Turned that corner?

[wink68]

Why did it take this long to stop hoofing it to Rose and actually pressing the opposition though?

I’m not getting carried away at all, still very wary, but to be fair the last two results mean the squad will be full of confidence for the first time for months.

For weeks the so called Dempster haters have been saying we don't press the opposition when they have possession and we don't pass the ball in midfield to create chances. We did both these yesterday for the first time this season and looked a proper football team. We weren't say this because we hate the manager or don't support the club. We love the club and want JD to e a success. Hopefully we are brave enough to keep playing this way.

[mousemousemouse]

You don't win football matches by being top of some silly stats league. Stats don't grade their findings by quality, merely that an event occurred so a pea roller of a shot straight at the keeper scores just as highly as one that brings out a brilliant save. It's the same with possession, passes completed etc.

In the real game it means diddly squat and the only thing that matters is how many goals you score and conceed.

Forest Green are up there on merit as they've picked the points up and it matters not that the other teams have better stats. They say wise folk look at the stats before placing their bets but I think they are probably a con by the bookies. They certainly haven't paid much out to the people backing the team's Forest Green have played so far.

Actually, that is exactly what xG does

Despite it being 1st v 2nd yesterday, Exeter were odds on and Forest Green were 4/1. Anyone would think the bookies know what they're talking about and take notice of the stats

Oh so it absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Exeter were at home then. The odds were entirely based on the stats and expected goals from previous games by each respective team. If Forest Greens stats were that bad, how come they gave such poor odds? Surely they should have offered something like 7-1 if they were so certain to lose, so more punters would bet and make profits larger.

Sorry but you will never convince me with stats as the system is not complex or sophisticated enough as demonstrated by Forest Green's record so far.

Haha mate that’s not how bookies get their odds... “well this team is at home so will give them smaller odds”.

Data driven football analysis works, but just because you don’t believe in facts doesn’t it doesn’t work lol

[Sandy Pate Best Stag]

You don't win football matches by being top of some silly stats league. Stats don't grade their findings by quality, merely that an event occurred so a pea roller of a shot straight at the keeper scores just as highly as one that brings out a brilliant save. It's the same with possession, passes completed etc.

In the real game it means diddly squat and the only thing that matters is how many goals you score and conceed.

Forest Green are up there on merit as they've picked the points up and it matters not that the other teams have better stats. They say wise folk look at the stats before placing their bets but I think they are probably a con by the bookies. They certainly haven't paid much out to the people backing the team's Forest Green have played so far.

Actually, that is exactly what xG does

Despite it being 1st v 2nd yesterday, Exeter were odds on and Forest Green were 4/1. Anyone would think the bookies know what they're talking about and take notice of the stats

Oh so it absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Exeter were at home then. The odds were entirely based on the stats and expected goals from previous games by each respective team. If Forest Greens stats were that bad, how come they gave such poor odds? Surely they should have offered something like 7-1 if they were so certain to lose, so more punters would bet and make profits larger.

Sorry but you will never convince me with stats as the system is not complex or sophisticated enough as demonstrated by Forest Green's record so far.

Haha mate that’s not how bookies get their odds... “well this team is at home so will give them smaller odds”.

Data driven football analysis works, but just because you don’t believe in facts doesn’t it doesn’t work lol

Ha ha mate it's not working very well in respect of Forest Green is it? Just because you get taken in by bovine droppings doesn't mean some of us can't see through the empire building tactics of folks who want a job. You will be telling me they divide football pitches up into squares and give them stupid names next.

[MTFCMusings]

We've got 2/3's of the season to go Sandy. Plenty of time for those currently performance levels to catch up with them should they continue.

All bookmakers in the world, all football clubs in the world will use those stats you don't believe in.

[mousemousemouse]

You don't win football matches by being top of some silly stats league. Stats don't grade their findings by quality, merely that an event occurred so a pea roller of a shot straight at the keeper scores just as highly as one that brings out a brilliant save. It's the same with possession, passes completed etc.

In the real game it means diddly squat and the only thing that matters is how many goals you score and conceed.

