brad
Season Ticket Holder
Posts: 172
|
Post by brad on Feb 11, 2024 19:03:56 GMT
Photo of Dobson in there shirt. No there isn't a picture of him in their shirt at all. he's holding it and even that is dubious from what I have been reading. Looks liek Nathan Jones has intervened in this, I hope that's the case because we need somebody like him to make Andy Scott look like the real wanker he is.  This was the case Reams |
|
|
|
Post by sevenoaks on Feb 11, 2024 19:14:05 GMT
Yes until end of the season That should make all those that think George Dobson is the next Claude Makélélé happy. Presumably if George comes back into the side, now, we should go on a run of ten straight wins, all with clean sheets - what with him being the best player in our squad, and the only one that cares about the club or gives 100% when he plays. Thanks heavens for that. Relegation fears all gone! Nobody said he was Makelele, but he is our bloody captain, and the only player that supporters connect to. In nearly 60 years of supporting, I have never been so p****d off with a decision as I have been that one. |
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on Feb 11, 2024 19:20:03 GMT
That should make all those that think George Dobson is the next Claude Makélélé happy. Presumably if George comes back into the side, now, we should go on a run of ten straight wins, all with clean sheets - what with him being the best player in our squad, and the only one that cares about the club or gives 100% when he plays. Thanks heavens for that. Relegation fears all gone! Dobson certainly has his limitations but out of the current crop that Scott has brought in who actually looks better? To be honest I’ve not seen enough of the January recruits but off the top of my head I would say that Camara is better that Dobson and the jury is still out on Coventry, Taylor and Bakinson. Fiorini has hardly played so, obviously, no idea how good he will be. |
|
|
|
Post by clarky on Feb 11, 2024 19:32:51 GMT
Dobson certainly has his limitations but out of the current crop that Scott has brought in who actually looks better? To be honest I’ve not seen enough of the January recruits but off the top of my head I would say that Camara is better that Dobson and the jury is still out on Coventry, Taylor and Bakinson. Fiorini has hardly played so, obviously, no idea how good he will be. Camara isn't a no.4 though, neither is Fiorini. Bakinson. Is probably the nearest but doesn't look that good to me. |
|
|
|
Post by coastman2020 on Feb 11, 2024 19:50:02 GMT
I've always said I can take a win,a loss(not as many as currently mind)or a draw as long as I can see that those players walking off after that final whistle have given 200% regardless of ability,I have to see that commitment. Dobbo and maybe only 2or3 more fall into that category for me atm,sad times!!
|
|
|
|
Post by sevenoaks on Feb 11, 2024 20:00:25 GMT
Dobson certainly has his limitations but out of the current crop that Scott has brought in who actually looks better? To be honest I’ve not seen enough of the January recruits but off the top of my head I would say that Camara is better that Dobson and the jury is still out on Coventry, Taylor and Bakinson. Fiorini has hardly played so, obviously, no idea how good he will be. Yes Canera maybe a better footballer when fit, but George Dobson rarely injured. |
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Feb 11, 2024 20:27:19 GMT
Dobson certainly has his limitations but out of the current crop that Scott has brought in who actually looks better? To be honest I’ve not seen enough of the January recruits but off the top of my head I would say that Camara is better that Dobson and the jury is still out on Coventry, Taylor and Bakinson. Fiorini has hardly played so, obviously, no idea how good he will be. Dobson is a CDM which is kinda a vital slot - it's unclear what players and tactics Jones will employ but any debate around Coventry vs Dobson is academic right now. Surely what we require is a decision on whether its a back three or not, and which keeper - looking like Isted. Then are we looking at 3-4-3, 3-5-2 or what and how will Jones solve our xG for dilemma? We need a win and that probably means two goals. In turn that normally requires 15 attempts and an xG of 1.4 or more. Dobbo doesn't create chances but he does break up the opposition play and can distribute. Not long to wait for the next team sheet when we get an idea of his the management see things. As for the U-turn, one wonders how this is going to pan out on and off the pitch. One can speculate but prefer to wait and see. |
|
|
|
Post by ploppy on Feb 11, 2024 20:40:05 GMT
I hate xG almost as much as VAR. It's subjective bullshit that completely fails to grasp the fact that football (and life in general, for that matter) isn't something that can be broken down into black and white, yes/no binary outcomes.
