I’ve said it a million times. The team manager / coach is the most important appointment a club can make. A good manager gets more than the sum of the total out of his players and appointing punts, journeymen and has beens won’t cut it. Better to push the boat out on a manager than on any other position.
Just on a bit of Jacko watch, I don't think it's going to end well for him at the Wombles.
I attended the Wimbledon Bradford game and as said before, I saw nothing to suggest he had upped his managerial game since leaving us. It was such a poor quality game of footie from both sides overall.
Since the home loss to Bradford, Jacko has managed 1 draw and 2 losses in the league, the 2 losses conceding 8 goals and beating Cheltenham in the FA cup 5-1.
Seen a lot of fans saying he needs to go now and that the FA cup result just papered over the cracks.
It's a shame cause that's the only manager who has left us in recent years that I genuinely want to see smash it, but when you see Wimbledon fans saying he needs to go and the posts are getting high amounts of likes on social media it doesn't look good.
Ben Garner of course sacked and despite Nigel Adkins securing a long term contract at Tranmere, the results haven't been great.
Feel like it's a bit of a pattern that every manager who leaves us or gets sacked doesn't recover too well, Bowyer probably the best of the bunch but his time ran out in the end.
I think that’s very much the vocal minority there. Wimbledon fans in general are very happy with their start, most expected them to be down the bottom half of the division. Also if you look at the underlying numbers they are actually very unlucky not to be higher up the league (4th for xG for and 3rd best xG against), and just look at the number of penalties they’ve missed.
Pretty sure he is in favour with most of their fanbase at the moment. More defeats will obviously change that but these days if you lose 5 in a row you’re sacked as we know all too well.
The bookies often look at those underlying numbers as a good judge of how good a team is, and you will notice that Wimbledon are currently better odds for promotion than teams that are above them in the league (11th in the table, 7th in the odds, strange for a team that was nearer the relegation places in the pre-season odds).
Jackson did have a habit of going on good or bad runs with us and Wimbledon, rather than what most teams do and win/lose inconsistently. So hopefully he doesn’t go on a bad run, but I think looking at the stats they will be absolutely fine for at least a top-half finish which most of their fans will be pretty happy with
Also I’d question the seen “a lot of fans” bit of your post. I’ve done a bit of digging and can’t find anything other than maybe 1 or 2 tweets from this season that criticise Jackson? Considering 99% of them vocally wanted him out last year he’s done pretty well if that’s all that’s left
I am not gonna lie mate, I don't take xG seriously and never will unless it's something extremely significant I.e. a team has expected 7 goals to 0.5 and lose the game 1 nil. I highly doubt that's the case. For the most part it's all meaningless and merely just an indicator.
I went and watched them play in the flesh and I can tell you they looked pants, the Bradford fans sat near me were also saying how pants they looked.
On the way out of the ground I didn't hear one fan during a 15-20 minute walk, surrounded by Wimbledon fans say, 'that was a good performance'. I did however hear a fair few murmurs of 'Jackson is showing signs of last season' 'tactics were wrong today' etc. I understand this is the norm if a team loses, but I can only go by what I heard.
If you look at their socials when they lost to Morecambe and Accrington there were signs of fans being disgruntled. There was an obvious lack of support on the same threads. The same negative posts had an overwhelming amount of likes compared to people challenging those posts which makes me believe it isn't an unpopular opinion.
Anyway all speculation, he may turn it around but I get the feeling he won't. Think last season in around 20 games he managed 3 wins when he was up against it.
Also I’d question the seen “a lot of fans” bit of your post. I’ve done a bit of digging and can’t find anything other than maybe 1 or 2 tweets from this season that criticise Jackson? Considering 99% of them vocally wanted him out last year he’s done pretty well if that’s all that’s left
MOD note - images put behind a spoiler tag to save everyone's scrolling fingers - AW
I am not gonna lie mate, I don't take xG seriously and never will unless it's something extremely significant I.e. a team has expected 7 goals to 0.5 and lose the game 1 nil. I highly doubt that's the case. For the most part it's all meaningless and merely just an indicator.
I went and watched them play in the flesh and I can tell you they looked pants, the Bradford fans sat near me were also saying how pants they looked.
On the way out of the ground I didn't hear one fan during a 15-20 minute walk, surrounded by Wimbledon fans say, 'that was a good performance'. I did however hear a fair few murmurs of 'Jackson is showing signs of last season' 'tactics were wrong today' etc. I understand this is the norm if a team loses, but I can only go by what I heard.
If you look at their socials when they lost to Morecambe and Accrington there were signs of fans being disgruntled. There was an obvious lack of support on the same threads. The same negative posts had an overwhelming amount of likes compared to people challenging those posts which makes me believe it isn't an unpopular opinion.
Anyway all speculation, he may turn it around but I get the feeling he won't. Think last season in around 20 games he managed 3 wins when he was up against it.
Fair enough, I know xG isn’t a thing for everyone. But to just dismiss it as meaningless when it’s used by the teams, bookies, pundits etc is a bit silly. If it was meaningless I doubt it would be commonplace in football.
You watched one game, the meaningless stats are probably far better representative of how good AFC Wimbledon are as a team this season than the small sample of watching 1 game in which they lost. Fans are miserable after a loss, I and many others criticise Appleton when we lose, then the next game we win he’s amazing again. I really don’t think Jackson is under any pressure at the moment and most sensible Wimbledon fans are happy with how he’s done this season
I think the key thing for Jacko will be if big bids come in for Ali Al-Hamadi and James Tilley in January and if Wimbledon are able to hold their nerve.
I am not gonna lie mate, I don't take xG seriously and never will unless it's something extremely significant I.e. a team has expected 7 goals to 0.5 and lose the game 1 nil. I highly doubt that's the case. For the most part it's all meaningless and merely just an indicator.
I went and watched them play in the flesh and I can tell you they looked pants, the Bradford fans sat near me were also saying how pants they looked.
On the way out of the ground I didn't hear one fan during a 15-20 minute walk, surrounded by Wimbledon fans say, 'that was a good performance'. I did however hear a fair few murmurs of 'Jackson is showing signs of last season' 'tactics were wrong today' etc. I understand this is the norm if a team loses, but I can only go by what I heard.
If you look at their socials when they lost to Morecambe and Accrington there were signs of fans being disgruntled. There was an obvious lack of support on the same threads. The same negative posts had an overwhelming amount of likes compared to people challenging those posts which makes me believe it isn't an unpopular opinion.
Anyway all speculation, he may turn it around but I get the feeling he won't. Think last season in around 20 games he managed 3 wins when he was up against it.
Fair enough, I know xG isn’t a thing for everyone. But to just dismiss it as meaningless when it’s used by the teams, bookies, pundits etc is a bit silly. If it was meaningless I doubt it would be commonplace in football.
You watched one game, the meaningless stats are probably far better representative of how good AFC Wimbledon are as a team this season than the small sample of watching 1 game in which they lost. Fans are miserable after a loss, I and many others criticise Appleton when we lose, then the next game we win he’s amazing again. I really don’t think Jackson is under any pressure at the moment and most sensible Wimbledon fans are happy with how he’s done this season
It is meaningless as in the sense that it doesn't change the outcome of a result. I am perfectly aware of how teams are more likely to score based on averages etc. I highly doubt those same Wimbledon fans care about xG when they are sliding down the table though.
