Ohh Tommy Johnson

@Wheelbarrow repair man where did I say you weren't entitled to an opinion? Of course you are... even if it is wrong (joking ????). You make a good point re Scott, Macca and Jatta. They were all signed when we had no Head Coach and I would like to know the reasons for that and find out if that is closer to the way we operate, or if it was a case of needs must. As they have all proved to be good signings I don't think it is great evidence that the system doesn't work though, at least for strikers. I don't think LW and SM brought in their own coaching staff, they came in as heads of Management Teams which were appointed as a group rather than as several individual appointments (certainly SM did). Now they may have been able to say 'I'm not coming unless these come with me', but I doubt either of them were in such a strong negotiating position. That said, I wouldn't have been surprised if LW had left his team here, if we had just employed SM on his own. The owners are all about stability and sustainable growth (not in the financial sense, but in the sense of avoiding the house of cards scenario), and so it makes sense to recruit a coaching team that works well together rather than to try and get a group of individuals, especially mid season. I think they do what keeps things on an as even keel as they can. At the end of the day we will never know the true facts behind our recruitment system, but I would say over the time the brothers have been in charge we have had far more success than failure, Defenders are an issue, but that is possibly more to do with not identifying the right data or requirements for a L2 defender rather than incompetence or a failure of the whole system. I suspect our defensive needs now are very different to what we needed in the NL, and we miscalculated what attributes we needed and how well our existing defenders would cope. Maybe we found last season too easy and we didn't appreciate the step up in level? Who knows, I certainly don't. That last sentence is interesting... I think they 'control the cash' as I there seems to be much more available than their personal wealth would indicate. They head up a consortium don't they... do we know who is in the consortium? I don't think we do, but I suspect there are some seriously wealthy people there. I would love to know, but if we did, we may find the prices we pay being inflated somewhat!!

It doesn't say that he has been released, it says his contract is due to expire which is different. Morecombe haven't released their retained list yet. You wouldn't say the same about Wooton and Rodrieguez but they both left us at the end of their contracts. In the lower leagues it is far more likely a player moves at the end of their contract rather than incur a transfer fee, so I don't think you can read anything into that. Likewise the Winning Mentality; you can't project the collective failure to stay up on the individuals. That is what our stats based approach is supposed to avoid as it removes external influence as far as possible. So you would have got rid of JoB then?

I guess if you can't believe those involved in the process explaining how it works, then you can't form any opinion on the topic. Personally, I can't see how it could work without any input from the Head Coach. I am sure it works in a much more similar way to how recruitment in any business works these days - it is a team effort. Where I work, the Hiring Manager makes a case for a new position, then they set out the job description, characteristics of the type of person they want and send the HR department who go out to find candidates. Then they review the CVs and put forward a long list to the Hiring Manager, who makes the short list, and then the HR and hiring manager interview. The final decision is the Hiring Manager's as they are the one who has to work with the person. What RM described isn't a million miles from that so I see no reason to disbelieve him. that the Head Coach is intimately involved in the process. What our way does provide is continuity, avoids a rebuild each time we change managers and allows us to build continuously over time. Notts are a modern club with modern ideas and this is one of them. The days of managers getting their mates in are gone. That doesn't mean the Head Coach can't recommend players, but they are not going to be recruited unless they meet the job description. Long may it continue.

On the Magpie Circle I think they said the Head Coach ahs a lot of say in recruitment. You can find it on Youtube, but it seems a partnership - coach says this is the philosophy and I need these players to deliver it. The recruitment team go out and say we have found x, y and z that fit your requirements and then they agree which ones to go after'. I think that the coach can also say 'can you look at a, b, c as I think that they would fit into the team'. It was quite interesting and worth a listen (and you may interpret it differently).

