luck... did I hear someone say ?

[del boy]

It's a total irrational train of thought.

 

For me, luck simply does not exist.

Lucky you

[saintwarwick]

I don't think you quite grasp what it means SW. It does not matter how many people are in the team to take shots. What it means is that the club should score once every 12 shots for their stats to be correct. The total of shots divided by goals = 12. If we are having 12 shots a game as their stats suggest we should be scoring at least once a game. We are not. We are scoring 10% less then what they suggest as we have a 0.9 score ratio. To kill it off all together we have failed to score in 12 of our 33 games which means 36% of our games we have not scored. Thus proving the stats are wrong as it would mean an additional 3.3 goals would of needed to be scored, so as i said before the stats are wrong.

 

I don't think you quite grasp stats, it's about what teams have achieved, whether we score the goals or not is irrelevent the stats are there to see we have at least had chances at goal whereas in your previous posts suggest we don't. I have also posted the facts which you clearly missed in that we are top of the stats league which don't lie and you have missed certain players from your list to prove otherwise. I use you're original post of "very few games if any games this season can I recall us dominating a game and peppering the oponents goal" proves we do actually threaten the opposition's goal. Whether we score enough goals is irrelevent on this topic, we all know we need to turn stats into reality.

[LostBoys]

Someone said luck is where preparation meets opportunity - this squad is ill prepared for this division and some would say Div 1 as well. Poorly coached and managed with poor strategy on and off the pitch and the least said about the incompetent directors the better

[Whitey Grandad]

Someone said luck is where preparation meets opportunity - this squad is ill prepared for this division and some would say Div 1 as well. Poorly coached and managed with poor strategy on and off the pitch and the least said about the incompetent directors the better

Very succintly put.

[St_Tel49]

Sorry SW but i will call Bull**** on those stats. Anyone who has been to watch us this season knows we are not shooting at goal with any conviction/class. Aimless non-threatening shots which softly fall into the hands of the goal keeper.

 

The table you should be looking at is this one

http://stats.football365.com/dom/ENG/D1/glsfor.html

 

The one that says we are 3rd to bottom in goals.

 

Just to show how laughable the stats are

They say we have had 419 shots from our 33 games. That means our average for shots is 12 a game. Of those shots 227 were on target. Meaning 54% of our teams shots are on target.

Now if we have the highest amount of shots with minimum of 12 shots a game why do we find ourselves 3rd to bottom with a massive 0.9 goals per game average or to put it better just 29 goals?

So then if we look at the stats a little more closely. If we have 227 (54%) of our shots on target that means for every 7 shots on target we score 1 goal.

 

So then we then look at the player shooting stats.

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/DivisionalShooting/0,,10794~20087,00.html

 

At the top of the list is DMG with 93. So of our 419 shots DMG has contributed to 22% of our shots total. So because there is an additional 326 shots un accounted for you would assume there to be more Saints players in the top 20 right?

And indeed there is. The next Saints player comes in at number 18 and is Adam Lallana with 55 shots, meaning Lallana has taken 13% of our shots total.

So then Lallana and DMG combined have taken 148 shots between them, which is 35%. For these stats to ring true must mean that for the clubs shot to goal ratio of 12 shots to every goal must mean combined these 2 players have scored 12 goals (148 shots divided by 12 shots per goal ratio = 12 goals). So lets look at the goals totals!

 

DMG 7 goals

Lallana 1 goal

Total = 8 goals

4 goals less or 33% out.

Which means for every shot those 2 have had (148 shots) they must shoot 18.5 times before they score a goal (148 shots divided by 8 goals).

Which means their goals to shot ratios do not match, it is 33% over what your link says it should be.

 

 

So then now that we know that, that means that the rest of the teams contribution must be 65% of the shots (271 shots).

So lets look at the rest of the goal contributers

Surman = 6 goals

Saga = 4 goals

BWP = 4 goals

Pearce = 2 goals

Peckhart = 1 goal

Skacel = 1 goal

Perry = 1 goal

Robertson = 1 goal

Mclaggon = 1 goal

Total = 21 goals

 

So for the shots per team per goal ratio of 12 shots to a goal to be true must mean that they have combined scored 22 goals (271 shots divided by 12 shots before a goal = 22 goals from 271 shots).

Which as you can see is a goal out. Thus meaning 5 goals are missing for the links stats to be true.

 

 

So then we then look at the whole teams shot record (everyone who has played this season)

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/Shooting/0,,10794~200810280~7,00.html

 

Add up their league shots on and off and you get a total of.......395 shots.

24 shots (6%) LESS then what it says in the table.

 

Of those 395 shots 217 were on target and 178 off target.

So then if we take out DMG and Lallana's shots (148 shots) the rest of the team account for 123 shots on target and 135 off target = 258 shots.

Combine those shots with DMG and Lallana's = 406 total team shots. Meaning 13 shots LESS then in the table.

 

Soooo those who have been paying attention will see that not only do our goals to ratio % not fall in place with the stats provided in the table; you find that the shot table total does not match the club player shot total. Meaning they have given 2 sets of data that do not match.

 

Thus meaning the stats have to be wrong

 

But then again anyone who has been to the games could see we haven't been having 12 shots a game anyway.....

