Gene Hunt Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Of course not. With all this SOD vs SC crap going on I think we're all missing the point here, the players are the ones who should be getting a lot of the slack, that's now two managers they've underperformed for. Look at the defending for the goals against Sheff Utd, completely comical. Especially the 3rd goal.. Also no ones mentioned since Osbourne has got a contract he's been dreadful.. Osbourne has played about 0 minutes in his position... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Of course not. With all this SOD vs SC crap going on I think we're all missing the point here, the players are the ones who should be getting a lot of the slack, that's now two managers they've underperformed for. Look at the defending for the goals against Sheff Utd, completely comical. Especially the 3rd goal.. Also no ones mentioned since Osbourne has got a contract he's been dreadful.. We have seen it all season starting with Bradford at home. As for Osbourne he isn't a RB, not sure what SC is playing at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoldenBall Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Osbourne has played about 0 minutes in his position... He had two positions, RB and CB. it's fair to say he's clearly a better CB, but still you expect him to do a job there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Hunt Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 He had two positions, RB and CB. it's fair to say he's clearly a better CB, but still you expect him to do a job there If expect to be able to do a job, but not to be consistently good like he was in the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Because the performances under SC are worse. Especially now the initial honeymoon period is over. Some more statistics for you to add to your list there. We are no further away from the bottom of the table than under SOD yet now have a worse goal difference. SC has only bettered the result achieved by SOD in one game since coming here. The 3-1 win over Orient. SC has shown himself to be inept in the transfer market, El Abd having contributed to the destruction of what was beginning to look like a solid defence. Once again misleading and/or inaccurate "facts" - When SC took over we were one from bottom and 4 points from bottom - we are now three from bottom and 7 points from bottom. - Of the 14 teams played, we are still to play 4, results against 9 have been the same, one better and NONE worse - Under SOD our solid defence conceded 32 goals in 19 games, an average of 1.68 per game, whereas its 23 goals in 14 under SC, an average of 1.64 per game In all seriousness, if you want to quote "facts", it would be helpful if you did as I have, do the maths first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cider_dog Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Full marks for perseverance but wrong again. SC has 17 points from 14 games which pro rata is 56 over a full season and comfortably enough to stay up. Unfortunately he is still clawing us away from the position he inherited, unless you think he is somehow to blame for SOD's record which incidentally was a pro rata equivalent of 36 points and relegation by a country mile. Or to put it another way, SC accumulates 55% more points per game than SOD. Other than the "we would have won a game eventually" argument, I fail to see how anyone can criticize SC yet defend SOD. You should be a UKIP politician spinning those statistics to fit your argument. How many Romanian immigrants are really flooding into the UK? (on a 'pro rata' basis of course). We were in the shite with SOD but I saw some room for being optimistic over the longer term, with SC we are still in the shite, just less reasons to be confident. If you were trapped on a desert island would you rather be stuck with SOD or SC? SOD would probably want to study the tide patterns for a few months, design a decent raft, source materials and supplies and make a calculated risk at survival on the high seas. SC would tell you to drink your own wee and swim for it, telling you that sharks are not really dangerous and that Tom Hanks made it to safety in that film so you should be OK... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZepperin Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 If you were trapped on a desert island would you rather be stuck with SOD or SC? You'd probably kill SC after a couple of weeks but have topped yourself after a couple of hours in SOD's company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 You should be a UKIP politician spinning those statistics to fit your argument. How many Romanian immigrants are really flooding into the UK? (on a 'pro rata' basis of course). We were in the shite with SOD but I saw some room for being optimistic over the longer term, with SC we are still in the shite, just less reasons to be confident. If you were trapped on a desert island would you rather be stuck with SOD or SC? SOD would probably want to study the tide patterns for a few months, design a decent raft, source materials and supplies and make a calculated risk at survival on the high seas. SC would tell you to drink your own wee and swim for