Suppose it is one of them with League 1 players, more often than not, they will fall short in terms of quality, and it is impossible to know whether they will be able to step up because if you compare them to Championship players, you are not doing so on an even keel.

Over Trippier for me. To be fair, most bar Kane in attacking areas have only just emerged and have at most shown flashes in an England shirt, often due to a small number of caps, the likes of Grealish, Foden, Mount, Sancho but for me are all far better than Lingard. I have always felt that Rashford is somewhat overrated, and he is in horrendous form. Its a shame that Greenwood has missed out, he had really hit some form and looked far better than Rashford, plus he is left footed. Had he been fit and only able to name 23, I would even suggest that Rashford's place could be in jeopardy.

In regards to your first question, you would like to think so. When everything is allowed without restrictions, then surely it would be financial suicide for football clubs if people still could opt for a tenner match pass sitting at home rather than attending games, attendances would never recover. Undoubtedly, between now and that time, of course match links must remain. Although in theory, despite the governments incompetence, social distancing should be a thing of the past prior to the season starting, unless it is delayed by a month and a half.

I think the covid issues are part of a wider issue but I would like to think that sooner rather than later, that away fans will also be allowed back in. At which point, when everything is allowed as it was pre pandemic, do you then stop the live streaming of games, with the intention of allowing clubs to focus on getting fans back in stadiums? Im not convinced that live streaming should be allowed indefinitely beyond that, obviously that wont be a club specific decision either way. I suppose as you said, that under 23 and under 18 coverage could be combined with such a show and maybe there would be a market for it, not something id be interested in but seemingly something that would have a market, so if its financially viable it should be looked at. A question would be, arent under 23 games currently in the package with season tickets anyway? Would that continue?

Portugal I think look as strong as anyone and so much better than previous tournaments. You look at Dias and Cancelo added to their defence, Bruno Fernandes now key in attacking midfield with the likes of Neves and Danilo sitting, and they like us have an abundance of attackers whereas in the last Euros that they won, it was Eder who got the winner, an otherwise poor player. Along with Ronaldo and Bernardo Silva, they have Jota, Felix and Andre Silva. Either way, that last 16 game is going to be so difficult should we get there.

On the assumption that we can attend so you hadnt needed to purchase the game itself. Would you pay just to watch a preview/review? At the end of the day, whoever the club gets will naturally have to have a pair of blue and white tinted glasses. Never going to have them being overly critical, I sort of get that as long as they arent too biased. They do need to change the commentators though in general, they dont seem to be popular with anyone. For me, its (especially Warren Lucy) the constant agenda towards the referees gives me constant earache. Transfixed from the very first minute, every decision that goes against us no matter how minor they are berated for, whereas ones in our favour are ignored. I also find the nickname stuff irritating, Arma, Breo, TK, JRC, Benno, dont have to pretend that they are 2 of the lads in the dressing room, again Warren Lucy is particularly bad for that. Mind you, assuming that fans are allowed to attend again, will match links be a thing of the past again? And if so, will this risk of moving away from ifollow backfire?

I disagree with this, I would actually say that our biggest strength is our surplus of attacking options. Say we go with Kane, Mount, Foden and Sterling which I expect although I wouldn't go with the latter. If we was struggling, we could make a triple sub of Sancho, Grealish and Rashford, thats a hell of a change and I dont think Lingard would come on before any of those.

I also dont get this at all.

Seems crazy to allow people from other countries in to be honest. Interesting to see the squad today. The pathway that we are likely to face looks like chalk and cheese compared to the World Cup. We are looking at tough teams throughout any route past the group stage, including France, Portugal or Germany in the second round in which wed be the underdog.

The idea was a silly one really prior to covid (as was even more so making the tournament asymmetrical and 24 teamed) but it has worked out ok. Are away fans allowed to travel to stadiums, it would seem illogical if they are.

I have never really understood that point of view. If the manager has lost the trust of the owners based on previous transfer indiscretions, then he shouldnt still be in a job. There cant be a middle ground where a manager continues but with limited money in case he blows it on shit again.

All a very sorry read. - The manager was never ever going, lots of "ITK's" not really knowing what they claimed, or getting duff information. - Absolutely nothing in the way of critical feedback from the looks of it, Waggott and co getting the easiest of easy rides. - A worrying vagueness to the embargo and no guarantee of avoiding it. - Further proof that the statement that Venkys are "willing to sign any cheque" is a load of bollocks. - A forum attendee with clearly an agenda with his comments about moving the training ground. - Again contrary to popular belief, the budget still to be finalised. - Contract negotiations not going well.