 

 

Now i just hope all that makes sense and doesn't come across like some mad scientist or something

 

What this discussion proves is that stats can be interpreted according to your point of view. The only stat that matters is the official one which places you in the league table. Yes - we definitely have been unlucky this season but luck evens itself out over the progress of a season and the team/ manager cannot keep falling back on that. We have played as well as teams that we have lost to - including Saturday - so, to me, the failure to score is less about luck than confidence. There is a fear factor involved and the fact that our home record is so poor would seem to underline that. I am not blaming supporters for this because I have not heard them give less than 100% support in home games but I believe that the youth of the players, and the fact that they don't WANT to let the supporters down, combines is a subliminal way to increase their anxiety levels. And the problem is - the more they lose the worse it gets. I believe the players have the ABILITY to recover from this. Whether they have the mental strength is another matter entirely

[Frank's cousin]

In fact, some of the people who are suggesting luck has nothing to do with it, are exactly the people who've said we got lucky ourselves when we have snatched a point, or even a win.

 

Can't have it both ways guys.

 

hm indeed... many the same that say it was Luck when Lowe appointed strachan... it was justa good decisons, just as appointing JP and now Wotte were bad ones.

[Deano6]

What this discussion proves is that stats can be interpreted according to your point of view.

 

No it doesn't. It shows if you write a long enough and confusing enough post people believe it without bothering to read it properly. St Marco is plainly wrong on this one and Saint Warwick is right. I'll explain...

 

a) St Marco says the stats are wrong because they are internally inconsistent within the Football League site.

 

Saint Warwick showed they were in fact right, but that the individual players page only shows the top 20 players.

 

 

b) St Marco then produces another site which shows Saints have had less shots than the Football League site.

 

But when I look at that site (go "Championship" and "shots"), I find Saints are still top of the Shots table - which was the point being made that he didn't like. It's always going to be true that the definition of a 'shot' is going to be quite subjective from analysis to analysis, but so long as you apply a consistent definition the tables work. Saints are top as everyone else's totals are similarly reduced.

 

 

c) St Marco then bizarrely tries to justify his point using ratios. Again I believe this is just to confuse people. You simply can't divide one number by another (to get a ratio), multiply back by the same number and not end up where you started. Unless of course St Marco himself is using two different data sets in which case he is begging the question.

 

 

 

The situation is very simple. We have (using the definitions of shots from Football League site):

 

Played 32

Scored 29 (joint 3rd bottom in league)

Shots 419 (1st in league)

or according to St Marco's other source 416 (1st in league)

 

 

If ratios are your bag then it's:

 

Goals per game = 0.91

Shots per game = 13.1

 

 

but I think crucially, and this is the point being made by most on here, is the last ratio

 

Goals per shot = 0.069

or 1 goal in every 14.4 shots :smt107

 

That is quite abysmal, especially if we are to believe Whitey Grandad's stat that you'd expect to score 1 in 6 on average (I can't verify for the accuracy of that stat).

 

 

 

Statistics really aren't difficult to understand unless people choose to present them confusingly.

 

So, St Marco you are perfectly entitled to choose not to believe the stats, but that does not make them wrong.

[Channon's Sideburns]

hm indeed... many the same that say it was Luck when Lowe appointed strachan... it was justa good decisons' date=' just as appointing JP and now Wotte were bad ones.[/quote']

 

and appointing Burley, Gray, Wigley and Redknapp were good ones also eh???

 

The ***t has failure written all over his Saints CV.

[Window Cleaner]

But what do all these shot/goal statistics really say?

 

They say that we're crap in front of goal, but then anyone with a pair of eyes and a neurone could tell you that.We can't put the ball into the net,it's not luck it's some sort of spell cast on us.You have to go back to Blackpool and Watford at home to see it. We should have scored 5 against Blackpool and any side that misses 2 penalties at home in the same game needs to get a sorcerer onto the job to find out why.Whilst not wishing to defend Lowe,Wilde,Wotte or JP ,it's not them that can't put the ball into an open goal from 6 yards is it.The team works, it creates chances but doesn't convert them no matter who plays in it.

As we are poor defensively if we don't score the others eventually will.

There have been chances that anyone of us could have stuck between the posts and probably have done so in minor league football.That highly paid players don't defies comprehension.

[Frank's cousin]

and appointing Burley, Gray, Wigley and Redknapp were good ones also eh???

 

The ***t has failure written all over his Saints CV.

 

Come on CS, you know what i meant - All we need to to do is at least judge everything in the same way - if its a bad decision appointing one manager that failed, then surely its a good decision appointing one that worked?

 

NO one is disputing the fact that the RECORD shows that Wigley, Grey, JP, Wotte(after a few games anyway) posibly even Sturrock, were bad decisions. But ceratinly with Gray, Sturrock and JP/Wotte there was a logic behind the appointments at the time, even if we as fans feel the risks are too great.

[um pahars]

JP/Wotte there was a logic behind the appointments at the time.

 

Logic in appointing JP, are you fcking mad?????

 

Where was the logic in employing a non descript Dutch manager, with no knowledge of the English game (and that's not being xenophopbic BTW), whose CV is on a par with Stuart Ritchie and who proved to be a total disaster???

