]

22 minutes ago, Will Rollason said:

 This is "Bristol boy"yes? Used to chat shit on here? 

Yes.

[phantom]

1 hour ago, Tomo said:

Other forum?

Here you go, currently off line though 

http://www.bristolcityforum.co.uk/

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, Tomo said:

Mate, I collect football data, I don't analyse it in detail like yourself. I did all that stuff in my corporate days along time ago as a Data/Business Analyst

Looking at the simple Sky Sports stats, comparing the 2 games, I'm assuming Sunderland had a better XG to Coventry against us?

Yes….according to Wyscout.  Cov 0.91 / Sunderland 1.80

@ExiledAjax might have other stats provider data for those games.

[ExiledAjax]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yes….according to Wyscout.  Cov 0.91 / Sunderland 1.80

@ExiledAjax might have other stats provider data for those games.

@Tomo From my aggregation of a few providers I have:

City 0.51 v 0.78 Coventry

City 0.92 v 1.19 Sunderland

So yes Sunderland with a better overall chance of scoring. 

Intriguingly two things though:

1. the xG gap between us and the opponent is a deficit of -0.27 in both cases; and

2. the xG per shot is the same for both Cov and Sunderland, and it's really bad. 0.06 per shot is poor (the average in the division is about double that). So both created generally poor chances but Sunderland took a few more of them.

That's probably consistent with the fact that many of Sunderland's chances were headers from set pieces - generally not a high probability of scoring.*

And remember, 0.79 of our xG on Saturday is from the penalty...so our open play chances were weak at best!

*And this is where I was a bit off the mark in the O'Leary thread. The chances were poor, but the shots from them were good, so Max's saves were good, because the shot had to be very good to force a save.

Edited December 18, 2023 by ExiledAjax

[Tomo]

Good work lads

[REDOXO]

Switched this one off after 16 minutes a bit of a borefest. 
 

Not sure I like mini me in the same picture just for starters. 
 

 

[W-S-M Seagull]

8 hours ago, Davefevs said:

That underpins so many of Ian’s views.  He initially was all for Nige when appointed, but then changed his view by the end of the season, because in Nige’s case he generally “analysed” by results, not context / other factors.  He get sucked into liking / disliking managers and loses objectivity…and consistency of his argument.

Dont get me wrong Coventry were well on top that first half and hour before we started to calm them down a bit.

Ian says 4-0.

@Kid in the Riot says 3-0

XG is not all defining, I accept that, but here’s their XG from the first half.

0.44.

Here are screenshots of those 7 chances:

I don’t see 3-0 or 4-0 from those chances.  Hitting the woodwork makes Sheaf’s chance appear better.  Shots from distance or through crowded penalty area.  Of course it’s possible a sense of relief that they had a goal disallowed for offside - correct decision btw.

 

Thanks for that Dave. 

I was quite baffled when Ian said Coventry should have been 4 nil up by half time. That's not how I remembered it. 

I think it's also worth nothing that Sunderland came up against what many would say was a stronger defence on Saturday than Coventry did vs us. We had changed formation and Sykes was RWB, King CB, Pring LCB and Roberts LWB. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is Coventry threatened us less against a weakened and changed defence where as Sunderland threatened us more against probably our strongest back 4. 

[Engvall’s Splinter]

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

Thanks for that Dave. 

I was quite baffled when Ian said Coventry should have been 4 nil up by half time. That's not how I remembered it. 

I think it's also worth nothing that Sunderland came up against what many would say was a stronger defence on Saturday than Coventry did vs us. We had changed formation and Sykes was RWB, King CB, Pring LCB and Roberts LWB. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is Coventry threatened us less against a weakened and changed defence where as Sunderland threatened us more against probably our strongest back 4. 

Please don’t let facts get in the way here, Gull. 

Edited December 18, 2023 by Engvall’s Splinter

[W-S-M Seagull]

48 minutes ago, Engvall’s Splinter said:

Please don’t let facts get in the way here, Gull. 

Some people don't like facts. 

@transfer readerg ets particularly upset when people mention that Manning got sacked from MK. 

[transfer reader]

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

Some people don't like facts. 

@transfer readerg ets particularly upset when people mention that Manning got sacked from MK. 

Not at all

But when those people would mention it in every post they made for about 50 separate posts in the same day, it was very clear that that individual wasn't going to give LM a fair crack.

[Beni71]

13 hours ago, Curr Avon said:

We discussed the feasibility of trying to loan Premier League players, at an educationally guessed minimum weekly wage of £25,000 for untried youngsters. 

But that’s not new news? There’s always been a high price tag.

I think the point is that FBC have been criticising for 12 months+ over the lack of loan signings. Then detective Gay makes the revelation that loan signings are expensive….. You would have thought he had discovered the holy grail 

[Son of Fred]

15 hours ago, 2015 said:

The truth is we beat Coventry and Sunderland because of how good we were at the back, along with some good goalkeeping on Saturday. Dickie has been very influential in these wins. Vyner was brilliant Saturday too. Everything else apart from that, pretty poor especially up front.

Didn't think we were that hot in the air at the back to be honest-

Literally free headers.

No one picking up.

Edited December 19, 2023 by Son of Fred

[Mr Popodopolous]

The other thing about the loan issue.

Yes they can be expensive. For 2 years, perhaps even the earliest stage of the downsizing beginning with a quiet January 2021 and lots of out of contract not being offered new terms, loan signings weren't an option due to some of said costs as we were walking an FFP tightrope, perhaps when Semenyo was sold that came to an end.

Loan fees as well when on for a possible future breach if always tricky to square.

[W-S-M Seagull]

10 hours ago, Beni71 said:

But that’s not new news? There’s always been a high price tag.

I think the point is that FBC have been criticising for 12 months+ over the lack of loan signings. Then detective Gay makes the revelation that loan signings are expensive….. You would have thought he had discovered the holy grail 

I think he's just started playing FM so therefore all this is new to him. 

[Super]

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

Thanks for that Dave. 

I was quite baffled when Ian said Coventry should have been 4 nil up by half time. That's not how I remembered it. 

I think it's also worth nothing that Sunderland came up against what many would say was a stronger defence on Saturday than Coventry did vs us. We had changed formation and Sykes was RWB, King CB, Pring LCB and Roberts LWB. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is Coventry threatened us less against a weakened and changed defence where as Sunderland threatened us more against probably our strongest back 4. 

Maybe due to the fact they have far better attacking players.........