I did, but it doesnt specify from what I can see how much if any reliance is placed on watching the players that the data initially has flagged up, I found the following quote interesting and in regards to using data, which I have never totally dismissed, it seems a sensible mantra: "data is the first thing that wipes out the noise for us.” Like I said though, I was talking less about the usage within clubs and more on places like here purely as a discussion topic. I stand by the second quote you have quoted from me, and that has nothing to do with the article. I explained why in the rest of that second paragraph in my last post. If you was to marry my statement up with Barnsley and that article, even then, no club can guarantee perfect recruitment with or without data and there is an element of subjectivity in who they choose.

Obviously the specifics are objective but it depends on the interpretation. My points are more about discussions about players rather than speculating how clubs may use data anyway, we dont know for sure how reliant clubs are on data, whether its used to whittle down players to a shortlist that fit the parameters needed, for example Barnsley need strikers who can press so maybe they whittle down a shortlist based on strikers with particularly high distance covered per game, then watch those 3 or 4 strikers and pick from there. In which case, the data whilst not fool proof does massively help to make a decision that then comes down to opinion again. I dont think for example that anyone could say that one player is better than another based solely on data. Just take a singular stat, whether it is number of crosses, cross success rate, "progressive" runs, whatever, my point is that in isolation it doesnt prove anything. If you was to say that player x has a better cross percentage or puts in more crosses per game, that would be objectively true, but means little. If you was to say that player x is better than player y proved by his cross percentage and number of crosses, that would then be subjective, the stats would only support that opinion to an extent. An example is the ongoing debate as to who is a better right back, Rankin Costello or Nyambe. The former seems to come out on top on most "metrics" yet some aspects are more difficult to prove or indeed disprove via data. For example, I think Nyambe positionally and one on one defensively is far better at right back, and also I do feel to collaborate with the data that he is a much poorer crosser but he is a totally different player, he has the pace and power to get to the byline where it may require a simple pull back rather than an inch perfect cross, so whilst he is a poorer crosser in my opinion, I dont feel like he is less of an attacking threat. Data can also be used to window dress and supposedly prove an already held opinion, so thats when its objectiveness falls down too. I also have an issue with certain stats and how impossible they are to be totally reliable, xG being a perfect example.

It could I suppose if it was noticeably below average, but it could also mean for example that a a player is in a more advanced position and/or trying more high risk high reward passes, a few of which have led to goals. I bet Jason Lowe had a higher percentage pass rate than many, but he wasnt a good passer. Mathematical proof on its own, not quite so much. And @Hoochie Bloochie Mama again I would suggest that as I mentioned, that makes sense in that the data may help narrow down their shortlist to players who can fit their style of play. So it is a time efficient way of narrowing down shortlists of targets. I dont think that data is useless, far from it. But I also think that much of it is unavoidably flawed, has to be taken with a pinch of salt and only as a tool rather than instead of watching players, and I think there has been a sudden surge of people not involved with football clubs using it as factual proof when in fact due to its flaws it is not objective in proving opinions.

I dont think we should have signed 2 kids and indeed a more experienced player would have made more sense in January to fix a problem entirely avoidable much earlier, but surely Carter and Magloire benefit more from playing every week elsewhere rather than sticking around as an at that time unknown quantity of a back up?

Be interesting to see how Keane does at Celtic and a shame if he does go as he is a very entertaining pundit. He was not long out of the game at Sunderland, where he was overly reliant on players he knew, mainly from United but also from Ireland and Celtic. Take that comfort blanket out, throw in nearly 15 years of time in which players possibly will allow even less of an authoritarian approach, not sure it spells success.

