On the subject of where players spring from, I just watched the Coventry v Middlesbrough match. From their top 6 teams, Middlesbrough had a striker from Tooting & Mitcham and Coventry a defender who was relegated with scunthorpe last season.
There are gems out there, but as we've found out, the bargain bins are full of more crap than quality.
We have picked up many gems from the likes of Tooting and Mitcham
Nick Pope - Bury Town Lucas Ness - Met Police Fc Joe Aribo - Staines Town
Things like assists, completed passes etc etc should be exactly the stats being picked up by the black box gizmo.
We pick them up, but can't (or wont) interpret them. That's the problem.
Some of our players got assists for passing the ball 10 yards to JRS who then beat 3 men and scored from 15 yards. Some of our other players beat 3 men and crossed the ball to find Stockley still on the half way line or Bonne missing the ball.
Yes use data to narrow down the field but you need to identify what you want each player, in each position, to do then find someone capable of doing it. You can't do that on data alone. It's a tool, not the solution.
Assists is quite a simplistic stat and I would hope our analysis department uses more advanced data such as ExpectedAssists or ExpectedThreat that are more of an indicator of a players creative quality
You can do what you say there on data alone, but then you also need the eye test and character test to form the final opinion on whether to sign a player.
A lot of modern scouting is purely on stats, Xg, Xa, Xs - but you still need to see a player in the flesh. See their impact on the game. Listen to their contributions.
I always remember a stat about a player who had more flat-out sprints than anyone else on the pitch. Must be a hard worker you'd think. It turned out he used to sprint to take the corners but was actually a lazy bugger. Obviously that's an outlier but as with anything stats can often hide the real truth.
100% I agree. But it’s a lot easier to cover more players if you are filtering them using stats and then watching games/clips of them, which is where a lot of the work will be done. And I was more making the point that it’s a lot more advanced than the stats that are readily available to the public.
Holden does sound like he has a good balance between old school and new school though which is why I’m looking forward to seeing how he recruits if he gets better backing and a better recruitment team behind him
I did a number of scouting courses over the last few years. The younger lads were obsessed with the stats The older chaps were all about "seeing the whites of the player's eyes"
Neither are right or wrong in moderation but both aspects play a part in scouting of a player. And a healthy splash of instinct too. And a huge bit of desire.
I always remember a player I saw 2 years ago playing for Rochester. He was electric. Fast, skillful, two good feet. From the other side of the pitch he was like an unpolished Cristiano. In the second half I went close to the sideline to watch him closely and listen to him. Within 10 minutes I could see why he played at that level. He was laughing and joking wih his mates on the sideline. They were talking about the girls he was going to take back to his caravan and explaining how much cocaine he intended to do to give one of them a "roight seeing to". If I'd just looked at his stats i might have been taken in by him but when you see the whole piucture you can make a much better summary of a player.
Needless to say I couldn'trecommend him to a club. A bit iof a shame becaue he was very talented but his application just wasn't there.
Things like assists, completed passes etc etc should be exactly the stats being picked up by the black box gizmo.
We pick them up, but can't (or wont) interpret them. That's the problem.
Some of our players got assists for passing the ball 10 yards to JRS who then beat 3 men and scored from 15 yards. Some of our other players beat 3 men and crossed the ball to find Stockley still on the half way line or Bonne missing the ball.
Yes use data to narrow down the field but you need to identify what you want each player, in each position, to do then find someone capable of doing it. You can't do that on data alone. It's a tool, not the solution.
Assists is quite a simplistic stat and I would hope our analysis department uses more advanced data such as ExpectedAssists or ExpectedThreat that are more of an indicator of a players creative quality
You can do what you say there on data alone, but then you also need the eye test and character test to form the final opinion on whether to sign a player.
A lot of modern scouting is purely on stats, Xg, Xa, Xs - but you still need to see a player in the flesh. See their impact on the game. Listen to their contributions.
I always remember a stat about a player who had more flat-out sprints than anyone else on the pitch. Must be a hard worker you'd think. It turned out he used to sprint to take the corners but was actually a lazy bugger. Obviously that's an outlier but as with anything stats can often hide the real truth.
100% I agree. But it’s a lot easier to cover more players if you are filtering them using stats and then watching games/clips of them, which is where a lot of the work will be done. And I was more making the point that it’s a lot more advanced than the stats that are readily available to the public.
Holden does sound like he has a good balance between old school and new school though which is why I’m looking forward to seeing how he recruits if he gets better backing and a better recruitment team behind him
I did a number of scouting courses over the last few years. The younger lads were obsessed with the stats The older chaps were all about "seeing the whites of the player's eyes"
Neither are right or wrong in moderation but both aspects play a part in scouting of a player. And a healthy splash of instinct too. And a huge bit of desire.
I always remember a player I saw 2 years ago playing for Rochester. He was electric. Fast, skillful, two good feet. From the other side of the pitch he was like an unpolished Cristiano. In the second half I went close to the sideline to watch him closely and listen to him. Within 10 minutes I could see why he played at that level. He was laughing and joking wih his mates on the sideline. They were talking about the girls he was going to take back to his caravan and explaining how much cocaine he intended to do to give one of them a "roight seeing to". If I'd just looked at his stats i might have been taken in by him but when you see the whole piucture you can make a much better summary of a player.
Needless to say I couldn'trecommend him to a club. A bit iof a shame becaue he was very talented but his application just wasn't there.
Did you get any of the girls names Swis ? Asking for a friend.
On the subject of where players spring from, I just watched the Coventry v Middlesbrough match. From their top 6 teams, Middlesbrough had a striker from Tooting & Mitcham and Coventry a defender who was relegated with scunthorpe last season.
There are gems out there, but as we've found out, the bargain bins are full of more crap than quality.
We have picked up many gems from the likes of Tooting and Mitcham
Nick Pope - Bury Town Lucas Ness - Met Police Fc Joe Aribo - Staines Town
Lookman from Waterloo FC is crazy too. How did no one find him sooner!?
Things like assists, completed passes etc etc should be exactly the stats being picked up by the black box gizmo.
