Reasons to be positive...

[BobBobBobbin]

Firstly, it is one game and we have no idea what Hull (or we) are in this division yet. However the statistics from Saturday do paint a very positive picture in terms of our performance. 

I'm reticent to rely on statistics too heavily, I think (and I've had this conversation with @Davefevs) they are great at confirming or challenging your perception of what has happened (eye test) and should go hand in hand with what we see. 

That said, a thread of data from Ben Griffis on X (@BeGriffis) does demonstrate some areas we can be excited about and we should keep an eye to see if they are repeatable trends. (Link to data: Streamlit (football-match-reports.streamlit.app)

Game Overview:

 

 

In Possession:

 

What this demonstrates is we had near total control of the Match, which I think we all felt apart from the spell in the first half where Max made two class saves. 

The field tilt shows that 2/3 of all passes in either final third were ours and we had 283 passes in the opposition half. This shows we built through the first two thirds really well. 

However, only 13 passes into the opposition box and 26 crosses show our play was often around the outside and we failed to break them down clinically in central areas (As we saw!). This is my biggest worry, our passing patterns seem designed to get us into crossing positions and as Manning alluded to last season he wants our players to "go and do something" once they are there. It feels a lot like Barca Pep "I'll get you to the final third, then you do your thing". I don't know if we quite have the players for our final third pattern to be so off the cuff...

 

Out of Possession:

 

 

These show again that we are engaged in a mid-block trigger press, We are fairly happy to allow a period of possession (Middling PPDA), waiting for a trigger (These are generally 1. A poor touch 2. A poor pass and 3. a Backwards pass). It has been noticeable in pre-season how effective our recognition of these triggers has become, not only by the press leaders (generally the ST and the 3 behind) but also by the secondary and tertiary press. (This is perfectly illustrated in the goal where George Tanner wins his header high after stepping into the secondary press to block a passing lane).

The proof will be in the pudding and the pudding is the next 6-8 games where we will see whether this is a City/Manning thing (I actually think it is) or a Hull being shite thing (I don't think they are). It will also be interesting if the theme of getting it into wide channels remains our primary pattern. I hope not.

[Randy Marsh II]

I am intrigued to see how our pressing appears against a side that can pass the ball to their own players. 

My main concern is that Hull were determined to give us opportunities and we could only take one with a goal which would have been in the running for our goal of the season last year.

[Gert Mare]

We failed to control the game when we were winning. We scored 1 goal. Those 26.0 crosses went to nobody.

Score more goals than the opposition and you win. Football is a simple game often overcomplicated.

[BobBobBobbin]

8 minutes ago, Randy Marsh II said:

I am intrigued to see how our pressing appears against a side that can pass the ball to their own players. 

My main concern is that Hull were determined to give us opportunities and we could only take one with a goal which would have been in the running for our goal of the season last year.

I think there's a chicken and the egg scenario at play here that we won't have confirmed until we play a few more games. Were Hull terrible or did we make them look terrible?

And yes, the conversion rate was a concern, but 15 shots and plenty more chances where we didn't shoot is progress from some of the turgid rubbish we saw last season.

 

[Mendip City]

8 minutes ago, Gert Mare said:

We failed to control the game when we were winning. We scored 1 goal. Those 26.0 crosses went to nobody.

Score more goals than the opposition and you win. Football is a simple game often overcomplicated.

Yeah that’s what I’m thinking… all those crosses, 15 shots (if I’m reading this correctly) and ONE goal. 
Interesting that all the blame seems to be landing at Williams’ door, for what was a stupid challenge, but statistically the game should have been won by then. 
Maybe, sometimes, statistics aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. 

Edited August 12 by Mendip City

[Andrew Horsman]

Reasons to be cheerful part 3: Rooney is not our gaffer

[BobBobBobbin]

5 minutes ago, Mendip City said:

Yeah that’s what I’m thinking… all those crosses, 15 shots (if I’m reading this correctly) and ONE goal. 
Interesting that all the blame seems to be landing at Williams’ door, for what was a stupid challenge, but statistically the game should have been won by then. 
Maybe, sometimes, statistics aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. 

The statistics are a supplement to what we've seen (As stated in the OP). They confirm or deny what we think happened on viewing. 

In this case they confirm that we a) dominated a game b) have an issue around the box (too much crossing not enough in central areas) and c) we were not clinical at all. 

