Bibbo and Armstrong gone?

[Hendo]

Wouldn't be easy at Chelsea with all their foreign talent.....

[Forbury Lion]

Four new members of staff. http://www.readingfc.co.uk/news/article ... 07968.aspx

However I note, with some sadness, that the role of soft tissue man seems to have been made obsolete.

The club can no longer afford soft tissues, it's that hard edged toilet paper that doubled up as tracing paper schools in the 80's used from now on.

[old woman]

Bloody hope we're not paying £80,000pa for a kit man.

For that amount he should launder the crowd's washing as well.

[glass half full]

Four new members of staff. http://www.readingfc.co.uk/news/article ... 07968.aspx

However I note, with some sadness, that the role of soft tissue man seems to have been made obsolete.

The club can no longer afford soft tissues, it's that hard edged toilet paper that doubled up as tracing paper schools in the 80's used from now on.

Where is " Bronco" these days? Is he out of prison?

[JC]

Apparently they have also scrapped the prozone system

[toppy]

Apparently they have also scrapped the prozone system

Wonder why? Seems a standard thing as most clubs

We are still listed as one of their clients

[Simon's Church]

And the players are still wearing the vests in training

[Ian Royal]

Apparently they have also scrapped the prozone system

Wonder why? Seems a standard thing as most clubs

We are still listed as one of their clients

The obvious reason would be it's expensive.

[Nameless]

Perhaps Clarke isn't a fan of endless analysis of statistics ? It's certainly been of use to some but maybe there are other ways of managing a football team and he has decided he's using other methods ?

[No Fixed Abode]

Bloody hope we're not paying £80,000pa for a kit man.

For that amount he should launder the crowd's washing as well.

It's true. But he does have more experience with washing polyester and viscose than Selby.

[Upper West Ginger]

Dave Beasant on tour
Dave Beasant on tour
Dave Beasant on tour
Oi Oi Oi!

[Coppelled_Streets]

Apparently they have also scrapped the prozone system

Wonder why? Seems a standard thing as most clubs

We are still listed as one of their clients

The obvious reason would be it's expensive.

Didn't that cost about 500k a season? If so you can understand why they'd want to bin it for the foreseebale future. Clubs got by without it before.

[SCIAG]

Didn't that cost about 500k a season? If so you can understand why they'd want to bin it for the foreseebale future. Clubs got by without it before.

It's a bit Red Queen though isn't it? Once some clubs adopted it, they had a significant advantage, so everyone else had to adopt it just to stand still.

[Nameless]

So once everyone has wrung every drop of advantage out of it you need to find another edge. Perhaps Prozone no longer gives an edge, and not having it isn't seen as a disadvantage. Who knows if it's been dropped in favour of something with a different angle.
It's unlikely Prozone was the ultimate tool/ philosophy. Just like wingless wonders, Charles Hughes and sweepers came and went.

[Ian Royal]

I'm sure you can get an inferior and significantly cheaper replacement.

It's a data tool that's all. It gives you great data, but that in of itself doesn't mean success. It's a balancing act. Is £500k (or whatever) a year good value given the benefits it brings compared to what we have to spend. It's certainly not even remotely essential. It'll give an edge, but when it comes down to it players on the pitch and coaches on the training ground are more important than extra (useful) data.

[Upper West Ginger]

I'm glad they are getting rid of it. We've seen a generation of football managers who have misunderstood the causal link between the statistics generated and the results on the field. Yes, I have to include Adkins in this. The statistics were showing him that we had lots of possession in some matches, caused mainly by the back 5 knocking it about amongst themselves without a clue what to do next. Trying to improve the statistics is not the same as trying to improve the football results.

[Ian Royal]

I'm glad they are getting rid of it. We've seen a generation of football managers who have misunderstood the causal link between the statistics generated and the results on the field. Yes, I have to include Adkins in this. The statistics were showing him that we had lots of possession in some matches, caused mainly by the back 5 knocking it about amongst themselves without a clue what to do next. Trying to improve the statistics is not the same as trying to improve the football results.

Hang on... Adkins... snowball. Never seen in the same room at the same time.

[Snowball]

I'm glad they are getting rid of it. We've seen a generation of football managers who have misunderstood the causal link between the statistics generated and the results on the field. Yes, I have to include Adkins in this. The statistics were showing him that we had lots of possession in some matches, caused mainly by the back 5 knocking it about amongst themselves without a clue what to do next. Trying to improve the statistics is not the same as trying to improve the football results.

That's old hat. They now have stats to show possession in the opposition's half and possession in the opposition third (when clearly you're attacking).

Do you not think managers and coaches can't apply common-sense? Do you really think that they don't know the difference between merely hanging on to the ball (in the back five) and seriously important possession?

The long ball into the channels for runners like Long probably yielded low possession stats but more goal-chances overall

[Sutekh]

I'm glad they are getting rid of it. We've seen a generation of football managers who have misunderstood the causal link between the statistics generated and the results on the field. Yes, I have to include Adkins in this. The statistics were showing him that we had lots of possession in some matches, caused mainly by the back 5 knocking it about amongst themselves without a clue what to do next. Trying to improve the statistics is not the same as trying to improve the football results.

That's old hat. They now have stats to show possession in the opposition's half and possession in the opposition third (when clearly you're attacking).

Do you not think managers and coaches can't apply common-sense? Do you really think that they don't know the difference between merely hanging on to the ball (in the back five) and seriously important possession?

The long ball into the channels for runners like Long probably yielded low possession stats but more goal-chances overall

Basically the motto should be stuff statistics they are quite meaningless - you're either winning games or not. End of.

[WoodleyRoyal]

you're either winning games or not. End of.

but isn't that a statistic?