Forest Green are up there on merit as they've picked the points up and it matters not that the other teams have better stats. They say wise folk look at the stats before placing their bets but I think they are probably a con by the bookies. They certainly haven't paid much out to the people backing the team's Forest Green have played so far.

Actually, that is exactly what xG does

Despite it being 1st v 2nd yesterday, Exeter were odds on and Forest Green were 4/1. Anyone would think the bookies know what they're talking about and take notice of the stats

Oh so it absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Exeter were at home then. The odds were entirely based on the stats and expected goals from previous games by each respective team. If Forest Greens stats were that bad, how come they gave such poor odds? Surely they should have offered something like 7-1 if they were so certain to lose, so more punters would bet and make profits larger.

Sorry but you will never convince me with stats as the system is not complex or sophisticated enough as demonstrated by Forest Green's record so far.

Haha mate that’s not how bookies get their odds... “well this team is at home so will give them smaller odds”.

Data driven football analysis works, but just because you don’t believe in facts doesn’t it doesn’t work lol

Ha ha mate it's not working very well in respect of Forest Green is it? Just because you get taken in by bovine droppings doesn't mean some of us can't see through the empire building tactics of folks who want a job. You will be telling me they divide football pitches up into squares and give them stupid names next.

Ok mate you know better than those pesky multi billion pound betting companies. Bet you think physio therapy is a wet sponge and to run it ofd

[I am Spartacus]

For me it is not just a case of turning the corner but more a case of John finding the direction that he wants to take. Dave, upon replacing Scottish Steve kept with the same side and same play until the end of the season, saying that he wished he had changed it sooner. When the 18/19 season started Dave started with the team he wanted to play the football the way he wanted. Though for varying reasons (Bobby, George Grant, Hayden White, Elsnik etc) this ground to a halt in the second half.

These last two and a half months have been a rehash of the latter half of last season. A repeat of the continuation of the falling away of the football we can play. A continuation of the 3-5-2 system that from the early running and free flowing football turned stale, restrictive and ended with long balls hammered down the wings.

Saturday, was a brave and bold move by John. He played the formation that he wanted, 4-4-2 with players in positions that suit them. No square pegs in round holes, no ‘one in five’ players and a team plus substitutions that was set up to attack. Playing four in midfield gave the team better balance and energy. We weren’t over run in the middle we didn’t start to defend from five yards outside the penalty area, we didn’t let the opposition travel from the half way line to our penalty area with the ball before challenging, we didn’t give the match ball a headache by just banging it long, we didn’t surrender possession and struggle to regain possession and we didn’t look like we were pinning our hopes on brief flashes of brilliance from players that don’t perform in this system. We played on the front foot, we had players that played in their correct positions (Shaunessey, Benning, Maynard, McDonald on the right), we didn’t accommodate players that are not 90 minute players (Hamilton), the midfield provided the link from the back four to the centre forwards that had been missing, possession was kept, possession was regained, the ball was played on the floor, players did the most basic thing of passing the ball and moving for the return, no one had their arms aloft in frustration of the ball being aimed near them, chances were made and substitutions were made with a view to keeping the pressure on, further going for the jugular and not consolidating what we had.

Saturday was a bold move and a far removed from the normal starting line up. Was this the side that John wants to start with? Is this how he wants to play? Is this the end of two and a half months of rinse and repeat football? Turning the corner, revolution or John, who has is currently learning his trade in public, getting the team to play the way he wants? I hope so as yesterday was a breath of fresh air for the fans. The smiles on the faces of everyone on quarry lane after the game had been a long time coming.

[Sandy Pate Best Stag]

In the real game it means diddly squat and the only thing that matters is how many goals you score and conceed.