I watched one game along with more or less every single game Jacko managed under us. My point was, I went and watched another team who looked void of ideas on how to play. They have a few decent players, one of which I didn't get to watch (Ali) but ultimately they just didn't look like a team on the up to me is all.
Anyway to go back to the original point, it seems there is a bit of unrest and it will be interesting to see how he gets on for the rest of the season.
I think the key thing for Jacko will be if big bids come in for Ali Al-Hamadi and James Tilley in January and if Wimbledon are able to hold their nerve.
That Tilley is really decent, was Wimbledons standout player.
Off topic but I was really impressed by some of Bradfords defenders, they looked really assured on the ball, especially their right back Halliday. Kind of player I hope we have an eye on
Fans forums aren’t an accurate representation of fan’s attitudes Maidstone are doing well at the moment yet go on several of their forums and you’ll see people calling for the managers head.
The vast majority of fans don’t speak on forums and as we see on here, normally the loudest are necessarily the most understanding people
I am not gonna lie mate, I don't take xG seriously and never will unless it's something extremely significant I.e. a team has expected 7 goals to 0.5 and lose the game 1 nil. I highly doubt that's the case. For the most part it's all meaningless and merely just an indicator.
I went and watched them play in the flesh and I can tell you they looked pants, the Bradford fans sat near me were also saying how pants they looked.
On the way out of the ground I didn't hear one fan during a 15-20 minute walk, surrounded by Wimbledon fans say, 'that was a good performance'. I did however hear a fair few murmurs of 'Jackson is showing signs of last season' 'tactics were wrong today' etc. I understand this is the norm if a team loses, but I can only go by what I heard.
If you look at their socials when they lost to Morecambe and Accrington there were signs of fans being disgruntled. There was an obvious lack of support on the same threads. The same negative posts had an overwhelming amount of likes compared to people challenging those posts which makes me believe it isn't an unpopular opinion.
Anyway all speculation, he may turn it around but I get the feeling he won't. Think last season in around 20 games he managed 3 wins when he was up against it.
Fair enough, I know xG isn’t a thing for everyone. But to just dismiss it as meaningless when it’s used by the teams, bookies, pundits etc is a bit silly. If it was meaningless I doubt it would be commonplace in football.
You watched one game, the meaningless stats are probably far better representative of how good AFC Wimbledon are as a team this season than the small sample of watching 1 game in which they lost. Fans are miserable after a loss, I and many others criticise Appleton when we lose, then the next game we win he’s amazing again. I really don’t think Jackson is under any pressure at the moment and most sensible Wimbledon fans are happy with how he’s done this season
It is meaningless as in the sense that it doesn't change the outcome of a result. I am perfectly aware of how teams are more likely to score based on averages etc. I highly doubt those same Wimbledon fans care about xG when they are sliding down the table though.
I watched one game along with more or less every single game Jacko managed under us. My point was, I went and watched another team who looked void of ideas on how to play. They have a few decent players, one of which I didn't get to watch (Ali) but ultimately they just didn't look like a team on the up to me is all.
Anyway to go back to the original point, it seems there is a bit of unrest and it will be interesting to see how he gets on for the rest of the season.
Most fans won’t care about it, but if the board are smart they will consider it when judging how well the team is doing. Results are of course the be all and end all, and Jackson’s results aren’t that bad at the moment. But then even if they were a little lower in the table a smarter board would probably look at the underlying numbers and think it’s probably worth giving a little more time as performances have been better than the results and they’ve been unlucky.
I’m not surprised there’s a little unrest at every defeat, he did so badly last season that fans are always going to be quick to jump on him. They’ve been very good this season though and are unlucky to not be higher in the table. I think squad depth is a bit of a problem for them, but a good January window will give them an outside chance of play offs in my opinion but I think they’ll be comfortably top half which would be a successful season and give Jackson another summer to push them on
I am not gonna lie mate, I don't take xG seriously and never will unless it's something extremely significant I.e. a team has expected 7 goals to 0.5 and lose the game 1 nil. I highly doubt that's the case. For the most part it's all meaningless and merely just an indicator.
I went and watched them play in the flesh and I can tell you they looked pants, the Bradford fans sat near me were also saying how pants they looked.
On the way out of the ground I didn't hear one fan during a 15-20 minute walk, surrounded by Wimbledon fans say, 'that was a good performance'. I did however hear a fair few murmurs of 'Jackson is showing signs of last season' 'tactics were wrong today' etc. I understand this is the norm if a team loses, but I can only go by what I heard.
If you look at their socials when they lost to Morecambe and Accrington there were signs of fans being disgruntled. There was an obvious lack of support on the same threads. The same negative posts had an overwhelming amount of likes compared to people challenging those posts which makes me believe it isn't an unpopular opinion.
Anyway all speculation, he may turn it around but I get the feeling he won't. Think last season in around 20 games he managed 3 wins when he was up against it.
Fair enough, I know xG isn’t a thing for everyone. But to just dismiss it as meaningless when it’s used by the teams, bookies, pundits etc is a bit silly. If it was meaningless I doubt it would be commonplace in football.
You watched one game, the meaningless stats are probably far better representative of how good AFC Wimbledon are as a team this season than the small sample of watching 1 game in which they lost. Fans are miserable after a loss, I and many others criticise Appleton when we lose, then the next game we win he’s amazing again. I really don’t think Jackson is under any pressure at the moment and most sensible Wimbledon fans are happy with how he’s done this season
It is meaningless as in the sense that it doesn't change the outcome of a result. I am perfectly aware of how teams are more likely to score based on averages etc. I highly doubt those same Wimbledon fans care about xG when they are sliding down the table though.
I watched one game along with more or less every single game Jacko managed under us. My point was, I went and watched another team who looked void of ideas on how to play. They have a few decent players, one of which I didn't get to watch (Ali) but ultimately they just didn't look like a team on the up to me is all.
Anyway to go back to the original point, it seems there is a bit of unrest and it will be interesting to see how he gets on for the rest of the season.
No statistics change the outcome of a result. They still have meaning though. xG is significant because it can indicate to you that you're doing better than your position tells you or overscoring points-wise based on your performance and a drop is coming. If a team is massively underperforming their xG then they have a finishing issue, but they are creating clear-cut, good quality chances which can indicate that there are only minor changes needed, even a bit of luck, but the overall base and balance are good. The bookies look at that and the hiring board members will often look at that as part of a review. Conversely, if your xG every game is 0.23 and you keep winning 2-0 then you're finishing incredibly effectively but your chance creation is pretty poor, which isn't sustainable across a whole season. To be honest, you've said that you ignore relevant statistics, you've seen one game so you know how bad Wimbledon are and you've been on the comments section of a football post which is the social equivalent of the Somme at any given moment so you know that there's unrest among the fans. I think you might want to review your investigative methods as that's quite a lot taken from very little.