The ball is passed to a player in an open position with a clear sight of goal. He misses. Does xG take into account any of the following:
The player may have ran the length of the pitch to be in that position, and is physically exhausted.
When the ball arrives it is spinning in a way that makes it less likely to hit the target.
The condition of the pitch.
The condition of the wind.
The condition of their boots.
I'm purposely being a bit ridiculous, but the point is that there are so many variables that can affect what constitutes a chance. None of this even factors in the positive things that happen for the player to create that chance in the first place.
It might look good on paper, but xG is meaningless.
My mum told me this.
|
|
|
|
Post by clarky on Feb 11, 2024 20:49:55 GMT
I hate xG almost as much as VAR. It's subjective bullshit that completely fails to grasp the fact that football (and life in general, for that matter) isn't something that can be broken down into black and white, yes/no binary outcomes. The ball is passed to a player in an open position with a clear sight of goal. He misses. Does xG take into account any of the following: The player may have ran the length of the pitch to be in that position, and is physically exhausted. When the ball arrives it is spinning in a way that makes it less likely to hit the target. The condition of the pitch. The condition of the wind. The condition of their boots. I'm purposely being a bit ridiculous, but the point is that there are so many variables that can affect what constitutes a chance. None of this even factors in the positive things that happen for the player to create that chance in the first place. It might look good on paper, but xG is meaningless. My mum told me this. I couldn't agree more, we are 20th in the league knowing what our XG stats are, so they are meaningless when you don't have the players on the pitch that can actually win games in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam’s Razor on Feb 11, 2024 20:51:43 GMT
I hate xG almost as much as VAR. It's subjective bullshit that completely fails to grasp the fact that football (and life in general, for that matter) isn't something that can be broken down into black and white, yes/no binary outcomes. The ball is passed to a player in an open position with a clear sight of goal. He misses. Does xG take into account any of the following: The player may have ran the length of the pitch to be in that position, and is physically exhausted. When the ball arrives it is spinning in a way that makes it less likely to hit the target. The condition of the pitch. The condition of the wind. The condition of their boots. I'm purposely being a bit ridiculous, but the point is that there are so many variables that can affect what constitutes a chance. None of this even factors in the positive things that happen for the player to create that chance in the first place. It might look good on paper, but xG is meaningless. My mum told me this. I couldn't agree more, we are 20th in the league knowing what our XG stats are, so they are meaningless when you don't have the players on the pitch that can actually win games in the first place. The current niche fav for geeks. It’s irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Feb 11, 2024 21:15:55 GMT
I hate xG almost as much as VAR. It's subjective bullshit that completely fails to grasp the fact that football (and life in general, for that matter) isn't something that can be broken down into black and white, yes/no binary outcomes. The ball is passed to a player in an open position with a clear sight of goal. He misses. Does xG take into account any of the following: The player may have ran the length of the pitch to be in that position, and is physically exhausted. When the ball arrives it is spinning in a way that makes it less likely to hit the target. The condition of the pitch. The condition of the wind. The condition of their boots. I'm purposely being a bit ridiculous, but the point is that there are so many variables that can affect what constitutes a chance. None of this even factors in the positive things that happen for the player to create that chance in the first place. It might look good on paper, but xG is meaningless. My mum told me this. I couldn't agree more, we are 20th in the league knowing what our XG stats are, so they are meaningless when you don't have the players on the pitch that can actually win games in the first place. Since the end of November our xG for has fallen off a cliff. One can state that we've failed to win for 12 or 13 games or that it's down to particular players etc. But the fact remains that we played 12 or 13 games September-November and we won half of them. With an XG for that was some 15% better than it has been lately. And the XG against has been 15% worse too. Aside from injuries to Leaburn and Aneke, what else changed? More importantly, how can the manager restore mid-table results and performances.... for 97 minutes per game. There's no point in trying to sell the concept to those who don't wish to examine it. All I'd say is that it's possible to show passionate support for the club as well as precise analysis of where we are & where we're going. |
|
|
|
