Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Ha ha ha. You know that point in time when people stop laughing with you, and start laughing at you?
It's now!
Tut tut told you not to include Christie. The selection of Cyrus Christie is ENTIRELY down to Thorn. Also I have not included 2 other under 21's who have come from other clubs and played 12 games between them. Nilemely 9 subs for Coventry BLIMEY!
Your research is clearly flawed. You've chosen an arbitrary age of 23 because it suits the purpose of your debate. A player aged 23 isn't a kid. Gunnarsson had 25 international caps by that age. Choose a proper age to define a 'kid' such as 20 and the reality of the figures begins to strike home.
With the latter, dare I say more sensible, criteria we have played more 'kids' more often that any other team in the league.
Inexperienced players headed by an inexperienced coach is a perfect storm.
But never shy away from the fact that Thorn is disadvantaged even against our peers at the bottom of the league
I think once stats start getting used in argument there is always an alternate stat to back up the opposite view. It's a vicious circle.
Fact is for me at any rate it is NOT all about SISU's culpability.
Other teams have indeed played plenty of 'inexperienced' youngsters in their teams. I have always maintained that we are not (regardless of the argument against) far from the weakest squad in this league.
With what we have we should be doing better.
Otis has consistently said why do we do so well at home but the same squad fail to muster a single win away from home? Difficult to make reasoned argument for that one surely?
That stat of away defeats alone suggest the coaching and management ability ARE in question. You simply can't argue against that fact.
No one is suggesting we are not a great squad, far from it but regardless of the turmoil behind the scenes we should have amassed a few more points on our travels. Had we done so we would likely be a few places above the bottom 3 having a poor season, blaming SISU for their non investment etc and giving the manager adequate support in difficult times I dare say.
BUT that is not the case is it? That away record is currently our kiss of death and just proves the point further of the management/coaching ineptitude.
Unless Harrison and Thorn get to grips with that, can change it and fast, we will go down. That's the ONLY STAT you need.
Ha ha ha. You know that point in time when people stop laughing with you, and start laughing at you?
It's now!
Ha ha ha. You know that point in time when people stop laughing with you, and start laughing at you?
It's now!
So Forest are not in the bottom 3 because they have an experienced manager. Nothing to do with a much better squad and underachieving this season.
Well done Duff. You must be correct as usual.
"Ooh mockery is such a cruel emotion"
Oh my fecking God, did somebody actually write that?
So how have they done this year?
OK Duff, so we have the best squad at the bottom of the table? Be careful, they will be sending you to the funny farm soon.
And I remember the forest fans saying he should have been playing more games and not left on the bench. Am I imagining things like you usially do now? Hopefully I will end up in a different funny farm to you.
Gross hyperbole and misrepresentation. Sign of defeat.
Here are some raw statistics concerning the ages of the City squad, including every player listed as a first team player on the club website.
The average age of the squad is 23.8 years. The standard deviation is 5.1 years-treating 2 standard deviations from the mean as the limit for outliers, Hreidarsson (37) can be removed from the data. This takes down the average age to 23.3, so not a great effect. 19 squad members are 23+, the remaining 13 are 20 or younger.
Interpret as you will, and yes I am that sad
All those who say that P'boro have a poor squad remember they have held onto England prospect Lewis in goal, have had help from Man Utd (ok we have Norwood nowbut only recently) and they have just spent £1m on a player which is over three times more than our entire transfer budget this season. Just because you don't know the names in their squad doesn't mean they are worse than ours. How many of their fans do you think know much about Christie, Thomas, Bigi or even Norwood and Nimley?
Over the recent weeks there have been many comments regarding the unsuitability of the squad and that the reasons for the current predicament should lie 100% at the owners door for lack of investment in the squad. There is no doubt that the plight the club faces is of course in a large part down to this and that it would be impossible to ignore the lack of investment. However, some of us have questioned other factors as well and that management change may have yielded an improvement.
Certain factions shout this down and say nothing could and would change due to numerous factors. Let's explore some of these factors in a bit of detail;
1 "The team lacks experience"
The club is accused of having a frail and inexperienced squad which have not played enough games to threaten opposition.