Don't get me wrong, nor do I! You can be both wasteful and a great striker, in fact maybe it is part of what defines a great striker - if a lesser striker misses a few they may not continue getting into those places to put the next chance away. I wonder what Kane, Lineker or Rooney's stats look like. It wouldn't surprise me to see they missed a load of chances too. I do disagree with the analysis that teams up the pyramid will look at the stats and think 'he is wasteful', they are much more likely to think 'he can improve even more, maybe be the next Vardy', I also don't think it will be a disaster if he did leave as the money would be handy, the fact that it will show Notts can enhance your career (along with Rodriguez and Wootton), which will allow us to attract better players who are ambitious, and I think Scott being more clinical will do us just fine along with Jatta,

It's also interesting that he starts to underperform more as he has moved up the leagues. I wonder why that is as xG should only reflect the average number of times that a particular chance is scored and shouldn't reflect the defence... and you would feel that a better striker is more likely to put a chance away. I don't fully understand how those stats are generated though. He also seems to have a blip around January in 21/22 and 22/23, but this year he has been underperforming all season. I wonder if the added pressure created by knowing we are unlikely to keep a clean sheet was weighing as we have needed to score a lot more than last season to win a game. Just a thought.

Actually, I've said for a while that Macca is very wasteful in front of goal, but you could look at it in a positive light - he should get better. During our bad run he missed several sitter which could easily have changed the course of the matches as they were nearly all the opening goal. All that doesn't mean he isn't great as he gets into those positions, but he still misses a fair number of opportunities. Remember Kevin Bartlett - he was great, but how many chances did he miss? Gateshead fans always rated Scott more highly and said he was more clinical in front of goal, but I don't think his style suited LW as much and he didn't get so much time, but I seem to recall that, last season, Scott either had a higher goal per minute or goal per chance stat (I don't recall which). I am looking forward to seeing what he can do next year, and if Macca does go, I am hopeful that we may not miss him as much as some fear. I would be more concerned if Crowley and / or Jones went as they are the main source of chances, and I think that is why them going is more likely than Macca leaving.

I think the system we have used exposes our defenders. Maynard has made some changes and Cameron, at least, has looked a lot better (and, Stockport aside we have kept 2 clean sheets and been much tighter). Baldwin would be OK if we can get someone to keep him on task, so I would keep Macari, Cameron and Baldwin, I don't think we need a huge rebuild (and given the way we play wholesale changes may make us less effective at the start of the season anyway). I would replace Brindley, Rawlinson and Warner and add one to the midfield to replace JoB (even if he stays he will be a bit part player). All that said, losing Jones, Macca and Crowley will probably necessitate a change in style anyway, as I doubt we would be able to replace Jones and Crowley like for like.

To be honest we need both up and coming and experienced defenders. The latter for effect now, the latter to future proof the side. I would like us to bring in a couple of seasoned defenders, keep Cameron (and play him LB) and possibly Baldwin (depending on how true the rumours of him being a disruptive influence are) and then a young Macari type defender and / or NL defender who has potential and / or a Bostock / Jones type who may be recovering from as situation, who may not be first team every game at the start of the season, but pushing for a regular spot in about a year's time. I think one of our issues in the past few months has been fatigue as we haven't been able to rotate, so I would hope we plan for this going forwards.

Has this been announced?

I'm pleased that VAR isn't in the EFL, and hope it stays that way. It is one of the reasons why I hope we decide the Championship is good enough... maybe one season in the PL, but after that, who wants to see their team struggle year after year with no hope of progressing? Anyway, that is a totally irresponsible tweet. It calls into question the integrity of the officials and the whole competition. I don't think there is any on field conspiracy to make sure ManUre win, there are too many variables for that. I think the tables are stacked off the field - turning a blind eye while Man City mop up all the trophies, whilst penalising Everton and Forest for lesser misdemeanours, stacking funding rules in favour of established PL clubs vs those coming up, or bigger clubs vs smaller clubs etc. Those are much more effective over the longer term than ensuring a VAR decision goes one way or the other. I haven't seen the incidents, but what I've heard on the radio is that non of the penalties were clear fans and 'experts' alike seem split, so was it really as bad as Florist are suggesting, I think the Coventry one was correct, harsh but correct (although they may need to think about the offside rule in view of how close the VAR can judge things). Anyway as a Wasps fan, I really dislike Coventry and have no sympathy at all. Anyway, I hope Florist stay up and have another year of struggle, and then another and another. I did hear one fan on the radio this morning hoping they get relegated as thy are not enjoying watching them scrabble around at the foot of the table. Long may that continue!!