They also show that we were excellent out of possession. 

[Gert Mare]

29 minutes ago, Mendip City said:

Yeah that’s what I’m thinking… all those crosses, 15 shots (if I’m reading this correctly) and ONE goal. 
Interesting that all the blame seems to be landing at Williams’ door, for what was a stupid challenge, but statistically the game should have been won by then. 
Maybe, sometimes, statistics aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. 

Stats are useful, but what they cannot measure is the important human aspects, decision making, mood, injury, illness, confidence. Stats would be the be all and end all if players were machines, unfortunately they are not.

Humans assessing human behaviours is key. Unfortunately both strikers lacked service and had to feed on scraps. We were poor on both flanks, weren't quick and decisive enough on the break, we stopped, checked back and allowed Hull to get back behind the ball and then we tried to look for threaded balls in a packed defence, and Fally scored with individual skill following a mistake by a defender.

The glaring problems on Saturday were poor service in the final third which could be rectified by wide players who a) beat a man and b) deliver a cross to their own player, and also a creative player in front of the 2 in the middle who can play a range of passes to feet quick and decisively. If we do that we create more chances to score and ultimately win the game (and incidentally, make it entertaining to watch).

You can have 99% possession and still lose and at the end of the day you need to score to obtain 3 points which is the ultimate objective.

I just pulled out 2 teams, Preston - pretty much middle for everything so you'd assume a draw at least but they lost. Blackburn, pretty much near the bottom for everything, except shots (funny that) and they won and are 2nd.

I rest my case. Probability isn't reality, not in football.

Edited August 12 by Gert Mare

[downendcity]

5 minutes ago, Mendip City said:

Yeah that’s what I’m thinking… all those crosses, 15 shots (if I’m reading this correctly) and ONE goal. 
Interesting that all the blame seems to be landing at Williams’ door, for what was a stupid challenge, but statistically the game should have been won by then. 
Maybe, sometimes, statistics aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. 

They are when they confirm what we don't want to see.

I'm waiting for the "reasons to be negative thread" to appear and guess it would garner a lot more than 5 posts in half an hour!

[slartibartfast]

41 minutes ago, BobBobBobbin said:

Firstly, it is one game and we have no idea what Hull (or we) are in this division yet. However the statistics from Saturday do paint a very positive picture in terms of our performance. 

I'm reticent to rely on statistics too heavily, I think (and I've had this conversation with @Davefevs) they are great at confirming or challenging your perception of what has happened (eye test) and should go hand in hand with what we see. 

That said, a thread of data from Ben Griffis on X (@BeGriffis) does demonstrate some areas we can be excited about and we should keep an eye to see if they are repeatable trends. (Link to data: Streamlit (football-match-reports.streamlit.app)

Game Overview:

 

 

 

In Possession:

 

 

What this demonstrates is we had near total control of the Match, which I think we all felt apart from the spell in the first half where Max made two class saves. 

The field tilt shows that 2/3 of all passes in either final third were ours and we had 283 passes in the opposition half. This shows we built through the first two thirds really well. 

However, only 13 passes into the opposition box and 26 crosses show our play was often around the outside and we failed to break them down clinically in central areas (As we saw!). This is my biggest worry, our passing patterns seem designed to get us into crossing positions and as Manning alluded to last season he wants our players to "go and do something" once they are there. It feels a lot like Barca Pep "I'll get you to the final third, then you do your thing". I don't know if we quite have the players for our final third pattern to be so off the cuff...

 

Out of Possession:

 

 

These show again that we are engaged in a mid-block trigger press, We are fairly happy to allow a period of possession (Middling PPDA), waiting for a trigger (These are generally 1. A poor touch 2. A poor pass and 3. a Backwards pass). It has been noticeable in pre-season how effective our recognition of these triggers has become, not only by the press leaders (generally the ST and the 3 behind) but also by the secondary and tertiary press. (This is perfectly illustrated in the goal where George Tanner wins his header high after stepping into the secondary press to block a passing lane).

The proof will be in the pudding and the pudding is the next 6-8 games where we will see whether this is a City/Manning thing (I actually think it is) or a Hull being shite thing (I don't think they are). It will also be interesting if the theme of getting it into wide channels remains our primary pattern. I hope not.

