Holmes_and_Watson

Easily the best bit of Starmer's speech. A man who looks as though he's an escapee from a Gerry Anderson show.

They have some history don't they. Case having been around a number of Conservative PMs. I thought they'd asked Case to investigate the leaks. So, that's a bit awkward.

2 1 to us. An error for their goal, but our subs get the winner.

Box

I started typing that yes, considering the impact, what's been reported (and keeping to that is indeed small stuff.) Then I thought that I don't see why we can't have all of that, and for a bit of internal reform to be going on as well. Then I thought of the people delighted to fast track their friends into ripping off the tax payer during a global emergency. Maybe having more trustworthy people in there does help. So, all of that to be cut and pasted into something concise. 🙂 Not so much the Gray thing, but I quite like seeing different views in a party. They are broad places, so getting some hint at the back stabbing is more honest than a single voice towing the party line. That never ends well. With Labour, the unions and those to the left are never far away. And I don't mean that in a terrible way. There are strong voices supporting different factions. I don't mind getting to hear some differing views on how a common goal can be achieved. Of course, you're right about how opponents jump on it, how divisions and power grabs arise and how it all ends in unlectable tears.

A young manager going up through the leagues Ambitious Played in the PL International Passionate about his football philosophy The philosophy happens to match that of Wilcox, and the recruitment can be geared around it The philosophy also counters some previous defensive issues (if you squint and balance possession against his previous track record) They could dream of being Man City Lite Data driven Style looks to maximise small gains across the pitch and across the game. Considered to be a good man manager If this doesn't work then yes they will try it again. And again, until Dragan realises he could have better invested his money in nearly anything else.

Sadly not. Nor does it prevent decent chats being sidetracked dealing with it. Mind you, I wonder who would be left if there was a button where a set number of posters could punt someone from a thread.

His role, under his watch (and others) was essentially pointless. He offered no challenge, no curiosity and happily went down the path of zero resistance. That was when it was clear something was very wrong, just from the press. Never mind his contacts with Bates. I think Davey said that the PO lied to him in their response. I'd have thought further correspondence, or asking a question or two, might have taken that further. Patel also tried to set up a meeting with him, that never went anywhere. I get that he has a reliance on others. But it's his responsibility to not take everything he's told as fact. It's not good enough to take the role, the perks and the salary and then say that none of the rest of the people in his role put their hands up. I can't say I'm likely to vote for a party where that's what they consider good governance. I'm disappointed they didn't punt him from leadership when it came out. That started out in my head as a chatty reply. I'm clearly still annoyed by him.

Ed Davey and the post office springs to mind.

Rayner falling in with the "I followed the rules." Despite the justifiable criticism of previous governments and saying they are for real change, it's the same old excuse and obliviousness to the rules not being fit to run a transparent government. Something anyone not having their face in a trough would be able to see. Now looking to more on the Conservative leadership candidates to balance my weekend moans with their wretched picks.

Yeah. That's how I read it. Beeb trying to be coy while getting across their real thought, and not doing a very good job of it. Annoying since usually the record of people speaks for itself, without that sort of thing.

For me, having 2 quite attacking full backs can cause problems if not supported. We've plenty of defensive issues as it is. Having KWP on the right and a more defensive left back fits the way Martin has set up since arriving.

Pop

Can't recall seeing any figures. We will have been paying off previous managers, paying for the bloated squad we have. And we have a substantial loan there too. Lots of clubs carry similar baggage. We also had a lower limit of around 81 over the 3 years, due to our relegation. There might be some thinking ahead to our 3 year limits, if they still apply and we go down again, and manage to come up. SR do look to limit individual wages to increase selling on, and flexibility. As Sean Dyche said at Burnley, there was never a shortage of clubs and agents desperate to see their talented players play in the PL. Of course, their world beaters would all want as many PL pennies in wages and fees as possible. Since that wrecks wage structures they said no. We would have had to make similar calls. It is limiting, but also plays into some of the other SR thoughts on transfers. Like young players leaving big clubs, players looking for fresh starts etc.

Stick.

Suga was brought in as a KWP replacement. I also think, that if KWP is playing, we need balance on the other side. For me, it's a back 4 with KWP and Taylor in it. It's tough on Suga. If for whatever reason, KWP is on the left, then I'd look to have Bree on the right. We need the solidity, and balance. We also need to be building up the RussBall partnerships to make that passing/ partnerships crisper.

