SteV

And yet there's 5 teams with fewer away points than us this season. So? Just cherry-picking some "facts". Not really making any specific point.

And yet there's 5 teams with fewer away points than us this season.

"the significant investment by FPP" It's Investment, Marra... honest Must remember to thank Halifax for significantly investing in my house...

"Debt free". Apart from the £10m loan they've just taken out.

With yesterday's draw this is now impossible for them. Ah, but there's one less team in the league, so the target's only 94 points...

Suspect he meant “that’s the most we’ve conceded in a single match for the last 3 months”.

Watford are going to have to go some to overturn a 12 point deficit on us.

The Athletic have an offer on today only, years subscription for £24.

"Repair job" I think he’s meaning the relationship between the club and supporters more than the team. He’s extremely lucky to have that job but he acknowledges that. Honestly, I hope he can keep doing well for the remainder of the season. I can think of many snake oil merchants who could have gotten the job after Rafa and had us in real trouble at this stage of the season. He was smart enough not to fuck with what worked while still trying to figure out up front. Almiron will hopefully kick on now. Hopefully Carroll can stay fit. Joelinton, well there’s a player in there, somewhere, that’s the biggest challenge in trying to find that perhaps.. and ASM, he needs to be game managed. 75 minutes is about it for him at the pace he goes. Perhaps he shouldn’t start games.. Overall Bruce gets a solid 6/10 for the season so far. Way better than anyone would have expected. ? Pretty good assessment IMO.

Wilfully misinterpreting what’s been said. The point about Leicester was that they are proof that you can outperform Xg over a season, see even more so Man Utd in 17/18, so it’s not necessarily ‘inevitable’ that you will tail-off because you’re currently outperforming Xg. Xg is a useful metric, but it’s far from an exact science. So the one team that basically won the league in the most miraculous of seasons ever, against all the odds prove that it’s not an exact science. There’s always a statistical anomaly in everything In a sense, statistics are exact, but they're only as good as the quality of the information that is put in. In this, I suspect that, in addition to the factor of luck (which can exist even in the course of a whole season), the information that's inputted doesn't quite have the predictive value that is claimed. With Leicester there were other factors that season that were influential in their success. They won with 81 points, which wouldn't be enough now. At the time, the bigger clubs were all in a state of some transition and that opened up an opportunity. They were also remarkably free from injuries, didn't have the distraction of cup runs or European games, weren't under the same pressure as the bigger clubs, and had players in Kante and Vardy who were far better than everyone was expecting. Being underdogs, I also felt that referees were treating them with some leniency. All those factors are unlikely to come together again for some time. Indeed. The ‘perfect storm’ scenario. As we benefited from when finishing 5th. But if that’s the case so be it, you’ve still deserved it.

Wilfully misinterpreting what’s been said. The point about Leicester was that they are proof that you can outperform Xg over a season, see even more so Man Utd in 17/18, so it’s not necessarily ‘inevitable’ that you will tail-off because you’re currently outperforming Xg. Xg is a useful metric, but it’s far from an exact science. So the one team that basically won the league in the most miraculous of seasons ever, against all the odds prove that it’s not an exact science. There’s always a statistical anomaly in everything Or as mentioned, Man Utd two seasons ago. Liverpool last season and so far this season. Burnley when they finished 7th etc. etc. I’m not dismissing Xg, it absolutely has some merit, it’s just not the be all and end all definitive metric.

Wilfully misinterpreting what’s been said. The point about Leicester was that they are proof that you can outperform Xg over a season, see even more so Man Utd in 17/18, so it’s not necessarily ‘inevitable’ that you will tail-off because you’re currently outperforming Xg. Xg is a useful metric, but it’s far from an exact science.

Agreed that in isolation, it does often indicate your performance will level off at some point. However, I think the longer you ‘outperform’ it, the more chance that that doesn’t happen. See Leicester’s title-winning season. Eh? Leicester were playing fabulous football, creating loads of chances and Vardy banging them in. Xg had them finishing 4th, about 8 points behind Arsenal, if memory serves.