Forest Green are up there on merit as they've picked the points up and it matters not that the other teams have better stats. They say wise folk look at the stats before placing their bets but I think they are probably a con by the bookies. They certainly haven't paid much out to the people backing the team's Forest Green have played so far.[/quote]



Actually, that is exactly what xG does

Despite it being 1st v 2nd yesterday, Exeter were odds on and Forest Green were 4/1. Anyone would think the bookies know what they're talking about and take notice of the stats [/quote]


Oh so it absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Exeter were at home then. The odds were entirely based on the stats and expected goals from previous games by each respective team. If Forest Greens stats were that bad, how come they gave such poor odds? Surely they should have offered something like 7-1 if they were so certain to lose, so more punters would bet and make profits larger.

Sorry but you will never convince me with stats as the system is not complex or sophisticated enough as demonstrated by Forest Green's record so far.[/quote]

Haha mate that’s not how bookies get their odds... “well this team is at home so will give them smaller odds”.

Data driven football analysis works, but just because you don’t believe in facts doesn’t it doesn’t work lol[/quote]


Ha ha mate it's not working very well in respect of Forest Green is it? Just because you get taken in by bovine droppings doesn't mean some of us can't see through the empire building tactics of folks who want a job. You will be telling me they divide football pitches up into squares and give them stupid names next.[/quote]


Ok mate you know better than those pesky multi billion pound betting companies. Bet you think physio therapy is a wet sponge and to run it ofd[/quote]


Of course they know what they are doing which is why they make money out of people daft enough to bet with the stats alone. Bookies have been making money out of punters for thousands of years, it's what they do.

Do you really think they commission and then publish these foolproof stats in order to give the punters a better chance of winning? I think not little puppy, they are ruthless business men who don't care what effect gambling has on their customers but that's a whole different debate.

I will continue to watch and make my own mind up about how a game is going or went and won't worry who has the best stats as they wont effect the result and that includes your Xg stats which never seem to work out as expected anyway. But good luck chasing numbers if it's what you want to do, after all they are so vital to a game.

[part time pete]

What the numbers suggest is that FGR have been lucky in a number of matches, eg Bradford City away when they were battered for nearly 100 minutes and won 1-0 with a 90 odd minute goal.

The experts are saying their ‘luck’ will not last the season.

Likewise the experts are saying our ‘bad luck’ for the first 11 league games will change and our league position will improve.

[Tippy Tappy Football]

I think these are Forest Green's Stats before yesterday:

Forest Green would be 23rd in the table based on xGs: W2 D2 L8.

Someone pointed out on Twitter that there must be some crazy voodoo raspberries going off between them and Stoke City who are massively under performing on xGs.

Forest Green in League Two 2019/20 (ratio rankings):

24th - Shots
24th - Very deep completions
23rd - Touches in the box
22nd - Shots in the box
21st - Deep completions
20th - Shots on target
19th - xG
18th - xG from open play

1st - Possession
1st - League position

Note: a completed forward pass collected 25 yards from goal is a deep completion, 15 yards from goal is considered very deep.


Forest Green Characteristics

Strengths
Protecting the lead - Very Strong
Stealing the ball from the opposition - Very Strong
Creating chances through individual skill - Strong

Weaknesses
Stopping opponents from creating chances -Very Weak
Defending against attacks down the wings - Weak
Aerial duels - Weak

Forest Green's Style of Play
Short passes
Possession football
Take long shots

[mousemousemouse]

In the real game it means diddly squat and the only thing that matters is how many goals you score and conceed.

Forest Green are up there on merit as they've picked the points up and it matters not that the other teams have better stats. They say wise folk look at the stats before placing their bets but I think they are probably a con by the bookies. They certainly haven't paid much out to the people backing the team's Forest Green have played so far.

Actually, that is exactly what xG does

Despite it being 1st v 2nd yesterday, Exeter were odds on and Forest Green were 4/1. Anyone would think the bookies know what they're talking about and take notice of the stats [/quote]


Oh so it absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Exeter were at home then. The odds were entirely based on the stats and expected goals from previous games by each respective team. If Forest Greens stats were that bad, how come they gave such poor odds? Surely they should have offered something like 7-1 if they were so certain to lose, so more punters would bet and make profits larger.

