By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
"Coming up later we've got 3 tracks in session from Creeping Snobbery."
As a way of idling away lockdown hours, I started to make note of phrases that I heard or read that I thought made great Peel session band names - *for millennials, think “did you hear (insert band name) on Gilles’s show on Saturday?” Some of them are the work of genuinely gifted wordsmiths; some are ridiculous marketing speak; some just caught my eye. It became quite addictive…
Bumptious Noodle The Pillars of Strategy Frivolous Riff Fiscal Drag The Fabulous Accidents Reptilian Shapeshifters Notable Women of Japanese Jazz High Taste Lineage Fearless Desk Accessory A Stray Tennis Ball in the Face (later shortened to ‘STB’ a la ‘OMD’) Cataclysmic Fracture Chancers’ Waiting Room Cynical Shirt Selling Ruse Official Global Lubricant Partner Limited Bonds of Solidarity Subversive Practises Creating the Discourse Disturbing Neural Pathways Vile Woke Mess Bland Display of Obsolescence Ideal World Scenario Tw@t Deflector Dick Emery’s Skinhead Dad Pure David Lynch Business Stalwart Defender De Facto Public Health Czar Coconut Decisions
It was extremely good. Can't do better than just playing the tape to Hoos really.
Enjoyed the episode and am slowly warming to the pod again in general after it lost me there for a good while. Chris (as did David) has sounded a bit tired of it, or everything, for some time if I'm honest. I do like Flo presenting.
(Bit exasperated with affirming she was "wrong" about Austin though, it was a reasonable and clear-eyed concern at the uncertain time (Some fair observations about Gray too). Inadvertently or otherwise maybe let's not give an inch to the idea the stick she got and continues to get for it was ever actually about the topic...)
Also re the xG thing, it seems a silly argument all round to me. xG today is a (to use the parlance du jour) basic bitch, entry level, rough indicator of a generally important aspect of underlying performance. No real analyst type is going to leave it at that and preach its gospel without reading way deeper between the lines. It is however also silly to say it's all bollox and then all agree we haven't necessarily been dominant in all our games so far, despite being in third... because that's literally what the stat is telling you. The contentiousness is in the extrapolated interpretation (and sometimes yes arsey manner of delivery) not the thing itself.
It was extremely good. Can't do better than just playing the tape to Hoos really.
Enjoyed the episode and am slowly warming to the pod again in general after it lost me there for a good while. Chris (as did David) has sounded a bit tired of it, or everything, for some time if I'm honest. I do like Flo presenting.
(Bit exasperated with affirming she was "wrong" about Austin though, it was a reasonable and clear-eyed concern at the uncertain time (Some fair observations about Gray too). Inadvertently or otherwise maybe let's not give an inch to the idea the stick she got and continues to get for it was ever actually about the topic...)
Also re the xG thing, it seems a silly argument all round to me. xG today is a (to use the parlance du jour) basic bitch, entry level, rough indicator of a generally important aspect of underlying performance. No real analyst type is going to leave it at that and preach its gospel without reading way deeper between the lines. It is however also silly to say it's all bollox and then all agree we haven't necessarily been dominant in all our games so far, despite being in third... because that's literally what the stat is telling you. The contentiousness is in the extrapolated interpretation (and sometimes yes arsey manner of delivery) not the thing itself.
Thanks. Agree. Agree essentially, but it's just the piss taking that goes on between the group, finney and his Belfast obsession, me and my long winded rambling, Flo and her Charlie Austin take (which tbf wasn't that much different from my own but because it's Flo she got caned for it and I didn't).
The xG thing is born out of a couple of things, and like you say one of them mainly is the 'arsey manner of delivery' that means you either have to bow down to it or you don't understand it - those are the only two options for the evangelists.
I appreciate it’s meant to be a way to judge things over a long period of time and large sample size, and pointing and individual games and saying “well that’s bolox” leaves you open to accusations that you simply don’t understand it, however… Hull away, which is one of the xG stats that’s being used against us so far this season, we had an xG of just 1.56. Now fair enough Willock’s goal from 20 yards out which should have been saved probably scores 0.1 or whatever it is but we scored a goal into an open net from a yard dead centre, we scored another goal with a low shot from the centre of the goal 15 yards out, we had a header straight at the keeper from two yards, and we went clean through on the goalkeeper who made an excellent save. Out of that our xG is 1.56 and the Twitter sages are saying QPR are way overperforming, but if you were at that game three goals was a perfectly fair outcome from the performance and chances created.
