[Football] At the moment, Graham Potter is too good for Brighton. He needs better players.

[Frankworthington]

Potter really hasn't proven anything yet - he has been a PL manager for a season and a half and the team has bounced around between 14th-17th during that entire time.

The players are who they are - it is difficult to attract top class players to a club that frequents the bottom third of the table and skirts with relegation. The club have pumped a lot of money into players over the past four years so there should be some improvement in the squad - but we have no idea whether he is getting the best out of the players at his disposal (we have nothing to compare it with) - or whether the improvement comes from the training ground or not.

It is arguable that the team should be doing better given the players available - and the Palace game showed that the team still has a soft underbelly. So I would say that while things are improving, Potter still has some way to go to demonstrate that he is capable of becoming a long-term PL manager.

Sorry i am still recovering from the Boormuff and Cardiff games 2 years ago.

When is the last time we lost 5-0 at home?

Things HAVE improved.

 

[Stato]

Excellent as always. Are you going to send this to Mark Chapman or shall I?

When you sent him the post about our defending, it coincided with a massive defensive improvement that I'm happy to say made me look a bit silly, so if the result of telling him that we can't score in packed penalty areas is that we start to bang in loads of 25 yard screamers past two banks of four, I'd be happy to look as stupid as anyone would like me to.

 

[DJ NOBO]

Potter really hasn't proven anything yet - he has been a PL manager for a season and a half and the team has bounced around between 14th-17th during that entire time.

The players are who they are - it is difficult to attract top class players to a club that frequents the bottom third of the table and skirts with relegation. The club have pumped a lot of money into players over the past four years so there should be some improvement in the squad - but we have no idea whether he is getting the best out of the players at his disposal (we have nothing to compare it with) - or whether the improvement comes from the training ground or not.

It is arguable that the team should be doing better given the players available - and the Palace game showed that the team still has a soft underbelly. So I would say that while things are improving, Potter still has some way to go to demonstrate that he is capable of becoming a long-term PL manager.

Sure, the hard currency is league position but there is now a depth to the squad, a flow of talented young players coming through and a few players now worth serious money.
There’s a lot more to the club than before.
It’s worth keeping the faith for a little longer.

 

[Guinness Boy]

There seems to have been some talk since Monday of our club's need for a £50M striker. I know that all on here know it to be absolute guff, but before the word of idiot pundits starts being taken seriously, I thought it might be useful to look at which English clubs have signed £50M+ strikers. According to Wiki there have only ever been six strikers/forwards signed by four English clubs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_association_football_transfers None of these were signed since the start of the pandemic, nor by clubs who reportedly have a wage cap somewhere near the bottom of the league, nor by by a club that had just announced an eye watering record annual loss.

Man Utd signed Lukaku in 2017, Man City Mahrez (2018) and Stirling (2015), Chelsea Morata (2017) and Pulisic (2019) and Arsenal Aubameyang (2018). Liverpool and Spurs are the only other two English clubs to have paid £50M+ for any player. Of the four of these still playing in the league two have scored more goals than Maupay this season: Stirling has 9, Aubameyang 8, Maupay 7. The other two have scored less. I know that someone will be along to say that Maupay's goals don't count because they were penalties, but my point is really just that we won't be buying a £50M+ striker. We have bought what we could afford. If we are lucky enough for Tony to buy again it would likely to be for around the £20 million that we bid for Nunez in the summer. For this you might get a Dominic Solanke or Rhian Brewster and still get relegated, or you might be lucky and get an Ollie Watkins.

By the way: Performance statistics between Watkins and another £20M striker signed from the Championship are not so widely different as the current moral panic may tempt you to think: https://www.fctables.com/ollie_watkins-vs-neal_maupay-294847-290619/. Watkins has scored more, but has a similar shots per goal ratio to Maupay, so seems to have scored more because of the higher number of chances he has had. Maupay's accuracy and conversion rate are both not where he would like them to be, but they are also not out of the ordinary when compared with most of his peers: https://www.footballcritic.com/prem...ats/strikers/shooting/conversion-rate/2/41756 This seems to support my interpretation of our current malaise. Our strikers are not of lesser quality, but the chances we are able to create are. Our domination of the midfield encourages opponents to sit deep and narrow against us and tasks us with creating clear chances in packed penalty areas. Faced with that conundrum, I'd suggest that the number of strikers who could be relied upon to always score a goal, amounts to one and he is 32, injured and paid quite a lot of money by Man City.