We pick them up, but can't (or wont) interpret them. That's the problem.
Some of our players got assists for passing the ball 10 yards to JRS who then beat 3 men and scored from 15 yards. Some of our other players beat 3 men and crossed the ball to find Stockley still on the half way line or Bonne missing the ball.
Yes use data to narrow down the field but you need to identify what you want each player, in each position, to do then find someone capable of doing it. You can't do that on data alone. It's a tool, not the solution.
Assists is quite a simplistic stat and I would hope our analysis department uses more advanced data such as ExpectedAssists or ExpectedThreat that are more of an indicator of a players creative quality
You can do what you say there on data alone, but then you also need the eye test and character test to form the final opinion on whether to sign a player.
A lot of modern scouting is purely on stats, Xg, Xa, Xs - but you still need to see a player in the flesh. See their impact on the game. Listen to their contributions.
I always remember a stat about a player who had more flat-out sprints than anyone else on the pitch. Must be a hard worker you'd think. It turned out he used to sprint to take the corners but was actually a lazy bugger. Obviously that's an outlier but as with anything stats can often hide the real truth.
100% I agree. But it’s a lot easier to cover more players if you are filtering them using stats and then watching games/clips of them, which is where a lot of the work will be done. And I was more making the point that it’s a lot more advanced than the stats that are readily available to the public.
Holden does sound like he has a good balance between old school and new school though which is why I’m looking forward to seeing how he recruits if he gets better backing and a better recruitment team behind him
Sorry I know the stats they actually more complicated than Assists, Goals etc
The big issue is a manager should say "I want a right back that is good at x, y and x" what has happened is they have been told "you can have right back A, B or C." Or just given him someone.
Until we have a manger that has enough influence to do that we will just go round in circles.
On the subject of where players spring from, I just watched the Coventry v Middlesbrough match. From their top 6 teams, Middlesbrough had a striker from Tooting & Mitcham and Coventry a defender who was relegated with scunthorpe last season.
There are gems out there, but as we've found out, the bargain bins are full of more crap than quality.
We have picked up many gems from the likes of Tooting and Mitcham
Nick Pope - Bury Town Lucas Ness - Met Police Fc Joe Aribo - Staines Town
Lookman from Waterloo FC is crazy too. How did no one find him sooner!?
Things like assists, completed passes etc etc should be exactly the stats being picked up by the black box gizmo.
We pick them up, but can't (or wont) interpret them. That's the problem.
Some of our players got assists for passing the ball 10 yards to JRS who then beat 3 men and scored from 15 yards. Some of our other players beat 3 men and crossed the ball to find Stockley still on the half way line or Bonne missing the ball.
Yes use data to narrow down the field but you need to identify what you want each player, in each position, to do then find someone capable of doing it. You can't do that on data alone. It's a tool, not the solution.
Assists is quite a simplistic stat and I would hope our analysis department uses more advanced data such as ExpectedAssists or ExpectedThreat that are more of an indicator of a players creative quality
You can do what you say there on data alone, but then you also need the eye test and character test to form the final opinion on whether to sign a player.
A lot of modern scouting is purely on stats, Xg, Xa, Xs - but you still need to see a player in the flesh. See their impact on the game. Listen to their contributions.
I always remember a stat about a player who had more flat-out sprints than anyone else on the pitch. Must be a hard worker you'd think. It turned out he used to sprint to take the corners but was actually a lazy bugger. Obviously that's an outlier but as with anything stats can often hide the real truth.
100% I agree. But it’s a lot easier to cover more players if you are filtering them using stats and then watching games/clips of them, which is where a lot of the work will be done. And I was more making the point that it’s a lot more advanced than the stats that are readily available to the public.
Holden does sound like he has a good balance between old school and new school though which is why I’m looking forward to seeing how he recruits if he gets better backing and a better recruitment team behind him
I did a number of scouting courses over the last few years. The younger lads were obsessed with the stats The older chaps were all about "seeing the whites of the player's eyes"
Neither are right or wrong in moderation but both aspects play a part in scouting of a player. And a healthy splash of instinct too. And a huge bit of desire.
I always remember a player I saw 2 years ago playing for Rochester. He was electric. Fast, skillful, two good feet. From the other side of the pitch he was like an unpolished Cristiano. In the second half I went close to the sideline to watch him closely and listen to him. Within 10 minutes I could see why he played at that level. He was laughing and joking wih his mates on the sideline. They were talking about the girls he was going to take back to his caravan and explaining how much cocaine he intended to do to give one of them a "roight seeing to". If I'd just looked at his stats i might have been taken in by him but when you see the whole piucture you can make a much better summary of a player.
Needless to say I couldn'trecommend him to a club. A bit iof a shame becaue he was very talented but his application just wasn't there.
Did you get any of the girls names Swis ? Asking for a friend.
Went to a couple but nowhere near as many as I wanted to. Why's that?
Things like assists, completed passes etc etc should be exactly the stats being picked up by the black box gizmo.
We pick them up, but can't (or wont) interpret them. That's the problem.
Some of our players got assists for passing the ball 10 yards to JRS who then beat 3 men and scored from 15 yards. Some of our other players beat 3 men and crossed the ball to find Stockley still on the half way line or Bonne missing the ball.
Yes use data to narrow down the field but you need to identify what you want each player, in each position, to do then find someone capable of doing it. You can't do that on data alone. It's a tool, not the solution.
Assists is quite a simplistic stat and I would hope our analysis department uses more advanced data such as ExpectedAssists or ExpectedThreat that are more of an indicator of a players creative quality
You can do what you say there on data alone, but then you also need the eye test and character test to form the final opinion on whether to sign a player.
A lot of modern scouting is purely on stats, Xg, Xa, Xs - but you still need to see a player in the flesh. See their impact on the game. Listen to their contributions.
I always remember a stat about a player who had more flat-out sprints than anyone else on the pitch. Must be a hard worker you'd think. It turned out he used to sprint to take the corners but was actually a lazy bugger. Obviously that's an outlier but as with anything stats can often hide the real truth.