Post by clarky on Feb 11, 2024 21:23:28 GMT
I couldn't agree more, we are 20th in the league knowing what our XG stats are, so they are meaningless when you don't have the players on the pitch that can actually win games in the first place. Since the end of November our xG for has fallen off a cliff. One can state that we've failed to win for 12 or 13 games or that it's down to particular players etc. But the fact remains that we played 12 or 13 games September-November and we won half of them. With an XG for that was some 15% better than it has been lately. And the XG against has been 15% worse too. Aside from injuries to Leaburn and Aneke, what else changed? More importantly, how can the manager restore mid-table results and performances.... for 97 minutes per game. There's no point in trying to sell the concept to those who don't wish to examine it. All I'd say is that it's possible to show passionate support for the club as well as precise analysis of where we are & where we're going. The only stats we need to concern ourselves with is that we don't score enough goals and the opposing teams score too many. |
|
|
|
Post by ploppy on Feb 11, 2024 21:31:09 GMT
XG is another pompous patronising side bar by the faux intelligentsia to try and humiliate the masses and provide jobs for their nerd children.
Football is a simple game based on the giving and taking of passes, of controlling the ball and of making yourself available to receive a pass. It is terribly simple.
Bill Shankly
|
|
|
|
Post by norfolkrobin on Feb 11, 2024 22:39:52 GMT
NJ must've been aware of this.
George I personally thank you for your continued efforts for this club.
You are on the move clearly,our ship is clearly sinking.
I'm not doubting your integrity(you have been a beacon of effort/professionalism)
But we need you 100% in for what's left.
|
|
|
|
Post by redplanet on Feb 12, 2024 0:02:20 GMT
People shouldn’t say they are not bothered about George Dobson leaving until they have seen Connor Coventry play. Early days, but the lad is no world beater. I honestly think people were expecting another Conor Gallagher and thus are now sadly disappointed. He might show his stuff (even as a diluted version) if and when Nathan Jones finds the best position for him. He might not, but I live in hope. (Don't try and have me banned for hoping for something positive).  Either way, #Scottexit. |
|
|
|
Post by weststandfruitloop on Feb 12, 2024 1:22:05 GMT
If we're relying on someone who OPENLY DOESN'T WANT TO BE HERE to save us from relegation then we're f***ed to a level that should make you cry.
Even a sitcom script about a failing lower league football club would scrap this new plotline as too unrealistic!
|
|
|
|
Post by sevenoaks on Feb 12, 2024 8:14:31 GMT
If we're relying on someone who OPENLY DOESN'T WANT TO BE HERE to save us from relegation then we're f***ed to a level that should make you cry. Even a sitcom script about a failing lower league football club would scrap this new plotline as too unrealistic! Sorry to disagree, but I think George Dobson has been treated shabbily,and he loves Charlton... He has a young family and his future to secure, and from what I hear he has made no unreasonable demands. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam’s Razor on Feb 12, 2024 9:01:09 GMT
If we're relying on someone who OPENLY DOESN'T WANT TO BE HERE to save us from relegation then we're f***ed to a level that should make you cry. Even a sitcom script about a failing lower league football club would scrap this new plotline as too unrealistic! No idea why people keep repeating this complete X Files -type nonsense. 1. Dobson wanted to stay. 2. Dobson knew that other players - skivers & malingerers - were being paid considerably more than him. 3. Dobson is our captain and POTY. 4. Dobson asked for a modest pay rise and the security of a three year deal. 5. Andy Scott only offered him a two year deal on modest terms 6. Dobson & his family have made all of the above common knowledge to very trustworthy fans (not forum conspiracists). When you are skipper and POTY and have bust your bollocks for the club for 2.5 years, it must be galling to see the likes of little McGrandles earning far more than you ?? Direct your anger on this one towards the wide boy Scott 👍 |
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Feb 12, 2024 10:05:22 GMT
I hate xG almost as much as VAR. It's subjective bullshit that completely fails to grasp the fact that football (and life in general, for that matter) isn't something that can be broken down into black and white, yes/no binary outcomes. The ball is passed to a player in an open position with a clear sight of goal. He misses. Does xG take into account any of the following: The player may have ran the length of the pitch to be in that position, and is physically exhausted. When the ball arrives it is spinning in a way that makes it less likely to hit the target. The condition of the pitch. The condition of the wind. The condition of their boots. I'm purposely being a bit ridiculous, but the point is that there are so many variables that can affect what constitutes a chance. None of this even factors in the positive things that happen for the player to create that chance in the first place. It