 

If the logic was he was used to working with youngsters and with no money, then he should have been interviewed alongside Vospers U-18's manager.

[Frank's cousin]

Logic in appointing JP, are you fcking mad?????

 

Where was the logic in employing a non descript Dutch manager, with no knowledge of the English game (and that's not being xenophopbic BTW), whose CV is on a par with Stuart Ritchie and who proved to be a total disaster???

 

If the logic was he was used to working with youngsters and with no money, then he should have been interviewed alongside Vospers U-18's manager.

 

FFS - the logic is in these approaches have both pros and cons and if you had not let your love in with Crouch cloud your bnetter judgement you would see it to. We had nothing to lose FFS, were skint and narrowly escaped teh drop on the last day with players we could no longer afford. The logic was in teh fact if it had to be kids, then they were not going to get results the traditional way, but hopefully by playing a smarter more expansive passing game rather to combat the rough and ready style in the CCC - naturally it also had many cons and was a feckin risky strategy which as we have seen has failed, but that does not mean it did not ahve some logic- that is all I have said.

 

You seem to have lost any objectivity.

[um pahars]

FFS - the logic is in these approaches have both pros and cons and if you had not let your love in with Crouch cloud your bnetter judgement you would see it to.

 

As I posted the other day, you're coming across as a complete idiot if on one hand you moan that Alpine pigeon holes you as a Lowe Luvvie and then do exactly the same with me regards Crouch.

 

Either a hypocrite or a fool.

 

We had nothing to lose FFS' date=' [/quote']

 

Nothing to lose??

 

What planet are you on???

 

As people have been rightly pointing out, if we go down and into administration, we will lose quite alot.:rolleyes:

 

were skint and narrowly escaped teh drop on the last day with players we could no longer afford. The logic was in teh fact if it had to be kids' date=' then they were not going to get results the traditional way, but hopefully by playing a smarter more expansive passing game rather to combat the rough and ready style in the CCC [/quote']

 

It didn't have to be kids and it certainly didn't have to be Poortvliet.

 

You seem to have lost any objectivity.

 

Behave yourself. You're the one trying to defend the indefensible by suggesting there was no other way, we had nothing to lose and it was all logical.

 

Go and have a lie down and then come back and let's discuss the logic of Poortvliet being appointed when he had no experience of this league, no nous on how to get results and a rather blinkered and one dimensional approach on how to set his teams out.

 

There was no logic to that approach other than a tenuous connection that Poortvliet had worked with a few teams in the lower leagues of Dutch football who had fck all money and a few youngsters.

 

Going on that logic, we should have scoured the Conference for our next manager.

[Channon's Sideburns]

FFS - the logic is in these approaches have both pros and cons and if you had not let your love in with Crouch cloud your bnetter judgement you would see it to. We had nothing to lose FFS, were skint and narrowly escaped teh drop on the last day with players we could no longer afford. The logic was in teh fact if it had to be kids, then they were not going to get results the traditional way, but hopefully by playing a smarter more expansive passing game rather to combat the rough and ready style in the CCC - naturally it also had many cons and was a feckin risky strategy which as we have seen has failed, but that does not mean it did not ahve some logic- that is all I have said.

 

You seem to have lost any objectivity.

 

Truth is Frank,

 

We could have cut costs WITHOUT going down the 'kids will be alright' route. This was the BIGGEST MISTAKE - not appointing JP.

 

We could have brought in more players on frees - but no, let's go for max publicity and early Sky appearances after they've been told how 'revolutionary' we are....

[saint1977]

Come on CS, you know what i meant - All we need to to do is at least judge everything in the same way - if its a bad decision appointing one manager that failed, then surely its a good decision appointing one that worked?

 

NO one is disputing the fact that the RECORD shows that Wigley, Grey, JP, Wotte(after a few games anyway) posibly even Sturrock, were bad decisions. But ceratinly with Gray, Sturrock and JP/Wotte there was a logic behind the appointments at the time, even if we as fans feel the risks are too great.

 

Possibly only on Sturrock Frank, I don't think many fans would agree there was any business sense at all on any of the of the others. Lowe gets credit on Jones, Hoddle, WGS because they were good appointments and in the case of Hoddle and WGS inspired appointments. Those were the days when Lowe seemed to have a bit of go in him and livened up the old farts. Time has sadly made him more like Askham and foes.

 

As for luck - City have missed penalties against us home and away. I don't think we can moan too much.

[slickmick]

With all the managers with English football experience, I cant believe that they can be dismissed as to expensive or not used to working with tight financial restraints as an excuse to not get as far as an interview.

 

Harry Redknapp made it clear that Rupert Lowe was trying to impose his opinion that a team of youngsters was the way forward. This has always been Ruperts plan and with our financial problems being well publicised , this gave Rupert the perfect excuse to hide behind.

Lets face it he would have done it regardless of our present plight.