Agreed that in isolation, it does often indicate your performance will level off at some point. However, I think the longer you ‘outperform’ it, the more chance that that doesn’t happen. See Leicester’s title-winning season.

The thing is, everybody's a Rafa fan (well alright you'll always find a few knackers, especially on Twitter). Just because someone isn't relentlessly negative towards Bruce, doesn't mean they are a 'Rafa-hater' or that they think Bruce is better than Rafa.

We were under Rafa as well tbf, but there was always the impression that he was trying to refine us and gradually get us playing more fluid football. With Bruce you get the feeling there's nothing else, he's just going to ride the wave of Rafa's defensive organisation for as long as he can. You mean like being the 4th highest scoring team in the league in the second half of last season? To now being the 3rd lowest scorers. In the last 17 games under Rafa we scored 27 goals. In the first 17 games under Bruce we scored 17 goals. We’ve gone back a year. Far less of an attacking threat now compared to the second half of last season. Not having two-thirds of the strikeforce from that period might also have something to do with it mind. Yeah he only spent £60million to replace them Can’t make excuses for someone with a front 3 that cost £80million being bottom for nearly every attacking stat going. He was not given £60 milion to replace them. He was given two players allegedly worth that to replace them. One of which who has, thus far, lived up to his price tag, and one which who has absolutely not. Clearly, we/Bruce, need to make massive improvements to our attacking play if we're going to improve in the long run, but let's not make out he came along, chucked away Rafa's attacking methods, and replaced them with his own. I think a huge percentage of managers would get more out of the forward players that he has. OK, but that's opinion, rather than fact. Do you agree that most manager would get more out of the forward players that he’s got? Some would, obviously. But a quick scan of the league: Hodgson - Zaha, Benteke, Ayew - less goals Silva - Richarlison, Sigurdsson, Calvert-Lewin - two more Howe - King, Wilson, Fraser - one more Pellegrini - Haller, Anderson, Yarmelenko - one more As i've said, our attacking play will have to improve substantially in the long-run, and we can all cherry-pick stats to try and back-up the point we're making (as I've done here, and you're very well-versed in), but it's not as simple as saying 'Bruce is shit at attacking'. :lol: Yeah Bruce is actually an attacking god and I’m just fooling you by suggesting he isn’t He's not, and no-one is suggesting he is, so let's stop being silly. The "facts" that you posted that started this discussion are perfectly valid (if a little one-sided). But if you're not prepared to discuss some of the context around them, and some of the (possible) mitigating factors, I don't think they provide a true reflection.

We were under Rafa as well tbf, but there was always the impression that he was trying to refine us and gradually get us playing more fluid football. With Bruce you get the feeling there's nothing else, he's just going to ride the wave of Rafa's defensive organisation for as long as he can. You mean like being the 4th highest scoring team in the league in the second half of last season? To now being the 3rd lowest scorers. In the last 17 games under Rafa we scored 27 goals. In the first 17 games under Bruce we scored 17 goals. We’ve gone back a year. Far less of an attacking threat now compared to the second half of last season. Not having two-thirds of the strikeforce from that period might also have something to do with it mind. Yeah he only spent £60million to replace them Can’t make excuses for someone with a front 3 that cost £80million being bottom for nearly every attacking stat going. He was not given £60 milion to replace them. He was given two players allegedly worth that to replace them. One of which who has, thus far, lived up to his price tag, and one which who has absolutely not. Clearly, we/Bruce, need to make massive improvements to our attacking play if we're going to improve in the long run, but let's not make out he came along, chucked away Rafa's attacking methods, and replaced them with his own. I think a huge percentage of managers would get more out of the forward players that he has. OK, but that's opinion, rather than fact. Do you agree that most manager would get more out of the forward players that he’s got? Some would, obviously. But a quick scan of the league: Hodgson - Zaha, Benteke, Ayew - less goals Silva - Richarlison, Sigurdsson, Calvert-Lewin - two more Howe - King, Wilson, Fraser - one more Pellegrini - Haller, Anderson, Yarmelenko - one more As i've said, our attacking play will have to improve substantially in the long-run, and we can all cherry-pick stats to try and back-up the point we're making (as I've done here, and you're very well-versed in), but it's not as simple as saying 'Bruce is shit at attacking'.

