JOHNNIE JACKSON - managed AFC Wimbledon to 2025 League 2 Play-off Final victory(p46)

MarcusH26 said:

I think the key thing for Jacko will be if big bids come in for Ali Al-Hamadi and James Tilley in January and if Wimbledon are able to hold their nerve. 

Braziliance said:

NabySarr said:

Braziliance said:

I am not gonna lie mate, I don't take xG seriously and never will unless it's something extremely significant I.e. a team has expected 7 goals to 0.5 and lose the game 1 nil. I highly doubt that's the case. For the most part it's all meaningless and merely just an indicator. 

I went and watched them play in the flesh and I can tell you they looked pants, the Bradford fans sat near me were also saying how pants they looked.

On the way out of the ground I didn't hear one fan during a 15-20 minute walk, surrounded by Wimbledon fans say, 'that was a good performance'. I did however hear a fair few murmurs of 'Jackson is showing signs of last season' 'tactics were wrong today' etc. I understand this is the norm if a team loses, but I can only go by what I heard. 

If you look at their socials when they lost to Morecambe and Accrington there were signs of fans being disgruntled. There was an obvious lack of support on the same threads. The same negative posts had an overwhelming amount of likes compared to people challenging those posts which makes me believe it isn't an unpopular opinion. 

Anyway all speculation, he may turn it around but I get the feeling he won't. Think last season in around 20 games he managed 3 wins when he was up against it. 

Fair enough, I know xG isn’t a thing for everyone. But to just dismiss it as meaningless when it’s used by the teams, bookies, pundits etc is a bit silly. If it was meaningless I doubt it would be commonplace in football. 

You watched one game, the meaningless stats are probably far better representative of how good AFC Wimbledon are as a team this season than the small sample of watching 1 game in which they lost. Fans are miserable after a loss, I and many others criticise Appleton when we lose, then the next game we win he’s amazing again. I really don’t think Jackson is under any pressure at the moment and most sensible Wimbledon fans are happy with how he’s done this season 

It is meaningless as in the sense that it doesn't change the outcome of a result. I am perfectly aware of how teams are more likely to score based on averages etc. I highly doubt those same Wimbledon fans care about xG when they are sliding down the table though.

I watched one game along with more or less every single game Jacko managed under us. My point was, I went and watched another team who looked void of ideas on how to play. They have a few decent players, one of which I didn't get to watch (Ali) but ultimately they just didn't look like a team on the up to me is all. 

Anyway to go back to the original point, it seems there is a bit of unrest and it will be interesting to see how he gets on for the rest of the season.

NabySarr said:

Braziliance said:

NabySarr said:

Braziliance said:

I am not gonna lie mate, I don't take xG seriously and never will unless it's something extremely significant I.e. a team has expected 7 goals to 0.5 and lose the game 1 nil. I highly doubt that's the case. For the most part it's all meaningless and merely just an indicator. 

I went and watched them play in the flesh and I can tell you they looked pants, the Bradford fans sat near me were also saying how pants they looked.

On the way out of the ground I didn't hear one fan during a 15-20 minute walk, surrounded by Wimbledon fans say, 'that was a good performance'. I did however hear a fair few murmurs of 'Jackson is showing signs of last season' 'tactics were wrong today' etc. I understand this is the norm if a team loses, but I can only go by what I heard. 

If you look at their socials when they lost to Morecambe and Accrington there were signs of fans being disgruntled. There was an obvious lack of support on the same threads. The same negative posts had an overwhelming amount of likes compared to people challenging those posts which makes me believe it isn't an unpopular opinion. 

Anyway all speculation, he may turn it around but I get the feeling he won't. Think last season in around 20 games he managed 3 wins when he was up against it. 

Fair enough, I know xG isn’t a thing for everyone. But to just dismiss it as meaningless when it’s used by the teams, bookies, pundits etc is a bit silly. If it was meaningless I doubt it would be commonplace in football. 

You watched one game, the meaningless stats are probably far better representative of how good AFC Wimbledon are as a team this season than the small sample of watching 1 game in which they lost. Fans are miserable after a loss, I and many others criticise Appleton when we lose, then the next game we win he’s amazing again. I really don’t think Jackson is under any pressure at the moment and most sensible Wimbledon fans are happy with how he’s done this season 

It is meaningless as in the sense that it doesn't change the outcome of a result. I am perfectly aware of how teams are more likely to score based on averages etc. I highly doubt those same Wimbledon fans care about xG when they are sliding down the table though.