[saint1977]

FFS - the logic is in these approaches have both pros and cons and if you had not let your love in with Crouch cloud your bnetter judgement you would see it to. We had nothing to lose FFS, were skint and narrowly escaped teh drop on the last day with players we could no longer afford. The logic was in teh fact if it had to be kids, then they were not going to get results the traditional way, but hopefully by playing a smarter more expansive passing game rather to combat the rough and ready style in the CCC - naturally it also had many cons and was a feckin risky strategy which as we have seen has failed, but that does not mean it did not ahve some logic- that is all I have said.

 

You seem to have lost any objectivity.

 

I've always liked you as a poster FC (and still do) but recently you do seem to have traded in your place on the fence yet are accusing others of lacking the balance you used to provide the forum with. We clearly could have used bargains from Leagues 1 and Europe (Sajis) as many CCC teams have done (Swansea) and mixed that up with the CREAM of the young players and some experience. I bet most of those teams have similar budgets to us now and some like Doncaster operate on even less) What Lowe opted for was half-baked and simplt not grounded in reality. Some kids won't cut it professional football.

[saint1977]

With all the managers with English football experience, I cant believe that they can be dismissed as to expensive or not used to working with tight financial restraints as an excuse to not get as far as an interview.

 

Harry Redknapp made it clear that Rupert Lowe was trying to impose his opinion that a team of youngsters was the way forward. This has always been Ruperts plan and with our financial problems being well publicised , this gave Rupert the perfect excuse to hide behind.

Lets face it he would have done it regardless of our present plight.

 

Sad but true. He's been found out though.

[Frank's cousin]

As I posted the other day, you're coming across as a complete idiot if on one hand you moan that Alpine pigeon holes you as a Lowe Luvvie and then do exactly the same with me regards Crouch.

 

Either a hypocrite or a fool.

 

 

 

Nothing to lose??

 

What planet are you on???

 

As people have been rightly pointing out, if we go down and into administration, we will lose quite alot.:rolleyes:

 

 

 

It didn't have to be kids and it certainly didn't have to be Poortvliet.

 

 

 

Behave yourself. You're the one trying to defend the indefensible by suggesting there was no other way, we had nothing to lose and it was all logical.

 

Go and have a lie down and then come back and let's discuss the logic of Poortvliet being appointed when he had no experience of this league, no nous on how to get results and a rather blinkered and one dimensional approach on how to set his teams out.

 

There was no logic to that approach other than a tenuous connection that Poortvliet had worked with a few teams in the lower leagues of Dutch football who had fck all money and a few youngsters.

 

Going on that logic, we should have scoured the Conference for our next manager.

 

Think you need to behave too UP. Firstly, You have made no secret of the fact that you are a Crouch supporter - that is fair enough, but I maintain that this does give your current postings a shed load of bias which is a very recent addition. 'Hypocrit or fool'? - surely you can do better than that... but hey whatever... You also know darn well that 'nothing to lose was in respect of the teh very necessary changes to the playing staff - now as you say we could have tried a different route that in your eyes would have provided a lesser degree of risk, fair enough, point conceded, but we are NOT arguing about the merits of OTHER plans but a simple point that there was some logiic in the decision, even if in hindsight, superior foresight or whatever, we can now all agree it was a mistake, it does not make that logic invalid - I am merely defending it because now that it has failed, its very easy to completely ignore any pros.

 

This might be a mute point, but its actually too seperate mistakes - 1) deciding to go down the just kids route, and 2) appointing JP. I would say appoint JP was the bigger of the two.

 

Lowe's mistake was in once again believeing that we would have enough quality to avoid the drop with JP and the kids as he did with Wigley and the squad we had then.

 

Finally, correct me if I am wrong, but you did not seem to be so voaccly active about this back in June...

[Frank's cousin]

Truth is Frank,

 

We could have cut costs WITHOUT going down the 'kids will be alright' route. This was the BIGGEST MISTAKE - not appointing JP.

 

We could have brought in more players on frees - but no, let's go for max publicity and early Sky appearances after they've been told how 'revolutionary' we are....

 

True, although none of us know the actuall contracts of players to be 100% sure on what was really affordable and what was not...

[Window Cleaner]

Truth is Frank,

 

We could have cut costs WITHOUT going down the 'kids will be alright' route. This was the BIGGEST MISTAKE - not appointing JP.

 

We could have brought in more players on frees - but no, let's go for max publicity and early Sky appearances after they've been told how 'revolutionary' we are....

 

Free transfers are rarely free.

Signing accomplished player on free transfers usually leads to significant outlay.

ie Jason Euell.

I think Lowe's plan was to avoid paying any signing on fees or transfer fees whatsoever. He made an exception for Schneiderlin but that hasn't worked out as well as planned.I don't think Morgan likes UK lower league football very much.

[Frank's cousin]

I've always liked you as a poster FC (and still do) but recently you do seem to have traded in your place on the fence yet are accusing others of lacking the balance you used to provide the forum with. We clearly could have used bargains from Leagues 1 and Europe (Sajis) as many CCC teams have done (Swansea) and mixed that up with the CREAM of the young players and some experience. I bet most of those teams have similar budgets to us now and some like Doncaster operate on even less) What Lowe opted for was half-baked and simplt not grounded in reality. Some kids won't cut it professional football.

 

Agreed, but as stated not sure what our contractualobligations were to the more senior players who all went on loan v budget etc - I think our problem was that some players were on higher wages following the Wilde/Crouch/Burley all or bust approach on promotion.

