Saturday 21st September

[Optipez]

I must admit, that was one big game where I was so confident of winning from the minute I stepped into Wembley. It just seemed never in doubt for us that day and your fans and team didn't seem up for it at all.

The early goal for us meant we were never going to be troubled that day either

Des Hamilton beat us pretty much by himself.

 

[WilsdenBantam]

Des Hamilton beat us pretty much by himself.

Went to Newcastle for over £2 million not long after, crazy money at the time I think the British record at the time was only something like £15 million.

 

[Grimsby Road]

Went to Newcastle for over £2 million not long after, crazy money at the time I think the British record at the time was only something like £15 million.

Disco Des ended up with us , like the rest at that time didn't shine (relegated from league 1 about 20 years ago) but I liked him - hard worker

 

[Limerick Mariner]

Sames happened to us since we went out league. Went down to around 3000, we now get 7-8-9 thousand a game. Now loads of kids/families coming and wearing shirts round town. Getting rid of toxic owners does wonders (and starting to win a bit of course!)

Getting rid of Saltergate was surely equally important, although I have some fond memories from our third division championship season.

 

[Spireitelass97]

Agreed that generic hugely popular chant although very effective at making good noise was very tiresome during the game. Especially with both sides singing it. Not enough of the classic Wheelbarrow song for my liking.

Although after we broke their hearts in a penalty shootout I really enjoyed singing it.

Certainly wasn't a dull game for the neutral.

Nothing comes close to the vuvuzelas.

It was annoying that it was the only thing everyone joined in with. I’m not a massive fan of it generally but worst is when it’s sung when you’re absolutely not putting on a show but hanging on for a 1-1 draw and had no shots on target

 

[Spireitelass97]

Getting rid of Saltergate was surely equally important, although I have some fond memories from our third division championship season.

Sad when we left it but def needed to happen for us to progress as a club. Ironically it was only possible cos of the toxic owner who later almost destroyed us.

 

[GTFCfish]

I’ve great memories of Saltergate May 1990 first ever away game as a 10 year old, not one I’ll ever forget, nearly as many coppers as fans.

 

[Limerick Mariner]

I’ve great memories of Saltergate May 1990 first ever away game as a 10 year old, not one I’ll ever forget, nearly as many coppers as fans.

A very messy day that. After Chesterfield we went to Worcester where a mate was at College. At midnight, being big cricket fans, we wanted to inspect the wicket at Worcestershire CCC to see if would take spin in the next county championship game. Within minutes of climbing out we were kettled by 3 police cars.

The games at Saltergate in 79/80 were classics, FAC and League both 3-2 to Town. 14k at the League game as both were going for promotion. We went up as champions and Chesterfield fell short.

 

[Coalite]

I’ve great memories of Saltergate May 1990 first ever away game as a 10 year old, not one I’ll ever forget, nearly as many coppers as fans.

Remember that day well. Was like Agincourt on the donut after the game. Utter chaos.

 

[jacobncfc]

I fancied you for promotion from the off and think you're going up, you've all the attributes needed. Good manager, squad depth, well drilled, tight defence and goal threat.
Result a bit harsh on us but it happens.

I’m really interested to see how Gillingham do now. I thought they passed the eye test as well and looked like solid, organised promotion contenders, but their underlying data is absolutely horrible and suggests they’re going through a weird spell of conceding loads of good chances that the opposition keep missing. I’m somewhere in the middle on how important the data and metrics are, they’ll be a good case study.

 

[joethegill]

I’m really interested to see how Gillingham do now. I thought they passed the eye test as well and looked like solid, organised promotion contenders, but their underlying data is absolutely horrible and suggests they’re going through a weird spell of conceding loads of good chances that the opposition keep missing. I’m somewhere in the middle on how important the data and metrics are, they’ll be a good case study.

Not really a massive one for judging on stats personally but we've played several sides who like to dominate possession and are good attacking sides, it's not a massive shock that the way we've set up against them isn't conducive to what the stat guys love. We might give up some chances but it's not our fault if teams aren't clinical enough to take them - we have been at the other end and that's why we're where we are.

 

[Conker]

Not really a massive one for judging on stats personally but we've played several sides who like to dominate possession and are good attacking sides, it's not a massive shock that the way we've set up against them isn't conducive to what the stat guys love. We might give up some chances but it's not our fault if teams aren't clinical enough to take them - we have been at the other end and that's why we're where we are.

