Familiarity breeds success

Mostly about rugby but be interesting to check out squad turnover and current league positions in Leagues 1 and 2. Cambridge are the surprise frontrunner and Newport were only one place above us last season - be interesting to check their squad turnover in the Lockdown period. I had it all in the Racing Post pre-season guide but I've chucked it. [url]https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2020/oct/19/ben-darwins-theory-of-sport-evolution-familiarity-breeds-success[/url] The music industry stat is extraordinary...

Interesting read and some useful pointers as to why we have been junk for so long. I never took to Paul Hurst and wasn't bothered when he left but he did create some stability (by staying longer than most and keeping a few players for several seasons). After Hurst it's been chop and change every season.

Quoted from psgmariner

Interesting read and some useful pointers as to why we have been junk for so long. I never took to Paul Hurst and wasn't bothered when he left but he did create some stability (by staying longer than most and keeping a few players for several seasons). After Hurst it's been chop and change every season.

. If Ollie's strategy was to try and create that stability COVID has fecked that. I think he is hoping that a couple of the "bet to (virtually) nothing" signings from lower leagues come off and add to our pool of players for the nucleus of the squad for next season. The other stat that caught my eye was success being 40% correlated with cohesion and 2% coaching...

it's no coincidence that the teams at the top are the ones that have kept their team together with few changes,

Very interesting. You could add plenty of other examples like the Liverpool Boot Room in the 70s and 80s, the Class of 92 at United.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

Very interesting. You could add plenty of other examples like the Liverpool Boot Room in the 70s and 80s, the Class of 92 at United.

GTFC - Tom Casey's class of 76 - a good core of that relegated team stayed together for 5 / 6 years...

Quoted from psgmariner

Interesting read and some useful pointers as to why we have been junk for so long. I never took to Paul Hurst and wasn't bothered when he left but he did create some stability (by staying longer than most and keeping a few players for several seasons). After Hurst it's been chop and change every season.

But even he ravaged his own squad when we got promoted, that was one of the bigger fck ups in our recent history. The core of that promotion squad would have seen us more than ok in our first season back.

In truth, whilst it was sold to us as players/Hurst dismantling that squad, knowing what we know about the club I’d imagine the contracts offered weren’t great and players and hurst have said as much.

Like him or loathe him the last time we had a team that was connected with each other and relatable to the fans was PHs teams. Particularly the last three seasons in non league. Since then we’ve reverted to type and quite frankly nobody would arsed if any stayed or went.

Holloway may have been wanting to create something similar but I guess we’ll never really know now...

That's a really interesting article but I remember we reading an analysis of football stats which said that finance was the most important. Maybe those teams that can afford to keep their players longest, so stay together longer, are just richer.. it also said managers were important but not that important compared to resources, more than the 2% stated their tho, more like 10% I seem to remember.

Quoted from toontown

That's a really interesting article but I remember we reading an analysis of football stats which said that finance was the most important. Maybe those teams that can afford to keep their players longest, so stay together longer, are just richer.. it also said managers were important but not that important compared to resources, more than the 2% stated their tho, more like 10% I seem to remember.

Agree.

Whilst I think the article in the opening post is good like you have said the problem is at our level there is always the  threat of players/managers  moving on to want to better themselves both financially and career wise. At the top level of football I think stability is more likely to happen . Look at Son Heung -Min at Tottenham as a recent example  who looks set to sign a new 5 year deal worth £200,000 a week.

Quoted from moosey_club

But even he ravaged his own squad when we got promoted, that was one of the bigger fck ups in our recent history. The core of that promotion squad would have seen us more than ok in our first season back.

Bristol Rovers (who we know only too well scraped back into the FL the year before) kept their squad together and got promoted first season back. Not saying we could have done the same but the squad was good enough while we settled in. Never forgive Hurst for mistakenly thinking he could split it up and get better players in overnight.

Building the side over a number of seasons is the key. Sadly short term plans, short contracts, too many loan deals (of decent players but who are never going to stay / sign) and too many changes (currently evidenced by Holloway's regime) means mediocrity at best and I daren't think of the worst. Certainly not the way upwards that's for sure

Looking back at the 97/98 season we used around 20 players.

When we got relegated out of the Football League in 09/10 we used about 40.

I don't think there's any question that familiarity breeds success — to what degree, is a slightly different question. Our squad and approach to each game does seem chaotic, but that's not Ollie's desire. He's reacting to a situation he can't control.

I sometimes wonder how we'd get on if we had a squad of 18-20 and played them consistently. The argument in that article is that we'd do well, but how do you fight against injury and fatigue?

And while other teams' squads might be much larger, their 'chaotic' nature still allows them to rotate players — so fresh legs might still beat tired (but familiar) ones.

Quoted from RichMariner

Looking back at the 97/98 season we used around 20 players.

When we got relegated out of the Football League in 09/10 we used about 40.

I don't think there's any question that familiarity breeds success — to what degree, is a slightly different question. Our squad and approach to each game does seem chaotic, but that's not Ollie's desire. He's reacting to a situation he can't control.

I sometimes wonder how we'd get on if we had a squad of 18-20 and played them consistently. The argument in that article is that we'd do well, but how do you fight against injury and fatigue?

And while other teams' squads might be much larger, their 'chaotic' nature still allows them to rotate players — so fresh legs might still beat tired (but familiar) ones.

With rotation the key thing is that the players coming in know how they fit into the tactical systems, know their job in that system and have been coached on how to deliver that, taking into account their own limitations. Rugby again - Saracens, deplorable salary cap cheats that they are, but their academy and player development structure is second to none in professional team sport (albeit easier whilst cheating on the finances), I watched them play at Leicester over the years often with a weakened team due to internationals - the younger players just slotted in seamlessly to their tactical systems and knew exactly what their job was, especially with Saracens' very successful defensive system.

I agree with all said above about the GTFC promotion squad. If you looked the stats from the previous season - we were by far the most dominant team in terms of possession in the league, including in the attacking third. Probably only needed a couple of players to kick on like Bristol Rovers.

Ollie's has a huge challenge to deliver the familiarity needed this season - we have to accept it is a write-off in terms of any sort of challenge. Matching the 19/20 finishing position and maybe a bit of an FA Cup run would be a good outcome.

Agreed re Hurst should've kept the team together, but let's not forget that we were actually in the playoff places when he left..

In a way it probably only applies to a couple of players too when you look at the list....

Podge is one - we should have moved mountains to retain him.
Arnold - should have kept him, but then he barely kicked a ball in lg2 once he got promoted with Lincoln.
Craig Clay - probably deserved a new contract but top of conference about his level and i don't recall many being too upset when he was released
Nolan - no chance of keeping him
Toto - wanted to leave, well documented so lets not get into that again
Tait - went to SPL, would've been very hard to keep him

That's it really? The rest stayed (Macca, Pearson, Disley, Bogle) or were not good enough (East, Marshall, Monkhouse, Pittman). Robertson retired.

Don’t think we were in the play off places when Hurst left. Close to it maybe.

Ah my bad - thought we were 6th or something

Was only looking at this over the weekend (yes, I was that bored).

[img]https://i.postimg.cc/L87K7MgK/A6007-EB8-C103-48-A3-B3-BA-7-A29-A4248-B3-B.png[/img]

I’ve not looked at the table so far this year, but based on their squad consistency and additions, and form at the end of last year, I’d expect Vale to be there or thereabouts come the end of the season. Not sure how the other stats map onto league positions.

Source - https://experimental361.com/2020/09/21/how-much-has-each-squad-changed-since-2019-20/