might look good on paper, but xG is meaningless. My mum told me this. Sounds like your a tad confused Mr Ploppy. The whole point is that expected goals is NOT subjective bullshit but does in fact measure the quality of chances by calculating the likelihood that they will be scored, using information on similar shots in the past. They use millions of shots from Opta’s historical database to measure xG on a scale between zero and one, where zero represents a chance that is impossible to score, and one represents a chance that a player would be expected to score every single time. We know that a chance from the halfway line isn’t as likely to result in a goal as a chance from inside the penalty area. With xG, we can give a range of numbers to these scenarios. In other words it is the exact opposite of a binary yes/no outcome - far more accurate than post match interviews announcing how unlucky we were. For example, suppose the chance from just inside the box is assigned an xG of 0.1. This means that a player would, on average, be expected to score one goal from every ten shots in this situation or 10% of the time. The terminology may be new, but these phrases have been used by football fans and commentators for years before xG was introduced – “he scores that nine times out of ten” or “he should’ve had a hat-trick today”. CBT had one of the highest Xg numbers at the club. Let him go to Derby and fail to replace him and the consequences are obvious: our XG will be reduced, as will our actual goals scored. It's entirely your call obviously whether you choose to use such a metric. But your misunderstanding of what it is and how it's constructed speaks volumes. On the other hand, why not ask your mum to write to them and ask for XG for when it's raining and when it isn't? She might be on to something! |
|
|
|
Post by watameires on Feb 12, 2024 10:11:20 GMT
Have to say xG bores the living daylights out of me
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam’s Razor on Feb 12, 2024 10:18:12 GMT
I hate xG almost as much as VAR. It's subjective bullshit that completely fails to grasp the fact that football (and life in general, for that matter) isn't something that can be broken down into black and white, yes/no binary outcomes. The ball is passed to a player in an open position with a clear sight of goal. He misses. Does xG take into account any of the following: The player may have ran the length of the pitch to be in that position, and is physically exhausted. When the ball arrives it is spinning in a way that makes it less likely to hit the target. The condition of the pitch. The condition of the wind. The condition of their boots. I'm purposely being a bit ridiculous, but the point is that there are so many variables that can affect what constitutes a chance. None of this even factors in the positive things that happen for the player to create that chance in the first place. It might look good on paper, but xG is meaningless. My mum told me this. Sounds like your a tad confused Mr Ploppy. The whole point is that expected goals is NOT subjective bullshit but does in fact measure the quality of chances by calculating the likelihood that they will be scored, using information on similar shots in the past. They use millions of shots from Opta’s historical database to measure xG on a scale between zero and one, where zero represents a chance that is impossible to score, and one represents a chance that a player would be expected to score every single time. We know that a chance from the halfway line isn’t as likely to result in a goal as a chance from inside the penalty area. With xG, we can give a range of numbers to these scenarios. In other words it is the exact opposite of a binary yes/no outcome - far more accurate than post match interviews announcing how unlucky we were. For example, suppose the chance from just inside the box is assigned an xG of 0.1. This means that a player would, on average, be expected to score one goal from every ten shots in this situation or 10% of the time. The terminology may be new, but these phrases have been used by football fans and commentators for years before xG was introduced – “he scores that nine times out of ten” or “he should’ve had a hat-trick today”. CBT had one of the highest Xg numbers at the club. Let him go to Derby and fail to replace him and the consequences are obvious: our XG will be reduced, as will our actual goals scored. It's entirely your call obviously whether you choose to use such a metric. But your misunderstanding of what it is and how it's constructed speaks volumes. On the other hand, why not ask your mum to write to them and ask for XG for when it's raining and when it isn't? She might be on to something! Kevin, Being patronising to a new poster and mocking his age doesn’t really help your cause, particularly when you yourself left another forum (CL) precisely because you couldn’t handle being mocked / teased. ploppy makes perfectly fair points about xG and just how boring it is to the vast majority of fans. It’s only you who posts about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Feb 12, 2024 10:18:54 GMT
My take at what’s been happening with George Dobson’s contract et al. All inference. I have no source.