 

Re the fence sitting, objectivity questioning of UP. He has made no secret that he supports CRouch in the current climate, thats his choice. BUt he does put across his POV VERY strongly, bordering on PR for CRouch, which agan is his entitlement - many point are good and presented in such a way as to make me and others think about the pros of Crouch which is again a good thing, but he also has recently started ignoring the full meaning of others posts, cutting quotes to suit (when they lose their context) and trying to create an impression that because I am not supportive of Crouch, anything that is said not even in defence of LOwe, but in defence of some of the decisions (and the two are independent), that it has no value. Its only because historically he has always been pretty balanced and fair that this is currently so obviously OTT ...IMHO.

[um pahars]

Think you need to behave too UP. Firstly' date=' You have made no secret of the fact that you are a Crouch supporter - that is fair enough, but I maintain that this does give your current postings a shed load of bias which is a very recent addition. [/quote']

 

Well you obviously have had a problem reading and understanding what people post, because I am not a Crouch supporter and have said so on a number of occasions.

 

One more time, just for you. I do not want Crouch involved in the day to day decision making at the Club.

 

Now try and digest that.

 

 

'Hypocrit or fool'? - surely you can do better than that... but hey whatever...

 

Well, quite frankly you must be one of them if on one hand you whinge like fck when Alpine labels you a Lowe Luvvie, yet you yourself are quick to label me as a Crouch supporter (see above).

 

 

You also know darn well that 'nothing to lose was in respect of the teh very necessary changes to the playing staff - now as you say we could have tried a different route that in your eyes would have provided a lesser degree of risk, fair enough, point conceded, but we are NOT arguing about the merits of OTHER plans but a simple point that there was some logiic in the decision, even if in hindsight, superior foresight or whatever, we can now all agree it was a mistake, it does not make that logic invalid - I am merely defending it because now that it has failed, its very easy to completely ignore any pros.

 

This might be a mute point, but its actually too seperate mistakes - 1) deciding to go down the just kids route, and 2) appointing JP. I would say appoint JP was the bigger of the two.

 

Lowe's mistake was in once again believeing that we would have enough quality to avoid the drop with JP and the kids as he did with Wigley and the squad we had then.

 

Logic implies the application of sensible rational thought and argument, rather than ideas that are influenced by emotion, whim or even ego, and I would concur that Lowe used little of the former and bucketloads of the latter.

 

Finally' date=' correct me if I am wrong, but you did not seem to be so voaccly active about this back in June... [/quote']

 

At this point, I can only assume you've really lost it.:rolleyes:

[Frank's cousin]

Why the insults? you seem to have lost it, if thats what you need to resort to.

 

You make a very big assumption - it your opinion that no application of sensible rational thought and argument was applied... its a sweeping statement and you know it - In your 'expert' opinion it might not have been what you would have argued and teh conclusions may be different, but you dont know what was discussed and what went through the decision makers minds in making that decision. You never used to join the 'sweeping statement' bull**** bandwagon so whats changed?

 

You were very vocal about the decision not to continue with Pearson and as you may or may not recall, I was also dissapointed in that, but that is NOT the question that was posed here.

 

You have stated that of the three options you believe Crouch to be the best of a bad bunch - I have merely stated that I dont believe any of them have the answer right now...

[um pahars]

Why the insults? you seem to have lost it' date=' if thats what you need to resort to.[/quote']

 

Just calling it exactly how I see it, and quite frankly as I don't have you down for a fool, I therefore must say that your posts regarding being labelled a Lowe Luvvie, yet being happy to do exactly the same, have shown you up to be hypocrite.

 

You make a very big assumption - it your opinion that no application of sensible rational thought and argument was applied... its a sweeping statement and you know it - In your 'expert' opinion it might not have been what you would have argued and teh conclusions may be different' date=' but you dont know what was discussed and what went through the decision makers minds in making that decision. You never used to join the 'sweeping statement' bull**** bandwagon so whats changed?[/quote']

 

Alot of waffle, not much substance. Not really sure what you're trying to say here.

 

You were very vocal about the decision not to continue with Pearson and as you may or may not recall' date=' I was also dissapointed in that, but that is NOT the question that was posed here. [/quote']

 

What was the question you're referring to?

 

You have stated that of the three options you believe Crouch to be the best of a bad bunch - I have merely stated that I dont believe any of them have the answer right now...

 

Where have I said that?

 

Going back to when Hone and Co were still in charge, my position has always been a non aligned independent chairman, a non aligned salaried CEO, Non exec positions for the three major blocks of shareholders.

 

But cutting to the chase, your support of the appointment of Poortvliet is embarrassing, with or without hindsight.

[Pancake]

I was enjoying the banter between SW/Macro et al. and the inpus from Buzzin etc... then I got bored by the same discussion about Lowe/Wilde/Crouch/Hone/Hoos again...

[St_Tel49]

I was enjoying the banter between SW/Macro et al. and the inpus from Buzzin etc... then I got bored by the same discussion about Lowe/Wilde/Crouch/Hone/Hoos again...

