Jump to content
IGNORED

Objective view on LJ


Robbored

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Its not an objective view. The author has not used facts to be back up his assertions. He is not evidence basing his writing. He is using unnamed contacts and I understands.

There are better researched and more objective views on here e.g Ole/Davefevs.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Its not an objective view. The author has not used facts to be back up his assertions. He is not evidence basing his writing. He is using unnamed contacts and I understands.

Of course it’s objective.

Written by an outsider of the club using statistical facts.

Anyway I didn’t post it to get into a semantic debate - I posted it because I thought others might like to see an article about out our Head Coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Of course it’s objective.

Written by an outsider of the club using statistical facts.

Anyway I didn’t post it to get into a semantic debate - I posted it because I thought others might like to see an article about out our Head Coach.

No. There is no data provided in the article. 

I could have spoken to unnamed contacts and understand you are a bell something. That's an opinion. Not a fact.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

No. There is no data provided in the article. 

I could have spoken to unnamed contacts and understand you are a bell something. That's an opinion. Not a fact.

 

 

Robbo's a Bell Ringer ?  Source ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Of course it’s objective.

Written by an outsider of the club using statistical facts.

Anyway I didn’t post it to get into a semantic debate - I posted it because I thought others might like to see an article about out our Head Coach.

There are no facts really though are there. There are half facts and boring ones at that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Objective view on LJ??

A rather small Championship / lower division manager who will happily eat through your entire transfer budget year-on-year, whilst achieving nothing, and pissing off 52% of the fan base.

Over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

No. There is no data provided in the article. 

I could have spoken to unnamed contacts and understand you are a bell something. That's an opinion. Not a fact.

 

 

You don’t have to display data to provide statistical facts.

eg. Steve Cotterill has taken charge of twice the number of games Lee Johnson has in the Championship.

It’s a bit a shrewd click bait from the writer, if anyone has read Why England Lose (later Soccernomics), the theory they talk about is simple; there is a direct correlation between wages paid and performance in the league. There are exceptions and managers that take control of clubs consistently out performing their expectations based on this ‘correlation’ will often be considered exceptional. (Generally very good managers are the gaffers that can have the same positive impact on a team while the wage budget goes up - hence why G.Johnson didn’t consistently perform at Championship level)

It just suggests a manager could go into bigger and better things. I think it’s a trend that managers outperforming their expectations by 6 places in the championship are expected to continue to perform 25% above their expectations in terms of wage budget against the rest of the division.

Sometimes a manager is capable of making a team solid defensively without creating too much excitement going forward. Why has the manager taken 1 team from a relegation dog fight to the cusp of the play-offs and  kept another in contention for the play-offs where they have previously slipped away? Has he performed above expectation? Stoke thought Rowett had and expected him to perform at or above the expectation a top 6 budget comes with.

It is a fair assumption to make that Lee Johnson is someone that can get a side to perform their budget but the question for City is, can he do it while the wage budget goes up - Brighton guy thinks he can.

Obviously this is all how I’ve interpreted the article and the theory but I think it’s unfair to write off a story based on statistics because you can’t see the data behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, solihull cider red said:

You don’t have to display data to provide statistical facts.

eg. Steve Cotterill has taken charge of twice the number of games Lee Johnson has in the Championship.

It’s a bit a shrewd click bait from the writer, if anyone has read Why England Lose (later Soccernomics), the theory they talk about is simple; there is a direct correlation between wages paid and performance in the league. There are exceptions and managers that take control of clubs consistently out performing their expectations based on this ‘correlation’ will often be considered exceptional. (Generally very good managers are the gaffers that can have the same positive impact on a team while the wage budget goes up - hence why G.Johnson didn’t consistently perform at Championship level)

It just suggests a manager could go into bigger and better things. I think it’s a trend that managers outperforming their expectations by 6 places in the championship are expected to continue to perform 25% above their expectations in terms of wage budget against the rest of the division.

Sometimes a manager is capable of making a team solid defensively without creating too much excitement going forward. Why has the manager taken 1 team from a relegation dog fight to the cusp of the play-offs and  kept another in contention for the play-offs where they have previously slipped away? Has he performed above expectation? Stoke thought Rowett had and expected him to perform at or above the expectation a top 6 budget comes with.