1. The club offered Dobson a contract that it felt was appropriate given their assessment of the player.
2. Dobson was unhappy with the offer and felt he was worth and/or deserved more.
3. This created a standoff. It is important to note here that when this began, the club did not believe there was any risk of relegation.
4. The club did not wish to improve its offer, at least not significantly.
5. Dobson discussed what to do with his agent. One option was for him to run down his contract, but he quickly concluded that was a risk he didn’t want to take. The obvious alternative was to hope that a bid came in from another club in the EFL. This would need to be a club willing to better Charlton’s offer and, perhaps, willing and able to pay a transfer fee.
6. It’s entirely possible that no such bid came in or that Dobson’s agent argued that the need to pay a transfer fee would complicate matters and, potentially, eat in to the value of any package he might be able to negotiate on Dobson’s behalf. Either way, Dobson still didn’t want to risk running down his contract.
7. Dobson’s agent came up with an idea which would resolve his client’s dilemma. If Dobson moved to a club outside the UK he could negotiate a pre contract agreement which would enable him to leave Charlton as a free agent at the end of June on a contract he could agree now, removing the risk involved in running down his contract. An ideal scenario, potentially. The problem, of course, was to find a club.
8. Completely out of left field, the agent came up with Fehervar in Hungary, the club previously known as Videoton where Loic Nego played for eight seasons. Fehervar made Dobson an attractive offer with the additional benefits of a lower tax rate and relatively low living costs. Dobson had never heard of Szekesfehervar (nor had I), which is about an hours drive from Budapest, and given the club has a Stadium capacity of just 14,300 he wasn’t initially convinced. However, it made sense financially for him and his family and he may have felt he had no better options.
9. As this scenario developed the club, having abandoned any hope of a playoff place, had begun to view the second half of the season as a long pre season leading to a serious promotion challenge in 2024-25. The risk of relegation wasn’t on the radar. With Conor Coventry having signed and Terry Taylor coming back from injury, the club saw little point in retaining Dobson for the last few months of the season and agreed a nominal fee with Fehervar which would allow Dobson to move immediately.
10. It’s not hard to imagine this process being a bit fraught. It’s even possible that when the club agreed to an early release (let’s call that Plan B), it rubbed salt into the wound as far as Dobson was concerned.
11. With the club now staring down the barrel of relegation, it was decided, almost certainly at the instigation of Nathan Jones, that it would make sense to retain Dobson until the end of the season. As result, we’ve now reverted to Plan A.
12. Dobson will now be available until the end of the season and will then join Fehervar on July 1st as originally planned.