I am not gonna lie mate, I don't take xG seriously and never will unless it's something extremely significant I.e. a team has expected 7 goals to 0.5 and lose the game 1 nil. I highly doubt that's the case. For the most part it's all meaningless and merely just an indicator.
I went and watched them play in the flesh and I can tell you they looked pants, the Bradford fans sat near me were also saying how pants they looked.
On the way out of the ground I didn't hear one fan during a 15-20 minute walk, surrounded by Wimbledon fans say, 'that was a good performance'. I did however hear a fair few murmurs of 'Jackson is showing signs of last season' 'tactics were wrong today' etc. I understand this is the norm if a team loses, but I can only go by what I heard.
If you look at their socials when they lost to Morecambe and Accrington there were signs of fans being disgruntled. There was an obvious lack of support on the same threads. The same negative posts had an overwhelming amount of likes compared to people challenging those posts which makes me believe it isn't an unpopular opinion.
Anyway all speculation, he may turn it around but I get the feeling he won't. Think last season in around 20 games he managed 3 wins when he was up against it.
Fair enough, I know xG isn’t a thing for everyone. But to just dismiss it as meaningless when it’s used by the teams, bookies, pundits etc is a bit silly. If it was meaningless I doubt it would be commonplace in football.
You watched one game, the meaningless stats are probably far better representative of how good AFC Wimbledon are as a team this season than the small sample of watching 1 game in which they lost. Fans are miserable after a loss, I and many others criticise Appleton when we lose, then the next game we win he’s amazing again. I really don’t think Jackson is under any pressure at the moment and most sensible Wimbledon fans are happy with how he’s done this season
It is meaningless as in the sense that it doesn't change the outcome of a result. I am perfectly aware of how teams are more likely to score based on averages etc. I highly doubt those same Wimbledon fans care about xG when they are sliding down the table though.
I watched one game along with more or less every single game Jacko managed under us. My point was, I went and watched another team who looked void of ideas on how to play. They have a few decent players, one of which I didn't get to watch (Ali) but ultimately they just didn't look like a team on the up to me is all.
Anyway to go back to the original point, it seems there is a bit of unrest and it will be interesting to see how he gets on for the rest of the season.
Most fans won’t care about it, but if the board are smart they will consider it when judging how well the team is doing. Results are of course the be all and end all, and Jackson’s results aren’t that bad at the moment. But then even if they were a little lower in the table a smarter board would probably look at the underlying numbers and think it’s probably worth giving a little more time as performances have been better than the results and they’ve been unlucky.
I’m not surprised there’s a little unrest at every defeat, he did so badly last season that fans are always going to be quick to jump on him. They’ve been very good this season though and are unlucky to not be higher in the table. I think squad depth is a bit of a problem for them, but a good January window will give them an outside chance of play offs in my opinion but I think they’ll be comfortably top half which would be a successful season and give Jackson another summer to push them on
Look all I've done is share what I have seen and heard and why Jacko may be over the frying pan long term.
I haven't really stated anything as fact, just speculated and shared things I've seen. The general idea I got was that Wimbledon fans wouldn't be happy with another slide down the table.
I am not gonna lie mate, I don't take xG seriously and never will unless it's something extremely significant I.e. a team has expected 7 goals to 0.5 and lose the game 1 nil. I highly doubt that's the case. For the most part it's all meaningless and merely just an indicator.
I went and watched them play in the flesh and I can tell you they looked pants, the Bradford fans sat near me were also saying how pants they looked.
On the way out of the ground I didn't hear one fan during a 15-20 minute walk, surrounded by Wimbledon fans say, 'that was a good performance'. I did however hear a fair few murmurs of 'Jackson is showing signs of last season' 'tactics were wrong today' etc. I understand this is the norm if a team loses, but I can only go by what I heard.
If you look at their socials when they lost to Morecambe and Accrington there were signs of fans being disgruntled. There was an obvious lack of support on the same threads. The same negative posts had an overwhelming amount of likes compared to people challenging those posts which makes me believe it isn't an unpopular opinion.
Anyway all speculation, he may turn it around but I get the feeling he won't. Think last season in around 20 games he managed 3 wins when he was up against it.
Fair enough, I know xG isn’t a thing for everyone. But to just dismiss it as meaningless when it’s used by the teams, bookies, pundits etc is a bit silly. If it was meaningless I doubt it would be commonplace in football.
You watched one game, the meaningless stats are probably far better representative of how good AFC Wimbledon are as a team this season than the small sample of watching 1 game in which they lost. Fans are miserable after a loss, I and many others criticise Appleton when we lose, then the next game we win he’s amazing again. I really don’t think Jackson is under any pressure at the moment and most sensible Wimbledon fans are happy with how he’s done this season
It is meaningless as in the sense that it doesn't change the outcome of a result. I am perfectly aware of how teams are more likely to score based on averages etc. I highly doubt those same Wimbledon fans care about xG when they are sliding down the table though.
I watched one game along with more or less every single game Jacko managed under us. My point was, I went and watched another team who looked void of ideas on how to play. They have a few decent players, one of which I didn't get to watch (Ali) but ultimately they just didn't look like a team on the up to me is all.
Anyway to go back to the original point, it seems there is a bit of unrest and it will be interesting to see how he gets on for the rest of the season.
No statistics change the outcome of a result. They still have meaning though. xG is significant because it can indicate to you that you're doing better than your position tells you or overscoring points-wise based on your performance and a drop is coming. If a team is massively underperforming their xG then they have a finishing issue, but they are creating clear-cut, good quality chances which can indicate that there are only minor changes needed, even a bit of luck, but the overall base and balance are good. The bookies look at that and the hiring board members will often look at that as part of a review. Conversely, if your xG every game is 0.23 and you keep winning 2-0 then you're finishing incredibly effectively but your chance creation is pretty poor, which isn't sustainable across a whole season. To be honest, you've said that you ignore relevant statistics, you've seen one game so you know how bad Wimbledon are and you've been on the comments section of a football post which is the social equivalent of the Somme at any given moment so you know that there's unrest among the fans. I think you might want to review your investigative methods as that's quite a lot taken from very little.
Without being rude why are you explaining xG to me mate. I am perfectly aware of how stats work and how they can be used.
I ignore them in the sense that whether our own xG is high or low, I couldn't give a toss as long as we get results. I imagine Wimbledon fans feel the same after shipping 8 in 2.
So without seeming arrogant, no I don't want to review my investigative methods? Especially seeing as it's not gospel and I don't treat it to be otherwise.
I saw a few things and shared. Even opened with 'I don't think it's going to end well'. I haven't hopped on here and said he is gone without doubt.
If I've watched Jackson manage roughly 22 or so games for us and then watched him manage a new team. I believe that will give me an idea on how good or bad he is doing or capable of over some stats.
Apologies if I comes across rude but I find it a bit daft that I am having xG broken down to me when I understand exactly what it all means, but simply saying it isn't getting them points.