I watched one game along with more or less every single game Jacko managed under us. My point was, I went and watched another team who looked void of ideas on how to play. They have a few decent players, one of which I didn't get to watch (Ali) but ultimately they just didn't look like a team on the up to me is all. 

Anyway to go back to the original point, it seems there is a bit of unrest and it will be interesting to see how he gets on for the rest of the season.

Most fans won’t care about it, but if the board are smart they will consider it when judging how well the team is doing. Results are of course the be all and end all, and Jackson’s results aren’t that bad at the moment. But then even if they were a little lower in the table a smarter board would probably look at the underlying numbers and think it’s probably worth giving a little more time as performances have been better than the results and they’ve been unlucky. 

I’m not surprised there’s a little unrest at every defeat, he did so badly last season that fans are always going to be quick to jump on him. They’ve been very good this season though and are unlucky to not be higher in the table. I think squad depth is a bit of a problem for them, but a good January window will give them an outside chance of play offs in my opinion but I think they’ll be comfortably top half which would be a successful season and give Jackson another summer to push them on 

Braziliance said:

Garrymanilow said:

Braziliance said:

NabySarr said:

Braziliance said:

I am not gonna lie mate, I don't take xG seriously and never will unless it's something extremely significant I.e. a team has expected 7 goals to 0.5 and lose the game 1 nil. I highly doubt that's the case. For the most part it's all meaningless and merely just an indicator. 

I went and watched them play in the flesh and I can tell you they looked pants, the Bradford fans sat near me were also saying how pants they looked.

On the way out of the ground I didn't hear one fan during a 15-20 minute walk, surrounded by Wimbledon fans say, 'that was a good performance'. I did however hear a fair few murmurs of 'Jackson is showing signs of last season' 'tactics were wrong today' etc. I understand this is the norm if a team loses, but I can only go by what I heard. 

If you look at their socials when they lost to Morecambe and Accrington there were signs of fans being disgruntled. There was an obvious lack of support on the same threads. The same negative posts had an overwhelming amount of likes compared to people challenging those posts which makes me believe it isn't an unpopular opinion. 

Anyway all speculation, he may turn it around but I get the feeling he won't. Think last season in around 20 games he managed 3 wins when he was up against it. 

Fair enough, I know xG isn’t a thing for everyone. But to just dismiss it as meaningless when it’s used by the teams, bookies, pundits etc is a bit silly. If it was meaningless I doubt it would be commonplace in football. 

You watched one game, the meaningless stats are probably far better representative of how good AFC Wimbledon are as a team this season than the small sample of watching 1 game in which they lost. Fans are miserable after a loss, I and many others criticise Appleton when we lose, then the next game we win he’s amazing again. I really don’t think Jackson is under any pressure at the moment and most sensible Wimbledon fans are happy with how he’s done this season 

It is meaningless as in the sense that it doesn't change the outcome of a result. I am perfectly aware of how teams are more likely to score based on averages etc. I highly doubt those same Wimbledon fans care about xG when they are sliding down the table though.

I watched one game along with more or less every single game Jacko managed under us. My point was, I went and watched another team who looked void of ideas on how to play. They have a few decent players, one of which I didn't get to watch (Ali) but ultimately they just didn't look like a team on the up to me is all. 

Anyway to go back to the original point, it seems there is a bit of unrest and it will be interesting to see how he gets on for the rest of the season.

No statistics change the outcome of a result. They still have meaning though. xG is significant because it can indicate to you that you're doing better than your position tells you or overscoring points-wise based on your performance and a drop is coming. If a team is massively underperforming their xG then they have a finishing issue, but they are creating clear-cut, good quality chances which can indicate that there are only minor changes needed, even a bit of luck, but the overall base and balance are good. The bookies look at that and the hiring board members will often look at that as part of a review. Conversely, if your xG every game is 0.23 and you keep winning 2-0 then you're finishing incredibly effectively but your chance creation is pretty poor, which isn't sustainable across a whole season. To be honest, you've said that you ignore relevant statistics, you've seen one game so you know how bad Wimbledon are and you've been on the comments section of a football post which is the social equivalent of the Somme at any given moment so you know that there's unrest among the fans. I think you might want to review your investigative methods as that's quite a lot taken from very little.

