roversfan99

Many bookmakers have us as favourites: https://www.oddschecker.com/football/euro-2020/winner

I know it is my opinion, that is the purpose of a messageboard. He has been a huge bonus, and has massively exceeded expectations, for a player expected to play for the reserves. My opinion is pretty simple to understand, the fact that it can even be argued that Dolan is a better signing than 21 of the 25 players that Mowbray has himself chosen shows how bad recruitment has been.

I know that Mowbray should be sacked, I have being saying as much for quite a while and in the last few weeks you have joined me and many others in sharing that opinion, problem being that you seem to think now that all the problems are solely with Mowbray. I am not defending Mowbray in any way, I have regularly criticised his recruitment and his tactics, I am just saying that the owners were never going to sack the manager during the international break because they dont seem to care. He will almost certainly still be here next season. Last year was an unusual one because of the pandemic but it was simply down to restrictions rather than proactivity that the manager didnt need to wait until after the season had finished before flying over to beg for money/sort his budget. But Mowbray will be totally in the dark as to what his budget will be next season or even what they think about the managers future and the teams progress. It is not a healthy way to run a football club, and whilst Mowbray should have gone long ago, when he goes, some problems will still remain. I do agree to an extent with your last sentence, since Venkys took over hope is all that we have had, blind hope.

“We’re doing pretty good, Derrick is close. We hope to have him in the mix within the next week and starting to progress towards match minutes.” It does say this, so it is unclear still how close he is to fitness, it doesnt sound like he will be ready to be considered for games in anything close to a week. Either way, even if there is a semblance of bollocks again in what has come from Mowbray's mouth, I am not bothered that Williams has gone and I dont think he will be particularly missed at all.

Such a drab first half, I have to say our central midfield area is a major concern and possibly a big reason why our favourites for the Euros tag is a little premature, the likes of Kalvin Phillips and Declan Rice are ok, they are functional but little more, better teams will dominate the midfield against us. Mount is a weird one, he is a good player but there should be some serious consideration about playing him deeper, question is does he have the discipline to play in a 2? He is better than the aforementioned players in that position, in the final third he is not at the same level for me as Foden, Grealish, even Maddison and we need 2 ideally from Sterling, Sancho, Rashford and Saka to run in behind Kane. The team isnt balanced right either, Kane needs players running in behind and we dont have enough of that.

I was pointing out that it is not a good reflection on Mowbray that his supposedly 5th best signing of 26 is a young kid that he played no part in the signing of, that hasnt contributed THAT much really, but has played far more than expected. Why is Brereton bottom of the list? Because he cost 7 million pounds and has ranged from laughable to average. And had he not cost so much which is a fee that requires justifying now, no one would be arsed if he left on a free next season. Obviously he has contributed more than the likes of Leutwiler, Gladwin, Hart etc but they were a slither of the expenditure of Brereton.

You are being naive if you are just now blaming everything on Mowbray and a perceived disinterest. Your idea of proactively sacking the manager over the international break was never realistic because our owners dont care, hence the yearly charade whereby the manager is totally in the dark as to how much money he will have until he goes over to grovel to them after the season has finished, when in the last 2 seasons, any competitiveness finished well in advance of the end of the season. Mowbray's recruitment has been poor but lets not pretend that the problems stop at Mowbray. (or even Mowbray and Waggott) There is so much naivety in your post that we are on the brink of lots of proactive decisions that will turn us around, detailed recruitment highlighting signings waiting to be done, a new efficient football structure and a new manager. Why do I think that those players will stay? Because for years we have lacked a ruthless edge, the same manager will likely be here and we seem destined to lose quite a few (Armstrong, Elliott, Harwood Bellis, Branthwaite, Douglas, Trybull, Rothwell, Holtby, Nyambe and maybe Rankin Costello) so there will probably be more of a likelihood/desperation to sign up the others, Bennett will be a "trusty" squad player for Mowbray, Johnson plays when fit usually, even the likes of Evans and Bell may well be signed up, the question is would you be surprised? Where did you hear that none of those 3 will sign new deals? It is awful management of them to allow them to be so close to expiry but then again, in particular Rankin Costello and Rothwell will struggle to get better than the amount of game time they get here at a club further up the table. The former is injury prone and hasnt fully established himself, or if he has, only just without necessarily standing out, and Rothwell has flattered to deceive for 3 years. Nyambe has done more but even then, how many teams above us does he get into the first 11 of? Not many if any.

Both Venkys and their consistent negligence and disinterest and Mowbray who hasnt the foggiest where his players see their future are beyond a joke, really.

Id like to think so, but then again id let the majority of those out of contract go but I dont think we will.

Im sure the ones like Johnson, Evans and Bennett will all get new deals however.

Really poor list when shown like that. Downing in 4th would deserve that place on his first year even though he has just Not sure how Jacob Davenport is above Richie Smallwood, he might well be a better player but the former has barely kicked a ball in 3 years and the latter was a big part in our promotion. Probably put Smallwood above the likes of Holtby, Rothwell and Johnson too, none of whom have done enough in a combined 7 years of service to suggest that if any of them went, they would be huge blows to us. Even Dolan in 5th was a signing that Mowbray didnt suggest, and even though he has massively exceeded expectations in terms of game time, he is still very raw and hasnt contributed that much of tangible and thus wouldnt be 5th out of 26 for most managers. Brereton has to be at the bottom all things considered really.

Its incredible how poor their group of players is, due to the boredom of an international break I do quite often catch the home nations games as they tend to be at different times to England and Ireland for quite a few years have been out on their own as being shockingly dull and you look at their players and there is no attacking talent young or old to suggest that this is likely to change under anyone. Scotland seem to have a bit of quality coming through across the side although are also lacking up front hence their desperate attempts to sign up Che Adams and Wales are established now although reliant on 2 players whose powers are beginning to wane.

Obviously not England but incredibly Republic of Ireland lost at home to Luxembourg today. Scotland and Wales both have something about them at the moment but Irelands squad is absolutely dire.

By that, I appreciate the reliance on data, im saying that I dont know and havent ascertained from the article whether the players they eventually sign are done so with or without being watched in full prior. If that is the case, the data would still be key in highlighting that player, where it becomes dangerous is if a signing is made solely on data without seeing the person in full. The difference between clubs and people doing it from home as a hobby is that the latter might then give opinions as fact on who they think we should sign in the absence of seeing that player play. Clubs will have the time and people to be able to scout the players that top the specific metrics that they are looking for, in your case, Barnsley want attackers that will get through a lot of physical mileage. Barnsleys specific use of and reliance upon data is miles away from my initial point regarding my own personal opinion on its limitations and how whilst individual aspects of it are obviously true, its only objective to a certain point. But anyway, as you say, no point arguing.

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.