it, telling you that sharks are not really dangerous and that Tom Hanks made it to safety in that film so you should be OK... Not "spinning statistics". Facts are facts. The facts are SC's record is better than SOD's. Anything else is opinion. I'm not expressing opinion, just facts. Not sure your desert island analogy is a fact, though judging by 20 passes strung along the back followed by a 50 yard punt from a centre half, I suspect he would indeed have studied the tide for several months and built a raft - and then swum straight into the sharks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cider_dog Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Not "spinning statistics". Facts are facts. The facts are SC's record is better than SOD's. Anything else is opinion. I'm not expressing opinion, just facts. Not sure your desert island analogy is a fact, though judging by 20 passes strung along the back followed by a 50 yard punt from a centre half, I suspect he would indeed have studied the tide for several months and built a raft - and then swum straight into the sharks. Pro-rata facts presumably Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Once again misleading and/or inaccurate "facts" - When SC took over we were one from bottom and 4 points from bottom - we are now three from bottom and 7 points from bottom. - Of the 14 teams played, we are still to play 4, results against 9 have been the same, one better and NONE worse - Under SOD our solid defence conceded 32 goals in 19 games, an average of 1.68 per game, whereas its 23 goals in 14 under SC, an average of 1.64 per game In all seriousness, if you want to quote "facts", it would be helpful if you did as I have, do the maths first. But again as many have pointed out, if you strip out the honeymoon period (the same that SOD had) the results are just as bad if not worse. 10 points from the last 10 is very worrying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Not "spinning statistics". Facts are facts. The facts are SC's record is better than SOD's. Anything else is opinion. I'm not expressing opinion, just facts. Not sure your desert island analogy is a fact, though judging by 20 passes strung along the back followed by a 50 yard punt from a centre half, I suspect he would indeed have studied the tide for several months and built a raft - and then swum straight into the sharks. Correction. After several years studying the tide and the stars and the wind direction, and planting a forest in order to eventually build a ship - SOD would have sailed round and round the island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cider red Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 I've said it before and il say it again. IF we win Saturday under cotteril we would have played 15 won 5, drawn 5 and lost 5. Mid table form, if we hadn't had such a shit total of points at the start of the season we wouldn't even be talking about the possibility of relegation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 But again as many have pointed out, if you strip out the honeymoon period (the same that SOD had) the results are just as bad if not worse. 10 points from the last 10 is very worrying. Another with the "present something as fact and to hell with whether its correct or not" bug then. SOD's last 10 games also yielded 10 points. What is more, what is significant about 10? SC's last 12 have given us 16. You should have gone for last 2, that's only one point from 6, hell we are well and truly ******. Why not choose a random sequence of games to prove any point. We only picked up one point in January, we are down. Hang on forget that we just started February with two wins and a draw. No, its ok to rip into SC again now, a home draw and an away defeat. What is more an ABYSMAL away defeat - and the manager says he's a Winner! What a goon. I notice we haven't beaten a team with the letter "k" in its name all season, should the board be giving SC the dreaded vote of confidence? And what is this honeymoon period then, that's what all managers get given do they, like a signing on clause in their contract. So why don't we just change managers every 10 games, would we get the honeymoon effect 5 times a season? Why didn't Gary Johnson get it? Somebody should alert Lansdown to this, maybe an appeal to the FA and we can get those points we should have had then, now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samo II Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 I've said it before and il say it again. IF we win Saturday under cotteril we would have played 15 won 5, drawn 5 and lost 5. Mid table form, if we hadn't had such a shit total of points at the start of the season we wouldn't even be talking about the possibility of relegation. That is fair. Only thing is that after Saturday we'll not have another 15 games (12, I believe). This means that with a win there (giving us 35 points) and an average of the same ratio of wins, draws and losses (4 each from the 12 remaining), we'll finish with 50 points. While this has been enough for the past three seasons for safety, it is very much a bare minimum, with Gillingham having gone down in 09/10 season on those points. I hope SC beats his ratio and keeps us up, but it looks