Potter has to tweak things and find another way. Its a big ask. If he manages it, we will all be much happier, until bigger clubs notice that then he will have proven himself to be too good for us.

A really good post. Some of that was what I was trying to say earlier on the thread, only better written and with more statistics to back it up.

I agree, Bloom is not going to but "the elusive striker" (because he already has, Maupay) and the only thing xG proves is that we are creating a lot of chances - NOT good quality ones. There is more than one way to build it up. That said, AllyMac's header against Villa and Lallana's muff against Palace were good chances and probably worth very close to 1.0 - but even the best striker in the world isn't always going to bury it (though I'd add Kane to your list of those who most normally would).

So, going back to [MENTION=33374]Audax[/MENTION] 's point, is our next move not necessarily to get a world beating striker (who probably doesn't exist and might not come anyway) but rather a different type. A strong, hold it up 9 who would give us the option of going more direct if and when the likes of Burnley and Palace park the bus.

We don't have to play like that all the time - in fact I prefer we don't - but we really do not have a plan B despite how much Potter supposedly changes it. Case in point Monday night - brought on Welbeck and moved to a back 4 but still ponderous in midfield and still trying to shoot between a defence of 7, 8 or even 9 Palace players behind the ball. It was all very "nice" but ultimately ineffective. I do worry that Ashworth's definition of "good football" overrides pragmatism at the wrong times.

 

[FatSuperman]

Ball falls to Mo Salah in our penalty box? xG = 0.75

Same ball falls to BDB in our penalty box? xG = 1.0


I've finally got the hang of it!

The 'chance' is the same, the conversion will be different. So you need another stat here, 'post-shot xG'

I know lots of people don't like stats, and think they are taking away some of the magic, but I don't understand that view really. It's not replacing anything, it's in addition to everything else. Expected goals looks at the position of the shot, the angle of the shot in reference to the goal, the type of shot (foot, header, face, penis) and whether there are defenders in the way and then uses historical data from tens of thousands of similar examples to form an estimate of how often that chance goes in. Post-shot xG would tell us that the Brighton forward shanked it, and thus reduced the likelihood massively. Again.

When people talk about the quality of our chances being poor, that sort of misses the point. If the total of our expected goals in a match reaches 3.00, it doesn't really matter if that is 6 really good chances, or 300 shit chances. Because on average, we should have scored 3 goals. 300 'one-in-a-hundred' shots should still result in three goals.

Pundits and players always say a striker is massively affected by confidence, and going on a streak seems to be a real thing. I think the self-inflicted pressure our boys are under is probably insane at the moment.

 

[raymondo]

A really good post. Some of that was what I was trying to say earlier on the thread, only better written and with more statistics to back it up.

I agree, Bloom is not going to but "the elusive striker" (because he already has, Maupay) and the only thing xG proves is that we are creating a lot of chances - NOT good quality ones. There is more than one way to build it up. That said, AllyMac's header against Villa and Lallana's muff against Palace were good chances and probably worth very close to 1.0 - but even the best striker in the world isn't always going to bury it (though I'd add Kane to your list of those who most normally would).

So, going back to [MENTION=33374]Audax[/MENTION] 's point, is our next move not necessarily to get a world beating striker (who probably doesn't exist and might not come anyway) but rather a different type. A strong, hold it up 9 who would give us the option of going more direct if and when the likes of Burnley and Palace park the bus.

We don't have to play like that all the time - in fact I prefer we don't - but we really do not have a plan B despite how much Potter supposedly changes it. Case in point Monday night - brought on Welbeck and moved to a back 4 but still ponderous in midfield and still trying to shoot between a defence of 7, 8 or even 9 Palace players behind the ball. It was all very "nice" but ultimately ineffective. I do worry that Ashworth's definition of "good football" overrides pragmatism at the wrong times.

Maybe Alex Dawson has a grandson who's playing?
http://wearebrighton.com/albiondata...ing-brighton-opponents-the-alex-dawson-story/

 

[AZ Gull]

... and this perspective would be different if we could just find some sliver of Irish DNA in him.

 

[albionalex]

A really good post. Some of that was what I was trying to say earlier on the thread, only better written and with more statistics to back it up.