You can't go off of xG if you don't watch a team as it can be a false bearing. xG doesn't measure the capability of the player themselves but actually how likely it is they will score in their opportunities or concede for xA. You can't use that data to measure a player like Kirk compared to lets say a top Premier league winger. OK they could have a similar expected odd to score a goal from a particular range or angle but the reality is one player is good enough to and the other isn't. There will be players of course, who get themselves in scoring opportunities which will look good on the data side of things and appear that Wimbledon or whoever are playing well, but if your players don't have the ability the xG amounts to nothing.
If you were a betting man and relied on all this data then I suppose we would all be rich eventually as it's such a foolproof method?
I am not gonna lie mate, I don't take xG seriously and never will unless it's something extremely significant I.e. a team has expected 7 goals to 0.5 and lose the game 1 nil. I highly doubt that's the case. For the most part it's all meaningless and merely just an indicator.
I went and watched them play in the flesh and I can tell you they looked pants, the Bradford fans sat near me were also saying how pants they looked.
On the way out of the ground I didn't hear one fan during a 15-20 minute walk, surrounded by Wimbledon fans say, 'that was a good performance'. I did however hear a fair few murmurs of 'Jackson is showing signs of last season' 'tactics were wrong today' etc. I understand this is the norm if a team loses, but I can only go by what I heard.
If you look at their socials when they lost to Morecambe and Accrington there were signs of fans being disgruntled. There was an obvious lack of support on the same threads. The same negative posts had an overwhelming amount of likes compared to people challenging those posts which makes me believe it isn't an unpopular opinion.
Anyway all speculation, he may turn it around but I get the feeling he won't. Think last season in around 20 games he managed 3 wins when he was up against it.
Fair enough, I know xG isn’t a thing for everyone. But to just dismiss it as meaningless when it’s used by the teams, bookies, pundits etc is a bit silly. If it was meaningless I doubt it would be commonplace in football.
You watched one game, the meaningless stats are probably far better representative of how good AFC Wimbledon are as a team this season than the small sample of watching 1 game in which they lost. Fans are miserable after a loss, I and many others criticise Appleton when we lose, then the next game we win he’s amazing again. I really don’t think Jackson is under any pressure at the moment and most sensible Wimbledon fans are happy with how he’s done this season
It is meaningless as in the sense that it doesn't change the outcome of a result. I am perfectly aware of how teams are more likely to score based on averages etc. I highly doubt those same Wimbledon fans care about xG when they are sliding down the table though.
I watched one game along with more or less every single game Jacko managed under us. My point was, I went and watched another team who looked void of ideas on how to play. They have a few decent players, one of which I didn't get to watch (Ali) but ultimately they just didn't look like a team on the up to me is all.
Anyway to go back to the original point, it seems there is a bit of unrest and it will be interesting to see how he gets on for the rest of the season.
No statistics change the outcome of a result. They still have meaning though. xG is significant because it can indicate to you that you're doing better than your position tells you or overscoring points-wise based on your performance and a drop is coming. If a team is massively underperforming their xG then they have a finishing issue, but they are creating clear-cut, good quality chances which can indicate that there are only minor changes needed, even a bit of luck, but the overall base and balance are good. The bookies look at that and the hiring board members will often look at that as part of a review. Conversely, if your xG every game is 0.23 and you keep winning 2-0 then you're finishing incredibly effectively but your chance creation is pretty poor, which isn't sustainable across a whole season. To be honest, you've said that you ignore relevant statistics, you've seen one game so you know how bad Wimbledon are and you've been on the comments section of a football post which is the social equivalent of the Somme at any given moment so you know that there's unrest among the fans. I think you might want to review your investigative methods as that's quite a lot taken from very little.
Without being rude why are you explaining xG to me mate. I am perfectly aware of how stats work and how they can be used.
I ignore them in the sense that whether our own xG is high or low, I couldn't give a toss as long as we get results. I imagine Wimbledon fans feel the same after shipping 8 in 2.
So without seeming arrogant, no I don't want to review my investigative methods? Especially seeing as it's not gospel and I don't treat it to be otherwise.
I saw a few things and shared. Even opened with 'I don't think it's going to end well'. I haven't hopped on here and said he is gone without doubt.
If I've watched Jackson manage roughly 22 or so games for us and then watched him manage a new team. I believe that will give me an idea on how good or bad he is doing or capable of over some stats.
Apologies if I comes across rude but I find it a bit daft that I am having xG broken down to me when I understand exactly what it all means, but simply saying it isn't getting them points.
You can't go off of xG if you don't watch a team as it can be a false bearing. xG doesn't measure the capability of the player themselves but actually how likely it is they will score in their opportunities or concede for xA. You can't use that data to measure a player like Kirk compared to lets say a top Premier league winger. OK they could have a similar expected odd to score a goal from a particular range or angle but the reality is one player is good enough to and the other isn't. There will be players of course, who get themselves in scoring opportunities which will look good on the data side of things and appear that Wimbledon or whoever are playing well, but if your players don't have the ability the xG amounts to nothing.
If you were a betting man and relied on all this data then I suppose we would all be rich eventually as it's such a foolproof method?
The point of xG here is to show that clearly Jackson is setting them up well. If they are regularly creating more and better chances than their opposition but just not taking them/being unlucky then clearly Jackson is doing his job very well. So changing the manager isn’t going to improve that and would probably make them worse. That’s the kind of thing that any half-decent board will be looking at among many other things
I’m sorry but watching 1 game this season is not better placed than the stats for the whole season for judging how well they are doing, that’s ridiculous. If you’d gone to a game where they won and played well you’d have a completely different opinion
I am not gonna lie mate, I don't take xG seriously and never will unless it's something extremely significant I.e. a team has expected 7 goals to 0.5 and lose the game 1 nil. I highly doubt that's the case. For the most part it's all meaningless and merely just an indicator.
I went and watched them play in the flesh and I can tell you they looked pants, the Bradford fans sat near me were also saying how pants they looked.
On the way out of the ground I didn't hear one fan during a 15-20 minute walk, surrounded by Wimbledon fans say, 'that was a good performance'. I did however hear a fair few murmurs of 'Jackson is showing signs of last season' 'tactics were wrong today' etc. I understand this is the norm if a team loses, but I can only go by what I heard.
If you look at their socials when they lost to Morecambe and Accrington there were signs of fans being disgruntled. There was an obvious lack of support on the same threads. The same negative posts had an overwhelming amount of likes compared to people challenging those posts which makes me believe it isn't an unpopular opinion.
Anyway all speculation, he may turn it around but I get the feeling he won't. Think last season in around 20 games he managed 3 wins when he was up against it.
Fair enough, I know xG isn’t a thing for everyone. But to just dismiss it as meaningless when it’s used by the teams, bookies, pundits etc is a bit silly. If it was meaningless I doubt it would be commonplace in football.
You watched one game, the meaningless stats are probably far better representative of how good AFC Wimbledon are as a team this season than the small sample of watching 1 game in which they lost. Fans are miserable after a loss, I and many others criticise Appleton when we lose, then the next game we win he’s amazing again. I really don’t think Jackson is under any pressure at the moment and most sensible Wimbledon fans are happy with how he’s done this season
It is meaningless as in the sense that it doesn't change the outcome of a result. I am perfectly aware of how teams are more likely to score based on averages etc. I highly doubt those same Wimbledon fans care about xG when they are sliding down the table though.