100% I agree. But it’s a lot easier to cover more players if you are filtering them using stats and then watching games/clips of them, which is where a lot of the work will be done. And I was more making the point that it’s a lot more advanced than the stats that are readily available to the public.
Holden does sound like he has a good balance between old school and new school though which is why I’m looking forward to seeing how he recruits if he gets better backing and a better recruitment team behind him
I did a number of scouting courses over the last few years. The younger lads were obsessed with the stats The older chaps were all about "seeing the whites of the player's eyes"
Neither are right or wrong in moderation but both aspects play a part in scouting of a player. And a healthy splash of instinct too. And a huge bit of desire.
I always remember a player I saw 2 years ago playing for Rochester. He was electric. Fast, skillful, two good feet. From the other side of the pitch he was like an unpolished Cristiano. In the second half I went close to the sideline to watch him closely and listen to him. Within 10 minutes I could see why he played at that level. He was laughing and joking wih his mates on the sideline. They were talking about the girls he was going to take back to his caravan and explaining how much cocaine he intended to do to give one of them a "roight seeing to". If I'd just looked at his stats i might have been taken in by him but when you see the whole piucture you can make a much better summary of a player.
Needless to say I couldn'trecommend him to a club. A bit iof a shame becaue he was very talented but his application just wasn't there.
I guess that is the problem all of us have when suggesting names. I admired Marcus Maddison at Peterborough,but was always unsure of his temperament. In terms of ability he looked like a great signing. I even got excited by his brief cameo on his debut against Sunderland partly because he chased back and made a defensive clearance.
I love the speculation on here but I have never fooled myself I am an expert. Like others I throw names into the mix although I was more successful when I suggested George Dobson than I was with Marcus.
Things like assists, completed passes etc etc should be exactly the stats being picked up by the black box gizmo.
We pick them up, but can't (or wont) interpret them. That's the problem.
Some of our players got assists for passing the ball 10 yards to JRS who then beat 3 men and scored from 15 yards. Some of our other players beat 3 men and crossed the ball to find Stockley still on the half way line or Bonne missing the ball.
Yes use data to narrow down the field but you need to identify what you want each player, in each position, to do then find someone capable of doing it. You can't do that on data alone. It's a tool, not the solution.
Assists is quite a simplistic stat and I would hope our analysis department uses more advanced data such as ExpectedAssists or ExpectedThreat that are more of an indicator of a players creative quality
You can do what you say there on data alone, but then you also need the eye test and character test to form the final opinion on whether to sign a player.
A lot of modern scouting is purely on stats, Xg, Xa, Xs - but you still need to see a player in the flesh. See their impact on the game. Listen to their contributions.
I always remember a stat about a player who had more flat-out sprints than anyone else on the pitch. Must be a hard worker you'd think. It turned out he used to sprint to take the corners but was actually a lazy bugger. Obviously that's an outlier but as with anything stats can often hide the real truth.
100% I agree. But it’s a lot easier to cover more players if you are filtering them using stats and then watching games/clips of them, which is where a lot of the work will be done. And I was more making the point that it’s a lot more advanced than the stats that are readily available to the public.
Holden does sound like he has a good balance between old school and new school though which is why I’m looking forward to seeing how he recruits if he gets better backing and a better recruitment team behind him
I did a number of scouting courses over the last few years. The younger lads were obsessed with the stats The older chaps were all about "seeing the whites of the player's eyes"
Neither are right or wrong in moderation but both aspects play a part in scouting of a player. And a healthy splash of instinct too. And a huge bit of desire.
I always remember a player I saw 2 years ago playing for Rochester. He was electric. Fast, skillful, two good feet. From the other side of the pitch he was like an unpolished Cristiano. In the second half I went close to the sideline to watch him closely and listen to him. Within 10 minutes I could see why he played at that level. He was laughing and joking wih his mates on the sideline. They were talking about the girls he was going to take back to his caravan and explaining how much cocaine he intended to do to give one of them a "roight seeing to". If I'd just looked at his stats i might have been taken in by him but when you see the whole piucture you can make a much better summary of a player.
Needless to say I couldn'trecommend him to a club. A bit iof a shame becaue he was very talented but his application just wasn't there.
Depends how old he is i guess. 18-19 there's a chance he could sort his life out if given a chance. We'll sign but you need to move to here, club liaison will monitor you, we'll do random drug tests on you etc. Fail one and you're out. But if he was 24-25 then he's probably too far gone.
Things like assists, completed passes etc etc should be exactly the stats being picked up by the black box gizmo.
We pick them up, but can't (or wont) interpret them. That's the problem.
Some of our players got assists for passing the ball 10 yards to JRS who then beat 3 men and scored from 15 yards. Some of our other players beat 3 men and crossed the ball to find Stockley still on the half way line or Bonne missing the ball.
Yes use data to narrow down the field but you need to identify what you want each player, in each position, to do then find someone capable of doing it. You can't do that on data alone. It's a tool, not the solution.
Assists is quite a simplistic stat and I would hope our analysis department uses more advanced data such as ExpectedAssists or ExpectedThreat that are more of an indicator of a players creative quality
You can do what you say there on data alone, but then you also need the eye test and character test to form the final opinion on whether to sign a player.
A lot of modern scouting is purely on stats, Xg, Xa, Xs - but you still need to see a player in the flesh. See their impact on the game. Listen to their contributions.
I always remember a stat about a player who had more flat-out sprints than anyone else on the pitch. Must be a hard worker you'd think. It turned out he used to sprint to take the corners but was actually a lazy bugger. Obviously that's an outlier but as with anything stats can often hide the real truth.
100% I agree. But it’s a lot easier to cover more players if you are filtering them using stats and then watching games/clips of them, which is where a lot of the work will be done. And I was more making the point that it’s a lot more advanced than the stats that are readily available to the public.