It is a fair assumption to make that Lee Johnson is someone that can get a side to perform their budget but the question for City is, can he do it while the wage budget goes up - Brighton guy thinks he can.

Obviously this is all how I’ve interpreted the article and the theory but I think it’s unfair to write off a story based on statistics because you can’t see the data behind it.

That is not the articles does. The article is based on unnamed contacts and I understand. For the article to be objective in any form readers should be able to see for a start the statistics it is based on as you would in Soccernomics, the numbers game etc.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Robbored said:

I know that and most of us know that as well but that seems to be lost on Cowshed and King of dogs.........

This all maybe true - but the problem with this article is it is so blatantly one sided. 

Even if what he is saying is true, and backed up by facts, it has omitted some low points of LJ's time here, even if the overall progression has, arguably, been upwards.

The final statement about not buying players, but developing them, we know isn't wholly correct. A considerable number of signings have been made - had the article acknowledged that LJ has had a number of players signed then the critics might at least be able to accept the, true IMO, development of players comment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alessandro said:

This all maybe true - but the problem with this article is it is so blatantly one sided. 

Even if what he is saying is true, and backed up by facts, it has omitted some low points of LJ's time here, even if the overall progression has, arguably, been upwards.

The final statement about not buying players, but developing them, we know isn't wholly correct. A considerable number of signings have been made - had the article acknowledged that LJ has had a number of players signed then the critics might at least be able to accept the, true IMO, development of players comment.

 

Don’t shoot the messenger........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

That is not the articles does. The article is based on unnamed contacts and I understand. For the article to be objective in any form readers should be able to see for a start the statistics it is based on as you would in Soccernomics, the numbers game etc.

 

 

 

You're missing the point, it's not scientific research.

It's a newspaper article, it's an opinion piece.

It doesn't need to be objective, nor back-up claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, ... said:

Objective view on LJ??

A rather small Championship / lower division manager who will happily eat through your entire transfer budget year-on-year, whilst achieving nothing, and pissing off 52% of the fan base.

Over.

Or......progressive young manager, required to buy cheap and sell at a profit, who has nevertheless established the club in the Championship with season on season improvements whilst keeping 80% of the fan base on board.

Out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alessandro said:

You're missing the point, it's not scientific research.

It's a newspaper article, it's an opinion piece.

It doesn't need to be objective, nor back-up claims.

You may want to read the article again and its reference to complex analysis. The opening poster said it was objective, I agree with you. It is an opinion. A very flimsy one based on … Something we cannot study ourselves. 

Its quite possible the journalist has spoken to nobody, no contact and made it up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

This all maybe true - but the problem with this article is it is so blatantly one sided

Even if what he is saying is true, and backed up by facts, it has omitted some low points of LJ's time here, even if the overall progression has, arguably, been upwards.

The final statement about not buying players, but developing them, we know isn't wholly correct. A considerable number of signings have been made - had the article acknowledged that LJ has had a number of players signed then the critics might at least be able to accept the, true IMO, development of players comment.

 

That is because western education is built on looking for quotes to back up your argument, sometimes taking them out of context. Any educated journalist has been brought into the world of work taking this approach so it's not a surprise.

Respected journalists are the ones that will meet arguments head on and disagree, had this been a piece by Henry Winter, he would have looked at tackling these issues. There is a nack to getting people to think about what is written for longer than reading what is written, I don't like reading most articles on Bristol Live because most of them take this approach. [edit] Without actually telling you anything you don't already know.

I enjoy listening to phone ins where two callers disagree with each other - I just wish radio presenters, Geoff Twentyman, Jason Mohammed would play devils advocate and put across the points that contradict callers more often, not because they're "being a dick about it", because it's their job.

I'm now going to cry in a corner because I've realised that Neil Warnock, by my definition could be considered an exceptional manager and Robbie Savage is the kind of presenter I should enjoy listening to. I am clearly not having a good morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, ... said:

Objective view on LJ??