I watched one game along with more or less every single game Jacko managed under us. My point was, I went and watched another team who looked void of ideas on how to play. They have a few decent players, one of which I didn't get to watch (Ali) but ultimately they just didn't look like a team on the up to me is all.
Anyway to go back to the original point, it seems there is a bit of unrest and it will be interesting to see how he gets on for the rest of the season.
No statistics change the outcome of a result. They still have meaning though. xG is significant because it can indicate to you that you're doing better than your position tells you or overscoring points-wise based on your performance and a drop is coming. If a team is massively underperforming their xG then they have a finishing issue, but they are creating clear-cut, good quality chances which can indicate that there are only minor changes needed, even a bit of luck, but the overall base and balance are good. The bookies look at that and the hiring board members will often look at that as part of a review. Conversely, if your xG every game is 0.23 and you keep winning 2-0 then you're finishing incredibly effectively but your chance creation is pretty poor, which isn't sustainable across a whole season. To be honest, you've said that you ignore relevant statistics, you've seen one game so you know how bad Wimbledon are and you've been on the comments section of a football post which is the social equivalent of the Somme at any given moment so you know that there's unrest among the fans. I think you might want to review your investigative methods as that's quite a lot taken from very little.
Without being rude why are you explaining xG to me mate. I am perfectly aware of how stats work and how they can be used.
I ignore them in the sense that whether our own xG is high or low, I couldn't give a toss as long as we get results. I imagine Wimbledon fans feel the same after shipping 8 in 2.
So without seeming arrogant, no I don't want to review my investigative methods? Especially seeing as it's not gospel and I don't treat it to be otherwise.
I saw a few things and shared. Even opened with 'I don't think it's going to end well'. I haven't hopped on here and said he is gone without doubt.
If I've watched Jackson manage roughly 22 or so games for us and then watched him manage a new team. I believe that will give me an idea on how good or bad he is doing or capable of over some stats.
Apologies if I comes across rude but I find it a bit daft that I am having xG broken down to me when I understand exactly what it all means, but simply saying it isn't getting them points.
You can't go off of xG if you don't watch a team as it can be a false bearing. xG doesn't measure the capability of the player themselves but actually how likely it is they will score in their opportunities or concede for xA. You can't use that data to measure a player like Kirk compared to lets say a top Premier league winger. OK they could have a similar expected odd to score a goal from a particular range or angle but the reality is one player is good enough to and the other isn't. There will be players of course, who get themselves in scoring opportunities which will look good on the data side of things and appear that Wimbledon or whoever are playing well, but if your players don't have the ability the xG amounts to nothing.
If you were a betting man and relied on all this data then I suppose we would all be rich eventually as it's such a foolproof method?
And yes just look at Brentford and Brighton’s owners. Who basically invented their own version of xG before it was even a thing and applied it to gambling and then to football. Seemed to work out quite well for them in both…
To say XG is meaningless is a bit silly/ very naive. Bookmakers and professional gamblers (like those of Tony Bloom and Matthew Benham) use that data (along with other info/ data) A LOT with extreme success. It can paint a very useful picture over time of how likely a team are potentially underperforming results wise or alternatively over performing because they’re actually playing shit but just have a useful poacher like Alfie May blagging them a few results.
To say XG is meaningless is a bit silly/ very naive. Bookmakers and professional gamblers (like those of Tony Bloom and Matthew Benham) use that data (along with other info/ data) A LOT with extreme success. It can paint a very useful picture over time of how likely a team are potentially underperforming results wise or alternatively over performing because they’re actually playing shit but just have a useful poacher like Alfie May blagging them a few results.
In he very very early days it was referred to as the oohs and aahs index.
We’ve all been to those games where the final score doesn’t reflect the number of oohs and aahs from the crowd 😀
I am not gonna lie mate, I don't take xG seriously and never will unless it's something extremely significant I.e. a team has expected 7 goals to 0.5 and lose the game 1 nil. I highly doubt that's the case. For the most part it's all meaningless and merely just an indicator.
I went and watched them play in the flesh and I can tell you they looked pants, the Bradford fans sat near me were also saying how pants they looked.
On the way out of the ground I didn't hear one fan during a 15-20 minute walk, surrounded by Wimbledon fans say, 'that was a good performance'. I did however hear a fair few murmurs of 'Jackson is showing signs of last season' 'tactics were wrong today' etc. I understand this is the norm if a team loses, but I can only go by what I heard.
If you look at their socials when they lost to Morecambe and Accrington there were signs of fans being disgruntled. There was an obvious lack of support on the same threads. The same negative posts had an overwhelming amount of likes compared to people challenging those posts which makes me believe it isn't an unpopular opinion.
Anyway all speculation, he may turn it around but I get the feeling he won't. Think last season in around 20 games he managed 3 wins when he was up against it.
Fair enough, I know xG isn’t a thing for everyone. But to just dismiss it as meaningless when it’s used by the teams, bookies, pundits etc is a bit silly. If it was meaningless I doubt it would be commonplace in football.
You watched one game, the meaningless stats are probably far better representative of how good AFC Wimbledon are as a team this season than the small sample of watching 1 game in which they lost. Fans are miserable after a loss, I and many others criticise Appleton when we lose, then the next game we win he’s amazing again. I really don’t think Jackson is under any pressure at the moment and most sensible Wimbledon fans are happy with how he’s done this season
It is meaningless as in the sense that it doesn't change the outcome of a result. I am perfectly aware of how teams are more likely to score based on averages etc. I highly doubt those same Wimbledon fans care about xG when they are sliding down the table though.
I watched one game along with more or less every single game Jacko managed under us. My point was, I went and watched another team who looked void of ideas on how to play. They have a few decent players, one of which I didn't get to watch (Ali) but ultimately they just didn't look like a team on the up to me is all.
Anyway to go back to the original point, it seems there is a bit of unrest and it will be interesting to see how he gets on for the rest of the season.
No statistics change the outcome of a result. They still have meaning though. xG is significant because it can indicate to you that you're doing better than your position tells you or overscoring points-wise based on your performance and a drop is coming. If a team is massively underperforming their xG then they have a finishing issue, but they are creating clear-cut, good quality chances which can indicate that there are only minor changes needed, even a bit of luck, but the overall base and balance are good. The bookies look at that and the hiring board members will often look at that as part of a review. Conversely, if your xG every game is 0.23 and you keep winning 2-0 then you're finishing incredibly effectively but your chance creation is pretty poor, which isn't sustainable across a whole season. To be honest, you've said that you ignore relevant statistics, you've seen one game so you know how bad Wimbledon are and you've been on the comments section of a football post which is the social equivalent of the Somme at any given moment so you know that there's unrest among the fans. I think you might want to review your investigative methods as that's quite a lot taken from very little.
Without being rude why are you explaining xG to me mate. I am perfectly aware of how stats work and how they can be used.