Without being rude why are you explaining xG to me mate. I am perfectly aware of how stats work and how they can be used. 

I ignore them in the sense that whether our own xG is high or low, I couldn't give a toss as long as we get results. I imagine Wimbledon fans feel the same after shipping 8 in 2.

So without seeming arrogant, no I don't want to review my investigative methods? Especially seeing as it's not gospel and I don't treat it to be otherwise.

I saw a few things and shared. Even opened with 'I don't think it's going to end well'. I haven't hopped on here and said he is gone without doubt. 

If I've watched Jackson manage roughly 22 or so games for us and then watched him manage a new team. I believe that will give me an idea on how good or bad he is doing or capable of over some stats. 

Apologies if I comes across rude but I find it a bit daft that I am having xG broken down to me when I understand exactly what it all means, but simply saying it isn't getting them points. 

You can't go off of xG if you don't watch a team as it can be a false bearing. xG doesn't measure the capability of the player themselves but actually how likely it is they will score in their opportunities or concede for xA. You can't use that data to measure a player like Kirk compared to lets say a top Premier league winger. OK they could have a similar expected odd to score a goal from a particular range or angle but the reality is one player is good enough to and the other isn't. There will be players of course, who get themselves in scoring opportunities which will look good on the data side of things and appear that Wimbledon or whoever are playing well, but if your players don't have the ability the xG amounts to nothing. 

If you were a betting man and relied on all this data then I suppose we would all be rich eventually as it's such a foolproof method? 

paulsturgess said:

To say XG is meaningless is a bit silly/ very naive. Bookmakers and professional gamblers (like those of Tony Bloom and Matthew Benham) use that data (along with other info/ data) A LOT with extreme success. It can paint a very useful picture over time of how likely a team are potentially underperforming results wise or alternatively over performing because they’re actually playing shit but just have a useful poacher like Alfie May blagging them a few results. 

NabySarr said:

Braziliance said:

Garrymanilow said:

Braziliance said:

NabySarr said:

Braziliance said:

I am not gonna lie mate, I don't take xG seriously and never will unless it's something extremely significant I.e. a team has expected 7 goals to 0.5 and lose the game 1 nil. I highly doubt that's the case. For the most part it's all meaningless and merely just an indicator. 

I went and watched them play in the flesh and I can tell you they looked pants, the Bradford fans sat near me were also saying how pants they looked.

On the way out of the ground I didn't hear one fan during a 15-20 minute walk, surrounded by Wimbledon fans say, 'that was a good performance'. I did however hear a fair few murmurs of 'Jackson is showing signs of last season' 'tactics were wrong today' etc. I understand this is the norm if a team loses, but I can only go by what I heard. 

If you look at their socials when they lost to Morecambe and Accrington there were signs of fans being disgruntled. There was an obvious lack of support on the same threads. The same negative posts had an overwhelming amount of likes compared to people challenging those posts which makes me believe it isn't an unpopular opinion. 

Anyway all speculation, he may turn it around but I get the feeling he won't. Think last season in around 20 games he managed 3 wins when he was up against it. 

Fair enough, I know xG isn’t a thing for everyone. But to just dismiss it as meaningless when it’s used by the teams, bookies, pundits etc is a bit silly. If it was meaningless I doubt it would be commonplace in football. 

You watched one game, the meaningless stats are probably far better representative of how good AFC Wimbledon are as a team this season than the small sample of watching 1 game in which they lost. Fans are miserable after a loss, I and many others criticise Appleton when we lose, then the next game we win he’s amazing again. I really don’t think Jackson is under any pressure at the moment and most sensible Wimbledon fans are happy with how he’s done this season 

It is meaningless as in the sense that it doesn't change the outcome of a result. I am perfectly aware of how teams are more likely to score based on averages etc. I highly doubt those same Wimbledon fans care about xG when they are sliding down the table though.

I watched one game along with more or less every single game Jacko managed under us. My point was, I went and watched another team who looked void of ideas on how to play. They have a few decent players, one of which I didn't get to watch (Ali) but ultimately they just didn't look like a team on the up to me is all. 