 

The problem is Pancake that 90% of the posts are cycling the same arguments over and over again. People clearly don't have enough to do. Speaking of which I'd better get back to work ;-)

[Frank's cousin]

Just calling it exactly how I see it, and quite frankly as I don't have you down for a fool, I therefore must say that your posts regarding being labelled a Lowe Luvvie, yet being happy to do exactly the same, have shown you up to be hypocrite.

 

OK, maybe misread the signs - got that wrong hands held up...

 

 

Alot of waffle, not much substance. Not really sure what you're trying to say here.

 

Simple - you have assumed that no thought was put into the decision - I merely said this was your OPINION not FACT as how could you possibly know this? you might not have agreed with the arguments, pros and cons, but I oubt these decision are on a whim even if you believe they must be because YOU cant determine any logic in them.

 

What was the question you're referring to?

 

This was not about the pros and cons of Pearson - but about whether there was any logc in the JP and the kids decision - I believe there was - its now proved to be flawed fair enough

 

Where have I said that?

 

As above, but it was the perception you have given, Got it wrong, apologies etc

 

Going back to when Hone and Co were still in charge, my position has always been a non aligned independent chairman, a non aligned salaried CEO, Non exec positions for the three major blocks of shareholders.

 

Problem here is they would never agree on who would fulfil teh 'non-aligned' parts as any 'reccommendation from any party would undoubtedly be 'poo-pooed by the the others.... as desirable as your option appears to be.

 

But cutting to the chase, your support of the appointment of Poortvliet is embarrassing, with or without hindsight.

 

This I have issue with. Like many on here I had NO idea about JP/Wotte, and we have enough experience to show that 'history'/experience' is never a cert one way or the other as far as managers go... be honest about this, we did not know. So yes at the time I thought the idea of JP/Wotte and kids playing a passing game, which we saw show some promise early season as positive (this is independent ofthe pearson issue by the way) - It might have worked out - I just find it incredulous that after the fact AND with the benefit of hindisght suddenly everyone is an expert and an 'I told you so' - there was naturally a good percetage of fans who were dissapointed Pearson had not been given his chance - I was one of them, but that did not mean I could not be hopeful of something different and especially when many agreed that there were signs of entertaining and enjoyable football being played - I believed the results must surely come. Its sad that they did not and sad that its not worked, but the degree of revisionism on this matter is at best interesting at worst astounding.

[Window Cleaner]

This I have issue with. Like many on here I had NO idea about JP/Wotte' date=' and we have enough experience to show that 'history'/experience' is never a cert one way or the other as far as managers go... be honest about this, we did not know. So yes at the time I thought the idea of JP/Wotte and kids playing a passing game, which we saw show some promise early season as positive (this is independent ofthe pearson issue by the way) - It might have worked out - I just find it incredulous that after the fact AND with the benefit of hindisght suddenly everyone is an expert and an 'I told you so' - there was naturally a good percetage of fans who were dissapointed Pearson had not been given his chance - I was one of them, but that did not mean I could not be hopeful of something different and especially when many agreed that there were signs of entertaining and enjoyable football being played - I believed the results must surely come. Its sad that they did not and sad that its not worked, but the degree of revisionism on this matter is at best interesting at worst astounding.[/quote']

 

But at the end of the day our problem has been the same for most of the season--scoring. If we'd have thumped Blackpool like we should have and converted those 2 penalties against Watford we'd have now been on

34 points, Watford would be on 27 and Blackpool...well does it matter.

We can't ferking well score, the rest stems from it. We mistakenly gave Lallana a "hole" role for the entire first part of the season and threw away many goal opportunities with it. Now the doom and gloom has crept in a we're sure that we won't score even before we try.

[Frank's cousin]

But at the end of the day our problem has been the same for most of the season--scoring. If we'd have thumped Blackpool like we should have and converted those 2 penalties against Watford we'd have now been on

34 points, Watford would be on 27 and Blackpool...well does it matter.

We can't ferking well score, the rest stems from it. We mistakenly gave Lallana a "hole" role for the entire first part of the season and threw away many goal opportunities with it. Now the doom and gloom has crept in a we're sure that we won't score even before we try.

 

But then is this more about the way we played and the manager not getting the best from this young squad that is at falut, the fact we only have kids, the system, or the initial decision? Now I am confused ;-)

I suspect as always a combination of all of the above, but what does this say about it all?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I just find it incredulous that after the fact AND with the benefit of hindisght suddenly everyone is an expert and an 'I told you so' - there was naturally a good percetage of fans who were dissapointed Pearson had not been given his chance

 

Come on let's be fair about it , there were a great many fans on here who were extremely worried about this season even before a ball had been kicked . This season's strategy was always likely to fail as it has - that's not revisionism or being wise after the event it's called judgment .

[Window Cleaner]

But then is this more about the way we played and the manager not getting the best from this young squad that is at falut, the fact we only have kids, the system, or the initial decision? Now I am confused ;-)

I suspect as always a combination of all of the above, but what does this say about it all?

 

 

it says we can't score from easy chances. I am a firm believer that any footballer who is on a professional contract with a League side should be able to slot the ball into an open goal from 9 yards, which is what Lallana didn't do against Blackpool. Euell missed 2 easy goals on Saturday. Our whole season has been categorised by missing easy chances. that's nothing to do with the age or experience of the players or who's in the boardroom or on the manager's bench. It is basic football.I have seen kids on parks slot in some of the stuff we've put wide this season.