I ignore them in the sense that whether our own xG is high or low, I couldn't give a toss as long as we get results. I imagine Wimbledon fans feel the same after shipping 8 in 2.
So without seeming arrogant, no I don't want to review my investigative methods? Especially seeing as it's not gospel and I don't treat it to be otherwise.
I saw a few things and shared. Even opened with 'I don't think it's going to end well'. I haven't hopped on here and said he is gone without doubt.
If I've watched Jackson manage roughly 22 or so games for us and then watched him manage a new team. I believe that will give me an idea on how good or bad he is doing or capable of over some stats.
Apologies if I comes across rude but I find it a bit daft that I am having xG broken down to me when I understand exactly what it all means, but simply saying it isn't getting them points.
You can't go off of xG if you don't watch a team as it can be a false bearing. xG doesn't measure the capability of the player themselves but actually how likely it is they will score in their opportunities or concede for xA. You can't use that data to measure a player like Kirk compared to lets say a top Premier league winger. OK they could have a similar expected odd to score a goal from a particular range or angle but the reality is one player is good enough to and the other isn't. There will be players of course, who get themselves in scoring opportunities which will look good on the data side of things and appear that Wimbledon or whoever are playing well, but if your players don't have the ability the xG amounts to nothing.
If you were a betting man and relied on all this data then I suppose we would all be rich eventually as it's such a foolproof method?
The point of xG here is to show that clearly Jackson is setting them up well. If they are regularly creating more and better chances than their opposition but just not taking them/being unlucky then clearly Jackson is doing his job very well. So changing the manager isn’t going to improve that and would probably make them worse. That’s the kind of thing that any half-decent board will be looking at among many other things
I’m sorry but watching 1 game this season is not better placed than the stats for the whole season for judging how well they are doing, that’s ridiculous. If you’d gone to a game where they won and played well you’d have a completely different opinion
OK and how did that work for us and Ben Garnee with his impressive xG stats, or Nigel Adkins and his impressive promotion record. It's all probable.
That's fine cause I don't believe I did, I said based on what I have seen, he didn't look up to much and that I have seen a fair few signs his fans aren't happy. Both of these are things I have presented to you.
You have then tried to breakdown xG to me, which I have accepted gives an idea of what's going on but not the full picture.
Ultimately I don't care about xG as it doesn't win games. xG isn't winning Wimbledon any points either.
This thread is about Jackson, I am sharing my thoughts about what I have seen. I am not claiming that I know the ins and outs about Wimbledon or how they play every game, just a few things I've seen.
So as a summary;
- I am aware that you can underperform with results but have expected better results
- I am aware that me watching one game of Jackos Wimbledon does not paint a whole picture of Jackos time at Wimbledon.
- I am aware that all the social media posts I have shared do not represent every Wimbledon fan
- I could not give two f***s about xG and xA and who shoulda had more corners etc, being blunt now.
I am not gonna lie mate, I don't take xG seriously and never will unless it's something extremely significant I.e. a team has expected 7 goals to 0.5 and lose the game 1 nil. I highly doubt that's the case. For the most part it's all meaningless and merely just an indicator.
I went and watched them play in the flesh and I can tell you they looked pants, the Bradford fans sat near me were also saying how pants they looked.
On the way out of the ground I didn't hear one fan during a 15-20 minute walk, surrounded by Wimbledon fans say, 'that was a good performance'. I did however hear a fair few murmurs of 'Jackson is showing signs of last season' 'tactics were wrong today' etc. I understand this is the norm if a team loses, but I can only go by what I heard.
If you look at their socials when they lost to Morecambe and Accrington there were signs of fans being disgruntled. There was an obvious lack of support on the same threads. The same negative posts had an overwhelming amount of likes compared to people challenging those posts which makes me believe it isn't an unpopular opinion.
Anyway all speculation, he may turn it around but I get the feeling he won't. Think last season in around 20 games he managed 3 wins when he was up against it.
Fair enough, I know xG isn’t a thing for everyone. But to just dismiss it as meaningless when it’s used by the teams, bookies, pundits etc is a bit silly. If it was meaningless I doubt it would be commonplace in football.
You watched one game, the meaningless stats are probably far better representative of how good AFC Wimbledon are as a team this season than the small sample of watching 1 game in which they lost. Fans are miserable after a loss, I and many others criticise Appleton when we lose, then the next game we win he’s amazing again. I really don’t think Jackson is under any pressure at the moment and most sensible Wimbledon fans are happy with how he’s done this season
It is meaningless as in the sense that it doesn't change the outcome of a result. I am perfectly aware of how teams are more likely to score based on averages etc. I highly doubt those same Wimbledon fans care about xG when they are sliding down the table though.
I watched one game along with more or less every single game Jacko managed under us. My point was, I went and watched another team who looked void of ideas on how to play. They have a few decent players, one of which I didn't get to watch (Ali) but ultimately they just didn't look like a team on the up to me is all.
Anyway to go back to the original point, it seems there is a bit of unrest and it will be interesting to see how he gets on for the rest of the season.
No statistics change the outcome of a result. They still have meaning though. xG is significant because it can indicate to you that you're doing better than your position tells you or overscoring points-wise based on your performance and a drop is coming. If a team is massively underperforming their xG then they have a finishing issue, but they are creating clear-cut, good quality chances which can indicate that there are only minor changes needed, even a bit of luck, but the overall base and balance are good. The bookies look at that and the hiring board members will often look at that as part of a review. Conversely, if your xG every game is 0.23 and you keep winning 2-0 then you're finishing incredibly effectively but your chance creation is pretty poor, which isn't sustainable across a whole season. To be honest, you've said that you ignore relevant statistics, you've seen one game so you know how bad Wimbledon are and you've been on the comments section of a football post which is the social equivalent of the Somme at any given moment so you know that there's unrest among the fans. I think you might want to review your investigative methods as that's quite a lot taken from very little.
Without being rude why are you explaining xG to me mate. I am perfectly aware of how stats work and how they can be used.
I ignore them in the sense that whether our own xG is high or low, I couldn't give a toss as long as we get results. I imagine Wimbledon fans feel the same after shipping 8 in 2.
So without seeming arrogant, no I don't want to review my investigative methods? Especially seeing as it's not gospel and I don't treat it to be otherwise.
I saw a few things and shared. Even opened with 'I don't think it's going to end well'. I haven't hopped on here and said he is gone without doubt.
If I've watched Jackson manage roughly 22 or so games for us and then watched him manage a new team. I believe that will give me an idea on how good or bad he is doing or capable of over some stats.
Apologies if I comes across rude but I find it a bit daft that I am having xG broken down to me when I understand exactly what it all means, but simply saying it isn't getting them points.
You can't go off of xG if you don't watch a team as it can be a false bearing. xG doesn't measure the capability of the player themselves but actually how likely it is they will score in their opportunities or concede for xA. You can't use that data to measure a player like Kirk compared to lets say a top Premier league winger. OK they could have a similar expected odd to score a goal from a particular range or angle but the reality is one player is good enough to and the other isn't. There will be players of course, who get themselves in scoring opportunities which will look good on the data side of things and appear that Wimbledon or whoever are playing well, but if your players don't have the ability the xG amounts to nothing.