This definitely was amateurish to be fair I agree and something that didnt initially spring to mind. There were also occasions whereby replays were shown when the game was ongoing but they tended to be fairly rare. In regards to the matchday experience though, I think the biggest step could be simply to get in a better duo of commentators, the current 2 dont seem popular at all, I dont like them, none of my friends do and indeed everything I see on here on social media suggests that we are not alone. They are biased to the point of being beyond merely impartial, transfixed with referees, pretty boring and indeed I appreciate that they have to somewhat toe the line but they go well beyond that. I do wonder how feasible financially the new proposal could possibly be. If fans are allowed, will they still be allowed to stream every game in this country?

I suppose the demand for such a service will massively nosedive anyway assuming that fans are allowed back in from the start of the new season, for those in the UK it seemingly was mainly the best possible substitute. I do wonder if full live streams will remain indefinitely as they could affect attendances going forward. Things like under 23 coverage and extensive interviews I personally have no interest in so wouldnt pay just for that but of course if theres a market for that by all means we need to provide for it. For what its worth, I have never had any issues with ifollow in terms of functionality, my main issue was with the really poor choice of commentators who I would presume will remain on the new platform, I think they seem to be unpopular across the board. Not sure that the new flexibility of the potential service is something to be happy about because we know about the club and specifically Waggotts' repeated failure to understand the target market so im sure it will see a sharp price rise.

Why are things in general said at the fans forum "in confidence?"

Even the fact that we "ranked considerably higher in every attacking and defensive metric" is a flawed sentence IMO in that a level of context has been lost when stretching out these individual stats. For example, does having more possession mean that you are performing better? I would suggest not at all necessarily (we and Huddersfield are proof) yet such reliance on metrics out of context naturally implies that. Expected goals again is flawed in so many ways but another thing I would flag up is that last season (19/20) we scored a lot of early goals whereas this season we have conceded the first goal a lot, that will surely naturally lead to our expected goals to go up more often if we are chasing games. One thing that I hadnt really factored in is that the data itself could not be as accurate as physically possible dependant on its source which only adds further problems. You seem to attach a level of expertise to ranking high in certain metrics as ive mentioned but would you not suggest that in any way that your opinion which seems to have aligned quite close to that to which you perceive to be the conclusions (in your opinion) of said data is natural in order to justify it as someone so passionate about it in the first place? Some of the players you flag up on your document are defenders, is there much value in comparing stats which again in isolation are meaningless, ie more tackles may mean good reading of the game or being caught out of position? Also, do you not think that comparing players in different formations performing different roles at different clubs and crucially in different difficulties of leagues makes cross comparison fairly useless?

But even if you imply that an opinion warrants evidence, as soon as that individual stat is taken to justify a more generalised conclusion then it loses all context.

Did anything come of this?

I think its main flaws are not on the assumption that it is used in isolation, that is perhaps a bit of a lazy argument that people use. One of the main flaws is potentially as much about how it is used. There is a common tendency to take what in isolation are objective numbers and still think that they remain objective proof of a certain argument or opinion once that context has been removed. For example, in that recruitment dossier, the common conclusion seems to be that we underperformed compared to our performance level. I would argue that you cannot objectify such a broad argument based on numbers. Us and Huddersfield were 2 of the highest teams in regards to possession for example, both finished near the bottom. My conclusion before and after would be that possession does not determine performance level in any way. The main use would be to save time undoubtedly, but so many of the metrics are so broad that they mean very little. Some stats of things like progressive runs, dribbles etc are hard to define. People are comparing different players playing different roles/even positions at times in different teams in different leagues so you are then comparing apples and pears. Plus especially with defenders, how do you judge a good one? If one makes more tackles, is that good, or does it suggest that hes often out of position? There is also the issue of bias which consciously or subconsciously will affect peoples use of data. To come to general conclusions, even with data, it is just an opinion no more valid than one without data.