That may not be the way it all unfolded, but it seems plausible to me. I’m not making any value judgements here, one way or the another. My hope is that everything now works out for both the club and the player.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Feb 12, 2024 10:40:10 GMT
Occam’s Razor You may well be right that the majority of fans are not interested in Xg and that’s fair enough. However, the clubs are interested. More generally, there has been a revolution in the use of data and analysis in football over the last 10-15 years which has transformed the way many clubs now operate. In the Premier League Brighton and Brentford are the best known examples of clubs that have used data to help them outpunch their respective weights and its perhaps no coincidence that they’re both owned by gamblers who use metrics like Xg to judge the relative value of their bets. Interestingly though, the club that some believe have led the way in this area is Liverpool. There are two very different questions here. One concerns interest and that’s a personal choice. If you and others have no interest in the use of data and analysis or are simply bored by it, that’s absolutely fair enough. The second question concerns relevance and validity. Here it’s clear that clubs consider their data analysis to be valid and highly relevant. That’s a matter of fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on Feb 12, 2024 11:00:31 GMT
Have to say xG bores the living daylights out of me I'm sure it does. My nature is to be inquisitive and to want to know how things work. I have always has this curiosity and tend to be more scientific in how I assess and monitor things. This has real life advantages as well as being thought of as a bit of a nerd by friends that 'fly by the seat of their pants' and being accused of overthinking everything by most of my girlfriends. I have always avoided studying football tactics, in any great detail, as it is a hobby and I don't want to make it feel like work. I tend to use football to relax and switch off from my obsessions about needing to understand everything. However football has moved on and success is, almost exclusively, enabled by the use of data now. This is why clubs don't employ Managers who select players based on a 'hunch' or a 'feeling'. The typical Director of Football is, or employs, a mathematician (or, at least, a 'scientist') who can source and analyse the data. Sandgaard did this. It was the correct approach but he employed his son to 'build' the 'black box'. The two requirements for this are to source the correct data and then analyse it, properly. Sandgaard Jnr, probably, did neither. He certainly didn't do both. Andy Scott is, clearly, not correctly analysing the correct data. If he were we would have had many fewer failed signings - both managerial and playing. That said, if we assume that everyone uses the same data, and comes to the same conclusion, there is little competitive advantage to be found. Trying to find star players that other clubs have missed is not easy so sometimes clubs gamble that they can see something that no one else does. Clearly Andy Scott doesn't have this talent so the only way we will be successful, using the current model, is if the owners spend more money than anyone else. Many fans have no interest in the data so jump straight to the last sentence of the last paragraph. They just demand that the club spend more and more money. In the end this approach will work, but if it takes too long, the club implodes. All be it that I don't come on here and 'tell' the Manager/Head Coach which system to use and which players to pick/sign/sell I have become more and more interested in the data that is used in the background. Most specifically the 'underlying' data that, genuinely, predicts outcomes. xG is one of these. I know it can be boring but over time very few results vary much from the predicted xG. Football club employees, on the playing side, that ignore it don't tend to last long in their posts. In fact, Charlie Methven stated that one of the KPIs that Charlton's manager had was related to xG as it is something that a team can build by varying playing style and playing staff, that is much less random than how a striker feels/plays on the day. I'm not saying that everyone should obsess about xG, and I get that is bores some fans, but it does remove/explain a lot of the randomness in results. A losing team with stats that suggest they should be winning just need to keep persevering and things will likely improve. The reverse is also true. The data suggests that we have a lot of work to do. I know that most fans, already, know this but for those tasked with finding a solution the more specific the areas of development that are identified, the more likely they will find it. The clubs that, completely, ignore the data - just like companies/organisations in all walks of life, will fall further and further behind those that use it. I know which approach I would like Charlton to take. |
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Feb 12, 2024 11:01:44 GMT