Holden does sound like he has a good balance between old school and new school though which is why I’m looking forward to seeing how he recruits if he gets better backing and a better recruitment team behind him
I did a number of scouting courses over the last few years. The younger lads were obsessed with the stats The older chaps were all about "seeing the whites of the player's eyes"
Neither are right or wrong in moderation but both aspects play a part in scouting of a player. And a healthy splash of instinct too. And a huge bit of desire.
I always remember a player I saw 2 years ago playing for Rochester. He was electric. Fast, skillful, two good feet. From the other side of the pitch he was like an unpolished Cristiano. In the second half I went close to the sideline to watch him closely and listen to him. Within 10 minutes I could see why he played at that level. He was laughing and joking wih his mates on the sideline. They were talking about the girls he was going to take back to his caravan and explaining how much cocaine he intended to do to give one of them a "roight seeing to". If I'd just looked at his stats i might have been taken in by him but when you see the whole piucture you can make a much better summary of a player.
Needless to say I couldn'trecommend him to a club. A bit iof a shame becaue he was very talented but his application just wasn't there.
Depends how old he is i guess. 18-19 there's a chance he could sort his life out if given a chance. We'll sign but you need to move to here, club liaison will monitor you, we'll do random drug tests on you etc. Fail one and you're out. But if he was 24-25 then he's probably too far gone.
Egbo Edun - Free from Blackburn Hector Tafazolli - Free from Wycombe
Fraser Dobson Brannagan - £1m from Oxford
Smith - Free from Cambridge Stockton - Free from Morecambe CBT
I like the Alfie May / Mo Eisa & Aaron Collins options but think Stockton would fit 433 better & is a low risk gamble being out of contract (that would allow us to spend any transfer budget we have on a quality CM).
Fraser and CBT look the weak links, for every good game you get from them they follow it up with 3,4,5 very average games
To get promoted you need consistency
Also I’d love to know when we last spent a million on a player
I remember when we spent £1.1 million on Izale Mcleod back in 2010.
#NeverForget
Plus Luke Varney at £2m in 2007
What about Francis Jeffers. 2 and a half million quid. Blimey.
Think his name has been mentioned but Owen Moxon has 16 assists for Carlisle in league 2 this season. Watching their semi-final now and his set piece delivery is brilliant, something we’ve lacked for a couple of seasons now
Very decent player. 25 and a Decent size too and originally picked up for peanuts from Scotland - Annan Athletic iirc either him or Elliot Watt at Salford would improve our passing and ball retention. Watt came through at Wolves but made his name at Bradford last season before heading to Salford a year ago. Loads of assists and top of the L2 passing stats for numbers and accuracy
Both have the potential to significantly increase in value and should be worth a look - one is likely to be in our division after the playoffs
Mentioned Elliot Watt a little while back as someone we should target and has room for potential to go up and play Championship football. He’s a deep lying playmaker with one of, if not the most, forward passes in League Two. It’s how he has so many assists. Not the sideways stuff that we’ve become accustomed to.
My biggest frustration is I emailed his details to the club last June. His value has only gone up since then.
Think the club has missed out on a hell of a lot of decent players over the last couple of years, for many reasons.
Not willing to pay, not willing to take advice from others, not enough staff with knowledge and contacts, not enough staff out watching players from all levels, too much turnover in coaches, too much interference from those who don’t have the knowledge, I can go on.
Modern sport is very stats based, and analysts seem to be used everywhere.
So much of this data is publicly available that there ought to be a fairly level playing field between comparable clubs, as all should be looking similar numbers surely?
The TV pundits have access to a lot of this data, so they can say that Player X makes the highest number of threatening passes or makes the most overlaps.
Modern sport is very stats based, and analysts seem to be used everywhere.
So much of this data is publicly available that there ought to be a fairly level playing field between comparable clubs, as all should be looking similar numbers surely?
The TV pundits have access to a lot of this data, so they can say that Player X makes the highest number of threatening passes or makes the most overlaps.
That’s where the likes of Brighton and Brentford have got their edge over the years.
Yes all the data is publicly available (for a fee) but the clubs who pour serious resources into coming up with new in-house ways of combining the runs, the passses, the tackles & shots etc. can create more informative stats that no-one else has access to.
By going deeper to the second, third and fourth level of the data, they’re uncovering trends that the publicly available data won’t tell you.
Modern sport is very stats based, and analysts seem to be used everywhere.
So much of this data is publicly available that there ought to be a fairly level playing field between comparable clubs, as all should be looking similar numbers surely?
The TV pundits have access to a lot of this data, so they can say that Player X makes the highest number of threatening passes or makes the most overlaps.
That’s where the likes of Brighton and Brentford have got their edge over the years.
Yes all the data is publicly available (for a fee) but the clubs who pour serious resources into coming up with new in-house ways of combining the runs, the passses, the tackles & shots etc. can create more informative stats that no-one else has access to.
By going deeper to the second, third and fourth level of the data, they’re uncovering trends that the publicly available data won’t tell you.
They also, like Southampton used to, have a template of what each position in the team does and what a team needs.
Ben White and John Stones are both center backs playing right back and play in completely different areas of the pitch doing completely different jobs. Ben White could not do what John Stones does.
When you don't do it properly you end up having things like slow back fours, one paced midfields, light weight team, no one that can take set pieces, no leadership.
I know it sounds comical after the last two seasons but we only win as many games as we do because we have more better players than half the other teams. Not because we have the right players.
Think his name has been mentioned but Owen Moxon has 16 assists for Carlisle in league 2 this season. Watching their semi-final now and his set piece delivery is brilliant, something we’ve lacked for a couple of seasons now
Very decent player. 25 and a Decent size too and originally picked up for peanuts from Scotland - Annan Athletic iirc either him or Elliot Watt at Salford would improve our passing and ball retention. Watt came through at Wolves but made his name at Bradford last season before heading to Salford a year ago. Loads of assists and top of the L2 passing stats for numbers and accuracy
Both have the potential to significantly increase in value and should be worth a look - one is likely to be in our division after the playoffs
Mentioned Elliot Watt a little while back as someone we should target and has room for potential to go up and play Championship football. He’s a deep lying playmaker with one of, if not the most, forward passes in League Two. It’s how he has so many assists. Not the sideways stuff that we’ve become accustomed to.
