Confirmed: Will Still sacked

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Sack now?

  • Yes

    Votes: 84 79.2%

  • No

    Votes: 22 20.8%
  • Total voters
    106
Le Tissier's Laces said:
Of course. But it’s indicative. It shows we’re creating chances that a half decent strike force would convert. That’s where the issue lies, not necessarily the poor little redhead guy who has been given a bit of a duff hand. Maybe.
Click to expand...

I agree there's definitely an element of that and that most people would, but I think the whole xg thing is fundamentally flawed as it's not something which is strictly measurable.

I think you said that ours v Swansea was significantly higher than Brentford had at West Ham which is an absolute nonsense imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Osvaldorama, Saints_Alive and Le Tissier's Laces
Libby said:
I agree there's definitely an element of that and that most people would, but I think the whole xg thing is fundamentally flawed as it's not something which is strictly measurable.

I think you said that ours v Swansea was significantly higher than Brentford had at West Ham which is an absolute nonsense imo.
Click to expand...

Yeah we were about 1.2 higher
 
Le Tissier's Laces said:
Of course. But it’s indicative. It shows we’re creating chances that a half decent strike force would convert. That’s where the issue lies, not necessarily the poor little redhead guy who has been given a bit of a duff hand. Maybe.
Click to expand...

It's where one of our issues lie, but it's not our only issue. Our xG has been so high because we have missed a few absolute sitters and a few very good chances too. I don't think we've been creating loads of chances every game. Enough to have a few more points on the board sure. But even with that we are still a long way off performing like a top team at this level.
We rarely get more than a 20 minutes spell where we play well and create chances in a game. Not sure you'd really expect to win many games if you only play well for such short periods of games. I don't think everything is Will Stills fault at all. But our issues aren't purely down to our finishing either, or our brain fart defending, or GK errors.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Osvaldorama, Romsey_Saint, LincolnSaint and 3 others
I'm not keen at looking at xG on a granular level - eg one match - but I do like it on a much wider level. It's very clear that, for example, we've scored far less than we should have done, whilst Coventry have been fortunate to have as many goals as they do. xG duly reflects that.

I recently read xGenius, which I found quite an interesting book on the subject.
 
Libby said:
I agree there's definitely an element of that and that most people would, but I think the whole xg thing is fundamentally flawed as it's not something which is strictly measurable.

I think you said that ours v Swansea was significantly higher than Brentford had at West Ham which is an absolute nonsense imo.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the fact that 4 of the top 6 in that table are actually in the bottom half of the real table tells a story.
 
RSS said:
It's where one of our is issues lie, but it's not our only issue. Our xG has been so high because we have missed a few absolute sitters and a few very good chances too. I don't think we've been creating loads of chances every game. Enough to have a few more points on the board sure. But even with that we are still a long way off performing like a top team at this level.
We rarely get more than a 20 minutes spell where we play well and create chances in a game. Not sure you'd really expect to win many games if you only play well for such short periods of games. I don't think everything is Will Stills fault at all. But our issues aren't purely down to our finishing either, or our brain fart defending, or GK errors.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Our quantity of missed chances is a big problem, and it's certainly cost us points, but I do think some people are hiding behind that even though it's clearly not our only issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BackFromBeyond and Saints_Alive
Billy Bates said:
Im not totally disagreeing here, but we have had fit RBs plenty of times and we still played with a back 3 with wing backs.

And also, we did get a win at Sheff Utd. and that for me papered over the cracks. I really dont think the manager is good enough. Not his fault in that sense.

What a shower of ****, yet again.

I really wish these clowns had never acquired us.
Click to expand...
Right back is singularly the easiest position in the team to fill. I used to be a RB ! Of course it would be great to have a specialist RB in that position, but any competent player with some defensive nous should be able to slot in. Edwards, Stephens or Downes for example.
 
AberdeenSaint said:
Right back is singularly the easiest position in the team to fill. I used to be a RB ! Of course it would be great to have a specialist RB in that position, but any competent player with some defensive nous should be able to slot in. Edwards, Stephens or Downes for example.
Click to expand...

Not in a back 3 it isnt. In a flat back 4 i feel it is easier, yes.

I'd be happy with a back 4 with Edwards playing the RB role. Weirdly though i think Downes would be a disaster there.
 
Do they sack him now without a replacement lined up, or see who's interested and then get rid?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back