Anyway to go back to the original point, it seems there is a bit of unrest and it will be interesting to see how he gets on for the rest of the season.

No statistics change the outcome of a result. They still have meaning though. xG is significant because it can indicate to you that you're doing better than your position tells you or overscoring points-wise based on your performance and a drop is coming. If a team is massively underperforming their xG then they have a finishing issue, but they are creating clear-cut, good quality chances which can indicate that there are only minor changes needed, even a bit of luck, but the overall base and balance are good. The bookies look at that and the hiring board members will often look at that as part of a review. Conversely, if your xG every game is 0.23 and you keep winning 2-0 then you're finishing incredibly effectively but your chance creation is pretty poor, which isn't sustainable across a whole season. To be honest, you've said that you ignore relevant statistics, you've seen one game so you know how bad Wimbledon are and you've been on the comments section of a football post which is the social equivalent of the Somme at any given moment so you know that there's unrest among the fans. I think you might want to review your investigative methods as that's quite a lot taken from very little.

Without being rude why are you explaining xG to me mate. I am perfectly aware of how stats work and how they can be used. 

I ignore them in the sense that whether our own xG is high or low, I couldn't give a toss as long as we get results. I imagine Wimbledon fans feel the same after shipping 8 in 2.

So without seeming arrogant, no I don't want to review my investigative methods? Especially seeing as it's not gospel and I don't treat it to be otherwise.

I saw a few things and shared. Even opened with 'I don't think it's going to end well'. I haven't hopped on here and said he is gone without doubt. 

If I've watched Jackson manage roughly 22 or so games for us and then watched him manage a new team. I believe that will give me an idea on how good or bad he is doing or capable of over some stats. 

Apologies if I comes across rude but I find it a bit daft that I am having xG broken down to me when I understand exactly what it all means, but simply saying it isn't getting them points. 

You can't go off of xG if you don't watch a team as it can be a false bearing. xG doesn't measure the capability of the player themselves but actually how likely it is they will score in their opportunities or concede for xA. You can't use that data to measure a player like Kirk compared to lets say a top Premier league winger. OK they could have a similar expected odd to score a goal from a particular range or angle but the reality is one player is good enough to and the other isn't. There will be players of course, who get themselves in scoring opportunities which will look good on the data side of things and appear that Wimbledon or whoever are playing well, but if your players don't have the ability the xG amounts to nothing. 

If you were a betting man and relied on all this data then I suppose we would all be rich eventually as it's such a foolproof method? 

And yes just look at Brentford and Brighton’s owners. Who basically invented their own version of xG before it was even a thing and applied it to gambling and then to football. Seemed to work out quite well for them in both…

I would also say the comment “you can’t go off XG if you don’t watch a team”… 

in most cases it will paint you a much more accurate picture of how the game went than just going off the score, which can be INCREDIBLY misleading!

Braziliance said:

Garrymanilow said:

Braziliance said:

NabySarr said:

Braziliance said:

I am not gonna lie mate, I don't take xG seriously and never will unless it's something extremely significant I.e. a team has expected 7 goals to 0.5 and lose the game 1 nil. I highly doubt that's the case. For the most part it's all meaningless and merely just an indicator. 

I went and watched them play in the flesh and I can tell you they looked pants, the Bradford fans sat near me were also saying how pants they looked.

On the way out of the ground I didn't hear one fan during a 15-20 minute walk, surrounded by Wimbledon fans say, 'that was a good performance'. I did however hear a fair few murmurs of 'Jackson is showing signs of last season' 'tactics were wrong today' etc. I understand this is the norm if a team loses, but I can only go by what I heard. 

If you look at their socials when they lost to Morecambe and Accrington there were signs of fans being disgruntled. There was an obvious lack of support on the same threads. The same negative posts had an overwhelming amount of likes compared to people challenging those posts which makes me believe it isn't an unpopular opinion. 

Anyway all speculation, he may turn it around but I get the feeling he won't. Think last season in around 20 games he managed 3 wins when he was up against it. 

Fair enough, I know xG isn’t a thing for everyone. But to just dismiss it as meaningless when it’s used by the teams, bookies, pundits etc is a bit silly. If it was meaningless I doubt it would be commonplace in football. 