A rather small Championship / lower division manager who will happily eat through your entire transfer budget year-on-year, whilst achieving nothing, and pissing off 52% of the fan base.

Over.

I think this pretty much sums up LJ. He is always going to be loved by some, hated by others and then there is me who has a barometer and he has been in that 50/50 range for ages now(probably at 53% atm. Sadly feeling optimistic we can make a playoff push but know I am in for pain). 

Anyway, my theory is that because LJ never does anything mediocre is why we have this split fanbase. He can buy or loan a 5m player and make him look like a conference player. At the same time will take an academy product or 200k player and make them worth 8 figures. 

He will make a great attacking side that can’t keep goals out. Or an organised defensive side that bores the home fans but gets fairly consistent results. 

He does the extremes and depending on your opinions of football is doing a fantastic job or is about a year and a half into borrowed time. 

At the end of it all I still do not know if LJ can take us any further but hard to make an argument against it. 

My opinion on it anyway. Personally, can’t tell if I love him or hate him atm. Picking up results but often very ugly. He has lost players and we still are midtable. From the outside looking in a fan would say we are having a great season. On fan forums after matches we leave few impressed. We are an odd side under an odd manager. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

 I think this pretty much sums up LJ. He is always going to be loved by some, hated by others and then there is me who has a barometer and he has been in that 50/50 range for ages now(probably at 53% atm. Sadly feeling optimistic we can make a playoff push but know I am in for pain). 

 Anyway, my theory is that because LJ never does anything mediocre is why we have this split fanbase. He can buy or loan a 5m player and make him look like a conference player. At the same time will take an academy product or 200k player and make them worth 8 figures. 

 He will make a great attacking side that can’t keep goals out. Or an organised defensive side that bores the home fans but gets fairly consistent results. 

He does the extremes and depending on your opinions of football is doing a fantastic job or is about a year and a half into borrowed time. 

 At the end of it all I still do not know if LJ can take us any further but hard to make an argument against it. 

My opinion on it anyway. Personally, can’t tell if I love him or hate him atm. Picking up results but often very ugly. He has lost players and we still are midtable. From the outside looking in a fan would say we are having a great season. On fan forums after matches we leave few impressed. We are an odd side under an odd manager. 

Interesting post, mood on him seems to swing quite a fair bit- on this forum certainly.

Think he's doing a solid job personally- not too good, not too bad. As you say it seems that when the attack is right the defence is wrong and vice versa- would give exception to the period in Autumn 2017 in which we scored goals, technically good and really quite compact and arguably the relegation run in 2017, from Wolves at home to Brighton away. These are undoubted outliers though.

The bit you bolded is interesting- had a feeling for a while he is better with players on the up, and more established players be it from here or Europe, he cannot get the best out of for whatever reason. There are exceptions on both sides, but as a general rule- well it'd be an impediment to us moving forward. Would he get as much out of a Norwood or McGoldrick for example as Wilder? I'd question it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

That is not the articles does. The article is based on unnamed contacts and I understand. For the article to be objective in any form readers should be able to see for a start the statistics it is based on as you would in Soccernomics, the numbers game etc.

 

You’re taking a newspaper article about LJ very seriously Cowshed..............it’s not that important. It’s just City related piece that others might like to see....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Robbored said:

You have no way of knowing if it's objective.

However...

Judging by the one sided arguments in favour of LJ - eg "first win at Sunderland for 25 years" - when we've only payed at Sunderland 4 times in that period, I'd say it's anything but objective.

Similarly "first win at QPR in 41 years" when we've only played at QPR 9 times in that period.

Similarly "first win at Stoke in 24 years" when we've only played at Stoke 6 times in that period.

The "first away win on New Years Day in 116 years" is a belter.

Somebody has taken a lot of time to research these meaningless facts.

In the article Gregor McGregor talks about many meaningless records such as this but fails to mention the record breaking losing streak, and has IMO by writing such a one sided article made himself look a bit of a crap journalist.

Nevertheless I very much doubt that McGregor would have carried out this research, so this begs the question, who supplied it to him?  :whistle2:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...