I think the plan is to use it for exhibition space, meeting space and for Florist games, so I guess they want it to remain relatively neutral whilst keeping the nod to the Magpies. I quite like The Gulp though (but it's probably a crap name in reality!!).

@Robbie I think that is basically my point. They tried to fix the wrong thing, and allowed it to become a free for all against refs (who actually didn't make that many game changing mistakes), and they run the risk of allowing the same thing to happen again. I don't think ex-players is the answer as I often see defenders saying 'he got the ball, so it isn't a foul' or 'forwards saying 'he was caught so had every right to go down' when there is the slightest feather of either ball or player. I honestly don't think they know the rules very well and just do and say what they got away with during their careers. The powers that be would be much better giving a clear direction of who has what responsibility for what, and having a strict communications protocol like they do in cricket and rugby. I would get rid of the 'Clear and Obvious Mistake' as that is too ambiguous: you either review everything meaningful or nothing. I see the trouble as nobody knows who has the right to intervene and when. Just make it clear. My thoughts would be: A goal is a goal unless the ref asks for a review - you could have 'I believe this to be a goal, but I am looking at the potential for a foul by attacking 10 on defending 5. Is there any reason not to award the goal?' and 'Was there any foul play in the build up to this goal'. Likewise, 'I saw Defending 3 handle the ball, is there any reason not to award the penalty', 'I didn't see that clearly Penalty or not'. Those checks could be made with the ball in play and the ref makes a signal like the advantage to let people know there is a check ongoing and it needs to be made within 30s. For off the ball incidents, the VAR can call the ref's attention and then it is reviewed next time the ball goes out (again after the indication that there is a review ongoing). So in the Spurs - Forest punching incident that would be dealt with the next time the ball goes dead, and if the offending side scores, that is disallowed. You wouldn't eradicate all the mistakes, but what would happen is that whenever there is a doubt in the ref's mind they would call it in for review, which would in itself limit the number of errors resulting in a goal. You could also use AI to advise on whether something is or isn't an offence which would also remove some of the variability, such as the two offsides above. It's not an easy issue to resolve, and with owners threatening this that and the other when the decision goes against them, it makes it harder.

I don't disagree. My point was really that VAR was brought in to solve a problem that was created largely by referees being blamed for absolutely every defeat a EPL side suffered. This created the impression that referees were incompetent and technology was needed to resolve the issue.... except technology still needs some interpretation and so all it has shown me, is that the refs got far more right than wrong in the past. It is too late now, and as the vogue is now to blame VAR; so what next? Automate refereeing via AI? There would be an infringement every few seconds.. and that is only ever as good as the training the AI gets. Go down the 'bunker review' system they use in Rugby Union (can you imagine the scenes if a ref blows up a couple of minutes after an event for the ref to brandish a red card? It would be chaos. If the current trend of calling for replays for every bad VAR call continues, I can see us eventually ending up in one of those 2 scenarios.

The trouble is, that it was brought in as a response to the constant whining from managers highlighting the one refereeing decision which went against them as the the reason for them losing 5 - 0. I have no sympathy, it's a case of be careful what you wish for.. mind you I would hate it if it was brought in down the divisions.

I realised I had run out of names (although I have forgotten Scott and TAR). I would have both of them on the bench. I left Didzy off because he doesn't seem fully fit, same with Bostock). The Slocombe and Stone was just to highlight that I think our squad is struggling and picking up a lot of fatigue injuries or recovering from long term issues. In reality I would absolutely put youngsters on the bench and if we are winning handsomely I wouldn't be afraid to give one, maybe 2 a few minutes. I wouldn't throw a youngster in to a lost cause though as I could imagine the atmosphere would be very toxic. My bench (assuming that we don't have Jones (family issues) and Chicksen (achilles) available would be: Slocombe, TAR, Scott, JoB, Sanderson, Gill, Bostock

This will be an interesting one. For the last couple of seasons we have always struggled against teams that set up to defend and catch us on the break. Our attack always seems to become predictable and pedestrian and we pass around the back until we make a mistake. Sorting out a better attacking approach would certainly help the defence in this case!

