Give the manager more time

[MAD_MAGPIE]

I'm also trying to be objective and look at the bigger picture as to why things have suddenly gone tits up after enjoying a continuous upward curve for 18 months. I think that on and off the pitch we've lost three important parts of our success, maybe the three most important parts. Jason Turner, Luke Williams and Matty Palmer were the heartbeat of the club and would always be very difficult to replace. Hopefully we can arrest the downward spiral soon, it would be sad to end the season on a downer.

I think you have hit the nail on the head there. Three major key players no longer involved. So we have a new CEO, a new manager this season and a key player out injured. That is a lot of change.

It’s true we are showing relegation form at the moment and I’m hoping for everyone’s sake which includes players, fans, owners, and SM that we can start to pick up some results. At least finish on an upwards trajectory and give us something to be optimistic about going into the summer when the proper transfer business can be done. For me the January transfer window is a bit of a sticking plaster and not a magic bullet.

[MAD_MAGPIE]

He will not but Pietastic deserves credit for using a new example and not the well worn cliche of Alex Ferguson's start at United. Posters would be well advised not to challenge UTM on stats, he will always find some from somewhere to see you off. Like MadMagpie using SM's last 6 games to prove he was no worse than LW, when actually it showed his projected results over the season would give you 30 points, bottom place and relegation.

Trying to be objective, I would have to say the jury is out on the club's ambition, but that could be down to FFP. The jury is also out on on Football Radar's ability to analyse defenders. We can accept consolidation if that is what people want but I would rather that was 8th/9th/10th than 20th/21st/22nd. Whatever, this weird period where Notts have had huge support may be coming to and end. It felt odd anyway to someone who went on one of two coaches (with Claude Bishop or Neal Hook) to away games in what is is now the Championship. And half of those fans had sandwiches and a flask, and a tartan blanket.

What we can (or maybe not in some cases) agree on was it was a nice moment to see Forest lose to an 89th minute goal last night, with a double celebration after 4 minutes of VAR confirming it. You Pies.

A sample of seven games is not enough data to predict with any degree of accuracy the projected points for a team over an entire season. Especially when it's a selection of games where we only won one game so it's bound to show us as being relegation fodder. Plus most of the games in that sample were teams in the top seven.

The comparison I did between LW and SM was to show that the results of those games apart from Gillingham were almost identical to the point the goals for and against were nearly the same and that SM's results in those games were no worse than LW's. They are the facts because that is what has happened. They cannot be disproven.

Likewise I went to Mansfield and Wrexham and we were unfortunate to not get something from those games. We did enough in both but such is football. The performances in those games were not bad.

This is why I am still undecided about SM where others made their minds up as soon as he was appointed and why any sensible and rational owners would not be so quick to write SM off and pull the trigger at this stage.

Also I've looked at the Shrewsbury howlers that someone posted on another thread and the defensive errors were evident then under LW. I honestly believe we would have beaten them that night without those mistakes.

This is also why I don't think had Neil Warnock come in or another manager that all of a sudden they could have stopped the mistakes and errors that we have been punished for since day one at Sutton right through to day 34 against Sutton.

[ThePieWhoCameIn]

Interesting point about the Radar and defenders. I would love to know what criteria they use to identify possible targets. It feels to me that it's the hardest position to analyse, a lot of it is done without the ball being involved, or without vast distances being covered.

Suppose a CB marks his striker out of the game, but barely touches the ball or makes a tackle. How do you analyse that with stats?

[Jampie]

Interesting point about the Radar and defenders. I would love to know what criteria they use to identify possible targets. It feels to me that it's the hardest position to analyse, a lot of it is done without the ball being involved, or without vast distances being covered.

Suppose a CB marks his striker out of the game, but barely touches the ball or makes a tackle. How do you analyse that with stats?

This is an excellent question.