No, you've lost me on all this, I'm guessing because we're near the top of each table ,that's a good thing, yeah ?        I'm much too old to take in all this NASA type stats, I'll just go with the good old eye test . 

[LondonBristolian]

To be honest, I think the game backed up what a lot of us suspected already, which is that we are a very decent side but one that is lacking on that additional bit of quality in the final third and that means the chances we make aren't quite of the quality we need them to be.

There is a scenario where we get the right number 10, Yu and Mayulu adapt immediately and Armstrong adds goals to his game and we're suddenly a much better team than everyone predicted. However there is also a scenario where none of that happens and we limp around midtable being a bit frustrated.

[Merrick's Marvels]

1 hour ago, BobBobBobbin said:

This is my biggest worry, our passing patterns seem designed to get us into crossing positions and as Manning alluded to last season he wants our players to "go and do something" once they are there. It feels a lot like Barca Pep "I'll get you to the final third, then you do your thing". I don't know if we quite have the players for our final third pattern to be so off the cuff...

Yes you do know - we don't have the players!

Sykes and Mehmeti are mediocre, at best, in the final third. Even the brief 2 minute highlights from Saturday confirm what we already know - on 20 seconds, Sinclair dismisses 2 defenders and creates a 3 on 2 breakaway, he passes right to Sykes.... who doesn't have the pace to skin his man or a trick to beat him, so slows down, cuts inside, shoots wide; on 30 seconds, Mehmeti does well to nick possession, creating another 3 on 2, he does have a trick to beat his man.... then passes straight to a defender. Teams that finish top 6, score from one or both of those situations. We are League 1. You'd like to think Hirakawa will improve us here. You'd also like to think a new ACM will add variety to our play in the final third and reduce the over-reliance on crosses, with the added bonus of allowing Bird & Knight to be left alone as our starting CMs. 

It will also be interesting if the theme of getting it into wide channels remains our primary pattern. I hope not.

Yep!

 

Edited August 12 by Merrick's Marvels

[Jerseybean]

Interesting stats but at the end of the day / season the only stats that count are how many points you have. 
 

[italian dave]

3 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

To be honest, I think the game backed up what a lot of us suspected already, which is that we are a very decent side but one that is lacking on that additional bit of quality in the final third and that means the chances we make aren't quite of the quality we need them to be.

There is a scenario where we get the right number 10, Yu and Mayulu adapt immediately and Armstrong adds goals to his game and we're suddenly a much better team than everyone predicted. However there is also a scenario where none of that happens and we limp around midtable being a bit frustrated.

5000 posts across a couple of dozen threads, all summed up in two short paragraphs!

(Good to see the box entries are improving though!!) 

[BobBobBobbin]

1 minute ago, Jerseybean said:

Interesting stats but at the end of the day / season the only stats that count are how many points you have. 
 

Yes, but the underlying data can demonstrate how likely you are to accumulate those points. 

I guess the point of "positivity" I was going for is if we replicate the levels of control and convert some of the very good chances we had (Sinclair, Mehmeti x 3, Sykes and the numerous breakdowns on the edge of the box) we will be decent. 

 

[BobBobBobbin]

5 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

 

This all very fair, MM. 

I would say though (even though I hate the get it wide and cross it plan) is that Mehmeti and Armstrong should have scored from two of those pull backs imo.

[johnbytheriver]

Lets just score a few more goals when opportunities present themselves.Lets face it Hull gave the ball away so many times they were begging us to score.

[Mr Popodopolous]

There was quite a few Positives to take and thanks for posting btw.

A poster said football a simple game, yes it is- can be- but the underlying numbers can underpin what is to come over time. If we scraped a 1-0 win under severe pressure keep that Performance output up and we wokle soon start to lose.

An excess of crosses I'm not always keen on, crossing can be a bit of an ineffective route to Goal.

Albeit the Sky and BBC Reports were less positive, seemed to attribute certain chances of ours to Hull errors and that Hull side is half formed..Get Drameh, Burns, Seri, Millar and move Giles back to LB. For us get Yu and hopefully Twine in there and we may see a differenr pattern.

[downendcity]

30 minutes ago, italian dave said:

5000 posts across a couple of dozen threads, all summed up in two short paragraphs!

(Good to see the box entries are improving though!!) 

Not by this much though!

I don't know why, but it brought back memories of going through the Severn Tunnel by train? 