You watched one game, the meaningless stats are probably far better representative of how good AFC Wimbledon are as a team this season than the small sample of watching 1 game in which they lost. Fans are miserable after a loss, I and many others criticise Appleton when we lose, then the next game we win he’s amazing again. I really don’t think Jackson is under any pressure at the moment and most sensible Wimbledon fans are happy with how he’s done this season 

It is meaningless as in the sense that it doesn't change the outcome of a result. I am perfectly aware of how teams are more likely to score based on averages etc. I highly doubt those same Wimbledon fans care about xG when they are sliding down the table though.

I watched one game along with more or less every single game Jacko managed under us. My point was, I went and watched another team who looked void of ideas on how to play. They have a few decent players, one of which I didn't get to watch (Ali) but ultimately they just didn't look like a team on the up to me is all. 

Anyway to go back to the original point, it seems there is a bit of unrest and it will be interesting to see how he gets on for the rest of the season.

No statistics change the outcome of a result. They still have meaning though. xG is significant because it can indicate to you that you're doing better than your position tells you or overscoring points-wise based on your performance and a drop is coming. If a team is massively underperforming their xG then they have a finishing issue, but they are creating clear-cut, good quality chances which can indicate that there are only minor changes needed, even a bit of luck, but the overall base and balance are good. The bookies look at that and the hiring board members will often look at that as part of a review. Conversely, if your xG every game is 0.23 and you keep winning 2-0 then you're finishing incredibly effectively but your chance creation is pretty poor, which isn't sustainable across a whole season. To be honest, you've said that you ignore relevant statistics, you've seen one game so you know how bad Wimbledon are and you've been on the comments section of a football post which is the social equivalent of the Somme at any given moment so you know that there's unrest among the fans. I think you might want to review your investigative methods as that's quite a lot taken from very little.

Without being rude why are you explaining xG to me mate. I am perfectly aware of how stats work and how they can be used. 

I ignore them in the sense that whether our own xG is high or low, I couldn't give a toss as long as we get results. I imagine Wimbledon fans feel the same after shipping 8 in 2.

So without seeming arrogant, no I don't want to review my investigative methods? Especially seeing as it's not gospel and I don't treat it to be otherwise.

I saw a few things and shared. Even opened with 'I don't think it's going to end well'. I haven't hopped on here and said he is gone without doubt. 

If I've watched Jackson manage roughly 22 or so games for us and then watched him manage a new team. I believe that will give me an idea on how good or bad he is doing or capable of over some stats. 

Apologies if I comes across rude but I find it a bit daft that I am having xG broken down to me when I understand exactly what it all means, but simply saying it isn't getting them points. 

You can't go off of xG if you don't watch a team as it can be a false bearing. xG doesn't measure the capability of the player themselves but actually how likely it is they will score in their opportunities or concede for xA. You can't use that data to measure a player like Kirk compared to lets say a top Premier league winger. OK they could have a similar expected odd to score a goal from a particular range or angle but the reality is one player is good enough to and the other isn't. There will be players of course, who get themselves in scoring opportunities which will look good on the data side of things and appear that Wimbledon or whoever are playing well, but if your players don't have the ability the xG amounts to nothing. 

If you were a betting man and relied on all this data then I suppose we would all be rich eventually as it's such a foolproof method? 

Braziliance said:

Just on a bit of Jacko watch, I don't think it's going to end well for him at the Wombles. 

I attended the Wimbledon Bradford game and as said before, I saw nothing to suggest he had upped his managerial game since leaving us. It was such a poor quality game of footie from both sides overall.

Since the home loss to Bradford, Jacko has managed 1 draw and 2 losses in the league, the 2 losses conceding 8 goals and beating Cheltenham in the FA cup 5-1.

Seen a lot of fans saying he needs to go now and that the FA cup result just papered over the cracks. 

It's a shame cause that's the only manager who has left us in recent years that I genuinely want to see smash it, but when you see Wimbledon fans saying he needs to go and the posts are getting high amounts of likes on social media it doesn't look good.

Ben Garner of course sacked and despite Nigel Adkins securing a long term contract at Tranmere, the results haven't been great. 

Feel like it's a bit of a pattern that every manager who leaves us or gets sacked doesn't recover too well, Bowyer probably the best of the bunch but his time ran out in the end.