To me it doesn't matter how we play,good bad or indifferent, we've been all of them this season, the common factor is that we can't do what football is about, stick the ball in the net.

[um pahars]

Its sad that they did not and sad that its not worked' date=' but the degree of revisionism on this matter is at best interesting at worst astounding.[/quote']

 

I think you're the one who is rewriting history Frank.

 

There were many, many, many posters, nay supporters, who had major worries concerning the appointment of an inexperienced Dutch no-mark, an appointment made worse by the fact that he had replaced someone who had shown a semblence of being able to turn things around.

 

Of course, there were some who for whatever reasons (hatred of Crouch, blind devotion to Lowe) saw this as the Glorious Revolution, but there were many who had major concerns and loads more who whilst they tried to be positive, saw it as a massive gamble.

[Mole]

It's a pity Frank wasn't so principled when he took part in SOS. He took revisionism to a whole new level.

[Frank's cousin]

Come on let's be fair about it , there were a great many fans on here who were extremely worried about this season even before a ball had been kicked . This season's strategy was always likely to fail as it has - that's not revisionism or being wise after the event it's called judgment .

 

I take that point - but this is part of the problem with such strong feelings on the Lowe angle - there was probably amongst some, a natural suspicion (wrongly fair enough in most cases) that the issues folk wer having with JP was because of the Lowe decsion and the feelings from the release of Pearson. All I have tried - in vain it seems - is to argue that the decision was not without some merit, albe it a risky strategy and that teh early signs were promising - I woudl also say that there was a more even split between thsoe excited by the early promise and those 'with judgement' - yet somehow many more are now wise after the fact...

[Frank's cousin]

It's a pity Frank wasn't so principled when he took part in SOS. He took revisionism to a whole new level.

 

Explain please because you have lost me there...

[Frank's cousin]

Of course, there were some who for whatever reasons (hatred of Crouch, blind devotion to Lowe) saw this as the Glorious Revolution, but there were many who had major concerns and loads more who whilst they tried to be positive, saw it as a massive gamble.

 

Dont think many saw this as a glorious revolution at all - more tried to see what positives there were especially after the early season promise thats all really.

[Mole]

Explain please because you have lost me there...

 

You know very well what i'm getting at but i'll spare you the embarrassment.

[david in sweden]

Here you go SW

http://www.footstats.co.uk/index.cfm?task=Teams

 

They have us at 216 shots on target and 185 off target. 401 shots. Just like i said.

We have a scoring record of 7% of our shots, meaning 1 goal every 13 shots.

 

Of course they are just some wierd site, could just make it up

 

 

 

....or looking at it another way.

As soon as we START scoring goals, we'll score 6 every game !

[Frank's cousin]

You know very well what i'm getting at but i'll spare you the embarrassment.

 

Oh the old 'we will report back' and then did not thing? NOt embarrassed at all, ****ed off certainly for being put in that position, but not embarrassed. Took an opportunity to hera the man speak, coud have walked or stayed... how many would have walked? not many if they are truely honest with themselves.

[Mole]

Oh the old 'we will report back' and then did not thing? NOt embarrassed at all' date=' ****ed off certainly for being put in that position, but not embarrassed. Took an opportunity to hera the man speak, coud have walked or stayed... how many would have walked? not many if they are truely honest with themselves.[/quote']

 

 

What does the word "integrity" mean to you Frank?

[Frank's cousin]

What does the word "integrity" mean to you Frank?

 

Haha ha thats rich - I dont need to explain myself to you, just because you are still bitter and twisted about this, and you have FAILED to respond to my point - But for those who dont know waht you are going on about, its quite simple some would argue that when being asked not to repeat something publically, its a mteer of integrity to remain quiet.

 

You know darn well this has feck all to with it anyway - its just a SAD bitter and twisted response based on some sort of ridculous jealousy for you to even still be thinking about it.

 

The mistake if any was in thinking it would help, the second was in making a promise that we could not keep if we went through with the meeting, but the biggest was even bothering to tell anyone given the infantile response it caused.

 

Guilty of making a mistake for sure, but for you to question the integrity is laughable and vindictive.

[Deano6]

For those interested in the stats, this pic shows it all...

 

 

Top of the shots, well ahead of most, with an average of 13 per game.

 

54% of our shots are on target which is also well up there.

 

However we are a long way bottom of Goals as a %age of Shots (12.9%) which this table is sorted on.

 

 

Pedants who spot this stat is different to the one I quoted above should note this one is taken as a percentage of the shots that were on target, my earlier one was for all shots.

 

 

Quite incredibly we need to shoot THREE TIMES as much as Reading in order to score a goal!

[St Marco]

For those interested in the stats, this pic shows it all...

 

 

Top of the shots, well ahead of most, with an average of 13 per game.

 

54% of our shots are on target which is also well up there.

 

However we are a long way bottom of Goals as a %age of Shots (12.9%) which this table is sorted on.

 

 

Pedants who spot this stat is different to the one I quoted above should note this one is taken as a percentage of the shots that were on target, my earlier one was for all shots.