My biggest frustration is I emailed his details to the club last June. His value has only gone up since then.
Think the club has missed out on a hell of a lot of decent players over the last couple of years, for many reasons.
Not willing to pay, not willing to take advice from others, not enough staff with knowledge and contacts, not enough staff out watching players from all levels, too much turnover in coaches, too much interference from those who don’t have the knowledge, I can go on.
I thought it was really disappointing when you said Gallen hadn't heard of Ellis Sims at Everton.
The club needs to be more aware of players doing well in the PL u21 leagues. There will be many potential loans, signings for fees and free transfers at that level who could improve us and in the case of those joining permanently, players who can grow with the club.
JRS was a brilliant loan for us, but we need more of that quality and we may have to look further than other London clubs to find them.
I've seen that Sunderland have moved their focus to younger players in the last few years and clubs like Lincoln overachieved partly due to their loan signings. Definitely an area for us to improve in.
Modern sport is very stats based, and analysts seem to be used everywhere.
So much of this data is publicly available that there ought to be a fairly level playing field between comparable clubs, as all should be looking similar numbers surely?
The TV pundits have access to a lot of this data, so they can say that Player X makes the highest number of threatening passes or makes the most overlaps.
That’s where the likes of Brighton and Brentford have got their edge over the years.
Yes all the data is publicly available (for a fee) but the clubs who pour serious resources into coming up with new in-house ways of combining the runs, the passses, the tackles & shots etc. can create more informative stats that no-one else has access to.
By going deeper to the second, third and fourth level of the data, they’re uncovering trends that the publicly available data won’t tell you.
The interesting thing though is that these things are never continually successful and there's always an element of luck. Rasmus Ankersen, the same man who did so much great recruitment at Brentford went to Southampton and is being primarily blamed for taking them down. Too many young players with the wrong attitudes brought in and too much focus in January on potential rather than present-day returns. He used the same systems but this time it fell flat. Much like how Les Reed was a genius at Saints until it fell apart and Walsh was a god at Leicester but is seen as part of the group that started Everton's decline into what they are now. Constant reinvention and a huge amount of fortune are needed no matter how good your data and scouting set up is
Modern sport is very stats based, and analysts seem to be used everywhere.
So much of this data is publicly available that there ought to be a fairly level playing field between comparable clubs, as all should be looking similar numbers surely?
The TV pundits have access to a lot of this data, so they can say that Player X makes the highest number of threatening passes or makes the most overlaps.
That’s where the likes of Brighton and Brentford have got their edge over the years.
Yes all the data is publicly available (for a fee) but the clubs who pour serious resources into coming up with new in-house ways of combining the runs, the passses, the tackles & shots etc. can create more informative stats that no-one else has access to.
By going deeper to the second, third and fourth level of the data, they’re uncovering trends that the publicly available data won’t tell you.
The interesting thing though is that these things are never continually successful and there's always an element of luck. Rasmus Ankersen, the same man who did so much great recruitment at Brentford went to Southampton and is being primarily blamed for taking them down. Too many young players with the wrong attitudes brought in and too much focus in January on potential rather than present-day returns. He used the same systems but this time it fell flat. Much like how Les Reed was a genius at Saints until it fell apart and Walsh was a god at Leicester but is seen as part of the group that started Everton's decline into what they are now. Constant reinvention and a huge amount of fortune are needed no matter how good your data and scouting set up is
Anderson’s niche was finding players who were lower value and making them higher value. Unfortunately, it’s harder when you pay more in the first place to realise higher return on their investment. It’s a bit like how Charlton used to be. We could often unearth a diamond in the rough, but if we spent good money on a player that usually turned out to be shit I’m looking at you. Neil redfearn
Modern sport is very stats based, and analysts seem to be used everywhere.
So much of this data is publicly available that there ought to be a fairly level playing field between comparable clubs, as all should be looking similar numbers surely?
The TV pundits have access to a lot of this data, so they can say that Player X makes the highest number of threatening passes or makes the most overlaps.
That’s where the likes of Brighton and Brentford have got their edge over the years.
Yes all the data is publicly available (for a fee) but the clubs who pour serious resources into coming up with new in-house ways of combining the runs, the passses, the tackles & shots etc. can create more informative stats that no-one else has access to.
By going deeper to the second, third and fourth level of the data, they’re uncovering trends that the publicly available data won’t tell you.
The interesting thing though is that these things are never continually successful and there's always an element of luck. Rasmus Ankersen, the same man who did so much great recruitment at Brentford went to Southampton and is being primarily blamed for taking them down. Too many young players with the wrong attitudes brought in and too much focus in January on potential rather than present-day returns. He used the same systems but this time it fell flat. Much like how Les Reed was a genius at Saints until it fell apart and Walsh was a god at Leicester but is seen as part of the group that started Everton's decline into what they are now. Constant reinvention and a huge amount of fortune are needed no matter how good your data and scouting set up is
Anderson’s niche was finding players who were lower value and making them higher value. Unfortunately, it’s harder when you pay more in the first place to realise higher return on their investment. It’s a bit like how Charlton used to be. We could often unearth a diamond in the rough, but if we spent good money on a player that usually turned out to be shit I’m looking at you. Neil redfearn
Stuart Fleetwood Dean Sinclair
There are examples of old, young, good pedigree, bad pedigree, good stats, bad stats, cheap, expensive, free, on the way up, on the way down, absolute arse holes, good chaps, piss heads, tee totallers and any other "type" that have been brilliant and awful over the years. And every point in-between.
Probably not relevant to the point you were making but I keep reading people saying Curbs sign x type, Powell signed Y type, Bowyer signed z type. They didn't. They signed all types. Some worked, some didn't.
Modern sport is very stats based, and analysts seem to be used everywhere.
So much of this data is publicly available that there ought to be a fairly level playing field between comparable clubs, as all should be looking similar numbers surely?
The TV pundits have access to a lot of this data, so they can say that Player X makes the highest number of threatening passes or makes the most overlaps.