Agree with this, it’s too early to read in to those stats too much.

They will improve as Gills face more sides in the division, and for me you are the best bet to get automatic this season.

 

[jacobncfc]

Not really a massive one for judging on stats personally but we've played several sides who like to dominate possession and are good attacking sides, it's not a massive shock that the way we've set up against them isn't conducive to what the stat guys love. We might give up some chances but it's not our fault if teams aren't clinical enough to take them - we have been at the other end and that's why we're where we are.

I think they’re useful but not the whole picture, but conceding just two goals from ten xG against is a wild outlier when you look at everyone else who are all pretty close to what it says they should be. But using up a bit of luck when you’ve had a tough run of fixtures is no bad thing in itself.

 

[joethegill]

I think they’re useful but not the whole picture, but conceding just two goals from ten xG against is a wild outlier when you look at everyone else who are all pretty close to what it says they should be. But using up a bit of luck when you’ve had a tough run of fixtures is no bad thing in itself.

I do hear what you're saying, and there's every chance we'll get slapped 3-0 by someone unexpected like Newport out of nowhere at some stage. I don't buy into it as a cumulative thing - well to be fair I don't buy into xG at all, it's an absolute load of balls - where it all adds up over a number of games though, every game is played on its merits and more often than not you end up getting what you deserve. The fact we got a bit lucky that Chesterfield and Notts County couldn't score a goal won't manifest itself with another game down the line, it's done.

 

[jacobncfc]

I do hear what you're saying, and there's every chance we'll get slapped 3-0 by someone unexpected like Newport out of nowhere at some stage. I don't buy into it as a cumulative thing - well to be fair I don't buy into xG at all, it's an absolute load of balls - where it all adds up over a number of games though, every game is played on its merits and more often than not you end up getting what you deserve. The fact we got a bit lucky that Chesterfield and Notts County couldn't score a goal won't manifest itself with another game down the line, it's done.

It’s not so much the adding up - you’ve had a lower xG than the opposition in six of seven games (including ones you won 3-0 and 4-1) but are top, it’s just kind of interesting and unusual. Entirely possible you’ll prove to be both very clinical and unusually resilient long term.

I’m unconvinced by xG really but I definitely think it’s more useful than shots on target.

 

[TheEndIsNigh]

I’m really interested to see how Gillingham do now. I thought they passed the eye test as well and looked like solid, organised promotion contenders, but their underlying data is absolutely horrible and suggests they’re going through a weird spell of conceding loads of good chances that the opposition keep missing. I’m somewhere in the middle on how important the data and metrics are, they’ll be a good case study.

I thought Gills were obviously well organised and rode their luck, but as said above, nowhere near the top 3 from last season. They’re not going to keep spawny clean sheets like that very much.

If that’s the standard we have to beat or match then we should be well capable, it’s just a question of whether the whole team can take the pressure off the ‘big 4’ who for one reason or another might not be all available together very much.

 

[1862]

I don't buy into it as a cumulative thing - well to be fair I don't buy into xG at all, it's an absolute load of balls - where it all adds up over a number of games though, every game is played on its merits and more often than not you end up getting what you deserve.

What is "what you deserve" if not based on the quality of your chances? If anything I think xG is overrated on a game by game basis but much more useful over the course of a season.

 

[valefan16]

XG is a funny one, our POD goes through it sometimes and sometimes it never seems to add up how they calculate the XG of an individual chance.

Does seem to have some relevance and obviously if a side with a poor XG faces a side on a clinical day then it could get messy but at this level clinical is probably the one thing largely lacking compared with say L1 and above.

 

[joethegill]

What is "what you deserve" if not based on the quality of your chances? If anything I think xG is overrated on a game by game basis but much more useful over the course of a season.

Fair question, but I'll answer that with a question of my own - if a side creates 3 exceptional chances but doesn't take any, and the other team have 2 good quality shots from long range that find the net, who deserves the win? The point is you can't just define who 'deserves' to win a game purely on how good your chances are, there are other ways to win and one of which is the tactic we've employed a few times which happens to really shit up the statisticians so I'm all for it.

 

[1862]

Fair question, but I'll answer that with a question of my own - if a side creates 3 exceptional chances but doesn't take any, and the other team have 2 good quality shots from long range that find the net, who deserves the win? The point is you can't just define who 'deserves' to win a game purely on how good your chances are, there are other ways to win and one of which is the tactic we've employed a few times which happens to really shit up the statisticians so I'm all for it.

