alram

4 hours ago, Wolfie said:

Because (for me at least) if you're watching the game, you could have a pretty good estimate of the numbers for posession and especially shots. xg?. No chance & for that reason, it doesn't feel real.

then you dont understand it properly. the more chances you create that could result in a goal, the higher your xg will be. its not rocket science

11 hours ago, trappatoni said:

It's a useful stat.  If your xG exceeds the opponent's on a regular basis then you should be winning more than you lose and if you don't your finishing is poor.   Unlike Curtains I'd say if you have the higher xG then finishing and GKing being equal you should be winning the game - obviously finishing and GKing isn't fixed - Kane can miss sitters and I've scored a few worldies.   

 

I believe (feel free to correct me)  it is only measured for shots on goal though (on or off target) so if you are 6 yards out and square it that wouldn't produce any xG.

Exactly I don’t know why so many are so offended by it’s use

nobody is suggesting it’s a replacement for goals but it’s the best statistic that takes into account quality of chances. if you create naff all every game it tells you something is wrong

the xg tables aren’t ever far from the actual points tally’s because it evens itself out

13 hours ago, DRBee said:

Just because it produce numbers with complicated maths doesn't mean it has any value. I believe it misrepresents a game- for example  a moment of brilliance from a goal scorer is undervalued by xg. shots , on and off target is more useful, and in the end the final score is what counts.

I never said it did have any value

people use shots on target and possession I don’t know why people get so defensive when xg is brought up

al that matters is the final score but xg is a good tool that helps you gauge how you are doing in games

2 hours ago, RAM1966 said:

The reason Mel didn't apply we would of had to of had the accounts filed our 'up-to-date' accounts at companies house as a condition. 

The EFL were only going to loan clubs the money if they were seen to be on a sound enough financial footing to repay the loan, clearly we wouldn't have been, due to reckless spending.  Mel knew there was no chance of the loan....

And he wanted to keep what he was doing a secret until he was out the door 

it should be an instant points deduction for clubs not keeping up to date accounts

It’s nothing to do with sky clubs we’re doing it long before sky started using it, I think it’s a good measure of the way games go. It won’t paint the full picture but it does a better job of all the other stats like possession or shots on goal

3 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

It’s all cyclical. You can look at any rivalry between similar sized clubs and say the same.

Derby - Forest - Leicester

Wolves - WBA 

Ipswich - Norwich

Sheffield Utd - Wednesday

Swansea - Cardiff

Blackburn - Bolton

All of these clubs are pretty much the same size as each other. Same potential. 

So there will be ups and downs. 

 

Let’s hope so but if we both stay in our current divisions for a long time we will not be similar sized clubs anymore

are West Ham and Millwall similar sized clubs anymore? Birmingham and Villa? Newcastle and Sunderland?

we are just hoping for the best here by saying it’s cyclical

4 hours ago, Andicis said:

And my point is that neither you nor I have a clue where we would be, so it's not worth discussing as it's all conjecture and opinion. I can just as easily say Rosenior would have us in a worse position, my opinion would also be complete conjecture but it's just as valid as yours.

i dont have issue with this comment i agree, but our vision was better under LR and it gave you something to look towards. 

my issue at the moment is we could all see this coming based on what we have been doing ever since warne arrived

2 minutes ago, WarneOut said:

I hope you're right, as things don't seem too funny at the moment.

i know, glad radioactive  waste is having a fun time watching them because i am not

10 hours ago, Andicis said:

The Rosenior angle is just so lazy and uninteresting yet it repeatedly crops up. Posters that are anti Warne will just make statements about the amazing football they reckon Rosenior was going to get us playing (completely unrelated to the football we actually played under him and not grounded in any reality). Let it go. Rosenior is gone, your made is scenario isn't real. 

But it’s the vision.

the style we were trying to implement and a clear plan of how to do so & buying players that would fit that plan.

something to look forward too and view gradually improve. I don’t think it’s relevant what it looked like at the time LR was canned because it was never going to be the finished product after signing a hatful of players and not given enough time to see it develop anyway

what we have at the minute offers none of those things

the point in general is we would be in a better position now both physically and mentally if we had followed the vision and not thrown it in the bin for god knows what we are doing now

43 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

Those stats show practically identical xG despite playing a whole half nearly with 10 men, with a performance even the manager wasn’t happy with first half hour. Doesn’t show the chasm of difference some have been implying on here. Bolton had 71% of the ball and barely created anything. Can’t also deny the material impact the ref had on this game.

Also - just a reminder - we’re only SIX GAMES into the season in what is a wide open league with no stand out teams. We have ELEVEN new players so to throw last year into it is largely irrelevant.
 

Those who want Warne out now thank goodness you’re not David Clowes. 
 