That’s where the likes of Brighton and Brentford have got their edge over the years.
Yes all the data is publicly available (for a fee) but the clubs who pour serious resources into coming up with new in-house ways of combining the runs, the passses, the tackles & shots etc. can create more informative stats that no-one else has access to.
By going deeper to the second, third and fourth level of the data, they’re uncovering trends that the publicly available data won’t tell you.
The interesting thing though is that these things are never continually successful and there's always an element of luck. Rasmus Ankersen, the same man who did so much great recruitment at Brentford went to Southampton and is being primarily blamed for taking them down. Too many young players with the wrong attitudes brought in and too much focus in January on potential rather than present-day returns. He used the same systems but this time it fell flat. Much like how Les Reed was a genius at Saints until it fell apart and Walsh was a god at Leicester but is seen as part of the group that started Everton's decline into what they are now. Constant reinvention and a huge amount of fortune are needed no matter how good your data and scouting set up is
Anderson’s niche was finding players who were lower value and making them higher value. Unfortunately, it’s harder when you pay more in the first place to realise higher return on their investment. It’s a bit like how Charlton used to be. We could often unearth a diamond in the rough, but if we spent good money on a player that usually turned out to be shit I’m looking at you. Neil redfearn
Modern sport is very stats based, and analysts seem to be used everywhere.
So much of this data is publicly available that there ought to be a fairly level playing field between comparable clubs, as all should be looking similar numbers surely?
The TV pundits have access to a lot of this data, so they can say that Player X makes the highest number of threatening passes or makes the most overlaps.
That’s where the likes of Brighton and Brentford have got their edge over the years.
Yes all the data is publicly available (for a fee) but the clubs who pour serious resources into coming up with new in-house ways of combining the runs, the passses, the tackles & shots etc. can create more informative stats that no-one else has access to.
By going deeper to the second, third and fourth level of the data, they’re uncovering trends that the publicly available data won’t tell you.
The interesting thing though is that these things are never continually successful and there's always an element of luck. Rasmus Ankersen, the same man who did so much great recruitment at Brentford went to Southampton and is being primarily blamed for taking them down. Too many young players with the wrong attitudes brought in and too much focus in January on potential rather than present-day returns. He used the same systems but this time it fell flat. Much like how Les Reed was a genius at Saints until it fell apart and Walsh was a god at Leicester but is seen as part of the group that started Everton's decline into what they are now. Constant reinvention and a huge amount of fortune are needed no matter how good your data and scouting set up is
Anderson’s niche was finding players who were lower value and making them higher value. Unfortunately, it’s harder when you pay more in the first place to realise higher return on their investment. It’s a bit like how Charlton used to be. We could often unearth a diamond in the rough, but if we spent good money on a player that usually turned out to be shit I’m looking at you. Neil redfearn
Stuart Fleetwood Dean Sinclair
There are examples of old, young, good pedigree, bad pedigree, good stats, bad stats, cheap, expensive, free, on the way up, on the way down, absolute arse holes, good chaps, piss heads, tee totallers and any other "type" that have been brilliant and awful over the years. And every point in-between.
Probably not relevant to the point you were making but I keep reading people saying Curbs sign x type, Powell signed Y type, Bowyer signed z type. They didn't. They signed all types. Some worked, some didn't.
You’re right obviously they all made various types of signings. But one thing I remember from curbs in the charlton TV studio that stuck with me, he said he didn’t have much money to splash so he looked for players that had got a decent move somewhere that hadn’t gone the way they’d hoped, basically players who were angry and had a point to prove. Terrell Thomas strikes me as one of them.
Modern sport is very stats based, and analysts seem to be used everywhere.
So much of this data is publicly available that there ought to be a fairly level playing field between comparable clubs, as all should be looking similar numbers surely?
The TV pundits have access to a lot of this data, so they can say that Player X makes the highest number of threatening passes or makes the most overlaps.
That’s where the likes of Brighton and Brentford have got their edge over the years.
Yes all the data is publicly available (for a fee) but the clubs who pour serious resources into coming up with new in-house ways of combining the runs, the passses, the tackles & shots etc. can create more informative stats that no-one else has access to.
By going deeper to the second, third and fourth level of the data, they’re uncovering trends that the publicly available data won’t tell you.
The interesting thing though is that these things are never continually successful and there's always an element of luck. Rasmus Ankersen, the same man who did so much great recruitment at Brentford went to Southampton and is being primarily blamed for taking them down. Too many young players with the wrong attitudes brought in and too much focus in January on potential rather than present-day returns. He used the same systems but this time it fell flat. Much like how Les Reed was a genius at Saints until it fell apart and Walsh was a god at Leicester but is seen as part of the group that started Everton's decline into what they are now. Constant reinvention and a huge amount of fortune are needed no matter how good your data and scouting set up is
And indeed Gallen after bringing in Cullen, Bielik and Gallagher on loan...
Modern sport is very stats based, and analysts seem to be used everywhere.
So much of this data is publicly available that there ought to be a fairly level playing field between comparable clubs, as all should be looking similar numbers surely?
The TV pundits have access to a lot of this data, so they can say that Player X makes the highest number of threatening passes or makes the most overlaps.
That’s where the likes of Brighton and Brentford have got their edge over the years.
Yes all the data is publicly available (for a fee) but the clubs who pour serious resources into coming up with new in-house ways of combining the runs, the passses, the tackles & shots etc. can create more informative stats that no-one else has access to.
By going deeper to the second, third and fourth level of the data, they’re uncovering trends that the publicly available data won’t tell you.
The interesting thing though is that these things are never continually successful and there's always an element of luck. Rasmus Ankersen, the same man who did so much great recruitment at Brentford went to Southampton and is being primarily blamed for taking them down. Too many young players with the wrong attitudes brought in and too much focus in January on potential rather than present-day returns. He used the same systems but this time it fell flat. Much like how Les Reed was a genius at Saints until it fell apart and Walsh was a god at Leicester but is seen as part of the group that started Everton's decline into what they are now. Constant reinvention and a huge amount of fortune are needed no matter how good your data and scouting set up is
Graham Carr was seen as a genius for a while when he was at Newcastle.