I agree, Bloom is not going to but "the elusive striker" (because he already has, Maupay) and the only thing xG proves is that we are creating a lot of chances - NOT good quality ones. There is more than one way to build it up. That said, AllyMac's header against Villa and Lallana's muff against Palace were good chances and probably worth very close to 1.0 - but even the best striker in the world isn't always going to bury it (though I'd add Kane to your list of those who most normally would).

So, going back to [MENTION=33374]Audax[/MENTION] 's point, is our next move not necessarily to get a world beating striker (who probably doesn't exist and might not come anyway) but rather a different type. A strong, hold it up 9 who would give us the option of going more direct if and when the likes of Burnley and Palace park the bus.

We don't have to play like that all the time - in fact I prefer we don't - but we really do not have a plan B despite how much Potter supposedly changes it. Case in point Monday night - brought on Welbeck and moved to a back 4 but still ponderous in midfield and still trying to shoot between a defence of 7, 8 or even 9 Palace players behind the ball. It was all very "nice" but ultimately ineffective. I do worry that Ashworth's definition of "good football" overrides pragmatism at the wrong times.

This is what a lot of people don't understand.

 

[Stato]

Potter really hasn't proven anything yet - he has been a PL manager for a season and a half and the team has bounced around between 14th-17th during that entire time.

The players are who they are - it is difficult to attract top class players to a club that frequents the bottom third of the table and skirts with relegation. The club have pumped a lot of money into players over the past four years so there should be some improvement in the squad - but we have no idea whether he is getting the best out of the players at his disposal (we have nothing to compare it with) - or whether the improvement comes from the training ground or not.

It is arguable that the team should be doing better given the players available - and the Palace game showed that the team still has a soft underbelly. So I would say that while things are improving, Potter still has some way to go to demonstrate that he is capable of becoming a long-term PL manager.

Potter has proven something. He has proven that it is possible to take a team of players playing defensive, percentages football, change the approach totally and still survive in the Premier League. Let's remember that the received wisdom when he was appointed was that he didn't have the players to make the change and that a Brighton team that had just limped to survival through draws would be dead certs for relegation without Hughton's organisation and pragmatism. To argue that he hasn't achieved anything because, within a season and a half, he hasn't yet turned one of the pundits' & bookies' perennial favourites for relegation into a solidly mid table side is a bit rich. Also, the club has actually pumped a lot of money into players over only three of the last four years. This year our expenditure was the third lowest in the division: https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/transfers/wettbewerb/GB1.

We conceded against Palace because we overstretched in attack and with centre-halves covering for Lamptey and March, didn't have the pace needed to recover. This is not evidence of a 'soft underbelly' its the possible consequence of taking a risk to try to win the game. If there is such a thing as a 'soft underbelly' (a weird British football cliche that reeks of the kind of 'who would you want next to you in the trenches' mentality that shackled the game in these islands for decades, leading to the likes of Bryan Robson's aggressively efficient mediocrity being valued so highly above the thrilling talents of Hoddle and LeTissier) then I wouldn't be associating it with a team that have proven themselves capable of working through very long periods of disappointing results and putting together a six game unbeaten run. Mentality is not in question here for any of the players and that speaks in Potter's favour.

The fact is that the club is attempting to do something that most in football would have had you believe was not possible. Gus Poyet said on the TV this week that he was told by everyone that you can't win lower league promotion playing this type of football with those type of players. Tony Bloom was told that a small team without endless resources cannot play expansive and creative football against the giants of the Premier League, especially if the players didn't come up from the championship doing it. Potter has proven that with the right approach in the right set up this is possible. No team has ever done it before. None of us know whether the next step up will happen, but allow the bloke some credit for being a big part of why we are even in a position to discuss it.

 

[Weststander]

Potter has proven something. He has proven that it is possible to take a team of players playing defensive, percentages football, change the approach totally and still survive in the Premier League. Let's remember that the received wisdom when he was appointed was that he didn't have the players to make the change and that a Brighton team that had just limped to survival through draws would be dead certs for relegation without Hughton's organisation and pragmatism. To argue that he hasn't achieved anything because, within a season and a half, he hasn't yet turned one of the pundits' & bookies' perennial favourites for relegation into a solidly mid table side is a bit rich. Also, the club has actually pumped a lot of money into players over only three of the last four years. This year our expenditure was the third lowest in the division: https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/transfers/wettbewerb/GB1.