tight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxford Red Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Whether O'Driscol would have been successful given time we will never know for sure. Its easy to say he would have been successful eventually, because you can never be proved wrong. He took us down. He left us halfway through the following season rooted to the foot of a terrible division of tinpot clubs. He brought us some of the worst style of football I have seen. How much more needed to class him a failure? Wait til he took us down again? He had certainly lost me by the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Another with the "present something as fact and to hell with whether its correct or not" bug then. SOD's last 10 games also yielded 10 points. What is more, what is significant about 10? SC's last 12 have given us 16. You should have gone for last 2, that's only one point from 6, hell we are well and truly ******. Why not choose a random sequence of games to prove any point. We only picked up one point in January, we are down. Hang on forget that we just started February with two wins and a draw. No, its ok to rip into SC again now, a home draw and an away defeat. What is more an ABYSMAL away defeat - and the manager says he's a Winner! What a goon. I notice we haven't beaten a team with the letter "k" in its name all season, should the board be giving SC the dreaded vote of confidence? And what is this honeymoon period then, that's what all managers get given do they, like a signing on clause in their contract. So why don't we just change managers every 10 games, would we get the honeymoon effect 5 times a season? Why didn't Gary Johnson get it? Somebody should alert Lansdown to this, maybe an appeal to the FA and we can get those points we should have had then, now? Yes you can take SOD's last 10 if you wish. The point I was making was the corner was being turned under SOD with his last 6/7 games (ie a period of form) and that is why I don't believe we should have got rid at that time. His record prior to that was poor - I have never argued it wasn't. But sometimes you have to have a period of poor results in order to go forward. Maybe that will happen with SC... It may be great that SC has 16 from 12 but will it last until the end of the season? Not based on what has happened over the last 2 months and we actually need about 1.4 points a game to survive which again looks unlikely based on recent form (8 from last 6). Apparently we were just tired against Tranmere yet when fresh the next week and playing against a team who played 2 games whilst we rested, we were 2nd best all game long. That is pretty worrying. After an 'abysmal away defeat' saying you are a winner just makes you look stupid especially when your recent record proves otherwise. Instead of saying he is a winner, he should be actually winning or at the very least be competitive. I would never say all managers get a honeymoon period (even GJ did BTW as he won 3 of his first 4 games before the losing sequence) but seeing as SOD and SC seemed to both have them then it is only fair to take them in to consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cider red Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 That is fair. Only thing is that after Saturday we'll not have another 15 games (12, I believe). This means that with a win there (giving us 35 points) and an average of the same ratio of wins, draws and losses (4 each from the 12 remaining), we'll finish with 50 points. While this has been enough for the past three seasons for safety, it is very much a bare minimum, with Gillingham having gone down in 09/10 season on those points. I hope SC beats his ratio and keeps us up, but it looks tight. I was thinking this the other day. It's gonna go right to the wire I reckon. Unless we can string successive wins together Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samo II Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 I was thinking this the other day. It's gonna go right to the wire I reckon. Unless we can string successive wins together If we can get six points from the next two, regardless of where that puts us I think we'll have a chance, but the prospect of us putting two wins in a row currently seems a bit far fetched... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiale Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Once again misleading and/or inaccurate "facts" - When SC took over we were one from bottom and 4 points from bottom - we are now three from bottom and 7 points from bottom. - Of the 14 teams played, we are still to play 4, results against 9 have been the same, one better and NONE worse - Under SOD our solid defence conceded 32 goals in 19 games, an average of 1.68 per game, whereas its 23 goals in 14 under SC, an average of 1.64 per game In all seriousness, if you want to quote "facts", it would be helpful if you did as I have, do the maths first. SOD was only in charge for 18 games - so maybe you should not be so smug with your "In all seriousness, if you want to quote "facts" comment. It's also irrelevant how far away we are from the team at the bottom - it's how far we are away from getting out of the automatic relegation spots - and it's the same now as when SOD left (only now a worse goal difference , and some teams around us have games in hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cider red Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 If we can get six points from the next two, regardless of where that puts us I think we'll have a chance, but the prospect of us putting two wins in a row currently seems a bit far fetched... I'm by no means confident of beating a poor Gillingham side on Saturday. How depressing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 SOD was only in charge for 18 games - so maybe you should not be so smug with your "In all seriousness, if you want to quote "facts" comment. It's also irrelevant how far away we are from the team at the bottom - it's how far we are away from getting out of the automatic relegation spots - and it's the same now as when SOD left (only now a worse goal difference , and some teams around us have games in hand. I was being generous to SOD as I included all games until SC took over but if you exclude the game where none of them were (Preston away) it's 31 conceded in 18 games at 1.72 per game, and so SOD record even worse. It wasn't intended to be a smug comment it was an observation that the poster was attempting to "prove" his point with "facts" which were not correct. Likewise, I wasn't trying to say which is the most appropriate basis of measurement - I simply responded to the poster's inaccurate reference as to how many places we are from the bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midlands Robin Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 On the plus side, David Moyes has just said live on Radio 5, "I just didn't see that level of performance coming". Must be the latest managerial buzz words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 On the plus side, David Moyes has just said live on Radio 5, "I just didn't see that level of performance coming". Must be the latest managerial buzz words. Yeah but did he say he was a winner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Not saying SC is a good manager, not saying a crap manager, but IF he's a crap manager he's OUR crap manager, so get behind him and the players unless you WANT division 4 football. The Hall of Shame: No - you are a useless, egotistical loser. He never seriously said that did he?. WTF has he actually won above conference level?. ****ing clueless. He IS a winner. 3.5 year contract for a lower league journeyman manager. That's like winning the lottery. Sad thing is, with all that cash all he will do is buy a bigger gold necklace and more hair gel. We deserve better, but life is seldom fair... One of the many reasons I was horrified by the appointment of Cotterill is that he's got a long habit of saying moronic things in the press that piss the fans off and cause disruption. He's really not very bright at all. I hope we scrape by this season, but I wouldn't bet on it sadly. If this was the gas id be pissing myself at them. For crying out loud. What a penis. Just an example of the egotistical b******* he has spouted in the media throughout his career. We are stuck with this fool's ego and incompetence for the rest of the year. Next year, whether we stay up or not, this guy has to go. He is not our future whatever happens. As my nan would have said he is "all mouth and trousers". I honestly think that the sooner this arrogant, clueless no-mark gets out of our club, the better it'll be all round. Coco the Red Nose clown has replaced Chico the Ringmaster at the BCFC circus. We have now employed a pretend cockney wide boy clown, who thinks he is a tactical genius & our saviour but in reality he hasn't got a bloody clue on how to sort us out. He has brought in players on extremely high wages that just haven't improved the team and if left to his own devices, will set us back years....just like Pulis did. Let's hope that JL was right and we have a cheap get out clause and employ a manager who will continue the clubs philosophy. Because he s a inarticulate charmless chancer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 Not saying SC is a good manager, not saying a crap manager, but IF he's a crap manager he's OUR crap manager, so get behind him and the players unless you WANT division 4 football. The Hall of Shame:Shame? Come off it. My opinion is that Cotterill was a terrible appointment. There are loads of reasons for that, some of which aren't for the public domain, but there are two that are absolutely fundamental:1) His appointment was divisive. Before he was appointed a massive majority were against it and even after it was a done deal a large minority of fans still did not want him. The most divisive since Pulis or Osman.2) For many people he is extremely hard to like as a person, because he comes across as a bullshitter. No, that's not objective but it is reality for many fans.When you've got either of those problems you've got a bad appointment but both together in a relegation battle makes it terrible. The board dropped a giant 3.5 year bollock on this one and no amount of hypocritical forum defence is going to change that, particularly when results are pretty much unchanged, signings poor and performances maybe even