Modern sport is very stats based, and analysts seem to be used everywhere.
So much of this data is publicly available that there ought to be a fairly level playing field between comparable clubs, as all should be looking similar numbers surely?
The TV pundits have access to a lot of this data, so they can say that Player X makes the highest number of threatening passes or makes the most overlaps.
That’s where the likes of Brighton and Brentford have got their edge over the years.
Yes all the data is publicly available (for a fee) but the clubs who pour serious resources into coming up with new in-house ways of combining the runs, the passses, the tackles & shots etc. can create more informative stats that no-one else has access to.
By going deeper to the second, third and fourth level of the data, they’re uncovering trends that the publicly available data won’t tell you.
The interesting thing though is that these things are never continually successful and there's always an element of luck. Rasmus Ankersen, the same man who did so much great recruitment at Brentford went to Southampton and is being primarily blamed for taking them down. Too many young players with the wrong attitudes brought in and too much focus in January on potential rather than present-day returns. He used the same systems but this time it fell flat. Much like how Les Reed was a genius at Saints until it fell apart and Walsh was a god at Leicester but is seen as part of the group that started Everton's decline into what they are now. Constant reinvention and a huge amount of fortune are needed no matter how good your data and scouting set up is
And indeed Gallen after bringing in Cullen, Bielik and Gallagher on loan...
Modern sport is very stats based, and analysts seem to be used everywhere.
So much of this data is publicly available that there ought to be a fairly level playing field between comparable clubs, as all should be looking similar numbers surely?
The TV pundits have access to a lot of this data, so they can say that Player X makes the highest number of threatening passes or makes the most overlaps.
That’s where the likes of Brighton and Brentford have got their edge over the years.
Yes all the data is publicly available (for a fee) but the clubs who pour serious resources into coming up with new in-house ways of combining the runs, the passses, the tackles & shots etc. can create more informative stats that no-one else has access to.
By going deeper to the second, third and fourth level of the data, they’re uncovering trends that the publicly available data won’t tell you.
The interesting thing though is that these things are never continually successful and there's always an element of luck. Rasmus Ankersen, the same man who did so much great recruitment at Brentford went to Southampton and is being primarily blamed for taking them down. Too many young players with the wrong attitudes brought in and too much focus in January on potential rather than present-day returns. He used the same systems but this time it fell flat. Much like how Les Reed was a genius at Saints until it fell apart and Walsh was a god at Leicester but is seen as part of the group that started Everton's decline into what they are now. Constant reinvention and a huge amount of fortune are needed no matter how good your data and scouting set up is
And indeed Gallen after bringing in Cullen, Bielik and Gallagher on loan...
…and then backing that up with Rak-Sakyi
Well we will just forget the 50 odd players we signed between Gallagher and JRS then...
TBH I don't think most of the dross is on Gallen, but he hardly helps himself by saying they are when we sign them, but a 3 year gap is quite significant, especially with the number of players we have signed.
it is very easy to blame Gallen for our poor recruitment but these days does he decide on who to recruit, or is it the manager, the owner's son or the black box? Isn't Gallen responsible for the contract negotiations and not responsible for deciding who to recruit?
Modern sport is very stats based, and analysts seem to be used everywhere.
So much of this data is publicly available that there ought to be a fairly level playing field between comparable clubs, as all should be looking similar numbers surely?
The TV pundits have access to a lot of this data, so they can say that Player X makes the highest number of threatening passes or makes the most overlaps.
That’s where the likes of Brighton and Brentford have got their edge over the years.
Yes all the data is publicly available (for a fee) but the clubs who pour serious resources into coming up with new in-house ways of combining the runs, the passses, the tackles & shots etc. can create more informative stats that no-one else has access to.
By going deeper to the second, third and fourth level of the data, they’re uncovering trends that the publicly available data won’t tell you.
The interesting thing though is that these things are never continually successful and there's always an element of luck. Rasmus Ankersen, the same man who did so much great recruitment at Brentford went to Southampton and is being primarily blamed for taking them down. Too many young players with the wrong attitudes brought in and too much focus in January on potential rather than present-day returns. He used the same systems but this time it fell flat. Much like how Les Reed was a genius at Saints until it fell apart and Walsh was a god at Leicester but is seen as part of the group that started Everton's decline into what they are now. Constant reinvention and a huge amount of fortune are needed no matter how good your data and scouting set up is
Anderson’s niche was finding players who were lower value and making them higher value. Unfortunately, it’s harder when you pay more in the first place to realise higher return on their investment. It’s a bit like how Charlton used to be. We could often unearth a diamond in the rough, but if we spent good money on a player that usually turned out to be shit I’m looking at you. Neil redfearn
The thing is, he's actually done quite well in discovering a new market within that niche. He started looking at surplus talented youth players at big clubs who would typically buy a new player rather than develop one, promising them first team football and the chance to move on if the right bid came in. They signed four players from City this season, the standouts being Bazunu and particularly Lavia, and before that signed Livramento from Chelsea and loaned Broja. The idea is that they'd buy these players for decent fees before they became worth a much larger sum and accept that their stays would be brief but profitable, and so far they've been quite good at identifying those sorts of players. The problem is he's failed to build adequately around it. They let some of their more experienced players go after they fell out with Hasenhuttl but failed to identify experience in key areas to play alongside the young players and set standards. If you look at that squad the only players with the kind of mentality they need to get out of this mess are Ward-Prowse and Stuart Armstrong, and only one of those is a regular starter. This time round it was a bit too much clever data and not enough recognition that they needed some grown ups in the club to help raise the children.
Modern sport is very stats based, and analysts seem to be used everywhere.
So much of this data is publicly available that there ought to be a fairly level playing field between comparable clubs, as all should be looking similar numbers surely?
The TV pundits have access to a lot of this data, so they can say that Player X makes the highest number of threatening passes or makes the most overlaps.
That’s where the likes of Brighton and Brentford have got their edge over the years.