Personally my opinion is that he is talented but so inconsistent and nowhere near productive enough. Regarding your logic though, that would imply that recruitment in football is a perfect science. Surely Brereton is worth 7m if we paid that? The links to Sheffield United were mere transfer tittle tattle that probably like most rumours had no truth in it, and even if they are true and he leaves, he undoubtedly has ability, but it wouldnt change the inconsistency and lack of productivity that have marred his Rovers career. I don't really understand the toys being thrown out of the pram here. An agenda doesnt have to carry negative connotations and indeed the motive that I and others suspected proved true; Andy admitted soon after that he had intentions of trying to get into professional football which I believe may well alter the way that he analyses things, even subconsciously because it would be counterproductive to be too publically critical of anyone within football. That's not a negative reaction. The line in bold seems needlessly patronising. People see data as important to varying degrees, and those who find using it lots to be flawed doesnt mean that those people are ignorant to its uses. I feel like I understand it but also that so much of it is flawed, both the actual data and the way that it is used. For example, making such an in-depth document, I think that there will always be an element of trying to justify the data and what you perceive that it is showing, especially when you are so passionate about it, which is risky in itself. The conclusion that there were performance based positives for example, I did not see them having watched all of the games last season and things like possession, expected goals (a particularly controversial metric) etc, I like to take a step back and think, does ranking high in such things warrant being considered as a performance based positive, and I would personally question that. Andy has come on here and kindly explained plenty behind the background of making the document, he seemingly knows as well as any that people will have various questions and indeed believe in the data to varying degrees, something which he acknowledges.

Perhaps in certain areas, mainly out wide where we have loads of options. You think back to the centre backs back then and even central midfield with Gerrard, Scholes, Lampard, Carrick, Hargreaves, Butt etc, far better then.

I know that data is in general, im saying that we have no ideas as to whether it would be of any use to clubs in this specific format, to this level of detail, all this document is a mere discussion topic between fans, not in any way something that football clubs are or will be using, and its important to remember that. Of course, whether its purely based on data, watching random highlights, whatever, his opinion on who we should sign is just as valid as anyone else, no more, no less. Ive not seen most play enough if at all to comment and a few of the foreign ones I have never heard of, so couldnt possibly comment. To be honest, I am struggling to find any enthusiasm towards who we will sign in a summer in which our underperforming manager will remain and our best player will likely leave too. 100% agree. Data can be useful but is merely a tool, and a tool that can very easily be misused and manipulated.

There is always a post season lull and wall of silence, everyone on holiday and every single aspect of the club (season tickets, kits, signings, budgets) all left until the last possible moment. Dont torture yourself would be my advice.

I didnt mean motive in anything other than a sincere way, and indeed said motive was as suspected and shown above; to try and showcase what he can do with a view to getting involved in professional football. The document be made quite clearly took a lot of time and effort and is very well presented, so its in no way offensive to suggest that he may be doing it with an ambition to get involved into football on the back of such work. His stance on Mowbray has been fairly uncommital compared to the vast, vast majority, with a huge focus on "performances" although I dont think you can make performance objective even with data and indeed having watched every game this season, my opinion certainly wouldnt match the implication that we finished considerably below where our performances would have merited, no matter how many possession, progressive passes, expected goals stats or any other metrics you could throw at me. I do wonder if there is a risk when heavily focused in data of using your opinion to justify the data rather than vice versa, and I did also suggest that his unwillingness to be too critical of the manager was with a view of potentially getting involved with Rovers or indeed any club, something which may well be true and if so probably a very wise move. @chaddyrovers I have not criticised his work so I am unsure why you have come to that conclusion. Although even if I had, I presume that if he has genuine ambitions of getting into football then he wouldnt be wise expecting only praise and no criticism. We have no idea if this work in its current format would be genuinely used by a professional football club, something he implies and admits himself on the first page. Either way, I gave it a quick read myself and it was fairly interesting. All I merely did was make a suggestion regarding his motive which he indirectly admitted within hours. Nothing wrong with that.

I do think that it further highlights the limitations of data, especially when comparing players in defensive positions. The stats assume a natural consistency across the comparisons which doesnt exist. For example, Trippier plays in a totally different league. Alexander Arnold (and Robertson) both play in a back 4 but almost in a unique way in quite how forward they play and what their primary jobs are in the team. Reece James is often played as a wing back rather than in a back 4 although has recently played a few games as one of the 3 centre backs. I think full backs are a very subjective area to judge upon. For example, is having the most tackles a good thing or does it indicate an increased likelihood of being caught of position? If for example Liverpool get caught out of position, would the fact that Alexander Arnold will likely be so far forward as per their tactics mean that he is less likely to be dribbled around as he is already so far forward? Back to the England squad, I do hope that Southgate cuts 2 from the 4 in the extended squad rather than avoiding the tough decision and taking 3 or 4, as although all 4 have their merits, right back is not a position you need so many of.