[1960maaan]

Thanks @BobBobBobbin , backed up a lot of what I thought. 

I did think the early press was brilliant, allowed them 3 chances that Max saved but it was kind of before the game settled , almost like we were too concentrated on the Press and not what happened behind. 
Once the game did settle our Press was good but we looked more solid. I did wonder if we could keep that intensity, but allowing them a few passes at the back also gave us a breather. That was one thing I was impressed with.

One thing I was disappointed with was when we got to the edge of the box. We got in several good positions, with supporting players and either made the wrong choice or played a poor pass. We have to get more shots away too. The times we did shoot seemed like it was when we had no other option and players were stretching or panicking to get the shot away. 

We look a threat on the break , we look like we have a real option to go back to front quickly , we need to sort out when we have good possession around their box . 

Summing up I'd say it was disappointing for one moment , but with promise .

[ExiledAjax]

This may be a conservative and unambitious thought - but I'd rather have this set up than be fretting about the defence whilst peppering the opposition goal with shots.

You only need to look at Blackburn last season to see how that glass cannon approach can backfire hugely if it's not perfectly executed.

A solid base, control, and "safety first" might be less thrilling than a gung-ho approach, but over 46 games, with players of the calibre that we have, I suspect it will generally deliver more points.

[Robbored]

It was one match and the first time time that Manning has had his own players and a full preseason to work with them.

Last season none of us including the students of the game could see what style, shape, formations et el that LM was looking to introduce and after one game of this season I doubt any of us are much the wiser.

Looking at stats is fascinating for sure but after one match doesn’t really indicate what’s likely to come - the stats will be far more indicative and therefore more interesting after a few more games.

[BobBobBobbin]

1 minute ago, ExiledAjax said:

This may be a conservative and unambitious thought - but I'd rather have this set up than be fretting about the defence whilst peppering the opposition goal with shots.

You only need to look at Blackburn last season to see how that glass cannon approach can backfire hugely if it's not perfectly executed.

A solid base, control, and "safety first" might be less thrilling than a gung-ho approach, but over 46 games, with players of the calibre that we have, I suspect it will generally deliver more points.

I agree, although within the conservative/solid base approach is an element of how aggressive are you in your pressing. We appear to have found a balance that works between what I would say was a Gegenpress/counterpress style under Nige to a mid-block trigger press under Manning. The initial iteration of that mid-block was too low to get the best out of a squad essentially built for counter pressing and the refinement of it has heralded better results and better turnovers (By that I mean higher up the pitch). 

Controlled and deliberate aggression rather than all out counter play is the Manning way. It's less fun but if it works I'll be happy.

[ExiledAjax]

10 minutes ago, BobBobBobbin said:

I agree, although within the conservative/solid base approach is an element of how aggressive are you in your pressing. We appear to have found a balance that works between what I would say was a Gegenpress/counterpress style under Nige to a mid-block trigger press under Manning. The initial iteration of that mid-block was too low to get the best out of a squad essentially built for counter pressing and the refinement of it has heralded better results and better turnovers (By that I mean higher up the pitch). 

Controlled and deliberate aggression rather than all out counter play is the Manning way. It's less fun but if it works I'll be happy.

So long as it consistently generates the output necessary then it's fine.

We also know that we need to be more adaptable and need to have different methods to counter the different opponents we play. We don't need to beat everyone, but we do need to have a way to play against different styles.

We were too one-note previously - which was a necessary part of the Pearson stabilisation - but if we want to make the step up to being a play-off/promotion contender then we need that flexibility. 

A consistent and solid defence should allow for some freedom further forward.

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, Andrew Horsman said:

Reasons to be cheerful part 3: Rooney is not our gaffer

 

Summer, Buddy Holly, the working folly
Good golly, Miss Molly and boats

Hammersmith Palais, the Bolshoi Ballet
Jump back in the alley and nanny goats

Eighteen-wheeler Scammells, Dominica camels
All other mammals plus equal votes

Seeing Piccadilly, Fanny Smith and Willie
Being rather silly and porridge oats

A bit of grin and bear it, a bit of come and share it
You're welcome we can spare it, yellow socks

Too short to be haughty, too nutty to be naughty
Going on forty no electric shocks

The juice of a carrot, the smile of a parrot
A little drop of claret, anything that rocks