Sorry but you will never convince me with stats as the system is not complex or sophisticated enough as demonstrated by Forest Green's record so far.[/quote]

Haha mate that’s not how bookies get their odds... “well this team is at home so will give them smaller odds”.

Data driven football analysis works, but just because you don’t believe in facts doesn’t it doesn’t work lol[/quote]


Ha ha mate it's not working very well in respect of Forest Green is it? Just because you get taken in by bovine droppings doesn't mean some of us can't see through the empire building tactics of folks who want a job. You will be telling me they divide football pitches up into squares and give them stupid names next.[/quote]


Ok mate you know better than those pesky multi billion pound betting companies. Bet you think physio therapy is a wet sponge and to run it ofd[/quote]


Of course they know what they are doing which is why they make money out of people daft enough to bet with the stats alone. Bookies have been making money out of punters for thousands of years, it's what they do.

Do you really think they commission and then publish these foolproof stats in order to give the punters a better chance of winning? I think not little puppy, they are ruthless business men who don't care what effect gambling has on their customers but that's a whole different debate.

I will continue to watch and make my own mind up about how a game is going or went and won't worry who has the best stats as they wont effect the result and that includes your Xg stats which never seem to work out as expected anyway. But good luck chasing numbers if it's what you want to do, after all they are so vital to a game.[/quote]

I don't think you know how betting companies come up with their odds, do you? Maybe you should email Brentford and tell them their business model is based on voodoo and enlighten them because, you know, you know best.

Afterall they bought for £6.7m and only sold them for £57.3m using the xG model and other stats.

I'm not sure why you're against data lol. Didn't use data back in your day, eh?


Football is a business, and business requires data, and that data is derived from gameday and training. I'm not sure why you struggle to understand that. Maybe you're not used to being around businesses at that level (I mean that with respect, too.)

[Sandy Pate Best Stag]

In the real game it means diddly squat and the only thing that matters is how many goals you score and conceed.

Forest Green are up there on merit as they've picked the points up and it matters not that the other teams have better stats. They say wise folk look at the stats before placing their bets but I think they are probably a con by the bookies. They certainly haven't paid much out to the people backing the team's Forest Green have played so far.

Actually, that is exactly what xG does

Despite it being 1st v 2nd yesterday, Exeter were odds on and Forest Green were 4/1. Anyone would think the bookies know what they're talking about and take notice of the stats

Oh so it absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Exeter were at home then. The odds were entirely based on the stats and expected goals from previous games by each respective team. If Forest Greens stats were that bad, how come they gave such poor odds? Surely they should have offered something like 7-1 if they were so certain to lose, so more punters would bet and make profits larger.

Sorry but you will never convince me with stats as the system is not complex or sophisticated enough as demonstrated by Forest Green's record so far.[/quote]

Haha mate that’s not how bookies get their odds... “well this team is at home so will give them smaller odds”.

Data driven football analysis works, but just because you don’t believe in facts doesn’t it doesn’t work lol[/quote]


Ha ha mate it's not working very well in respect of Forest Green is it? Just because you get taken in by bovine droppings doesn't mean some of us can't see through the empire building tactics of folks who want a job. You will be telling me they divide football pitches up into squares and give them stupid names next.[/quote]


Ok mate you know better than those pesky multi billion pound betting companies. Bet you think physio therapy is a wet sponge and to run it ofd[/quote]


Of course they know what they are doing which is why they make money out of people daft enough to bet with the stats alone. Bookies have been making money out of punters for thousands of years, it's what they do.

Do you really think they commission and then publish these foolproof stats in order to give the punters a better chance of winning? I think not little puppy, they are ruthless business men who don't care what effect gambling has on their customers but that's a whole different debate.

I will continue to watch and make my own mind up about how a game is going or went and won't worry who has the best stats as they wont effect the result and that includes your Xg stats which never seem to work out as expected anyway. But good luck chasing numbers if it's what you want to do, after all they are so vital to a game.[/quote]

I don't think you know how betting companies come up with their odds, do you? Maybe you should email Brentford and tell them their business model is based on voodoo and enlighten them because, you know, you know best.

