I never specifically said that appearances are a benchmark for better players. I have seen Burnley a fair few times this season and Cullen has always stood out, dictating the game from deep. Brownhill is stand out at this level albeit limited (but still capable) at Premier League level and earnt a move previously based on standing out at this level and Cork is a canny operator too. Those 3 have proven themselves over many appearances but are not just good players because theyve played a lot of games. That us Burnley's strong point and they tend to dominate games in midfield but their attacking players hage blown hot and cold. I do feel though that we lack experience in our midfield ranks and have said so all season, we have undoubted talent there but you look at Wharton, he either cant or Tomasson wont play over an hour or back to back games if we play midweek. The Burnley 3 are used to the grind.

Was that ever happening? I don't remember that.

I think we will likely be very reliant on especially Brereton on the day, Burnley have Rodriguez who is a very good player but is aging, they do have plenty of options in attacking areas in Tella, Gudmundsson, Benson, Zaoury, Churlinov etc but none provide the goal threat that Brereton does.

Yes, I think it would. 3 canny, seasoned pros who are capable of playing higher, 3 good players at this moment a level above our young lads, who have put in some good performances without dominating a midfield.

The midfield will be a worry, not much experience against Cullen, Cork and Brownhill.

That would surely not necessarily mean that. Also, some players might lean into someone who is a clear favourite in the air to gain an advantage by reducing/removing his ability to win that header cleanly.

Much of my point though was about how it is commonly used (not within football clubs) and how the idea that teams will fall in line with their xG is massively flawed.

That Varney/Brown comment was clearly not totally serious. But much of my point has been about the key to data being who uses it, how it is us and accepting its considerable limitations and how I feel that the media often uses it (underpinned by this notion that everything must revert to the mean, see my 15th v 2nd example below) poorly in the absence of a more rounded view. Another thing about xG that is a limitation unless I am wrong. A striker is put through on goal, he takes the chance normally, that has say 0.6xG. Equally, say he takes a bad touch at the end and the keeper smothers it, the xG is 0. If he rounds the keeper and rolls it in from a yard, it is probably 0.99 xG. All 3 are the same chance created. I totally agree on game state, and don't think we are favourites for the league but not due to xG. We had the 2nd best xG when we came 15th.

I gave numbers to contest the assumption you and islander200 implied that reducing season ticket prices would make us less financially competitive overall. Not factoring in the increased numbers. You just focused on a little bit about outsourcing food. Even then, surely we either get commission or would be able to negotiate higher fees if we had more fans on.

Like I said with Gallagher which won't be matched by all strikers, he often goes on the near post at corners so he will win headers there without being contested. He also regularly plays wide, so comes against smaller full backs but also in positions whereby he is less likely to be winning headers potentially in the first place. So many variables.

Good swerve.

Why would we regress to the mean in relation to the quote you highlighted? Kaminski and in particular Brereton will surely as quality operators in their positions will over-perform expected goals/goals against.

He did play at Blackpool, and set up the winner with a superb pass in a game more fondly remembered by you for Vale having a shot saved!

Very good point on Wharton, he struggles to last longer than an hour and play back to back games, yet he is accomdated. No relevance to the point I made about you picking and choosing when to be cynical.

I used those figures purely as an example of how it is totally illogical to imply that lower prices automatically leads to lower overall revenue. Preston aren't subsiding their season tickets at the cost of the team on the pitch, they have gone lower in their prices to increase numbers which is a tactic that has worked. Our average price based on those figures you gave is £288.46. Preston had sold 10500 by June, discounting the fact that they almost certainly sold more since, they would have had to average £214.29 per season ticket to match ours, which I am sure that they did. That is not even factoring in the potential to have those season ticket holders as ongoing customers beyond this season and additional merchandise/food/drink sales.

Also, obviously there will be people who have kids, get new jobs or whatever and cant go but thats not something unique to this club nor is it one way as there will always be a churn of fans who cant go and ones who potentially now can go.