Yes all the data is publicly available (for a fee) but the clubs who pour serious resources into coming up with new in-house ways of combining the runs, the passses, the tackles & shots etc. can create more informative stats that no-one else has access to.
By going deeper to the second, third and fourth level of the data, they’re uncovering trends that the publicly available data won’t tell you.
The interesting thing though is that these things are never continually successful and there's always an element of luck. Rasmus Ankersen, the same man who did so much great recruitment at Brentford went to Southampton and is being primarily blamed for taking them down. Too many young players with the wrong attitudes brought in and too much focus in January on potential rather than present-day returns. He used the same systems but this time it fell flat. Much like how Les Reed was a genius at Saints until it fell apart and Walsh was a god at Leicester but is seen as part of the group that started Everton's decline into what they are now. Constant reinvention and a huge amount of fortune are needed no matter how good your data and scouting set up is
Anderson’s niche was finding players who were lower value and making them higher value. Unfortunately, it’s harder when you pay more in the first place to realise higher return on their investment. It’s a bit like how Charlton used to be. We could often unearth a diamond in the rough, but if we spent good money on a player that usually turned out to be shit I’m looking at you. Neil redfearn
The thing is, he's actually done quite well in discovering a new market within that niche. He started looking at surplus talented youth players at big clubs who would typically buy a new player rather than develop one, promising them first team football and the chance to move on if the right bid came in. They signed four players from City this season, the standouts being Bazunu and particularly Lavia, and before that signed Livramento from Chelsea and loaned Broja. The idea is that they'd buy these players for decent fees before they became worth a much larger sum and accept that their stays would be brief but profitable, and so far they've been quite good at identifying those sorts of players. The problem is he's failed to build adequately around it. They let some of their more experienced players go after they fell out with Hasenhuttl but failed to identify experience in key areas to play alongside the young players and set standards. If you look at that squad the only players with the kind of mentality they need to get out of this mess are Ward-Prowse and Stuart Armstrong, and only one of those is a regular starter. This time round it was a bit too much clever data and not enough recognition that they needed some grown ups in the club to help raise the children.
They also loaned out Nathan Tella to Burnley, where he scored 17 goals. Would he have been any worse than most of the players they signed?
At least they now have a Championship proven forward...
Comments
Nick Pope - Bury Town
Lucas Ness - Met Police Fc
Joe Aribo - Staines Town
The younger lads were obsessed with the stats
The older chaps were all about "seeing the whites of the player's eyes"
Neither are right or wrong in moderation but both aspects play a part in scouting of a player. And a healthy splash of instinct too. And a huge bit of desire.
I always remember a player I saw 2 years ago playing for Rochester. He was electric. Fast, skillful, two good feet. From the other side of the pitch he was like an unpolished Cristiano.
In the second half I went close to the sideline to watch him closely and listen to him. Within 10 minutes I could see why he played at that level. He was laughing and joking wih his mates on the sideline. They were talking about the girls he was going to take back to his caravan and explaining how much cocaine he intended to do to give one of them a "roight seeing to".
If I'd just looked at his stats i might have been taken in by him but when you see the whole piucture you can make a much better summary of a player.
Needless to say I couldn'trecommend him to a club. A bit iof a shame becaue he was very talented but his application just wasn't there.
Replacement for Ryan Inniss.
The big issue is a manager should say "I want a right back that is good at x, y and x" what has happened is they have been told "you can have right back A, B or C." Or just given him someone.
Until we have a manger that has enough influence to do that we will just go round in circles.
I love the speculation on here but I have never fooled myself I am an expert. Like others I throw names into the mix although I was more successful when I suggested George Dobson than I was with Marcus.
Not willing to pay, not willing to take advice from others, not enough staff with knowledge and contacts, not enough staff out watching players from all levels, too much turnover in coaches, too much interference from those who don’t have the knowledge, I can go on.
So much of this data is publicly available that there ought to be a fairly level playing field between comparable clubs, as all should be looking similar numbers surely?
The TV pundits have access to a lot of this data, so they can say that Player X makes the highest number of threatening passes or makes the most overlaps.
Yes all the data is publicly available (for a fee) but the clubs who pour serious resources into coming up with new in-house ways of combining the runs, the passses, the tackles & shots etc. can create more informative stats that no-one else has access to.
By going deeper to the second, third and fourth level of the data, they’re uncovering trends that the publicly available data won’t tell you.
Ben White and John Stones are both center backs playing right back and play in completely different areas of the pitch doing completely different jobs. Ben White could not do what John Stones does.
When you don't do it properly you end up having things like slow back fours, one paced midfields, light weight team, no one that can take set pieces, no leadership.
I know it sounds comical after the last two seasons but we only win as many games as we do because we have more better players than half the other teams. Not because we have the right players.
The club needs to be more aware of players doing well in the PL u21 leagues. There will be many potential loans, signings for fees and free transfers at that level who could improve us and in the case of those joining permanently, players who can grow with the club.
JRS was a brilliant loan for us, but we need more of that quality and we may have to look further than other London clubs to find them.
I've seen that Sunderland have moved their focus to younger players in the last few years and clubs like Lincoln overachieved partly due to their loan signings. Definitely an area for us to improve in.
It’s a bit like how Charlton used to be. We could often unearth a diamond in the rough, but if we spent good money on a player that usually turned out to be shit I’m looking at you. Neil redfearn
Dean Sinclair
There are examples of old, young, good pedigree, bad pedigree, good stats, bad stats, cheap, expensive, free, on the way up, on the way down, absolute arse holes, good chaps, piss heads, tee totallers and any other "type" that have been brilliant and awful over the years. And every point in-between.
Probably not relevant to the point you were making but I keep reading people saying Curbs sign x type, Powell signed Y type, Bowyer signed z type. They didn't. They signed all types. Some worked, some didn't.
TBH I don't think most of the dross is on Gallen, but he hardly helps himself by saying they are when we sign them, but a 3 year gap is quite significant, especially with the number of players we have signed.
At least they now have a Championship proven forward...