I have looked at the teams some of the teams around us to see if this is true.
The average games played by team of the selected bunch is as follows (i.e league apperances divided by 11)
- Coventry - 184
- Forest - 177
- Palace 212
- Peteborough 194
- Doncaster - 233
- Derby - 227
So Coventry are in the lower of the selection but difference between many is marginal. Forest is the least on this data. Remember though Coventry did not even have Bell or Eastwood in the squad and Clingan on the bench. If Clingan and Bell had played instead of Nimley and Norwood the average age would have been 230 only bettered by Doncaster. So this appears a myth in fact Eastwood and Bell were not in the squad and have played over 500 games between them.
Fatc of the matter is we are one of the lowest how does that compare with the rest of the division. As the teams around us are around us for a reason?
The other way experience can be interpreted is by age. Average age of the players on show are as follows;
Coventry - 25
Doncaster - 28
Forest - 25
Derby - 27
Palace - 26
Peterborough - 25
Other than Doncaster who have 5 over 30's no significant difference. Coventry if rounded have higher than Posh and Forest. Again Clingan and Bell would raise the age to 27.
2. "The team is Full of Kids"
We had 4 players of 23 and under. This is the most but Derby had 3 so did Forest Palace and Peterborough while the rest had 2. Clingan, McDonald, Bell though were not played. Also the age thing is subjective anyway Forest had no player over 27.
However like you say we have the most and it is not the kids side of it, it is whether you have those kids there through choice because they are good enough or because it has been forced on you. On this one you usually say well AT chose to have Christie. Well now Clarke is fit what has happened?
3. "Our bench is weak"
Again on age questionable;
We had 2 under 23
Doncaster - 2
Forest - 3
Derby - 2
Palace - 2
Peterborough - 3
I would say most people mean on quaility regarding this and it is only now it has improved
4. "An experienced manager makes no difference"
Difficult to say but the bottom 3 clubs appear to have the 3 most inexperienced managers in division.
Interesting please can you tell me why 19 or 20. The palace player who is considered a massive threat is 19. Gunnarsons most effective season for us was his first. How was he I can't recall.
We had 4 of that age by choice 2 or 3 could easily have been replaced.
In your somewhat juvenile rant the other night when you asked me to no longer take part in the forum you mentioned experience. My interpretation of that analysis shows this to be a myth.
What was your definition that led you to conclude this or was no research done and it was a guess ?
That's a very good point cov-russel.
Lets go back and start Bothryod's first season and he stunned everyone by putting Turner and Cameron in defense? They played perfectly for over half a season until injury started to mess it up. They had no experience and it was a shock to everyone but Bothroyd. They were young and inexperienced but became experienced after playing so much of the season and performing admirably.
Now look at Turner...one of the best CB's in the league at Cardiff.
Experience comes with playing and if your old enough you can be good enough.
The thing is imo we've been lucky that the players who have come in, have had the ability to step up. It could have gone horribly wrong, but we were ripped apart and expecting boys to do a mens job. If you look at both sides of your argument here, the boys are young. Equally they are now more experienced and our more recent results have improved. Hopefully this will give them confidence in th same way that breaking that awful away run will. I'm sure as soon as they have that monkey off their back they can kick on again. This is the reason why I still believe that we can just about avoid the trap door. I also think that even without investment, if we can hold what we have and perhaps get a full season on loan from Nimley who seems happy here, then I think we could be a comfortable mid-table team next term.
Christie hasn’t been played solely due to Thorns choice; and some of the claims made in that regard are preposterous.
If we still had Turner, and Craine had been fit all season, then Keogh would be at right-back, Turner and Craine in the centre-half berths, with Wood and McPake offering back up. But the sale of players, injuries and a lack of form from experience heads has given rise to widespread juggling of the back-four pack; and the gossamer-thin nature of the squad giving rise to the use of Christie, Cameron and Clarke staring over 40 games between them. In a better season, they’d have started a quarter of that number and played forming cameo roles from the bench.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?