7rew

Gorram it. The preview thing showed that working! Summary: Rankings: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/global-club-soccer-rankings/ Explanation: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/real-madrid-arsenal-la-galaxy-boca-juniors-in-one-giant-power-ranking/ Us: 227th Ipswich: 335th Us being much much better than Ipswich is just science.

I came across these: Club Rankings which attempt to rank clubs across all the big leagues using international club tournaments to rank leagues against each other. It is explained here: explanation It places us as the 227th best club in the world. Ipswich are 335th. Before people say statistics are meaningless or wrong.... you are literally backing Ipswich over Norwich if you do ;)

I was disappointed by the lack of John Williams for Marco.

Franke wore 28 at his last club as well.

"Although, must admit, they have been very lucky and not really sure how they have not lost the last 3 games." Yep, they are starting to play like the England Men''s team at tournaments. Shame.

Nigel, I looked at doing that at one point. In terms of similar sized clubs I went for 50%-150% stadium capacity. You need to go that wide to get both Bournemouth and Sunderland. There are 50 such clubs, with only 7 or so bigger. Which is what put me off doing more in-depth work. On the other hand there are more of those below us than above us.

I think replacing 7 bad, 1 average and 2 good players with 6 average ones will make us better as a team. You can afford to be without stars much more than you can carry people.

Why do we sign injury prone players? Because, like Anthony Pilkington, sometimes they don''t stay injury prone with an environment change and you get a player cheaper than they are worth. It is a question of risk/reward, both of which can be higher with a poor injury record. Also Vadis wasn''t injury prone until he got here, he just got a really bad injury playing for us early on and never really recovered. Even not previously injury prone players can become that way.

"I''m sure someone will use those stats to prove what an injury liability he will undoubtedly become... " I''ll try: The presence of inverted commas around the "injuries" shows that they are not actually medical injuries. So, we''ve signed a player so disinterested he pulls a sickie the equivalent of every of month! Now, where''s the tongue in cheek emoji when you need it?

Honestly Carrow89. Don''t you know that you are supposed to suppress your opinions and be silent after til has complained that the pc brigade are trying to suppress his opinions and silence him?

That comment makes me wish I''d brought a program! I assume the loan players are not on it: Matthews, Toffolo, Morris should be kept, but likely don''t count in the figure

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]How could we go three at the back without bringing Bennett on! Who were you going to play as the other two centre halves alongside Martin?[/quote] Well, empty space is marginally more effective than Bennett. So we could have gone one at the back.

Well, Ryan Bennett gave it a good try. It was genius of Fulham to get him on to replace Chris Martin.

We can''t play any other formation because only our attacking midfielders are playing even vaguely well.

Anyway, it''s derby and forest. At least one of these managers will be sacked before the start of next season.

Canos looks decent business to me. We brought three wingers into the first team picture this summer, two have worked and are on long term contacts, one didn''t and we got our money back. It could easily have been any of them that worked, it just happens to be the Murphys. We couldn''t know that in advance, so we have ourselves the best chance.

[quote user="im spartacus canary "]Four four f00kin two[/quote] 442 has barely been used by anyone since the offside rule changed and made a number 10 more effective than a second striker. It''s not as good as it used to be, get over it.

The more you practice the more you stack the dice in your favour. You don''t get to stop rolling them. Tactics are just another way to stack the dice. Without luck we have to acknowledge that Dean Coney intended to score with his arse.

The problem people have is that quite recently we have had a sustained period of above expectation results using high variance tactics, and those happen to be more exciting for the crowd. Football is a game of luck, since there are enough things you can''t control involved. However you can influence the expected goal difference in a match (I expect to win by 1 or lose by 2) and the variance of that number (but it could be 1 either side of that or it''ll be between -3 and +5). When you are likely to score less than the opposition then you want a high variance to help get wins, when you are likely to score more than the opposition, then low variance is your friend. Low variance can also help avoid big defeats when it is tight. The key part is the number of matches that at our above 0 goal difference, since that gets you points. Broadly speaking, the more goals in a match, the higher the variance is. Under Lambert in the premier league, we were a couple of goals worse than other teams, so we needed high variance, ultra attacking football to get wins, and we ended at the top end of where we reasonably could be. In Hughton''s first season, we were better and not behind a lot of teams. So we benefited from lower variance, tighter tactics. We ended up at the high end of where we could reasonably be. The next season was basically the same tactics but was not as lucky, we probably were below our average position, but not stupidly so. Alex Neil has tried both. He tried both in the prem last season, being put of the high variance stuff by Newcastle. The low varience stuff worked a bit after that, but mostly we weren''t close enough to other teams to get enough wins with it. This season, we are better than other teams, so I expect to see us playing low variance football going for a between 1-3 goal win, rather than all out attack to possibly get a 5 goal win at the risk of a 1 goal loss. With these tactics the question is do you feel lucky punk? Frankly it always is.

I think our tendency to send people back on loan to the club we got them from is a point in our favour on deals like this. Since they player is in familiar surroundings its probably better for them.

I''d like to see something a bit more like --------------Rudd Pinto--Bennett--Klose----Brady ---Tettey--Dorrans--O''Neil -----Hoolahan-Naismith ------------Mbokani but expect 4231 with Klose in and Howson, Naismith, Brady as the 3.

The point about Villa not being a six pointer is that we don''t gain anything from losing to Spurs and beating Villa compared to beating Spurs and losing to Villa. We get three points in both cases. Given that we have had reasonable success when the opposition are expected to dominate recently, but failed when we are expected to ourselves, I''m not entirely sure Spurs away isn''t better suited to us at the moment than Villa at home! Given that we should put out the best team in both matches, although that may well not be the same team each time.

Villa isn''t a 6 pointer. They won''t get enough points to join a relegation battle.

The same time as Tony Martin, a guy in yarmouth stabbed a burglar with a kitchen knife after chasing him from the house and didn''t even go to trial. We should not associate ourselves with anyone like Tony Martin.

[quote user="Gainer the Gopher"]He played defense when the defense sucked. Don''t blame him. Riiiiiiight.[/quote] Yes, Doherty played in a defence that sucked. Adam Drury played in the same defence. Neither of them either were Jon Otsemobor or signed him, or picked him. Neither of them are why that defence sucked. Not even close to why.