 

 

Quite incredibly we need to shoot THREE TIMES as much as Reading in order to score a goal!

 

Indeed and thats why it makes the other table even more laughable.

 

After spending a bit more time trying to figure out how the CCC website got to their figures i can only conclude they must include things such as corners and errors of play that result in goal kicks i.e miss passes. The other interesting this is if you look at that table Watford should be miles away from what they are because they have a over 30% shot to goal ratio. The problem is they also have a over 30% shot to goal conceed ratio to which is very high, 10% more then ours! I wonder if those stats would of been different if we had John and Saga playing instead of DMG, i think they would be.

[Ludwig]

Indeed and thats why it makes the other table even more laughable.

 

After spending a bit more time trying to figure out how the CCC website got to their figures i can only conclude they must include things such as corners and errors of play that result in goal kicks i.e miss passes. The other interesting this is if you look at that table Watford should be miles away from what they are because they have a over 30% shot to goal ratio. The problem is they also have a over 30% shot to goal conceed ratio to which is very high, 10% more then ours! I wonder if those stats would of been different if we had John and Saga playing instead of DMG, i think they would be.

 

Being good at taking chances does not mean that you're necessarily good at creating chances, nor does it guarantee that you can prevent chances being created against you, so why does Watford being able to take chances mean that they should be miles away from where they are?

 

Also - why does it make the 'other table' so laughable and inaccurate when there's only a difference of 3 shots between them. Or do those 3 shots alter the statistics so hugely beyond recognition that they present us as significantly worse/better? :smt115

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I take that point - but this is part of the problem with such strong feelings on the Lowe angle - there was probably amongst some' date=' a natural suspicion (wrongly fair enough in most cases) that the issues folk wer having with JP was because of the Lowe decsion and the feelings from the release of Pearson. All I have tried - in vain it seems - is to argue that the decision was not without some merit, albe it a risky strategy and that teh early signs were promising - I woudl also say that there was a more even split between thsoe excited by the early promise and those 'with judgement' - yet somehow many more are now wise after the fact...[/quote']

 

You could well say plenty on here were 'wise' before -after-and during the fact to be honest , although I hasten to add that the list of my incorrect , mistaken , or just plain stupid football opinions is longer than I care to remember . :smt086

 

It remains my opinion FWIW that SFC's preparations for this season were so far removed from the model of how a team should be organised that disaster was (even without the benefit of hindsight) very easy to predict . There's a straight and narrow path leading to success in lower league British football , it involves straight forward tactics being employed by as good a group of experienced players as you can afford under the sole command of a proper Manager .

 

We ignored most of that and when you take liberties with the game it always comes back to bite you , and that's got absolutly nothing to do with luck .

[um pahars]

It remains my opinion FWIW that SFC's preparations for this season were so far removed from the model of how a team should be organised that disaster was (even without the benefit of hindsight) very easy to predict .

 

Absolutely.

 

And what worries me most, is that the preparations and start to this season were so similar to the farce that was the 2004/05 season.

 

And that season was not farcial just because we lost our place at the top table (as others have pointed out, it's an annual risk for most teams), it was the manner in which we gave ourselves a mountain to climb but ccking it up right from the start!!!!!!

 

I just hope history does not repeat itself, as although the fall out from relelgation last time was shattering, I fear that the fall out this time around might be catastophic!!!!

[saintwarwick]

Indeed and thats why it makes the other table even more laughable.

 

After spending a bit more time trying to figure out how the CCC website got to their figures i can only conclude they must include things such as corners and errors of play that result in goal kicks i.e miss passes. The other interesting this is if you look at that table Watford should be miles away from what they are because they have a over 30% shot to goal ratio. The problem is they also have a over 30% shot to goal conceed ratio to which is very high, 10% more then ours! I wonder if those stats would of been different if we had John and Saga playing instead of DMG, i think they would be.

 

What table is that then and who is this CCC website you are on about? By the way that table which shows us bottom of the pack still shows us as number one at shots, the stats don't lie. I also agree John should be playing for us to to convert some of these chances (Saga is already playing) and stats mean nothing unless you put a decent percentage away which we don't.

[St_Tel49]

Indeed and thats why it makes the other table even more laughable.

 

After spending a bit more time trying to figure out how the CCC website got to their figures i can only conclude they must include things such as corners and errors of play that result in goal kicks i.e miss passes. The other interesting this is if you look at that table Watford should be miles away from what they are because they have a over 30% shot to goal ratio. The problem is they also have a over 30% shot to goal conceed ratio to which is very high, 10% more then ours! I wonder if those stats would of been different if we had John and Saga playing instead of DMG, i think they would be.

Frankly, unless you actually sit and laboriously keep a record of shots yourself you are not really in a position to question their stats. Yours is an impression and therefore highly subjective. As I said before, the only stat that is of any real relevance is the one that says you have x points.

[SW11_Saint]

Everytime this question comes up people say you make your own luck.

 

Well.. after yesterday......a penalty saved, then hitting the post TWICE

had more shots on target than City ......but then the flukey second goal .

 

Does anyone out there believe in luck.....either good or bad ?

No.