To be fair, Steve Kean was made a manager, Owen Coyle has had loads of jobs, we at one stage had Chris Brown and Luke Varney in the same squad, just because professionals in the industry see value in it doesnt necessarily make it fit for purpose! Regarding the point about podcasts or the media in general, I still think that it is often used poorly. You would never really have heard previously that a team could not sustainably perform beyond its possession stats or beyond the level of shots on targets. I feel that xG is regularly used as a massively flawed and inferior substitute to watching games to try and seem really informed in what they say about the whole league. I dont doubt that data has its uses but the key to all data is the person using it and how it is used. You could easily look at our xG being low without watching our games and presume that we are lucky, and whilst I dont think that our performance level has been particularly great, I having watched our games would think of 3 things straight away that contribute to that. We have a striker as ruthless as any in the league, that isnt a temporary thing, he will continue to outperform his xG if fit. We have one of the better goalkeepers in the league too, same logic. And we have gone ahead in 10/17 games, so nearly 60%, I think in 9 we scored in the first half and quite a few particularly early, so we have been content to sit in.

I bet Gallagher gets a few just by often standing at the near post on corners too, Even assuming that the data across these players careers is accurate, like with a lot of data, limited in usefulness.

So you take every single thing at face value, glass half full, served you well for 20 years etc. Until it comes down to Dack, you want to see the data for that...

What sort of logic is that?! Preston don't subsidise their tickets as a strategic decision as opposed to investing in their squad! A club is always trying to strike the perfect balance between quantity and price. Using rounded figures as an example and factoring in concessions with my averages. If we sell 8000 season tickets at an average of £300, that is £2.4m, say Preston's is £250, they would need to sell 9600 tickets, so not that many more. Anything more is profit, not before factoring in the potential to sell further season tickets in the future to those additional fans, as well as additional match day sales in the ground on food/drink etc. @chaddyrovers see above. Absolutely warped logic to not appreciate that lower prices means higher numbers of sales and can potentially generate more income, directly and indirectly.

I don't think that anyone has implied that he has been missed in the last 3 wins, obviously not. The point is that he is a very good Championship player that many feel could have plenty of use across the rest of the season.

The fact that there is a team within half an hour distance away with much bigger attendances at the moment and much lower prices, without the excitement of a new manager, and that is being dismissed as not relevant suggests that there will never be an acknowledgement from chaddy that the numbers are piss poor here.

Yeah Scholes has come out and said that the theory that he retired from England because of where he was played is totally untrue. He thought that Sven should have dropped him for his poor performances and suggested that he quite liked playing from the left because he had more space.

You can't judge a player in pre-season either, purely fitness exercises, cobbled together teams with constant changes played at a really slow pace. Travis shouldn't be at right back/right wing back either, his performance there v Bristol City was as bad a performance as anyone has put in all season, just above Vale at Reading, he isn't suited to playing there and as a wing back, he would not be suitable defensively or offensively in that role. We left ourselves short in both full back positions in the summer, but surely Carter is the natural alternative having played there before? He can't attack so the question then is do you go to a back 4 or just stick with a very defensive back 5?

I have loads of reservations about it for many reasons, but one thing I am sure of is it is that its general usage seems totally not fit for purpose. In the media especially on podcasts, in the absence of anyone having the time to watch every team in the Championship, xG figures are used as a direct barometer of performance, which is a load of rubbish. This idea that teams will revert roughly to their current xG levels is a load of nonsense by people trying to sound well educated about every team. Over the last 18 months, we have scored well in advance of our xG mainly because of Brereton, he will score more goals with the same chances compared to basically any other forward in the league. It also doesn't factor in teams taking a lead and how a game totally changes from there on in, we have taken 10 leads, so naturally 10/17 times, our opponent has then had an onus to get back into the game, One good use that surely could come from it is judging the performance of individual strikers, its not even about luck IMO.