Until that happens, its all opinions on conjecture, but my point is more that it would leave us short to only go into the season with Gallagher as a solitary striker. You cant put off recruiting in obvious areas simply because it isnt "financially sensible" and we cant have one striker all season. If Gallagher gets injured, we have no striker. My point was that it is inherently flawed though, I appreciate its intention but im saying that it is impossible to do to anything like pure authenticity what it is trying to do. For example, Gazza missed the ball by millimetres at Euro 96, that would go down as 0 xG when in fact it was as close as you could come. According to xG, a player missing the ball in front of an open goal, or say being really close and choosing the wrong option, is not a chance at all, whereas a long range pot shot would register, even obviously a very small xG. Even if you take into account all variables, it is still very difficult to make it objective too. I also do question what use it has, in that like I said, a game will pan out dependant on goals, so say when we played Stoke away, we would have been miles up on their xG. They scored early and sat deep, always had us at arms length, but if you looked at xG, I bet it looked like we was the far superior team. I read a recent article on Brighton and how they are doing so well in the xG league, but questioning what that actually means. Can they conclude that they should carry on and things will fall their way, or is it poor finishing that will remain? And if its over a long period of time, does it perhaps show an example of how results and xG have far from a 100% correlation? In reality, I personally think that it is easy without it to determine how you think it has played, based on the key chances which as mentioned may fall through the cracks of xG. A low xG doesnt prove poor performance, and the same for high xG. One thing I would say that data does however that is of benefit you touch upon at the end, it can be very time saving. You shouldnt make key decisions including transfer recruitment solely on data though, and it doesnt prove anything on its own, it can be used in tandem with opinions but it wouldnt make one superior or indeed factual.

How many of them are starts, if any? I am not saying that Chapman definitely should be here next season, although if he was under contract, there is no way that anyone would pay a million pounds for him anyway. But I dont understand why you are so dismissive of a player who has never started a Championship game that I can recollect, yet are championing similar players with similar goal tallies at the same level albeit across many more games this season, on the basis that they havent had a chance when Chapman equally has not. One thing that I am still unclear on too is whether you think it is necessary to sign a striker to replace Armstrong, as if you are saying that we do need a new striker but also a couple of wide men/attacking midfielders because replacing Armstrongs goals with 1 player may be nigh on impossible, I would tend to agree, if it is just to sign wide men/attacking midfielders and not bring in a striker, then it is not something I understand. I do get your point on partnerships although for me they were never really a pairing that benefitted from one another, they didnt link up etc, it was more that we had 2 excellent strikers at that time. I am not sure that we should sign more Crewe players based on how they link up within Crewe's specific set up, what if Pickering gets injured or fails to perform? I am sceptical because many of the stats are meaningless, especially out of context, at best they may display tendencies of a players style which you would know anyway. Many are flawed, for example a dribble is very difficult to tangibly ascertain, and also it means that taking on 4 men and passing, or turning around near 1 man and passing, both are equally going to count as a successful dribble. Stats like xG, so many issues, how do you objectify a chance, if a player misses a tap in by a cm, it doesnt count towards, if a team scores an early goal, the other team will then likely and naturally have a higher xG due to chasing a goal for so long, does that prove anything, etc. For defenders in particular, how do you decifer what stats are relevant, if a defender makes more interceptions/tackles, is he better, or is he out of position more often. You have to factor in how teams play, how good a team is, so many limitations that I can see. Data usage will have a use but surely that would be to narrow down the search for a player, if we are signing players solely off data or selected clips then that is a massive worry. We need to be watching numerous full games, even if that is only allowed via TV due to the circumstances, not ideal I concede, before deciding whether to sign a player. Data has a use but it has to be taken with a huge dollop of salt. I think the problem is when people go down a road whereby they feel the data is objective and proves a point, which it doesnt. Data can be manipulated to prove anything, and due to the limitations and varying relevance of data, it proves nothing more than a persons opinion IMO.

Again, sceptical of the use of such a statistic. If a player takes on 2 players, gets to a third and loses it, does that come out as 66.67% successful, or 0%? How can you possibly define whether something is a dribble, does the close proximity of an opponent come into it? Impossible to objectify.

