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?

He also has 2 clean sheets in 4 too.

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 realised it was tongue in cheek, but it got me thinking that we are probably closer than we think to it. .. and that it would be very boring.

I don't doubt that they aren't looking at this at Boston Dynamics or similar Japanese and Chinese organisations. At the end of the day, it is only the robot side of things that is missing - computers can run a football team already - FC24? It's the mechanics that need to catch up. I think that, in reality, what would happen is the game would soon degenerate into a stalemate as each computer would counteract the moves of the other; you will always need humans to make mistakes and introduce the unexpected. In a modern game you aren't going to get away from using a lot of data - from fitness, to analysing tactics and players. It's here to stay and those clubs that don't embrace it will be at a huge disadvantage. The modern game is all about using data to identify improvements, identify sills and players to fit into a system and so on, I don't think it is surprising that more and more coaches are not necessarily ex players, as a coach now has to be able to understand and use the information in their coaching, which isn't necessarily a skill set of an ex player.

I think we are in agreement - data is a tool and when it becomes the be all and end all it ceases to be useful. It should be one of the tools in the toolbox and nothing more... but it can be useful in giving a picture of what is happening behind the bare results. 3 wins, 9 defeats tell part of the story, the fact that performances show we were better than that also tells part of the story, what the players are saying is another part and what the owners are seeing around the club is another. One thing I did notice, is that under Williams we were 6th both in the actual table and the data table, but under Maynard, even if we were equalling expectations we would still be just mid table, so there is a drop off in performance too, Again context is important as Williams was playing on good pitches early in the season, more suited to our style, whereas Maynards team have been playing on potato fields. Maybe there is a lesson to learn there - playing our way on poor pitches makes our life difficult. It would seem that Maynard is getting more of that right than wrong, and the owners believe given time we will see that in terms of wins. Only time will tell.

1, Slocombe 2. Stone 3. Brindley They are misunderstood.

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!!).

They will be looking at it and thinking that over time the performances will result in.. well, results! The data shows we are actually playing better than the results suggest, the question is why isn't this resulting in us being in 8th (and conversely why are Morecombe 10th and not fighting relegation)? It is interesting that LW had us exactly where we should have been - 6th. So we have dropped off in terms of both relative performance and points, but we are are still way below where our performances would suggest. It's a case of trusting the process and over the longer term we should end up closer to where are performances suggest we should be. If you are willing to pay then there is a lot more data beneath the high level stuff they provide for free, which will give much more information to work from. You have presented a very binary vision too - Data 0 - 2 Real World. That isn't how it works. I don't for one second think they feed stats into the computer and then sign players based on that. They will be using the data to inform their decisions. They will have data on how well a player passes, how many duels they win, how much ground they cover etc etc. There will be a type of player that fits our system... but then mentality and character also play a big part, and that is where the scouts and watching the player comes in. We seem to be pretty good at spotting an attacker (Jones, Macca, Crowley, Austin, Scott. Didzy may be a bit different as I suspect that was less data driven), but I would suggest that defence is more difficult at our level, and that is where they may need to change the model slightly to look at traits such as tenacity, determination, etc. In terms of Data 0 - 1 Real World, they should be using the data to look at where things need to be changed or focussed on to bring things in line, and then exceed expectations. This is where the bigger dataset comes in, that we can't see. Even then 15 games is a tiny set of data to base decisions on. We have had some awful performances, so OK performances and a couple of really really good ones. Those extremes will have a disproportionate impact on the data set, but hopefully what we have seen in the last couple of games is the information being used to move the team forward. Anyway, I'm waffling, but hopefully you get the drift.. data is only a tool and needs to be used properly. I think that we do that at Notts. We are just having a short term dip at the moment, but the data shows that even if we carried on as we are we should end up mid-table. I think that is why the owners aren't panicking.. unlike the owners at Wealdstone (who have the additional pressure of a relegation battle). The trick is to use that information to move the dial upwards.

I would hope the question doesn't go down that route as it would be a waste of time... those are for when Stuart Maynard is on! This really should be about process, vision and the organisation of the club. I would hope they are questioned on the recruitment process; how many people are involved, who identifies the targets, how much input do various people have, what else they look at in addition to metrics, will there be more focus on defenders in the summer, does the system have a blind spot for defenders and if so what can they do to update the model, do they have plans in place to replace players should the need arise through transfers or injuries (i.e are we in a position to move quickly if the situation were to arise towards the end of the transfer window). Something else I would ask is how much input does the coach have into the style of play we have. Continuity suggests that coaches that play a certain way are favoured, but how much scope does the Head Coach have to change things up - be more direct if needed etc (I am sure that would result in a political answer though). What is the view on squad depth? This season we have seen that a few injuries have led to an inability to rotate and as a result players have been playing with minor injuries or fatigued and form has dropped off a bit. As much as anything that could be the difference between playoffs and mid-table. Off the field - what is the vision? How do they see Notts as a club in 5 / 10 years? Not in terms of what division we will be in, but in terms of facilities, brand awareness, visibility in the community, relations with the City Council etc and how do they get there. Lastly, and most importantly, where will the monorail station be located?

We may offer him an extension, but at his age and having lost so many years to injury I can see him wanting to move as far up as possible. He knows more than most how important it is to grab chances whilst they are there, This season should have put doubts over his injury history to bed. With a year on his contract we could cash in. I don't think loyalty should come into his thinking. His is a good news story for all involved - he has his career back on track, Notts did that for him and so it reflects well on our set up... making us more attractive to others. The one thing that works for us is that we don't have to sell, and have shown in the past we are happy to let a contract run out and lose any fees if it is best for us (and the player is happy enough), which means we can extract the best price.

I can't see him staying, and I would hope he is picked up by one of the Championship teams. I think we would get a fair price for him (the Reedz brothers are, by all accounts, really tough negotiators). Whether we can replace him is another issue. I wonder if Randall was the plan in case he moved on last summer (or we didn't get his signature on a permanent deal). If that's the case, he really needs to step up and his luck needs to change.

Exactly - I think our game was perfectly set up for the NL, where we could control the game through better players and wear the opposition out. In L2 it needs to evolve to be more pragmatic where we need to be. I don't thin we have done that yet, but hopefully this is what they are looking at over the summer... or getting in a shed load of Championship and L1 players so we can do the same as we did in the NL!!

I suspect that if we are selling out regularly they will do it, but I would hope (and knowing these owners expect) they are already drawing up project plans to hit the floor running when it is needed. I suspect the payback is going to be a playing surface that gives us an advantage. Our game is more suited to playing higher up the pyramid, so it should help. I think it also gives opportunities for internationals and other 'showcase' games which will bring in some revenue. It will also increase the asset value of the stadium. I can't imagine that they haven't sorted funding, they seem very sensible about those sorts of things. Same with The Nest. Also, don't forget the Reedz brothers are part of a consortium and front that group. For all we know the consortium could be Jeff Bezos. Elon Musk and Bill Gates (it could also be John, Ted and Bill from the Dog and Duck). We simply don't know who or how wealthy they are, but I have a feeling that funds are available and will continue to be so for a while yet.

@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.