If you were a betting man and relied on all this data then I suppose we would all be rich eventually as it's such a foolproof method?
And yes just look at Brentford and Brighton’s owners. Who basically invented their own version of xG before it was even a thing and applied it to gambling and then to football. Seemed to work out quite well for them in both…
Good for them, they took a gamble and it paid off. If it was a foolproof system, every club in the country would be doing it and surely have the same success? It's almost as if luck is a huge factor in gambling and basing strategies on chance doesn't always work. paulsturgess said:
I would also say the comment “you can’t go off XG if you don’t watch a team”…
in most cases it will paint you a much more accurate picture of how the game went than just going off the score, which can be INCREDIBLY misleading!
And match stats aren't also misleading? Just because a team has 4x the number of shots as a team doesn't mean they deserve a result.
How many times will a team be up 2 nil and let a team back in towards the end as they hold on which will increase their positive match stats, or any other common variable.
I haven't gone off of a score or anything. I have simply put that Jacko may be under pressure and what I have seen to make me think that.
I am not gonna lie mate, I don't take xG seriously and never will unless it's something extremely significant I.e. a team has expected 7 goals to 0.5 and lose the game 1 nil. I highly doubt that's the case. For the most part it's all meaningless and merely just an indicator.
I went and watched them play in the flesh and I can tell you they looked pants, the Bradford fans sat near me were also saying how pants they looked.
On the way out of the ground I didn't hear one fan during a 15-20 minute walk, surrounded by Wimbledon fans say, 'that was a good performance'. I did however hear a fair few murmurs of 'Jackson is showing signs of last season' 'tactics were wrong today' etc. I understand this is the norm if a team loses, but I can only go by what I heard.
If you look at their socials when they lost to Morecambe and Accrington there were signs of fans being disgruntled. There was an obvious lack of support on the same threads. The same negative posts had an overwhelming amount of likes compared to people challenging those posts which makes me believe it isn't an unpopular opinion.
Anyway all speculation, he may turn it around but I get the feeling he won't. Think last season in around 20 games he managed 3 wins when he was up against it.
Fair enough, I know xG isn’t a thing for everyone. But to just dismiss it as meaningless when it’s used by the teams, bookies, pundits etc is a bit silly. If it was meaningless I doubt it would be commonplace in football.
You watched one game, the meaningless stats are probably far better representative of how good AFC Wimbledon are as a team this season than the small sample of watching 1 game in which they lost. Fans are miserable after a loss, I and many others criticise Appleton when we lose, then the next game we win he’s amazing again. I really don’t think Jackson is under any pressure at the moment and most sensible Wimbledon fans are happy with how he’s done this season
It is meaningless as in the sense that it doesn't change the outcome of a result. I am perfectly aware of how teams are more likely to score based on averages etc. I highly doubt those same Wimbledon fans care about xG when they are sliding down the table though.
I watched one game along with more or less every single game Jacko managed under us. My point was, I went and watched another team who looked void of ideas on how to play. They have a few decent players, one of which I didn't get to watch (Ali) but ultimately they just didn't look like a team on the up to me is all.
Anyway to go back to the original point, it seems there is a bit of unrest and it will be interesting to see how he gets on for the rest of the season.
No statistics change the outcome of a result. They still have meaning though. xG is significant because it can indicate to you that you're doing better than your position tells you or overscoring points-wise based on your performance and a drop is coming. If a team is massively underperforming their xG then they have a finishing issue, but they are creating clear-cut, good quality chances which can indicate that there are only minor changes needed, even a bit of luck, but the overall base and balance are good. The bookies look at that and the hiring board members will often look at that as part of a review. Conversely, if your xG every game is 0.23 and you keep winning 2-0 then you're finishing incredibly effectively but your chance creation is pretty poor, which isn't sustainable across a whole season. To be honest, you've said that you ignore relevant statistics, you've seen one game so you know how bad Wimbledon are and you've been on the comments section of a football post which is the social equivalent of the Somme at any given moment so you know that there's unrest among the fans. I think you might want to review your investigative methods as that's quite a lot taken from very little.
Without being rude why are you explaining xG to me mate. I am perfectly aware of how stats work and how they can be used.
I ignore them in the sense that whether our own xG is high or low, I couldn't give a toss as long as we get results. I imagine Wimbledon fans feel the same after shipping 8 in 2.
So without seeming arrogant, no I don't want to review my investigative methods? Especially seeing as it's not gospel and I don't treat it to be otherwise.
I saw a few things and shared. Even opened with 'I don't think it's going to end well'. I haven't hopped on here and said he is gone without doubt.
If I've watched Jackson manage roughly 22 or so games for us and then watched him manage a new team. I believe that will give me an idea on how good or bad he is doing or capable of over some stats.
Apologies if I comes across rude but I find it a bit daft that I am having xG broken down to me when I understand exactly what it all means, but simply saying it isn't getting them points.
You can't go off of xG if you don't watch a team as it can be a false bearing. xG doesn't measure the capability of the player themselves but actually how likely it is they will score in their opportunities or concede for xA. You can't use that data to measure a player like Kirk compared to lets say a top Premier league winger. OK they could have a similar expected odd to score a goal from a particular range or angle but the reality is one player is good enough to and the other isn't. There will be players of course, who get themselves in scoring opportunities which will look good on the data side of things and appear that Wimbledon or whoever are playing well, but if your players don't have the ability the xG amounts to nothing.
If you were a betting man and relied on all this data then I suppose we would all be rich eventually as it's such a foolproof method?
I'm sorry, I think I assumed you weren't fully engaged with it because you said 'I am not gonna lie mate, I don't take xG seriously and never will', which would be an absolutely insane thing for someone to say if they were. I think I was right though, as you've then gone on to say that it gives a false bearing as it doesn't measure the capability of a player but how likely it is the chance will be scored but that's...exactly the point of xG and why it's useful. That's exactly what we're trying to explain, that xG is significant because it helps you assess whether you just need to improve your quality of player in certain areas or if you need to tear up the whole strategy and start over. That's why bookies and analysts use it; it informs likelihood of turnaround, transfer plans and future funding probability. It's pretty significant
To say XG is meaningless is a bit silly/ very naive. Bookmakers and professional gamblers (like those of Tony Bloom and Matthew Benham) use that data (along with other info/ data) A LOT with extreme success. It can paint a very useful picture over time of how likely a team are potentially underperforming results wise or alternatively over performing because they’re actually playing shit but just have a useful poacher like Alfie May blagging them a few results.
This is a fantastic point , 2 clubs that have also gone to some slightly far off places to find talent and it's really worked out for them because their data models they use to identify players works so well.
Brighton seem to have a conveyor belt of players from all over the world that can slide in when they sell the next talent on for big money like a Mac Alister or a Caicedo.
Just on a bit of Jacko watch, I don't think it's going to end well for him at the Wombles.
I attended the Wimbledon Bradford game and as said before, I saw nothing to suggest he had upped his managerial game since leaving us. It was such a poor quality game of footie from both sides overall.