Elvis and Scotty, the days when I ain't spotty
Sitting on a potty, curing smallpox

--------------------------------------------------

Health service glasses, gigolos and brasses
Round or skinny bottoms

Take your mum to Paris, lighting up a chalice
Wee Willie Harris

Bantu Steven Biko, listening to Rico
Harpo Groucho Chico

Cheddar cheese and pickle, a Vincent motorsickle
Slap and tickle

Woody Allen, Dali, Domitrie and Pascale
Balla, balla, balla and Volare

Something nice to study, phoning up a buddy
Being in my nuddy

Saying okey-dokey, sing-a-long a Smokie
Coming out of chokie

John Coltrane's soprano, Adie Celentano
Beuno Colino

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

A draw away from home is never a bad result but we all know with our dominance we should have comfortably won. Our play in the final third was generally shocking with poor decision making and absolutely woeful crossing. Armstrong and Mayulu were good but it was not difficult against a Hull team that were tentative in defence and lacked physicality. Hull will improve as they showed glimpses of what they could be going forward but at present they're are all at sea and should have been there for the taking. They came into the match on the back of a shocking pre-season in which they didn't win a game. We have some reasons for optimism but we certainly can't get carried away. 

Edited August 12 by RoystonFoote'snephew
Text corrrection

[Davefevs]

@BobBobBobbin I have Ben’s streamlit app bookmarked.  Very good free tool.

The proof of the Hull pudding will be the eating of the trend over half a dozen games.  If we continue to make that volume of high press recoveries then you can start to assume our press is good.

Ditto our building through the thirds, or did Hull just let us?

If we take Hull out of the equation, it was a largely positive performance, let down by a) end result and b) poor quality in final third - bar Fally’s goal.

 

[italian dave]

Copy and paste working again today, @Red-Robbo?

[sglosbcfc]

I don't need stats to tell me that we played well and have the raw ingredients for a really good championship side. I'm excited and feel that 6th place is a possibility this season. Of course, avoiding lengthy injuries to key players is always very important.

[Red-Robbo]

3 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Copy and paste working again today, @Red-Robbo?

All from memory... 

[slartibartfast]

1 hour ago, italian dave said:

5000 posts across a couple of dozen threads, all summed up in two short paragraphs!

(Good to see the box entries are improving though!!) 

Mine aren't !

[TDarwall]

1 game in isolation can always give a false impression. When we beat Saints last season it was the start of their poor run & when we lost to QPR it was the start of their good form. Fans (me included) are prone to go over board on the basis of 1 result.

Imagine the ire of the Reading fans all those years ago when they got stuffed 3-0 at home to Plymouth on the opening day  - that season turned out ok.

The 1st game of our promotion season under GJ we beat Scunny 1 nil at home, some wag posted after that if we wanted promotion, we needed to be beating teams like them by more than the odd goal.

[ExiledAjax]

32 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

If we take Hull out of the equation, it was a largely positive performance, let down by a) end result and b) poor quality in final third - bar Fally’s goal.

I think you can just take the penalty out.

Without that one incident it's a solid, controlled, professional, if forgettable 1-0 away win. A little blunt still but I think we'd be saying that was ok because we contained Hull and did what we need to do.

We'd still be saying that we need to see if we could replicate it against better opposition etc but it would very much be "Job done. Next." for most I think.

Edited August 12 by ExiledAjax

[Randy Marsh II]

14 minutes ago, TDarwall said:

The 1st game of our promotion season under GJ we beat Scunny 1 nil at home, some wag posted after that if we wanted promotion, we needed to be beating teams like them by more than the odd goal.

 

It was 1-1

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Williams shouldn't be in our box if he can help it albeit according to Sofascore it's the first penalty he has given away in his career in the Championship.

[mozo]

1 hour ago, BobBobBobbin said:

Controlled and deliberate aggression rather than all out counter play is the Manning way. It's less fun but if it works I'll be happy.

High tempo counter attacking is only fun when you do it well. When it's done badly, it's incredibly frustrating. We've seen City before chasing after the ball like idiots then clumsily conceding possession immediately and then back to huffing and puffing. Ultimately, as both Nige and Liam have found, our players aren't equipped to deliver consistent performances, irrespective of the chosen style.

[Davefevs]

32 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I think you can just take the penalty out.