@Wheelbarrow repair man When your job is on the line you play safe, so I am sure he will stick to experience wherever he can. That isn't unusual. Maybe that would be one advantage of making a statement tat Maynard is staying to next season, it gives him a free hit and an opportunity to experiment without pressure. I doubt they would do that though as it would hit crowds between now and the end of the season. That said, if we see youngsters coming in then it may be an indication that he ahs been given the assurances he needs.

I get the feeling that he will go for the 11 fittest players and go from there. There seems to be an illness in the camp, and with all the off field issues with Jones and Morias (not that I think he would figure normally anyway) and partially fit Bostock, Didzy and possibly Chicksen, Austin and Macari we could end up with something like this: Ashby-Hammond Cameron Baldwin Rawlinson Nemane Robertson JoB Randall Jatta Macca Bench: Slocombe Stone Colkett Anybody else that can stand (running and 2 legs optional)!!

I think it was more than the usual sleepless nights - by all accounts there were complications and he hadn't slept much if at all as a result. 'Normal' sleepless nights may seem like a godsend right now! I wonder if our small squad and injuries is increasingly playing a part. Chicksen was playing with a sore achilleas that he has been carrying all season, Didzy clearly isn't fit, now Bostock, Ausitn went off injured again and numerous other players have been struck down with niggles or illness. That smacks of fatigue and if Maynard is having to select a patched up team each game, then it isn't surprising that performance is up and down.

That sounds like there will be something, sometime in the future, but what that may be is still up for grabs! I don't think we will be seeing Wasps as part of that, sadly.

@Robbie I think he is pretty sure what his best / preferred starting line up is, but what he hasn't figured out is what to do if one or more of those isn't available. I think his preferred starting 11 is: Slocombe Cameron Macari Baldwin Nemane Jones Robertson Bostock Crowley Jatta Langstaff The only caveat I would have is Austin. He seems to like him, but that may be Austin's flexibility. What I think his issue is what to do if one of the key players is out. With our injuries you have the issue of putting square pegs in round holes, and I think he is struggling to work out which are the closest fits. Putting Jones in for Nemane is an obvious one, and when you look at who was available you can see why he would back Jones to do a better job of right wing back than say Macari or TAR. Hopefully, now he can see that it doesn't work, but with our small squad it is becomes difficult very quickly. Hopefully everyone is fit and firing and we can see a settled side this weekend.... obviously if he carries on tinkering when there are no injuries or illnesses I take all that back!!

To be fair to Maynard a lot of the recent changes have been brought on by illness, injury and suspension (Chicksen, Baldwin, Robertson, Nemane, Slocombe to name a few). Prior to that I think he was trying to find out about the players. I don't think he is as big a tinkerman as he appears.

I thought it was like that. It seems that the whole idea is to get more money to the big Premiership clubs, and the more I think about it, to get the 'old names' back in the fold. I think only Wasps are looking at the URC. I gather there is some support for London Irish and Worcester to be parachuted into the Championship (or Premiership 2), but there is resistance to Wasps joining which is why they are looking at the URC. It's all rather reminiscent of when the RFU was first set up and the Wasps rep was told the wrong venue so they couldn't join the 'club' for several years.

Do you know where Nottingham stand on Premiership 2? Is that something they would be looking to join? I used to follow Wasps and there is talk about joining a Premiership 2, but I'm not sure how I feel about that. Another option is to join the URC which I think many Wasps fans would prefer as it wouldn't feel like being parachuted in because we were a big name. It would also stick one to the RFU which I think is also appealing to many as they stand aside when Saracens cheat (18 internationals in the match day squad whilst staying under the salary cap????) but stood aside when 3 clubs, so far, folded and then hindered attempts to rescue them from administration.