We were under Rafa as well tbf, but there was always the impression that he was trying to refine us and gradually get us playing more fluid football. With Bruce you get the feeling there's nothing else, he's just going to ride the wave of Rafa's defensive organisation for as long as he can. You mean like being the 4th highest scoring team in the league in the second half of last season? To now being the 3rd lowest scorers. In the last 17 games under Rafa we scored 27 goals. In the first 17 games under Bruce we scored 17 goals. We’ve gone back a year. Far less of an attacking threat now compared to the second half of last season. Not having two-thirds of the strikeforce from that period might also have something to do with it mind. Yeah he only spent £60million to replace them Can’t make excuses for someone with a front 3 that cost £80million being bottom for nearly every attacking stat going. He was not given £60 milion to replace them. He was given two players allegedly worth that to replace them. One of which who has, thus far, lived up to his price tag, and one which who has absolutely not. Clearly, we/Bruce, need to make massive improvements to our attacking play if we're going to improve in the long run, but let's not make out he came along, chucked away Rafa's attacking methods, and replaced them with his own. I think a huge percentage of managers would get more out of the forward players that he has. OK, but that's opinion, rather than fact.

We were under Rafa as well tbf, but there was always the impression that he was trying to refine us and gradually get us playing more fluid football. With Bruce you get the feeling there's nothing else, he's just going to ride the wave of Rafa's defensive organisation for as long as he can. You mean like being the 4th highest scoring team in the league in the second half of last season? To now being the 3rd lowest scorers. In the last 17 games under Rafa we scored 27 goals. In the first 17 games under Bruce we scored 17 goals. We’ve gone back a year. Far less of an attacking threat now compared to the second half of last season. Not having two-thirds of the strikeforce from that period might also have something to do with it mind. Yeah he only spent £60million to replace them Can’t make excuses for someone with a front 3 that cost £80million being bottom for nearly every attacking stat going. He was not given £60 milion to replace them. He was given two players allegedly worth that to replace them. One of which who has, thus far, lived up to his price tag, and one which who has absolutely not. Clearly, we/Bruce, need to make massive improvements to our attacking play if we're going to improve in the long run, but let's not make out he came along, chucked away Rafa's attacking methods, and replaced them with his own.

We were under Rafa as well tbf, but there was always the impression that he was trying to refine us and gradually get us playing more fluid football. With Bruce you get the feeling there's nothing else, he's just going to ride the wave of Rafa's defensive organisation for as long as he can. You mean like being the 4th highest scoring team in the league in the second half of last season? To now being the 3rd lowest scorers. In the last 17 games under Rafa we scored 27 goals. In the first 17 games under Bruce we scored 17 goals. We’ve gone back a year. Far less of an attacking threat now compared to the second half of last season. Not having two-thirds of the strikeforce from that period might also have something to do with it mind.

Out of interest, what do you want to achieve by putting out something like that? Are you genuinely aiming to highlight that we've been 'lucky', or do you just get a buzz out of the backlash it causes? Fair enough.

Out of interest, what do you want to achieve by putting out something like that? Are you genuinely aiming to highlight that we've been 'lucky', or do you just get a buzz out of the backlash it causes?

I reckon he'll be on bench for Man Utd game, start Everton game. Who's LWB if Dummett's knackered as well though? Could play Yedlin or Krafth there if required I suppose.

Do we know what is/was wrong with him?