Without that one incident it's a solid, controlled, professional, if forgettable 1-0 away win. A little blunt still but I think we'd be saying that was ok because we contained Hull and did what we need to do.

We'd still be saying that we need to see if we could replicate it against better opposition etc but it would very much be "Job done. Next." for most I think.

No, the penalty wasn’t the only “issue”.  Everything else wasn’t ok / fine.

It was encouraging though

Edited August 12 by Davefevs

[beaverface]

I could easily pick up on positives and negatives from that opening game, however I've boiled it down to one question for me...

Who would I rather be after Saturdays match? A Hull City fan or Bristol City fan?

I'll probably ask myself the same question after each of the next 8 or 9 games.

I have concerns on how we'd cope going a goal behind, but other that, it was disappointing to draw, but right now  I'd much rather be a Bristol City fan than Hull City fan based on that match.

[sh1t_ref_again]

Nice stats, in an easy to view format

As said you cannot take 1 game or the stats in isolation, but encouraging

[TDarwall]

35 minutes ago, Randy Marsh II said:

 

It was 1-1

 

Are you sure? Aug 2006??

[Randy Marsh II]

2 minutes ago, TDarwall said:

Are you sure? Aug 2006??

No you're right, I was thinking of the 1-1 a couple years before. We seemed to always play Scunthorpe in August around that time.

[TDarwall]

1 minute ago, Randy Marsh II said:

No you're right, I was thinking of the 1-1 a couple years before. We seemed to always play Scunthorpe in August around that time.

No probs! I think we played them early in the season the following season too, when Trundle scored w lovely goals (but then largely disappeared till the PO semi final!).

[BobBobBobbin]

1 hour ago, TDarwall said:

1 game in isolation can always give a false impression. When we beat Saints last season it was the start of their poor run & when we lost to QPR it was the start of their good form. Fans (me included) are prone to go over board on the basis of 1 result.

Imagine the ire of the Reading fans all those years ago when they got stuffed 3-0 at home to Plymouth on the opening day  - that season turned out ok.

The 1st game of our promotion season under GJ we beat Scunny 1 nil at home, some wag posted after that if we wanted promotion, we needed to be beating teams like them by more than the odd goal.

You are right, of course. As stated, proof will be whether these are statistical trends or outliers. I think pre-season shows that the pressing stats will be trends. The rest is up in the air until it isn't!

Just thought it would generate some interesting discussion.  

[BobBobBobbin]

54 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

No, the penalty wasn’t the only “issue”.  Everything else wasn’t ok / fine.

It was encouraging though

True, 

although I can't think of a game where for at least a spell things haven't gone awry. Adversity is the only guarantee in football, it's how quickly and effectively you respond to it.  

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

No, the penalty wasn’t the only “issue”.  Everything else wasn’t ok / fine.

It was encouraging though

And that's fine, I didn't see the game and so am judging on written/podcast commentary, highlights, and stats.

The narrative would be quite different though. Quite possibly wrong or misleading, but it would be more positive.

[Bristol Oil Services]

2 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

This may be a conservative and unambitious thought - but I'd rather have this set up than be fretting about the defence whilst peppering the opposition goal with shots.

You only need to look at Blackburn last season to see how that glass cannon approach can backfire hugely if it's not perfectly executed.

A solid base, control, and "safety first" might be less thrilling than a gung-ho approach, but over 46 games, with players of the calibre that we have, I suspect it will generally deliver more points.

Slowly, steady; catchy monkey? Pretty much what Liam's predecessor was doing, by sounds of it. Not quite "front foot/top end" football but if "it ain't broke don't tinker too much, just add heft up front and Twine between the lines" ?

[Bristol Oil Services]

2 hours ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

A draw away from home is never a bad result 

... Yes, it can be! Sometimes. If, say, a team is second, hotly pursued by the team sat third, and they go to already relegated bottom of the table dogshit side, say Plymouth, last day of the season, and the Janners put out six teenagers, and the promotion chasers need a win to go up, and they only draw, it's a bad result! 

Edited August 12 by Bristol Oil Services

[NDW4CITY]

On 12/08/2024 at 05:43, downendcity said:

Not by this much though!

I don't know why, but it brought back memories of going through the Severn Tunnel by train? 

919 times....

[The Original OTIB]

3 hours ago, NDW4CITY said:

919 times....

and no hamstring issues ...