It just seems a bit of a swing from you thinking he is likely to go in this international break! It seems more likely based on past events that if Armstrong goes, it will be some bollocks next season like Buckley as a false 9 with Brereton and Gallagher either side.

So Mowbray is staying now? I agree but that removes any slither of excitement that could be mustered up. If our 2 strikers were Gallagher and Brereton, you would still deem that to be well down the lists of priorities? Absolutely crazy. If Armstrong goes then we need a new striker to come in. Gallagher may well be serviceable as 2nd or 3rd choice, Brereton is not a centre forward though. Them 2 as the grand total of our striking talent would leave us in the mire. I get that 12m has been spent but thats a sunk cost now and we cant rely on them in spite of evidence purely to desprately attempt to justify it.

Possibly not although he has scored 20 in a season before. But again, you can apply that logic to anyone. Could Kaminski be a prolific goalscorer? I have seen Gallagher plenty in a central position to have seen that he is not a natural goalscorer and he does not anticipate chances very well.

Definitely agree, they have limited use. I think that Nyambe is a better defender one on one, how do you statistically prove or disprove that though? Rankin Costello is definitely a better crosser as Nyambes crossing is poor but there are more ways to skin a cat and he has learnt how to get past full backs and his assists which in the past were absent tend to be pull backs rather than crosses. Mind you with the weird tactics that Mowbray plays, is crossing even a useful skill to have? I dont think either are amongst the top right backs in the league but Nyambe is definitely ahead of me, Rankin Costello has a lot of good points to his game but I think I would like to see him further forward.

From where?

You cant just use random examples as proof that he can score x amount. Its like me saying that if we had allowed Friedel to come up for corners, he could have scored more like he did at Charlton away. Obviously his usage this season (previously defended by yourself) has been bizarre but even before I didnt rate him as a striker. Not a natural goalscorer for a start.

Not sure I would describe Maguire as solid. Indeed it is not a selection of players of the quality in line with other countries or indeed other positions where we are stronger. I think Gomez is out of the Euros too.

We are not particularly strong at centre back, all of our options bar maybe Stones (who himself has only just come back into the picture) and also in central midfield. Pope is a good keeper but Pickford will play and is a liability. Shaw is playing really well for United at left back and we have untold wealth in attacking midfield and at right back although especially concerning the latter I am not convinced that Southgate will select the best one. At the moment, I would personally definitely have Pope, Alexander Arnold, Stones, Shaw, Jordan Henderson, Foden and Kane starting, as well as probably Sterling. The rest up for grabs. Not that todays match proves that or indeed anything. Waste of time really, should have pre qualifiers. Impossible to gain anything from today, just needless extra football.

Impossible to judge. England could beat these if they could only select League 2 and under.

The underlying problem is going into a season with Lenihan, who is injury prone but we have been lucky with, Williams who has never been reliable nor particularly good and had attracted interest in the summer, Wharton and of course the massively injury prone Ayala. Carter and Magloire playing at a lower level elsewhere is not the issue.

Shows that you can use stats and video clips to prove any point you want really, I think that reflects unfairly on Nyambe.

As others have touched upon, he has proven nothing of the sort, he has never really started at this level. I am not saying that he should be kept here, or indeed that the others wouldnt be good signings as I am unsure about you but I dont recall seeing them play, my main point was that no number of attacking midfielders would allow us to go into a season with one (average) striker. Such a plan makes no sense. I dont want to get into too detailed a discussion on Gallagher, but that season is often used as if he was handicapped during it, when in fact the set up was very well suited to him and was by far the best in his career to date. Either way, I would not be comfortable going into a season with only Gallagher as a striker.

We will never know what happened had certain other scenarios played out and it is totally unfair to criticise and berate the manager for them especially when he makes so many decisions anyway that make very little sense. Travis played well, I expected/feared that Smallwood would instantly regain his place upon his return from suspension but Mowbray stuck with Travis from there on in. Would also personally suggest that Carter didnt look ready and I feel the loan move to Burton in isolation has been correct. I do appreciate the hypocrisy of what he said about young boys and I would say that signing 2 kids made little sense, one of whom has been good and the other desperately poor.

