| I'm having a slow day brain wise 10:50 - Sep 17 with 1754 views | bsw72 |
Help me understand this from the Ashton article:
"Players from the Town squad which won promotion last season have played fewer minutes for the Blues this term (80.8 per cent) than is the case at Coventry City (89.4 per cent), who won the Championship title, while at Hull City, who went up via the play-offs, their squad from 2025/26 has featured even less frequently so far (61.6 per cent)."
Trying to work out the 80.8% and how that is calculated?
Davis, Greaves, O'Shea played 4 games, Clarke 1 plus 2 off bench, Akpom 2 off bench, MacAteer 3 off bench, Furlong, Philogene and Egeli 1 off bench in the league,
If you consider that 4 (matches) x 11 (players on pitch) x 90 (minutes) is total minutes played in the league - how does the above equate to playing 80.8% if you consider that Emersonn, Diop, Maeda, Lukic, Scherpen, Fatuwa have all started at least 3 games etc.
More to the point - why is it bugging me so much that I can't work it out. |  | | |  |
| I'm having a slow day brain wise on 10:51 - Sep 17 with 1717 views | bluesbrothers |
Glad you asked as my rough maths put us at way below 80% |  | | |
| I'm having a slow day brain wise on 10:54 - Sep 17 with 1695 views | _CliveBaker_ |
I don't think that's worded correctly. I watched the interview and it appears to be the % of minutes played last season who are still retained in the squad this season, not necessarily actually playing.
So last seasons minutes who are still here, not this seasons minutes who were here last season (which would be a more interesting stat). [Post edited 17 Sep 10:56]
|  | | |
| I'm having a slow day brain wise on 12:16 - Sep 17 with 1460 views | VanSaParody |
My brain was working ok today, until I read this
Now I'm having a slow day brain wise |  | | |
| I'm having a slow day brain wise on 12:51 - Sep 17 with 1362 views | bsw72 |
| I'm having a slow day brain wise on 10:54 - Sep 17 by _CliveBaker_ |
I don't think that's worded correctly. I watched the interview and it appears to be the % of minutes played last season who are still retained in the squad this season, not necessarily actually playing.
So last seasons minutes who are still here, not this seasons minutes who were here last season (which would be a more interesting stat). [Post edited 17 Sep 10:56]
|
That makes more sense considering we have retained ~16 players who formed the backbone of last season - with only the likes of Burns, Azom and Hirst moving on from the regulars (am sure I have probably missed someone). | | | |
| I'm having a slow day brain wise on 12:56 - Sep 17 with 1344 views | RonFearonsHair |
| I'm having a slow day brain wise on 10:54 - Sep 17 by _CliveBaker_ |
I don't think that's worded correctly. I watched the interview and it appears to be the % of minutes played last season who are still retained in the squad this season, not necessarily actually playing.
So last seasons minutes who are still here, not this seasons minutes who were here last season (which would be a more interesting stat). [Post edited 17 Sep 10:56]
|
Yes, so the total number of minutes available is 46 (games) x 90 (minutes ignoring injury time) x 11 (players) = 45,540.
So around 36,500 (approx. 80%) of those minutes were taken by players still in our squad this season. |  | | |
| I'm having a slow day brain wise on 13:00 - Sep 17 with 1323 views | PhilTWTD |
| I'm having a slow day brain wise on 10:54 - Sep 17 by _CliveBaker_ |
I don't think that's worded correctly. I watched the interview and it appears to be the % of minutes played last season who are still retained in the squad this season, not necessarily actually playing.
So last seasons minutes who are still here, not this seasons minutes who were here last season (which would be a more interesting stat). [Post edited 17 Sep 10:56]
|
I have to say I had trouble understanding precisely what he meant, so tried to be vague in the outline. |  | | |
| I'm having a slow day brain wise on 13:07 - Sep 17 with 1279 views | PhilTWTD |
| I'm having a slow day brain wise on 13:00 - Sep 17 by PhilTWTD |
I have to say I had trouble understanding precisely what he meant, so tried to be vague in the outline. |
I've removed it as it's a very odd way of trying to express the overall point that there's been more churn in the Town squad than at Coventry. | | | |
| I'm having a slow day brain wise on 13:42 - Sep 17 with 1168 views | gordon |
Th columns don't line up very well but this is more useful
| Club | Returning-player minutes | Total player-minutes | Proportion returning |
| ------------- | -----------------------: | -------------------: | - ------------------: |
| Coventry City | 2,729 | 3,922 | **69.6%** |
| Hull City | 2,634 | 3,960 | **66.5%** |
| Ipswich Town | 1,495 | 3,960 | **37.7%** |
| **Combined** | 6,858 | 11,842 | **57.9%** | [Post edited 17 Sep 13:43]
|  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| I'm having a slow day brain wise on 15:19 - Sep 17 with 999 views | surreyblue |
It would be interesting to see what it was for 24/25. I would imagine similar to Coventry (c.90%), but only because of the minutes from Moore. Without that I imagine it would be 95% plus? | | | |
| I'm having a slow day brain wise on 15:54 - Sep 17 with 926 views | _CliveBaker_ |
| I'm having a slow day brain wise on 13:00 - Sep 17 by PhilTWTD |
I have to say I had trouble understanding precisely what he meant, so tried to be vague in the outline. |
It was a BS graph. For starters, comparing net spend as an absolute £ amount since 1996 is a bit ridiculous given the inflation of prices.