There was a baby ‘Stoke analytics’ account last week saying QPR cannot possibly keep this up, they’ll fall back, as if the xG is the be all and end all. Well, why is there not an option that says having come through some tough games unscathed, we’ll now cut loose on a few teams and the xG will catch up to us? Might not happen, but to me it’s every bit as likely as us falling back in line with the xG. As I understand it, Brighton perform consistently way higher in the xG than they do in the actualG, should have been much higher in the league last year, year before, according to this stat that some are hanging a hat on. Well, if a team massively underperforms on it season on season, then is it really that accurate or valuable?
I have other questions about it as well. For instance, is a Rob Dickie shot from 25 yards valued higher than a Jordy De Wijs shot? One can shoot from 25 yards, one can’t, but are they graded the same because only this percentage of shots from this range go in? Is a John Spencer chance from 15 yards graded the same as a Brett Angell chance? If it is, then it’s deeply flawed. But I’m keeping my powder dry on those because I’ve got the book on order and I want to read that first before displaying my ignorance — which I may well have done here.
It was extremely good. Can't do better than just playing the tape to Hoos really.
Enjoyed the episode and am slowly warming to the pod again in general after it lost me there for a good while. Chris (as did David) has sounded a bit tired of it, or everything, for some time if I'm honest. I do like Flo presenting.
(Bit exasperated with affirming she was "wrong" about Austin though, it was a reasonable and clear-eyed concern at the uncertain time (Some fair observations about Gray too). Inadvertently or otherwise maybe let's not give an inch to the idea the stick she got and continues to get for it was ever actually about the topic...)
Also re the xG thing, it seems a silly argument all round to me. xG today is a (to use the parlance du jour) basic bitch, entry level, rough indicator of a generally important aspect of underlying performance. No real analyst type is going to leave it at that and preach its gospel without reading way deeper between the lines. It is however also silly to say it's all bollox and then all agree we haven't necessarily been dominant in all our games so far, despite being in third... because that's literally what the stat is telling you. The contentiousness is in the extrapolated interpretation (and sometimes yes arsey manner of delivery) not the thing itself.
"...it was a reasonable and clear-eyed concern at the uncertain time (Some fair observations about Gray too). Inadvertently or otherwise maybe let's not give an inch to the idea the stick she got and continues to get for it was ever actually about the topic...)"
Agree completely.
I had largely the same concerns as Flo, and I repeated them when the signing was being made permanent this Summer. I posted the same on here on a few occasions, and got no stick at all. Part of that is undoubtedly because LFW is friendlier than Twitter, but I still think that Flo got a raw deal for making what were legitimate points.
"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
It was extremely good. Can't do better than just playing the tape to Hoos really.
Enjoyed the episode and am slowly warming to the pod again in general after it lost me there for a good while. Chris (as did David) has sounded a bit tired of it, or everything, for some time if I'm honest. I do like Flo presenting.
(Bit exasperated with affirming she was "wrong" about Austin though, it was a reasonable and clear-eyed concern at the uncertain time (Some fair observations about Gray too). Inadvertently or otherwise maybe let's not give an inch to the idea the stick she got and continues to get for it was ever actually about the topic...)
Also re the xG thing, it seems a silly argument all round to me. xG today is a (to use the parlance du jour) basic bitch, entry level, rough indicator of a generally important aspect of underlying performance. No real analyst type is going to leave it at that and preach its gospel without reading way deeper between the lines. It is however also silly to say it's all bollox and then all agree we haven't necessarily been dominant in all our games so far, despite being in third... because that's literally what the stat is telling you. The contentiousness is in the extrapolated interpretation (and sometimes yes arsey manner of delivery) not the thing itself.
Thanks. Agree. Agree essentially, but it's just the piss taking that goes on between the group, finney and his Belfast obsession, me and my long winded rambling, Flo and her Charlie Austin take (which tbf wasn't that much different from my own but because it's Flo she got caned for it and I didn't).
The xG thing is born out of a couple of things, and like you say one of them mainly is the 'arsey manner of delivery' that means you either have to bow down to it or you don't understand it - those are the only two options for the evangelists.