Since the home loss to Bradford, Jacko has managed 1 draw and 2 losses in the league, the 2 losses conceding 8 goals and beating Cheltenham in the FA cup 5-1.
Seen a lot of fans saying he needs to go now and that the FA cup result just papered over the cracks.
It's a shame cause that's the only manager who has left us in recent years that I genuinely want to see smash it, but when you see Wimbledon fans saying he needs to go and the posts are getting high amounts of likes on social media it doesn't look good.
Ben Garner of course sacked and despite Nigel Adkins securing a long term contract at Tranmere, the results haven't been great.
Feel like it's a bit of a pattern that every manager who leaves us or gets sacked doesn't recover too well, Bowyer probably the best of the bunch but his time ran out in the end.
Wimbledon fans are self entitled tossers. There are fans like that at every club - there are plenty in our base that want Appleton (and wanted every other manager) to go. It was ever thus.
Just on a bit of Jacko watch, I don't think it's going to end well for him at the Wombles.
I attended the Wimbledon Bradford game and as said before, I saw nothing to suggest he had upped his managerial game since leaving us. It was such a poor quality game of footie from both sides overall.
Since the home loss to Bradford, Jacko has managed 1 draw and 2 losses in the league, the 2 losses conceding 8 goals and beating Cheltenham in the FA cup 5-1.
Seen a lot of fans saying he needs to go now and that the FA cup result just papered over the cracks.
It's a shame cause that's the only manager who has left us in recent years that I genuinely want to see smash it, but when you see Wimbledon fans saying he needs to go and the posts are getting high amounts of likes on social media it doesn't look good.
Ben Garner of course sacked and despite Nigel Adkins securing a long term contract at Tranmere, the results haven't been great.
Feel like it's a bit of a pattern that every manager who leaves us or gets sacked doesn't recover too well, Bowyer probably the best of the bunch but his time ran out in the end.
Wimbledon fans are self entitled tossers. There are fans like that at every club - there are plenty in our base that want Appleton (and wanted every other manager) to go. It was ever thus.
Plenty wanting Appleton to go already? They deserve failure.
Comments
Are we a poisoned chalice or are we hiring the wrong managers? Seems to be a mix to me.
Jackson did have a habit of going on good or bad runs with us and Wimbledon, rather than what most teams do and win/lose inconsistently. So hopefully he doesn’t go on a bad run, but I think looking at the stats they will be absolutely fine for at least a top-half finish which most of their fans will be pretty happy with
I went and watched them play in the flesh and I can tell you they looked pants, the Bradford fans sat near me were also saying how pants they looked.
On the way out of the ground I didn't hear one fan during a 15-20 minute walk, surrounded by Wimbledon fans say, 'that was a good performance'. I did however hear a fair few murmurs of 'Jackson is showing signs of last season' 'tactics were wrong today' etc. I understand this is the norm if a team loses, but I can only go by what I heard.
If you look at their socials when they lost to Morecambe and Accrington there were signs of fans being disgruntled. There was an obvious lack of support on the same threads. The same negative posts had an overwhelming amount of likes compared to people challenging those posts which makes me believe it isn't an unpopular opinion.
Anyway all speculation, he may turn it around but I get the feeling he won't. Think last season in around 20 games he managed 3 wins when he was up against it.
MOD note - images put behind a spoiler tag to save everyone's scrolling fingers - AW
Unfortunately mate you'll have to take my word for it that I heard what I heard at the game as I didn't have my mic to hand that time 😂
I watched one game along with more or less every single game Jacko managed under us. My point was, I went and watched another team who looked void of ideas on how to play. They have a few decent players, one of which I didn't get to watch (Ali) but ultimately they just didn't look like a team on the up to me is all.
Anyway to go back to the original point, it seems there is a bit of unrest and it will be interesting to see how he gets on for the rest of the season.
Off topic but I was really impressed by some of Bradfords defenders, they looked really assured on the ball, especially their right back Halliday. Kind of player I hope we have an eye on
Maidstone are doing well at the moment yet go on several of their forums and you’ll see people calling for the managers head.
I haven't really stated anything as fact, just speculated and shared things I've seen. The general idea I got was that Wimbledon fans wouldn't be happy with another slide down the table.
I ignore them in the sense that whether our own xG is high or low, I couldn't give a toss as long as we get results. I imagine Wimbledon fans feel the same after shipping 8 in 2.
So without seeming arrogant, no I don't want to review my investigative methods? Especially seeing as it's not gospel and I don't treat it to be otherwise.
I saw a few things and shared. Even opened with 'I don't think it's going to end well'. I haven't hopped on here and said he is gone without doubt.
If I've watched Jackson manage roughly 22 or so games for us and then watched him manage a new team. I believe that will give me an idea on how good or bad he is doing or capable of over some stats.
Apologies if I comes across rude but I find it a bit daft that I am having xG broken down to me when I understand exactly what it all means, but simply saying it isn't getting them points.
You can't go off of xG if you don't watch a team as it can be a false bearing. xG doesn't measure the capability of the player themselves but actually how likely it is they will score in their opportunities or concede for xA. You can't use that data to measure a player like Kirk compared to lets say a top Premier league winger. OK they could have a similar expected odd to score a goal from a particular range or angle but the reality is one player is good enough to and the other isn't. There will be players of course, who get themselves in scoring opportunities which will look good on the data side of things and appear that Wimbledon or whoever are playing well, but if your players don't have the ability the xG amounts to nothing.
If you were a betting man and relied on all this data then I suppose we would all be rich eventually as it's such a foolproof method?
in most cases it will paint you a much more accurate picture of how the game went than just going off the score, which can be INCREDIBLY misleading!
That's fine cause I don't believe I did, I said based on what I have seen, he didn't look up to much and that I have seen a fair few signs his fans aren't happy. Both of these are things I have presented to you.
You have then tried to breakdown xG to me, which I have accepted gives an idea of what's going on but not the full picture.
Ultimately I don't care about xG as it doesn't win games. xG isn't winning Wimbledon any points either.
This thread is about Jackson, I am sharing my thoughts about what I have seen. I am not claiming that I know the ins and outs about Wimbledon or how they play every game, just a few things I've seen.
So as a summary;
- I am aware that you can underperform with results but have expected better results
- I am aware that me watching one game of Jackos Wimbledon does not paint a whole picture of Jackos time at Wimbledon.
- I am aware that all the social media posts I have shared do not represent every Wimbledon fan
- I could not give two f***s about xG and xA and who shoulda had more corners etc, being blunt now.
How many times will a team be up 2 nil and let a team back in towards the end as they hold on which will increase their positive match stats, or any other common variable.
I haven't gone off of a score or anything. I have simply put that Jacko may be under pressure and what I have seen to make me think that.
This is a fantastic point , 2 clubs that have also gone to some slightly far off places to find talent and it's really worked out for them because their data models they use to identify players works so well.
Brighton seem to have a conveyor belt of players from all over the world that can slide in when they sell the next talent on for big money like a Mac Alister or a Caicedo.