We conceded against Palace because we overstretched in attack and with centre-halves covering for Lamptey and March, didn't have the pace needed to recover. This is not evidence of a 'soft underbelly' its the possible consequence of taking a risk to try to win the game. If there is such a thing as a 'soft underbelly' (a weird British football cliche that reeks of the kind of 'who would you want next to you in the trenches' mentality that shackled the game in these islands for decades, leading to the likes of Bryan Robson's aggressively efficient mediocrity being valued so highly above the thrilling talents of Hoddle and LeTissier) then I wouldn't be associating it with a team that have proven themselves capable of working through very long periods of disappointing results and putting together a six game unbeaten run. Mentality is not in question here for any of the players and that speaks in Potter's favour.

The fact is that the club is attempting to do something that most in football would have had you believe was not possible. Gus Poyet said on the TV this week that he was told by everyone that you can't win lower league promotion playing this type of football with those type of players. Tony Bloom was told that a small team without endless resources cannot play expansive and creative football against the giants of the Premier League, especially if the players didn't come up from the championship doing it. Potter has proven that with the right approach in the right set up this is possible. No team has ever done it before. None of us know whether the next step up will happen, but allow the bloke some credit for being a big part of why we are even in a position to discuss it.

A small detail, sorry to disagree.

I thought Bryan Robson was a world class CM'er and played an entirely different role from LeTissier and Hoddle. Every successful CM needs power, tackling and a player too able to stand up to attempts to bully. Robson had all that, as well as goals. Hoddle and LeTissier were gifted ball players, but we'd have been overrun without the bite of a Robson or similar.

A dream England CM for me would've been Robson, Gazza and Hoddle.

Hoddle was unfairly excluded, but I think it woud've been by other players.

 

[Stato]

We don't have to play like that all the time - in fact I prefer we don't - but we really do not have a plan B despite how much Potter supposedly changes it. Case in point Monday night - brought on Welbeck and moved to a back 4 but still ponderous in midfield and still trying to shoot between a defence of 7, 8 or even 9 Palace players behind the ball. It was all very "nice" but ultimately ineffective. I do worry that Ashworth's definition of "good football" overrides pragmatism at the wrong times.

I think that there is something to take from Pep Guardiola's recent comments about not running about so much. We succeed more against teams who come out, but the teams that are not better passers than us won't come out. We may need to play rope-a-dope. If we had less of the ball, kept our defensive shape and chose our moments to move forward in numbers, rather than trying to do it every time we get the ball, our defence could be less vulnerable to counters and our attacking players may have more space to operate in. If this doesn't work, or is seen as too much of a risk to attempt, then we need an aggressive dribbler who can draw players and create spaces for others to operate in. Getting Lamptey fit again would be a huge boost.

 

[Stato]

A small detail, sorry to disagree.

I thought Bryan Robson was a world class CM'er and played an entirely different role from LeTissier and Hoddle. Every successful CM needs power, tackling and a player too able to stand up to attempts to bully. Robson had all that, as well as goals. Hoddle and LeTissier were gifted ball players, but we'd have been overrun without the bite of a Robson or similar.

A dream England CM for me would've been Robson, Gazza and Hoddle.

Hoddle was unfairly excluded, but I think it woud've been by other players.

Fair point about Robson, but the mentality saw him often playing alongside Ray Wilkins, Sammy Lee, Trevor Steven, Steve McMahon or Peter Reid. I only picked him because he was always England's Captain Marvel when, to reference Cantona, he should have been Hoddle's water carrier.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I think that there is something to take from Pep Guardiola's recent comments about not running about so much. We succeed more against teams who come out, but the teams that are not better passers than us won't come out. We may need to play rope-a-dope. If we had less of the ball, kept our defensive shape and chose our moments to move forward in numbers, rather than trying to do it every time we get the ball, our defence could be less vulnerable to counters and our attacking players may have more space to operate in. If this doesn't work, or is seen as too much of a risk to attempt, then we need an aggressive dribbler who can draw players and create spaces for others to operate in. Getting Lamptey fit again would be a huge boost.

Not just Lamptey - Webster as well. Look at our winning streak and then see how many times Webster strides forward down the middle beating one or two players and/or seeing the opposition back right off him. Webster has been a HUGE miss and I'm starting to think he's more critical to us than Dunk, which I wouldn't have said even three months ago.