trending downward.None of the opinions about the manager affect the support shown for the team however, so where you get the idea of shame from I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timothy bird Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 Well said nibor, I didn't want sc and want him even less now, but I support the team as strongly as I ever have ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 Shame? Come off it. My opinion is that Cotterill was a terrible appointment. There are loads of reasons for that, some of which aren't for the public domain, but there are two that are absolutely fundamental: 1) His appointment was divisive. Before he was appointed a massive majority were against it and even after it was a done deal a large minority of fans still did not want him. The most divisive since Pulis or Osman. 2) For many people he is extremely hard to like as a person, because he comes across as a bullshitter. No, that's not objective but it is reality for many fans. When you've got either of those problems you've got a bad appointment but both together in a relegation battle makes it terrible. The board dropped a giant 3.5 year bollock on this one and no amount of hypocritical forum defence is going to change that, particularly when results are pretty much unchanged, signings poor and performances maybe even trending downward. None of the opinions about the manager affect the support shown for the team however, so where you get the idea of shame from I don't know. SOD was very hard to like as a person IMHO. A distant, sniffy, sub-audible droning Midlander with pseudo intellectual pretensions and a habit of getting his excuses in first. Other than on this board, I've yet to meet anyone with a good word to say about him. And that includes casual supporters, diehards and - yes - club employees. But that's neither here nor there. To paraphrase Churchill, they don't have to be nice, they have to right. As NickJ points out correctly, Sean's record was atrocious and you'd not be able to point anywhere in the leagues to find a manager who survived such a terrible run. As for the first point: SC wasn't my first choice either, but what does that prove? We don't vote in our managers - thank God - and I doubt, say, Alan Dicks would've been the popular choice. I'm sick and tired of every thread turning into an SC v SOD civil war. Most posters said last season you couldn't judge SOD on a few months, FFS show some consistency and do the same to Cotterill. The bloke hasn't been here 3 months yet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Maesknoll Red Posted February 26, 2014 Admin Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 Shame? Come off it. My opinion is that Cotterill was a terrible appointment. There are loads of reasons for that, some of which aren't for the public domain, but there are two that are absolutely fundamental:1) His appointment was divisive. Before he was appointed a massive majority were against it and even after it was a done deal a large minority of fans still did not want him. The most divisive since Pulis or Osman. There was a huge range of opinion on who we should have had, from keeping SO'D, to totally unrealistic expectations of poaching Managers from higher divisions. Warnock was being mooted by some as a walk on water saviour, by others opinion, it would be like inviting a demon from hell into the club. Due to our tragic slide and continuing inability to stem this, I reckon even if SL had coaxed SAF out of retirement it would have been devisive, there was no one name that receieved even a majority opinion endorsing their appointment. It probably didn't help that the club didn't go through a recruitment and selection process, with names being banded about in the media and fans conversations. That might have brought some unity of feeling towards the appointee, even if after a robust selection process it was Cotterill. One last point, in my opinion, Pulis wasn't a devisive appointment, he was from the outset, unpopular with a majority and by the end, did he have any City fan left who would defend his appointment. All water under the bridge, but given his record since moving on from us, why was he yet another in a long list of Managers and Players whose careers seem to hit their low spot when joining us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsquirrel Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 hes still got time to start winning. sheff utd have proved that 2 games after being below us in the table.anyone apart from the top 6-10 could get sucked into this mire during the run in. fingers crossed some rockets were launched saturday and we can start playing again.if cloughie can do it,why cant sc? we will see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Red Hat Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 hes still got time to start winning. sheff utd have proved that 2 games after being below us in the table.anyone apart from the top 6-10 could get sucked into this mire during the run in. fingers crossed some rockets were launched saturday and we can start playing again.if cloughie can do it,why cant sc? we will see Because he's not Cloughie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.