Points Per Games

[Numero Uno]

1 minute ago, ashton_fan said:

What Tins and JL said was nothing to do with Liam, it's two separate issues 

That’s what I’m saying with the two pronged comment.

[Davefevs]

8 hours ago, ashton_fan said:

When Nige arrived he said he couldn't be judged until he'd had at least three transfer windows, these are still Nige's players so Manning has to be given more time, Nige's points per game were poor at the start and he had Scott and Semenyo during his best spell

I don’t believe he did.  I believe he said it will take 3 seasons to get this team to a point where it’s capable of challenging for promotion.  He ever said 3 seasin’s to get promoted.

Thats very different.

He was judged all the way along.

This was season 3 for Nige.  He didn’t get to complete it.  We have a new head-coach taking on a very positive position, a football team with excellent foundations, slowly moving forwards…albeit not fast enough for some (fans and hierarchy alike).

2 hours ago, ashton_fan said:

I agree that Manning has a better squad than NP had at the start, however the squad was built with to suit the style of play under NP and that will still need some slight modifications to make the new style of play work properly, so it's unfair to judge Manning until he's had a chance to make these tweaks (probably by the start of next season).

It wasn’t built to a style of play for Nige, that’s just a lazy argument imho.  It was built based on a profile of player that met the agreed strategy to progress the club towards having players with the profile to get promoted and play in the PL.  Tinnion has worked with that profile / strategy for 18 months plus now.  Tinnion himself said recruitment will continue with this.

If Manning thinks it needs an overhaul, he was the wrong appointment and would be a slur on his Technical Director’s recent work.  I don’t think he does.

But he can be judged on what he does with this bunch.  This isn’t a bunch of players where a whole swathe are going OOC, have downed tools, etc.  This is a bunch of decent players, decent pros, who should be expected to carry on what they were doing under Nige.

There should be no tangible regression imho, there is no need to go backwards to go forwards in appointing LM.  This should be tweaks / evolution.  He’s already making tweaks.  Sometimes that can take time to show in results, but should start to be evident in the underlying performances / data relatively quickly.

I think it’s perfectly fine to be judging him NOW.  Whether that means you make your final view on him now is down to each one of us individually.  For me, I’ll continually judge, and my viewpoint might change back and forth as the evidence is provided.  What you can also do is adjust your expectations too.  Just because I thought Nige keeping us in the Champ was a reasonable expectation for season 1, I had higher expectations for season 3 (this season).

I think he’s a decent appointment. But  I’m a believer that longevity in role doesn’t necessarily mean linear improvement, ie you don’t get better just because you’ve been here longer.  You need a plan, and to execute that plan.  That plan will need a combination of coaching / player development (academy, what’s already here) and excellent recruitment / trading.  The balance of those two I can’t say.  If we use Finn Azaz as a marker, that’s a recognition that we need better players, regardless of who is in charge.  So, I’m pretty sure that LM will not be successful by “on the grass coaching” alone, and therefore time in role is largely irrelevant and an easy excuse to use.  And that brings me back to “it’s fine to start judging now”.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

Just to say here this scale is a bit batshit. In effect at the end of the season your difference between “Disappointing” and “Definite Progress” is one win. So a 46 game season is distilled to the result of one game. Thats nuts.

Lower end, higher end of each can be more but all jobs have metrics, some clubs have PPG. I'm not especially keen on that but if we fall below 60 pts it would be a bit.

Under NP at the height of the injury crisis when he was sacked we were on course for 59..an injury crisis that has eased. After Fleming 1.4 PPG, 64-65.

Anyway looking at now close 6th to 14th is one win could be a difference between top half and bottom half technically speaking.

[Davefevs]

53 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Lower end, higher end of each can be more but all jobs have metrics, some clubs have PPG. I'm not especially keen on that but if we fall below 60 pts it would be a bit.

Under NP at the height of the injury crisis when he was sacked we were on course for 59..an injury crisis that has eased. After Fleming 1.4 PPG, 64-65.

Anyway looking at now close 6th to 14th is one win could be a difference between top half and bottom half technically speaking.

If that is simply 13th to 12th it is pretty immaterial!

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

If that is simply 13th to 12th it is pretty immaterial!

8th to 14th presently separated by 3 points so who knows how long it will remain so tight for..could be 2-3 places.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Baseline depending on how you measure it pure NP 59-60 points. On PPG alone.

NP plus Fleming 63-65 points.

Manning alone..55-56 pts. 1.2 x 46. 58-59 pts probably if his 1.2 PPG is added to the base that was inherited..which is stagnant at best, regression more generally.