For the corner they had 3 players positioned at the edges of the box. Their keeper was back, and of course there's the corner taker. It's not as though there was a packed, disruptive box or the keeper had come up to sow confusion. It was a standard corner, where it seems we've decided to pack the box. Any loose balls are then closed down from multiple angles by players running out. On other days, maybe our players get further out for a better block. Maybe they don't react by turning and giving the angle. Orvthat deflection goes wide or back into a group of players. On other days, and what Martin is counting on, is that we just see another corner dealt with in the box. We don't stop to think that it was because we had an extra body in there. But we've seen plenty of corners delivered back out centrally and thumped in. If teams know we don't protect that, then they will look to take advantage of it. Considering how long we persevered with similar things, Martin may think it's still perfectly valid and just needs more drilling in. But 2 points lost due to it yesterday.

That's a relief to hear. For a minute I was thinking it was an event held by a party, desperate to placate vested interest groups that the gravy train would be just fine once they got into power, actually paying for lobbyists to attend so they could build relationships for further scams. Also relieved to hear it being deflected with a reference to going out for a pizza. A successful tactic with royal endorsement. Any other concerns behind removed by it all being within the rules, never mind how utterly crooked those rules were set up to be. Good to hear we've now got a government not beholden to the old sleazy ways. One that makes the calls normal, decent folk would make. Perhaps they could throw an event to celebrate? Actually, that would be a flimsy, wasteful pretext. Like hosting it around a birthday.

Snowman

I'm of the view that the evolving stats don't always tell the story for us. We have a system, that's about possession. Our attackers have to take advantage of unforced errors and where we can exploit gaps. That's different from end to end games where attackers have momentum, the stamina and mental impact of such a game. So, we can get into decent xG positions. But it's offset by the game's structure. Yes, the stats are bringing in more variables, but there are broader datasets it struggles with. It means we need instinctive finishers, able to put opportunities (more so than systematic planned attacks) away. Oh, but the also need to do a hundred other things while waiting for those chances. It's a bigger ask, than I see a lot of attackers having to deal with. I think comparing our stats with others needs to look well beyond core stats, due to the different systems and player requirements. But I testing as broad indicators. Just as people seeing the games unfold before them can pick out things the data isn't equipped to do.

Thanks saintant. Erwink also took the view that it was player based. In The Beeb interview I've just watched, he talked about the Stewart header and the free kick. There's still a bit of me wondering if his official site interview specifically mentioned that there should have been someone out there. I could be being harsh on him. He could actually be doing a good job protecting his players. With set pieces drilled into players, I can't imagine it was by accident no one was out. I can imagine them not dealing with points within the set up. And it's those points Martin is referring to. But looking at it, they really did look set up that way. A manager seeing that done not on purpose would have been screaming instructions from the touchline. Players would be shouting to each other too. It also fits into other things we see like the players back from our corners. To give the other side of that. On the corners, that running back is more organised. I'm not thrilled with it, as I'd like to see how much of an attacking advantage it gives us against the risk. Also, the shift in control and momentum it gives opponents and support. Things that aren't on the databases. But I get the logic. I get the logic here too. But I have even more reservations. Rumour is Chelsea are bringing back Lampard, just to play against us, for all the goals he'll put in from exactly that position.

Definitely another factor. Clubs had to find loophole exchange transfers to keep within the rules. Others are stuck with players they can't shift. Due to amortisation, they can't take the PSR hit. So the fee (often too high because of the PL cash cow), and those wages make it even harder to move on players. For us, SR have made it key that they keep individual wages as low as they can. It's a false economy in the larger sense, in that they panic bought extra players 2 seasons ago. But the idea is that it gives flexibility and higher profit margins for lots of transfers. In practice, we've got players looking at the new deals and ( exceptions for Alex and Bedders) looking to move on. And waiting to go on a free, to get the best of their higher deal here and the big free signings fee at the next club. Even at the levels SR bought players in, it's been too high to shift some of them. In fairness, ABK got derailed. We've not had decent enough offers for others. So, we've a bloated squad again this season. Like you say, clubs can't spend even if they'd like to, as they struggle to balance their own books and offload their own players.

Unless the destination club just happens to offer him a great deal, I'd have thought he'd take the best of the offers as a free agent. Part of the club's (and any club) is to sell on players. They've previously said they would try to minimise this. But that can be hard to do, as we've seen.

I've only seen the short highlights. For their goal, it screamed of the analysts & coaches concluding that the data showed fewer goals conceded from that shooting position, compared to headers/ second balls in the box. Of course that data is skewed if based on goals conceded, while teams make sure they do have a man out there. And from teams who realise their opponents aren't putting a man there, and look to take full advantage of it. It's the latest small margin from the guys who introduced panicked running back from our own corners.

Chilly