I don’t really care if they created nothing with 71% possession… we didn’t either because we didn’t have the ball

we will not get out this league if we concede an embarrassing amount of the ball

we laugh at the European comments but my worry is there owner is the one that has the ambition and he normally gets what he wants in the end I don’t think he has intentions of having them near the drop, we really needed them to go down last year for them to be in trouble, it’s gonna be a long few years I feel

As an answer to the original question of the thread as soon as you settle for mediocrity you will get mediocrity in return

1 minute ago, deanoakaram4life said:

People don’t remember that Brighton played some dross under Hughton! He got them up and they scraped survival once they went up! It was once they sacked Hughton when they really flourished! 

they basically did what forest did in there first few years in the prem and brought about 20 players every summer they were a completely different club that they are now

4 hours ago, Marriot Ram99 said:

Doesn't have to be local can be a Russian Oligarch just someone who will invest enough to make the club be able to compete with the likes of Bournemouth and Crystal Palace again. 

We will never establish ourselves in the Premier League which has to be the aim without significantly more investment and more than Mel could afford as well. If you have an owner with 500mill net worth that's not even rich for the Premier league you need to spend and spend smart or just be like Luton or us when we were last there and get our ass handed to us. In football money doesn't guarantee success but with how things are not enough money does guarantee mediocrity. 

i dont think people realise how much money you need to compete at that level 

clubs that are deemed as poor still drop about 70 odd million in players and to kick on you need pretty much unlimited funds or a revonutionary way of recruiting players that brighton do.

and thats all assuming you can even make it to that level to begin with as thats probably the hardest bit

6 hours ago, YouRams said:

Its when you see teams like Brighton and how well they are doing, reminiscing on the playoff semi's and thinking what could've been. Sickening really. 

problem is to compare with teams like them is our foundations were built on sand and would have ended up in the same result it did eventually. did brighton ever get into a situation where they put the future of their club at risk? no absolutely not

7 hours ago, Jram said:

Reading this forum is really eye-opening for me. Helps me realise how it’s so easy for the Government to scapegoat immigrants and poor people. 
 

People will literally search for anyone to blame for their inability to regulate their emotions after a loss. 
 

Agree with many posters- Mel’s running of the club was catastrophic but not unlike a lot of Championship owners in the 2010s. Intentions were good, execution was poor. He’s not an evil man and deserves to be laid to rest. 
 

Derby will lose more games again in the rest of their history. Sorry to have to break that to you guys 

he never had good intentions, he waned to be loved and did it for his own ego.

if you have good intentions you dont use PAYE tax to keep buying players, you dont keep taking out loans, break FFP rules and start a civil war within the EFL and you most certainy dont seperate club from stadium all with no intention of paying any of these debts back.

it was completely unlike other championship owners, stop trying to normalise what he did to our club and pretend it was something other people do

1 hour ago, Dcfcsr92 said:

Small club manager. That's all we expect too much as a bigger club then Rotherham we don't need to be negative. Negative managers never last with derby, simple 

very blunt response but i do agree.

when you are derby manager the underdog stuff just doesnt wash even if we are.

he has to puff his chest out and say we are derby county. The football we get served up is really poor, i think deep down Clowes knows he has made a mistake but not sure warne is doing enough to get him to pull the trigger. ironically LR felt like a far better and wiser fit for where we were as a club

34 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

To be clear, I reckon Warne could go to a different club and do really well. I just don't think that club would be as big as Derby. He's thinking too small. We need a different style of manager entirely. 

I agree I don’t think he’s a right fit at all

good manager but wrong club, feeling around the club at the minute just isn’t right 

as if things couldn’t get any worse

34 minutes ago, Shipley Ram said:

It might work for them, or it might not. I'll be interested to see who misses out on the squad numbers, it will be tricky to keep everyone happy. Their wage bill will be huge, there are still Arter and Shelvey on the books who won't play who will be getting nearly £100k a week,  if I was Arters agent I'd be in the  managers office when the squad are out saying my client needs a pay rise to match Shelvey as the going rate for the non squad midfielder is clearly £65k a week. These players, despite their young age, will only retain value if they play well, as we found to our cost if it goes wrong on the pitch you will be stuck with a load of overpayed players you can't unload.

 

everyone was saying the same last year, this year they seem to have built on it in a weaker league

i don’t think there is a chance they go down this year especially with the signings they have made

100k is a drop in the ocean in the premier league that’s just reality nowadays however wrong it is

1 hour ago, Chellaston Ram said:

Judging by this window, they are signing a complete new team. Don’t they have any structure to the transfer policy ? I think their squad is up to about 40 again 

well it seems to work for them, we can poke fun at them all we want they are signing players below 27 and spending money to establish themselves whereas we seem to sign players exclusively over 27 for nothing. what i would give to have no structure to our transfer policy if thats the end result

1 hour ago, David said:

He's only 22, he's got like another 4 years until you would expect him to reach his prime.

It really depends on where his head his at, this is his first permanent move away from Chelsea and you would expect him to be in the first 11 week in week out so game time won't be an issue like it was at Chelsea.

He won't have the same level of players around him obviously, just think if he can find some kind of form, notch up a few assists and goals they could have a real player on their hands.

They only signed him for £3m that seems incredibly cheap even with the asteriks that come with signing him

7 minutes ago, dcfcjj said:

Ladapo is being allowed to leave on loan we have to be all over that, exactly what we need

agree if we hadnt signed one of waghorn or washington

they are selling johnson but are also buying sangare for 35m 

that is half the premier league to be fair forest arent unique in that.

half the sponsors are betting companies from asia that dont even operate in the uk