It basically shows 80% of our minutes last season were from players who are still in the squad now (Hirst, Cajuste, Azon the main departures in that respect I guess). Hull have moved on more of last seasons team from their squad than us, Cov less.
What would be more interesting is to look at the opening 4 games this season and a % of minutes from new players. Just using the 990 minutes (stopping the clock at 90) from Palace because I can't be arsed to look further, ours was:
O'Shea: 90
Davis: 90
Greaves: 88
Clarke: 63
Philogene: 28
36.3% of minutes in the Palace game from players who came up with us. I would guess Cov is much higher, loads of their team so far has been made up of last years squad. Might explain some of their results, and I think we'll see that shift in coming weeks a bit more towards their new arrivals. | | | |
| I'm having a slow day brain wise on 17:00 - Sep 17 with 842 views | PhilTWTD |
| I'm having a slow day brain wise on 15:54 - Sep 17 by _CliveBaker_ |
It was a BS graph. For starters, comparing net spend as an absolute £ amount since 1996 is a bit ridiculous given the inflation of prices.
It basically shows 80% of our minutes last season were from players who are still in the squad now (Hirst, Cajuste, Azon the main departures in that respect I guess). Hull have moved on more of last seasons team from their squad than us, Cov less.
What would be more interesting is to look at the opening 4 games this season and a % of minutes from new players. Just using the 990 minutes (stopping the clock at 90) from Palace because I can't be arsed to look further, ours was:
O'Shea: 90
Davis: 90
Greaves: 88
Clarke: 63
Philogene: 28
36.3% of minutes in the Palace game from players who came up with us. I would guess Cov is much higher, loads of their team so far has been made up of last years squad. Might explain some of their results, and I think we'll see that shift in coming weeks a bit more towards their new arrivals. |
Indeed, that was total nonsense and essentially what they were trying to show was that the more money a club spends, the more chance they have of staying up. Who would have thought!
Actually surprised it is as high as 80 per cent-ish of retained minutes but I suppose of those that left the ones who played most were the ones you listed, Ben Johnson, Ashley Young and Wes Burns in the latter stages. The rest that moved on were out on loan, injured or didn't play. | | | |
| I'm having a slow day brain wise on 17:12 - Sep 17 with 808 views | grow_our_own |
| I'm having a slow day brain wise on 15:54 - Sep 17 by _CliveBaker_ |
It was a BS graph. For starters, comparing net spend as an absolute £ amount since 1996 is a bit ridiculous given the inflation of prices.
It basically shows 80% of our minutes last season were from players who are still in the squad now (Hirst, Cajuste, Azon the main departures in that respect I guess). Hull have moved on more of last seasons team from their squad than us, Cov less.
What would be more interesting is to look at the opening 4 games this season and a % of minutes from new players. Just using the 990 minutes (stopping the clock at 90) from Palace because I can't be arsed to look further, ours was:
O'Shea: 90
Davis: 90
Greaves: 88
Clarke: 63
Philogene: 28
36.3% of minutes in the Palace game from players who came up with us. I would guess Cov is much higher, loads of their team so far has been made up of last years squad. Might explain some of their results, and I think we'll see that shift in coming weeks a bit more towards their new arrivals. |
"comparing net spend as an absolute £ amount since 1996 is a bit ridiculous" - yes, would have been interesting if they'd adjusted for CPI or transfer fee inflation. Lazy analysis by Sky. |  | | |
| I'm having a slow day brain wise on 18:58 - Sep 17 with 670 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
Other things that stood out for me in the interview were:
Sky chose a graphic that showed 4 players who are no longer here (Burns, Chaplin, Delap and Hutchinson) and only 1 still here (Clarke).
Hasselbaink thought that Thijssen was Muhren's brother! (Although it was nice to hear him talking about growing up watching and following us because of them.)
Ashton described McKenna's leaving as "choosing to move on" which I found a strange phrase to describe it making it sound more like he had left for another job.
Can anyone tell me what the pin badge Ashton was wearing? |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