Afterall they bought for £6.7m and only sold them for £57.3m using the xG model and other stats.

I'm not sure why you're against data lol. Didn't use data back in your day, eh?


Football is a business, and business requires data, and that data is derived from gameday and training. I'm not sure why you struggle to understand that. Maybe you're not used to being around businesses at that level (I mean that with respect, too.)[/quote]

I'm not against data per se as it is obviously a useful tool when used correctly. What absolutely baffles me is how some debaters (and there are a lot of them) think that it is data that wins football matches and it is absolutely vital that we bow down to facts that are based on sand. As has been demonstrated by the Forest Green stats and their respective position in the league, those stats are totally unreliable when predicting results. It's no good assuming they will even out over a season as teams and form change over a year. There are so many other factors such as injuries, suspensions and poor refereeing decisions that influence an outcome that stats don't and can't take into account. In short, the system is flawed to such an extent that it is unreliable.

You may think I am a dinosaur but I see you as reckless punters who want to put all of their eggs into a broken basket. I don't judge a football match on what the stats say as they are meaningless and unreliable when examined closely. Possession means nothing if it is merely passing a ball sideways in defence or midfield yet statistics show that team to be on top when the best attacking chances probably belong to the other side. We have all witnessed the type of match when we say 'they would never have scored in a month of Sunday's' but statistically the team was well on top.

Statistics have become a very expensive industry but have added very little to the game in my opinion and now carry far too much weight in some supporters eyes. Be honest, examine your betting history based on stats and assess where you stand in monetary gains or losses and I'm sure you will not be in profit. Had you bet on Forest Green based on their actual results not their stats, I'm sure you would have been in profit so which is more reliable?

[BigGuy]

Can we turn the corner of people using the [quote] buttons correctly?

[mousemousemouse]

I'm not against data per se as it is obviously a useful tool when used correctly. What absolutely baffles me is how some debaters (and there are a lot of them) think that it is data that wins football matches and it is absolutely vital that we bow down to facts that are based on sand. As has been demonstrated by the Forest Green stats and their respective position in the league, those stats are totally unreliable when predicting results. It's no good assuming they will even out over a season as teams and form change over a year. There are so many other factors such as injuries, suspensions and poor refereeing decisions that influence an outcome that stats don't and can't take into account. In short, the system is flawed to such an extent that it is unreliable.

You may think I am a dinosaur but I see you as reckless punters who want to put all of their eggs into a broken basket. I don't judge a football match on what the stats say as they are meaningless and unreliable when examined closely. Possession means nothing if it is merely passing a ball sideways in defence or midfield yet statistics show that team to be on top when the best attacking chances probably belong to the other side. We have all witnessed the type of match when we say 'they would never have scored in a month of Sunday's' but statistically the team was well on top.

Statistics have become a very expensive industry but have added very little to the game in my opinion and now carry far too much weight in some supporters eyes. Be honest, examine your betting history based on stats and assess where you stand in monetary gains or losses and I'm sure you will not be in profit. Had you bet on Forest Green based on their actual results not their stats, I'm sure you would have been in profit so which is more reliable?

We might be both missing our points a little. I'm not on about gambling, I mean in the grander scheme of data analysis. Anomalies occur, but typically speaking you can project data to determine outcomes.

Using it in isolation will just lead to disaster and the FG - Exeter game you mention is a perfect; Every stat shows that Exeter were likely to win by a single goal and win, on average, by scoring 1.48 goals a game. But thats easy for me to pick those stats based on retrospective data.

Sometimes, it's misleading. Exeter had a single shot on target and it went in. Does that suggest they dominated or not? It's misleading.

Look at all the sports analysis companies buying teams in the UK. Notts County & Brentford are ones to watch

[tillydog123]

We have changed gear but not sure we have negotiated the bend fully yet .....a bit more hopeful to get the top 7 junction and park there for a while

[gazza1988]

We've turned that many corners , has anyone checked if we are stuck on a roundabout?

[The One]

We've turned that many corners , has anyone checked if we are stuck on a roundabout?

