It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Probably the most comprehensive one out there:
I’ve just enjoyed these stats on last night’s Goal Rush:
‘None of the last 24 promoted teams have gone straight back down’
‘58.3% of these promoted teams subsequently finished in the top half’
@arnos_grove Does that mean we were the last team to be promoted to L1 and then relegated to L2 the following season?
I alluded to those stats earlier, on the Gaz to QPR thread. If he moves on now we could have the dubious honour of repeating something that’s not been emulated for six seasons.
It’s being so cheerful that keeps me going!
That's an interesting link, @NorsQuarters, though I'd be reassured if the report said where the data came from. If it could be relied upon, it would give a fair idea of what sort of rise in wages we might need to come up with to get new players in. Makes one wonder what sort of money we offered in the recently-signed deals, too.
Of course only the club and the player know, HC and that is how it should be.
I wonder though if it would make much difference say for Nathan Tyson. He has played at a high level for many years and earned a high salary. If he has looked after his money he should be set up for life.
Hypothetically if he had the choice of earning £50k at wycombe or £100k working for Evans at Peterborough or Adams at Plymouth, there is a reasonable chance he would chose us. It's another of the benefits of having a decent guy as manager.
Say a Luke onien may well choose the other option and who could blame him in his likely financial situation.
There was reference on another thread to needing 250,000 pounds to pay the wages of a striker with L1 prospects/credentials, I wonder if anyone has any inside info (or indeed stats!) on the current state of L1 average wages?
Speaking of stats, there's some great ones in here too - https://twitter.com/i/moments/993366961613606913
If I read one of those graphics correctly it shows we had the busiest attack (shots per game) but second quietest defence (fewest shots per game against us).
If that’s the case it’s a bit of a surprise given the number of goals we let in
When we allowed a shot on goal, it was likely a better than average scoring opportunity would be my interpretation. Alternative interpretations include: opposition had better than average luck with their shots over course of season; our 'keeper was less good than average at stopping shots; we were less good than average at converting shots into goals.
I think it proves that the decision to reduce the width of the pitch means we are no better at home than away.
Powered by Vanilla
Hosting courtesy of Hactar