I personally think that Gallagher getting 15 goals next season is very unlikely and I think when Armstrong does go, we definitely need at least one striker, even if we cant get one as good as Armstrong, we cant just have one striker across a full season, especially at best a mediocre one. If Sam Gallagher is your only striker, and this isnt a dig at him because I mean as much if he gets injured etc, you are looking down rather than up. You cant fill the void solely by signing wingers and attacking midfielders. Players dont have to come from the lower leagues either, if our scouting network is as good as Mowbray seems to want to portray, then surely it can find players within these parameters from abroad. There is also no reason not to look within the Championship, especially if any strikers contracts are close to expiry which I think a few are. I do think we need to sign a few attacking reinforcments, Armstrong and to a lesser extent Elliott departing will leave a huge gap, and signing one player to make up the number of goals that Armstrong has been getting will be impossible. So a striker and 2 wide men, by all means. Although if the current manager is still in charge, im sure it will be some nonsense like we saw last weekend. A fair question is that Chapman seems to be doing at least as well as the other League 1 attacking midfielders mentioned, would these players even be an upgrade?

I would have to say that definitely with Harwood Bellis, he is certainly a better defender at this moment in time than either Carter or Magloire. I said in January and totally agree that signing 2 young loanees made no sense and the situation is compounded by the unreliability of the defender Mowbray signed in the summer on a long term contract, but as an individual signing, as with Adarabioyo, Harwood Bellis has been an upgrade and a decent signing. Carter was played in the last 2 games last season to see how he did, and we conceded 3 goals in both games with Carter particularly poor against Luton and looking miles off it. I personally dont think that he should have then been played again at the start of this season, although that isnt giving up on him, the only potential difference for me would have been to loan him out at the start of the season rather than in the middle although a seemingly very successful loan spell at the level below seems to suit all parties. With Magloire, for all the hype about how he did in a friendly, the fact that he spent the first of the season in non league suggests he perhaps isnt ready, again if he impresses at a decent level for Motherwell then we can re-assess but I think both looked a bit out of place when they were tried in the first team and a loan spell will do them good. I dont think that Mowbrays defensive recruitment and set up has been anything but shoddy but I have no issue with the kids we have. Regarding Travis, his first game was against Sheffield United WITH Smallwood and he subsequently through his performance level has been a first team regular ever since so I think forcing a narrative that Mowbray has done anything wrong there is a little unnecessary personally.

It doesnt sit well how reliant Mowbray is on kids from other sides, but it wasnt right for either Carter or Magloire to continue. The former obviously played the last 2 games of last season and looks miles away, especially v Luton. He didnt look ready and this loan is perfect. Magloire was absolutely bullied at Hillsbrough a couple of years ago, it would have done more harm than good for both player and especially team to have left him in. Fact of the matter is that Harwood Bellis and Adarabioyo last season are both miles ahead of Carter and Magloire. I am very critical of Mowbray but I do feel like the issue over his use young players is a little overstated, Travis broke through and has been a first team regular when fit ever since, Rankin Costello plays basically every game when fit, Buckley gets a lot of game time for a player who in the main has struggled and Dolan has had much more game than expected too. Agree with the list of players out of contract, the whole state of the squad is a huge worry and damning of the manager.

I dont really agree with Lingard being called up, he would be well down the list although his recent form is impressive. It is not half as controversial as Dier's inclusion or Alexander Arnold's exclusion though. But tonight, firstly the whole international break is a farce with the pandemic and makes no sense. And games against San Marino without such minnows having to pre qualify is beyond going through the motions, it isnt competitive. But anyway, there are 3 games in this break so I would expect a second string side tonight rather than playing the same 11 for 3 games in a row.