We got stuck in the roudabout capital of UK, Milton Keynes. 1200 of them at last count.

[Parkinsons Perm]

We've turned that many corners , has anyone checked if we are stuck on a roundabout?

We got stuck in the roudabout capital of UK, Milton Keynes. 1200 of them at last count.

You'll never beat the roundabout in Swindon!!!

[The One]

We've turned that many corners , has anyone checked if we are stuck on a roundabout?

We got stuck in the roudabout capital of UK, Milton Keynes. 1200 of them at last count.

You'll never beat the roundabout in Swindon!!!

Yes I will. The one in Hemel Hampstead where you can turn right on roundabout.

[Sandy Pate Best Stag]

Lads, how can you lust after those examples when we have Ravo's very own double mini?

Best solution in the country even if they are only minor roads.

[part time pete]

I think these are Forest Green's Stats before yesterday:

Forest Green would be 23rd in the table based on xGs: W2 D2 L8.

Someone pointed out on Twitter that there must be some crazy voodoo raspberries going off between them and Stoke City who are massively under performing on xGs.

Forest Green in League Two 2019/20 (ratio rankings):

24th - Shots
24th - Very deep completions
23rd - Touches in the box
22nd - Shots in the box
21st - Deep completions
20th - Shots on target
19th - xG
18th - xG from open play

1st - Possession
1st - League position

Note: a completed forward pass collected 25 yards from goal is a deep completion, 15 yards from goal is considered very deep.


Forest Green Characteristics

Strengths
Protecting the lead - Very Strong
Stealing the ball from the opposition - Very Strong
Creating chances through individual skill - Strong

Weaknesses
Stopping opponents from creating chances -Very Weak
Defending against attacks down the wings - Weak
Aerial duels - Weak

Forest Green's Style of Play
Short passes
Possession football
Take long shots

Looking more into the stats they ‘should’ have conceded 20 goals instead of the actual seven that they have in their 13 games.

It means they either have an exceptional goalkeeper or their opponents go weak at the knees at the thought of scoring against FGR.

[MTFCMusings]

Here's one for Sandy Pate Best Stag who says that stats do not impact upon bookies prices.

Mansfield are favourites for the game today, despite Forest Green being 11 places and 8 points above.

[Sneag]

Here's one for Sandy Pate Best Stag who says that stats do not impact upon bookies prices.

Mansfield are favourites for the game today, despite Forest Green being 11 places and 8 points above.

Shirley the biggest influence on odds is the amount of money going on the horse. This is why the bookies never lose.

[MTFCMAD]

Here's one for Sandy Pate Best Stag who says that stats do not impact upon bookies prices.

Mansfield are favourites for the game today, despite Forest Green being 11 places and 8 points above.

Shirley the biggest influence on odds is the amount of money going on the horse. This is why the bookies never lose.

Finally someone with a factual answer.

[NorthLondonStag]

Here's one for Sandy Pate Best Stag who says that stats do not impact upon bookies prices.

Mansfield are favourites for the game today, despite Forest Green being 11 places and 8 points above.

Shirley the biggest influence on odds is the amount of money going on the horse. This is why the bookies never lose.

Finally someone with a factual answer.

The bookies start with a view (they have no bets at that stage), based on data. They may adjust that view to balance their book later.

But for a one sided market they will take a view and not lay off. Eg for an England game they will take them largely England win bets and not seek to lay off.

[Big yella]

Here's one for Sandy Pate Best Stag who says that stats do not impact upon bookies prices.

Mansfield are favourites for the game today, despite Forest Green being 11 places and 8 points above.

Shirley the biggest influence on odds is the amount of money going on the horse. This is why the bookies never lose.

Finally someone with a factual answer.

The bookies start with a view (they have no bets at that stage), based on data. They may adjust that view to balance their book later.

But for a one sided market they will take a view and not lay off. Eg for an England game they will take them largely England win bets and not seek to lay off.

Bookies will also have the history of betting on each club to base their opening odds on. If they know Stags are going to be more heavily backed they will adjust accordingly.