 

[jessiejames]

IMHO I agree with the article, hence why we have him an extension on his contract.

 

[vagabond]

Potter really hasn't proven anything yet - he has been a PL manager for a season and a half and the team has bounced around between 14th-17th during that entire time.

The players are who they are - it is difficult to attract top class players to a club that frequents the bottom third of the table and skirts with relegation. The club have pumped a lot of money into players over the past four years so there should be some improvement in the squad - but we have no idea whether he is getting the best out of the players at his disposal (we have nothing to compare it with) - or whether the improvement comes from the training ground or not.

It is arguable that the team should be doing better given the players available - and the Palace game showed that the team still has a soft underbelly. So I would say that while things are improving, Potter still has some way to go to demonstrate that he is capable of becoming a long-term PL manager.

If you’re judging purely on short term results and overlooking all the good things he’s doing then that is one viewpoint.

But why do I bother, you don’t even support us.

 

[vagabond]

... and this perspective would be different if we could just find some sliver of Irish DNA in him.

Exactly.

 

[vagabond]

Potter has proven something. He has proven that it is possible to take a team of players playing defensive, percentages football, change the approach totally and still survive in the Premier League. Let's remember that the received wisdom when he was appointed was that he didn't have the players to make the change and that a Brighton team that had just limped to survival through draws would be dead certs for relegation without Hughton's organisation and pragmatism. To argue that he hasn't achieved anything because, within a season and a half, he hasn't yet turned one of the pundits' & bookies' perennial favourites for relegation into a solidly mid table side is a bit rich. Also, the club has actually pumped a lot of money into players over only three of the last four years. This year our expenditure was the third lowest in the division: https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/transfers/wettbewerb/GB1.

We conceded against Palace because we overstretched in attack and with centre-halves covering for Lamptey and March, didn't have the pace needed to recover. This is not evidence of a 'soft underbelly' its the possible consequence of taking a risk to try to win the game. If there is such a thing as a 'soft underbelly' (a weird British football cliche that reeks of the kind of 'who would you want next to you in the trenches' mentality that shackled the game in these islands for decades, leading to the likes of Bryan Robson's aggressively efficient mediocrity being valued so highly above the thrilling talents of Hoddle and LeTissier) then I wouldn't be associating it with a team that have proven themselves capable of working through very long periods of disappointing results and putting together a six game unbeaten run. Mentality is not in question here for any of the players and that speaks in Potter's favour.

The fact is that the club is attempting to do something that most in football would have had you believe was not possible. Gus Poyet said on the TV this week that he was told by everyone that you can't win lower league promotion playing this type of football with those type of players. Tony Bloom was told that a small team without endless resources cannot play expansive and creative football against the giants of the Premier League, especially if the players didn't come up from the championship doing it. Potter has proven that with the right approach in the right set up this is possible. No team has ever done it before. None of us know whether the next step up will happen, but allow the bloke some credit for being a big part of why we are even in a position to discuss it.

Brilliant posts as always Stato. One of the best contributors here IMO. Can we make you an Albion correspondent for 5 live yet?

 

[vagabond]

Potter really hasn't proven anything yet - he has been a PL manager for a season and a half and the team has bounced around between 14th-17th during that entire time.

He got us more points then Hughton and whilst playing better football. So by your logic CH is also unproven as a PL manager.

 

[albionalex]

He got us more points then Hughton and whilst playing better football. So by your logic CH is also unproven as a PL manager.

One more point. In our first PL season with Hughton he got us 40 points. In Potters first season he got us 41 points.

Hughton's second season is where he struggled (although we did get to the FA Cup semi final) and we finished with 36 points. Likewise, in his 2nd season Potter is facing some big challenges.

So in terms of overall results, as of yet there hasn't really been an improvement. But there has definitely been an improvement in playing style and bringing through younger players.

 

[Shooting Star]

Bizarre timing of this article off the back of being beaten 2-1 in the 94th minute by your bitter rivals.

At the moment, GP is like the teacher who has the snazziest PowerPoint presentations, but whose pupils get the same results as the class whose teacher uses blackboard and chalk. The “he’s too good for the pupils he’s been given” would not wash in an educational establishment, so for me it doesn’t in football either.