Sounds like your a tad confused Mr Ploppy. The whole point is that expected goals is NOT subjective bullshit but does in fact measure the quality of chances by calculating the likelihood that they will be scored, using information on similar shots in the past. They use millions of shots from Opta’s historical database to measure xG on a scale between zero and one, where zero represents a chance that is impossible to score, and one represents a chance that a player would be expected to score every single time. We know that a chance from the halfway line isn’t as likely to result in a goal as a chance from inside the penalty area. With xG, we can give a range of numbers to these scenarios. In other words it is the exact opposite of a binary yes/no outcome - far more accurate than post match interviews announcing how unlucky we were. For example, suppose the chance from just inside the box is assigned an xG of 0.1. This means that a player would, on average, be expected to score one goal from every ten shots in this situation or 10% of the time. The terminology may be new, but these phrases have been used by football fans and commentators for years before xG was introduced – “he scores that nine times out of ten” or “he should’ve had a hat-trick today”. CBT had one of the highest Xg numbers at the club. Let him go to Derby and fail to replace him and the consequences are obvious: our XG will be reduced, as will our actual goals scored. It's entirely your call obviously whether you choose to use such a metric. But your misunderstanding of what it is and how it's constructed speaks volumes. On the other hand, why not ask your mum to write to them and ask for XG for when it's raining and when it isn't? She might be on to something! Kevin, Being patronising to a new poster and mocking his age doesn’t really help your cause, particularly when you yourself left another forum (CL) precisely because you couldn’t handle being mocked / teased. ploppy makes perfectly fair points about xG and just how boring it is to the vast majority of fans. It’s only you who posts about it. It's clear that you've now taken it upon yourself to police this forum with calls for bans as well as seeking behaviour modification from others. Given that your life expectancy on here can usually be measure in weeks before you are banned for your obnoxious and repetitive ranting one wonders why you feel you are in a position to direct others. There's nothing patronising in pointing out that words used are in fact the exact opposite of the reality. Where are we if we cannot converse with a commonly agreed lexicon. Was it Socrates who stated that wisdom begins woth the definition of terms, and I don't mean the Brazilian midfielder! For the avoidance of doubt, I have no idea how old ploppy is - was simply taking their theme of taking guidance from their mum and mixing it with irony that the weather might be a significant factor which isn't addressed by Opta. As for Dobson, XG and our chances of survival from relegation, let's see where we are at 10pm tomorrow evening. |
|
|
|
Post by earlpurple on Feb 12, 2024 11:03:05 GMT
Dobson and Corey Blackett-Taylor were possibly (aside from Alfie May) the best players we had, albeit not the quality of the players the SMT thought we should have to take the club forward, so they did not offer them contracts as part of the "elite".
I have often seen cases where players, when expecting a "rebuild" and think they are not part of the plan, stop performing.
Whilst they were offered new contracts as part of the plan, presumably it was not as part of the new "elite".
By the way, although I usually have a rule not to bet on my own club, it was so clear we were sinking that I put a £45 bet on us to be relegated which I can now cash out for £117. Is it worth sticking or cashing it out? One of the keys to the online betting sites is that your bet doesn't have to come in. As long as the odds shorten significantly enough you can cash out early and make a profit.
|
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on Feb 12, 2024 11:07:08 GMT
Dobson and Corey Blackett-Taylor were possibly (aside from Alfie May) the best players we had, albeit not the quality of the players the SMT thought we should have to take the club forward, so they did not offer them contracts as part of the "elite". I have often seen cases where players, when expecting a "rebuild" and think they are not part of the plan, stop performing. Whilst they were offered new contracts as part of the plan, presumably it was not as part of the new "elite". By the way, although I usually have a rule not to bet on my own club, it was so clear we were sinking that I put a £45 bet on us to be relegated which I can now cash out for £117. Is it worth sticking or cashing it out? One of the keys to the online betting sites is that your bet doesn't have to come in. As long as the odds shorten significantly enough you can cash out early and make a profit. I don't know but I suspect you'll have more idea by 10pm tomorrow. ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by watameires on Feb 12, 2024 11:10:13 GMT
Have to say xG bores the living daylights out of me To clarify after subsequent posts by others - I’m not in the camp that it’s nonsense. Data should be used by the club to aid decisions - I do however reassert that I find it as boring as hell as a topic as are the monotonous and lengthy emails from certain posters about it. No need to respond I’ll just do a better job of avoiding the sight of them going forward (personal choice). |
|
|
|
Post by watameires on Feb 12, 2024 11:12:20 GMT
Earl purple - I’m risk adverse and a bit tight (wife’s view) - cash out my friend it’s almost Valentine’s Day after all
|
|
|
|
Post by smudge7946 on Feb 12, 2024 11:28:56 GMT
Gutted to see Dobson go. He seems to have slowed down recently. Which is possibly understandable. If no else is up to it or putting in a shift, why should he?
We really need you Dobbo in the last 15 matches. Stay with it.
|
|