Yeah I mean this is what I'm saying - in one game it can't tell you a lot (although I'd argue if one team spoons three over the bar with the goal gaping, I'd find it hard to argue that team 2 deserved to win that game). What I would say is if you're relying on teams missing 3 exceptional chances a game and scoring goals from outside the area, you're not likely to be successful over a season.

 

[Optipez]

I’m really interested to see how Gillingham do now. I thought they passed the eye test as well and looked like solid, organised promotion contenders, but their underlying data is absolutely horrible and suggests they’re going through a weird spell of conceding loads of good chances that the opposition keep missing. I’m somewhere in the middle on how important the data and metrics are, they’ll be a good case study.

I would say Tsaroulla hitting the post and the disallowed goal which I think should have stood were the only gilt edged chances, the others were harder. To concede only two gilt edged chances away from home is good going against decent opposition ( we were averaging over 2 a game ).
Based on that and the way they played they looked like strong contenders to me. They were very strong without the ball and happy to let us play in front of them and we struggled to get in behind them.
Not checked their or our stats just thought they had the look of a team that has a good chance of going up.

 

[jacobncfc]

Fair question, but I'll answer that with a question of my own - if a side creates 3 exceptional chances but doesn't take any, and the other team have 2 good quality shots from long range that find the net, who deserves the win? The point is you can't just define who 'deserves' to win a game purely on how good your chances are, there are other ways to win and one of which is the tactic we've employed a few times which happens to really shit up the statisticians so I'm all for it.

It’s not about ‘deserving’ I don’t think, more it’s just useful for predicting how teams might do in the future. I think we ‘deserved’ a point on Saturday because we had a goal wrongly disallowed right at the end, but we didn’t deserve any more than that because we missed clear chances, and finishing them is part of the game.

But what it might be able to tell you is that if you keep giving teams so many chances, at some point they’re going to start taking them. It’s not that a team doesn’t ‘deserve’ to be where they are , it’s that if they keep playing the same then it’s likely that things will even out. Whether it will or not who knows? That’s why it’s interesting.

 

[jacobncfc]

I would say Tsaroulla hitting the post and the disallowed goal which I think should have stood were the only gilt edged chances, the others were harder. To concede only two gilt edged chances away from home is good going against decent opposition ( we were averaging over 2 a game ).
Based on that and the way they played they looked like strong contenders to me. They were very strong without the ball and happy to let us play in front of them and we struggled to get in behind them.
Not checked their or our stats just thought they had the look of a team that has a good chance of going up.

I think the Abbott and Bedeau ones are gilt edged ones to be honest, they just fell to the wrong players. Both right in the six yard box with half of the goal empty - don’t particularly blame the two for missing them as they’re defensive-minded players who had to take the chance on their wrong foot, but if they fall to McGoldrick or Crowley (for example), then they’d have composed themselves and rolled it into the empty side of the goal far more often than not.

But yeah I agree with the rest - they looked good. It’s why the massive disparity between their form and what the stats say is kinda interesting.

 

[The_Viking_Magpie]

Abbott's was the definition of guilt edge aka harder to miss the target than hit it from that range under minimal pressure.

Bedeau's less so.

I was impressed with Gillingham which didn't surprise me one bit. I would have been surprised if they had created more or as much as Notts tbh, they worked hard had some luck and defended very well. Can't argue that they got a result, a draw was more fair but that's football.

 

[Gills4years]

Even when we were propping up the league at the end of 2022 we were organised defensively. The most we conceded was 3 and that was only 2 or 3 times.

Since then, one embarrassing half at Harrogate where we conceded 5 is the only time we collapsed. Yes, we rode our luck on Saturday but it was certainly not one way traffic and we have now conceded 2 in our 7 league games. Can that just purely be luck?

There are a lot of unknowns for us going forward. We have a few that seem to be injury prone. We have barely been able to get Josh Andrews on the pitch since he signed in January. He was bought to provide us with a younger and more mobile target man than Oli Hawkins but it ominously seems like he has some general skeletal issues. Not good. We have also had a punt on Bradley Dack but he keeps getting tweaks and twinges so I am not optimistic about how many games he will play either. Aaron Rowe ditto.

So it looks like we will be relying more heavily than we would like on Elliott Nevitt and Marcus Wyllie, a striker we picked up from Enfield, three leagues below.