You can correlate the presence of a defender in a match with results if you have enough data, and isolate their impact (to an extent) vs. that of other players. With the team sheets and results of hundreds of matches, you can say with some confidence that Fred the defender has a strong negative impact on the opposition scoring goals, and that his impact is, for example, 1.3x stronger than the average across all defenders analysed etc.

Analysing all of his other performance metrics is important too of course. Tackles, interceptions, corners against, alla that.

I think we have recruited defenders this year but as usual the radar plan is focused more on up-and-comers rather than ones who will necessarily make an impact right away. This season is definitely an example of that not working out as well (in this season - the future is yet unwritten) than we might hope.

[queenslandpie]

This is an excellent question.

You can correlate the presence of a defender in a match with results if you have enough data, and isolate their impact (to an extent) vs. that of other players. With the team sheets and results of hundreds of matches, you can say with some confidence that Fred the defender has a strong negative impact on the opposition scoring goals, and that his impact is, for example, 1.3x stronger than the average across all defenders analysed etc.

Analysing all of his other performance metrics is important too of course. Tackles, interceptions, corners against, alla that.

I think we have recruited defenders this year but as usual the radar plan is focused more on up-and-comers rather than ones who will necessarily make an impact right away. This season is definitely an example of that not working out as well (in this season - the future is yet unwritten) than we might hope.

Perhaps the best thing to do is analyse the performances of the people the defender is marking. Not a perfect science but it gives a strong impression at worst. i.e if the striker being marked has less than average marks when the defender is marking him its extra points for the defender and so on.

[SmiffyPie]

Interesting point about the Radar and defenders. I would love to know what criteria they use to identify possible targets.

Hasn't it been said that they look for players on the fringes of teams with potential for developement and potential for resale and that they cost little if anything? That must include players carrying injuries because we have had a few (and I don't really get that? Must be a gamble that the player recovers enough to warrant the risk (some have I know)). They most certainly don't look at players that are currently performing well for their teams and would cost.

[BigFatPie]

The defenders situation is bad enough but we find ourselves going to Bradford tomorrow with the prospect of LAH, Aidan Stone or Sam Slocombe in goal, while our own young prospect is tearing it up at Rochdale. A thoroughly unappealing and unforgivable scenario.

None of those keepers have been helped by the people playing in front of them, but what happened to the recruiting team who found Anthony Patterson? Or was that Burchnall?

[OldBanksy]

They specifically said he was their first choice.

Did they say that? Do you think they would ever say he wasn't if he wasn't?

[matt_magpie]

Did they say that? Do you think they would ever say he wasn't if he wasn't?

Yes in the first presser, said he was everyone’s first choice, style of play, getting the best out resources and someone they could work with.
I got from that he genuinely was by the way they spoke. I said at the start I didn’t mind where he came from or nor would the players as it didn’t matter, what mattered was that he was a leader and now we truly will find out.

[jackal2]

Yes in the first presser, said he was everyone’s first choice, style of play, getting the best out resources and someone they could work with.
I got from that he genuinely was by the way they spoke. I said at the start I didn’t mind where he came from or nor would the players as it didn’t matter, what mattered was that he was a leader and now we truly will find out.

I don't like some of the snobbery implicit in the criticism of Maynard's relatively humble background. Judge him by results by all means, and so far they haven't been good enough, but he hasn't had anywhere near enough time to truly show what he can do.

The fact that Maynard isn't a big name with previous Football League experience doesn't mean he can't become one in the future. We've had more than our fair share of experienced/marquee/big name managers with great careers behind them and it didn't stop us ending up in the National League. As with Luke Williams, I'm not bothered if nobody knows his name when he arrives, I'd much rather he makes his name with us.

Like I said in another post, Maynard has basically inherited a team that can't defend at this level. If he can find a way of getting this group of players to stop conceding so many goals, at least until we have the opportunity to bring in reinforcements in the summer, then he'll be due some credit. That's his biggest challenge at the moment, and regardless of whether we agreed with his appointment or not, we surely all want him to succeed in that, in which case give the man a chance. There's no point making his job more difficult than it already is.