Just back  (merged)

Quoted from headingly_mariner

He massively changed the game by bringing Maher on and changing the shape. We were drowning until that happened and it probably won us the game.

Quoted from Maringer

You're anti-data?

Crikey, that's a bit odd. Data is nothing more than measurable information, so I can't really see why anybody would be against it.

More accurate to say that you are against the misuse of data. Sometimes this is deliberate (think sleazy politicians and people with an agenda), sometimes inadvertent because lots of people don't understand how to analyse it properly. I remember doing a statistics module at University (long time ago now!) and it was quite interesting to find how easy it is to misinterpret data. It was also flipping boring, but that's another matter.

The sports science data you're talking about is just measurable information. How Hurst and his staff interpret it is what is important and, given they've got sports science experts working with them, you'd expect them to be able to analyse it correctly.

Numbers of interceptions and xG might not mean something over one or two games, but they can't help but show a trend over the course of a season (or seasons).

Railing against something which could be useful as just part of the jigsaw is a strange stance to take.

Quoted from headingly_mariner

He massively changed the game by bringing Maher on and changing the shape. We were drowning until that happened and it probably won us the game.

Quoted from ginnywings

I keep reading that we have no discernible style of play. Yeah, Hurst says to them, "grab a shirt, any shirt you want, first eleven to get one plays, and just go out there and do what you want". As if we don't spend all week training and studying the opposition.

Quoted from mariner91

We don’t have a discernible style of play. We have played a quarter of our league games, can you tell us what our aim is when attacking? Because as far as I can see it’s “get it to Eisa and hope for the best”. I think it’s disingenuous to say that just because others are saying we don’t have an obvious plan or pattern of play that they must therefore be claiming they Hurst sends them out without a plan. But the plan doesn’t seem to work very smoothly. We have had a high press at times but not consistently and beyond that we’re mostly reliant on Eisa doing something or the opposition losing concentration/making an error. We create precious few good opportunities ourselves, even when on top, and the quality of our final ball is poor more often than not.  

Eleven league games in is relatively early still but given the whole point of getting the players signed early in the window is to maximise your time in training with them, it’s very disconcerting that we looked like a team that had been cobbled together on the night on Tuesday. There’s no way Barrow will have a bigger budget than us and Wild only took over there 10 days before our play off final when he wouldn’t have known the squad or players etc. So why do they look so much better coached than we do?

Quoted from AncientExiledMariner

We dominated many games. Parts of Bradford and Crawley for example.

You cannot just take our worst game and say we look dreadful and Barrows best performance. Teams over the course of the season will have good games and bad games. It is very rare a team dominates a full match. You will have your moments in them and it's about capitalising and defending when the other team pull it together.

Our team is going for a more possession style type of football (minus Barrow), and that brings with it new challenges. Previously you're not possession, you defend more and counter quick. In possession, you probe and build up, you bring other players in. You need to be more composed and work your way out of danger to take pressure off. It's a whole different style of play, and players that haven't always played in that style are probably still adjusting to decision making and approach in these games, and Hurst/Doig will be feeding back to them where they need to improve in some elements of these. It's going to take time until this is natural, and how you execute the plan will be different based on whether you're at home and confident or away. Whether you're winning, drawing or losing. You cannot teach someone to not panic, or to run your balderdash off regardless, they are behaviours, but you can teach people how to choose the right options (going wide, going forwards, going back under pressure).

Eisa is clearly a confident player and players may be tempted to pass to him because of that, but if they only do that, it can become predictable, so it's for the coaching staff to give them extra strings in their bow and more unpredictability. Plus, as they learn more about their team mates, they'll know more about what they're going to do. Rose has barely played with Khan, or Wilson. Eisa has barely played with Andrews. These things take time.

Quoted from mariner91

We don’t have a discernible style of play. We have played a quarter of our league games, can you tell us what our aim is when attacking? Because as far as I can see it’s “get it to Eisa and hope for the best”.

Quoted from ginnywings

Was about to post something along the same lines.

Every man and his dog who pays his entrance fee thinks he knows more than the manager. If only PH would put player x in position y and if only he would play this formation, or that formation, we would suddenly become this all conquering, marauding, goal scoring machine.

I keep reading that we have no discernible style of play. Yeah, Hurst says to them, "grab a shirt, any shirt you want, first eleven to get one plays, and just go out there and do what you want". As if we don't spend all week training and studying the opposition.

But guess what? The opposition spend all week doing the same thing, and sometimes they are just better at it than we are. Perhaps they have a better budget, and better players, or perhaps they have just been working at it longer than we have, and are further along in their development than we are.

Barrow made us look disjointed because they were better and outplayed us, and yet we won the game and are a massive 2 points behind them in the league, despite the fact they have so far played Tranmere, Sutton, Accrington, Harrogate, Morecambe, Newport and Doncaster in their opening 10 games, which is in stark contrast to our own start.

Now, I'm fully aware we haven't been great, but we've been pretty good in a few games, albeit without the rewards I think we have deserved, so winning against Barrow with our worst performance of the season is just a bit of karma I reckon. We've not quite clicked yet but have been decent in patches and have taken the lead in (I think) 8 of our 11 games so far.

The other argument is that we don't create anything, and yet we created more than Crawley and Swindon in recent games, and I'm willing to bet there are plenty of other teams in the league with less creativity than us, some of whom we will shortly be playing. Turning chance into goals has been what has let us down so far, with Swindon being a particularly bad day at the office.

I get there are plenty on here who will disagree, but for me, we have to be a bit more patient, and not extrapolate an average start as meaning we will carry on in this vein for the rest of the season. If we do, then yes, have a chunter, and I will join you in that.

Quoted from Ash brown

There are plenty of experts out there, I got a particularly annoying idiot sat behind me who was talking to himself giving instructions to the players everytime they got the ball. I'd imagine in an attempt to show to everyone in earshot how much he knows about football. Just sing and shout support for the boys who pull on the shirt, don't be that mammary who plays football manager and waffles on about stats, xg etc