I appreciate it’s meant to be a way to judge things over a long period of time and large sample size, and pointing and individual games and saying “well that’s bolox” leaves you open to accusations that you simply don’t understand it, however… Hull away, which is one of the xG stats that’s being used against us so far this season, we had an xG of just 1.56. Now fair enough Willock’s goal from 20 yards out which should have been saved probably scores 0.1 or whatever it is but we scored a goal into an open net from a yard dead centre, we scored another goal with a low shot from the centre of the goal 15 yards out, we had a header straight at the keeper from two yards, and we went clean through on the goalkeeper who made an excellent save. Out of that our xG is 1.56 and the Twitter sages are saying QPR are way overperforming, but if you were at that game three goals was a perfectly fair outcome from the performance and chances created.
There was a baby ‘Stoke analytics’ account last week saying QPR cannot possibly keep this up, they’ll fall back, as if the xG is the be all and end all. Well, why is there not an option that says having come through some tough games unscathed, we’ll now cut loose on a few teams and the xG will catch up to us? Might not happen, but to me it’s every bit as likely as us falling back in line with the xG. As I understand it, Brighton perform consistently way higher in the xG than they do in the actualG, should have been much higher in the league last year, year before, according to this stat that some are hanging a hat on. Well, if a team massively underperforms on it season on season, then is it really that accurate or valuable?
I have other questions about it as well. For instance, is a Rob Dickie shot from 25 yards valued higher than a Jordy De Wijs shot? One can shoot from 25 yards, one can’t, but are they graded the same because only this percentage of shots from this range go in? Is a John Spencer chance from 15 yards graded the same as a Brett Angell chance? If it is, then it’s deeply flawed. But I’m keeping my powder dry on those because I’ve got the book on order and I want to read that first before displaying my ignorance — which I may well have done here.
Re. the Brighton thing - if you are consistently overperforming in xG, it suggests you need better finishers. Isn't that what it boils down to? We 'overachieved' at Hull because we took our chances and sold them Ingram. The stats nerds tend to overcomplicate things that have been inherent in football since the year dot.
I enjoy the QPR Podcasts including Open All R's and W12 Podcast Also a few others like The Price of Football , Kickback with Nedum and occasionally Football Weekly.
With the opportunity of being able to watch and listen to games, podcasts and this website and the club website (ok maybe not the club website) we have come a long way since I moved to Australia half way through the 1997-98 season.
I remember staying up in the middle of the night to hear some dodgy audio with a poor internet connection as we managed to draw with Man City away with the famous Jamie Pollock own goal and then a season later beat Crystal Palace 6-0 to stay up.
Being a fan overseas now is much easier with all the great information and content available. The podcasts are an important part of this and keeping us connected.
Thanks to everyone for sharing their contributions.
Looking forward to listening to this week's Podcast.
Whilst I never miss it if possible, I was thinking after last couple of week's with Finney hosting that it could be in danger of going seriously downhill after the departure of David Fraser.
I dislike when Finney is in the Chair and have become tired of what some people call "Finney's Charm" with him blathering on about being old (come on man you are only recently gone in to your 50s!!!) and going off on tangents about Glentoran and Linfield and the anti Chelsea and anti Brentford rants, and non of the guests understanding his question or his jokes. I feared it was becoming the Paul Finney Podcast and not a general QPR Podcast when he is in the Chair.
I know that seems like Finney bashing, it's not meant do be personal and I do get that presenting a Podcast is hard work and a commitment, and I have appreciated Finney's input and his love of the club and the hard time he has had with losing him mum during Covid and losing other friends, he clearly has so much passion for our club and for the QPR community - but let's just leave the show anchor with someone like Flo or Chris now that David has left. It has been a brilliant Podcast of the last 10 years or so and it would be a shame for it to become tired and cliched.
I enjoy the podcast - I think its great and I think a lot of those that slate it are actually just a bit jealous that they're not the talking heads selected and get sniffy about it as a result.
With the Flo thing and Charlie that was nothing more than pure sexism - in the eyes of the outraged Twitter world if a woman dares to have an opinion on football that they don't like then they will hound and bully them as much as they like, which is why men expressing similar concerns didn't get such stick. People might disagree with me on that, but I think its nothing more than that and I still see signs of it now.
Another reason to add to the many that I have no interest in that platform, ever.
I enjoy the podcast - I think its great and I think a lot of those that slate it are actually just a bit jealous that they're not the talking heads selected and get sniffy about it as a result.
With the Flo thing and Charlie that was nothing more than pure sexism - in the eyes of the outraged Twitter world if a woman dares to have an opinion on football that they don't like then they will hound and bully them as much as they like, which is why men expressing similar concerns didn't get such stick. People might disagree with me on that, but I think its nothing more than that and I still see signs of it now.
Another reason to add to the many that I have no interest in that platform, ever.
I'm not sure your first par is correct but if it is then that's daft, if anybody drops them a Tweet they'll be on next week. Finney can always be found stumbling round the Crown begging people to come on. They're not blessed with a whole crowd of people wanting to go on.
Looking forward to listening to this week's Podcast.
Whilst I never miss it if possible, I was thinking after last couple of week's with Finney hosting that it could be in danger of going seriously downhill after the departure of David Fraser.
I dislike when Finney is in the Chair and have become tired of what some people call "Finney's Charm" with him blathering on about being old (come on man you are only recently gone in to your 50s!!!) and going off on tangents about Glentoran and Linfield and the anti Chelsea and anti Brentford rants, and non of the guests understanding his question or his jokes. I feared it was becoming the Paul Finney Podcast and not a general QPR Podcast when he is in the Chair.
I know that seems like Finney bashing, it's not meant do be personal and I do get that presenting a Podcast is hard work and a commitment, and I have appreciated Finney's input and his love of the club and the hard time he has had with losing him mum during Covid and losing other friends, he clearly has so much passion for our club and for the QPR community - but let's just leave the show anchor with someone like Flo or Chris now that David has left. It has been a brilliant Podcast of the last 10 years or so and it would be a shame for it to become tired and cliched.
You echo exactly how I feel about it.
I like Finney as a person. Good guy etc.
But I want to hear more about QPR not Gluten Free beer and flowers over and over again.
It’s nice to get character development when the same people host but the content should always be about the one common denominator QPR.
Looking forward to listening to this week's Podcast.
Whilst I never miss it if possible, I was thinking after last couple of week's with Finney hosting that it could be in danger of going seriously downhill after the departure of David Fraser.
I dislike when Finney is in the Chair and have become tired of what some people call "Finney's Charm" with him blathering on about being old (come on man you are only recently gone in to your 50s!!!) and going off on tangents about Glentoran and Linfield and the anti Chelsea and anti Brentford rants, and non of the guests understanding his question or his jokes. I feared it was becoming the Paul Finney Podcast and not a general QPR Podcast when he is in the Chair.
I know that seems like Finney bashing, it's not meant do be personal and I do get that presenting a Podcast is hard work and a commitment, and I have appreciated Finney's input and his love of the club and the hard time he has had with losing him mum during Covid and losing other friends, he clearly has so much passion for our club and for the QPR community - but let's just leave the show anchor with someone like Flo or Chris now that David has left. It has been a brilliant Podcast of the last 10 years or so and it would be a shame for it to become tired and cliched.
At least Finney is a proper, recognisable QPR fan. The sort you've bumped into on trains back from Darlington or whatever. Too many people on there now, you'd never heard of before the Podcast. Harder to have sympathy with them when they come out with a load of old shite regarding stuff on the pitch. Impossible to have sympathy with them when they're digging the club out for random off-pitch stuff that had never even entered most supporters' minds. At least with Clive or Paul, you know they've done the miles, and they're not doing it for the benefit of their own CV/pocket
"Someone despises me. That's their problem." Marcus Aurelius
As another Rangers fan abroad I for one love the pod. Listened to it for years and 9 times out if 10 it's a great listen.
I would agree that Finney shouldn't host, nothing against him and clearly a true Rangers fanatic. Just not host material as gets a little "distracted" sometimes and needs someone to steer him in the right direction, no shame in that and I get the impression he'd rather be a "guest" than a host as well.
Well done and thank you to all concerned for your time and effort. It's appreciated by us exiles and in the weeks without you you're missed!
As another Rangers fan abroad I for one love the pod. Listened to it for years and 9 times out if 10 it's a great listen.
I would agree that Finney shouldn't host, nothing against him and clearly a true Rangers fanatic. Just not host material as gets a little "distracted" sometimes and needs someone to steer him in the right direction, no shame in that and I get the impression he'd rather be a "guest" than a host as well.
Well done and thank you to all concerned for your time and effort. It's appreciated by us exiles and in the weeks without you you're missed!
Finney knows he shouldn't host. If we could get him to stop interrupting too that would be quite something. TBF, behind the curtain, it wouldn’t still be going this year if he wasn’t driving it.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
