Mr Popodopolous Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 I'll keep it brief. As we recall we were 4 points off the playoffs, 11th place. 1.4 PPG, 40% win ratio and 10 above the drop the day that Manning took charge. Since then and some sites you can pull the table out between specific dates... The day Manning took over. Our record under his tenure. Huge regression. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 8 Author Report Share Posted March 8 Blackburn seems to say 18 from 20 but actually 18 from 21. Everything else looks right. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrick's Marvels Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 (edited) They're betting the farm on "He needs the summer to get his own players in". He does deserve time and he does deserve his own players but there's a lot of evidence this season to make you wonder whether even that is the answer. I fear we won't enjoy finding out. Edited March 8 by Merrick's Marvels 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted March 8 Admin Report Share Posted March 8 38 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: I'll keep it brief. As we recall we were 4 points off the playoffs, 11th place. 1.4 PPG, 40% win ratio and 10 above the drop the day that Manning took charge. Since then and some sites you can pull the table out between specific dates... The day Manning took over. Our record under his tenure. Huge regression. Apart from the fact different teams were played in those period of changes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 I guess what I’d say (and this is no defence of Manning by the way), is that you haven’t really factored in the relativity. Relatively speaking, if we were 4 points off the playoffs after 15 games, then under the same trends we’d be 8 points off the playoffs after 30 games. Now on 36 games, under the same trends, we’d be roughly 9.5 to 10 points off the playoffs (well, 10 would be after 37.5 games in that 15 game model). So we are currently 13 points off the playoffs, so the relative regression is only 3 points. 5 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FNQ Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 9 minutes ago, phantom said: Apart from the fact different teams were played in those period of changes Think that would make the picture look worse to be fair… Leicester, Leeds played (competitively) away from home… depleted squad… kids getting a game… fans onboard. As Mr P suggests, we’ve regressed big time. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 8 Author Report Share Posted March 8 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Harry said: I guess what I’d say (and this is no defence of Manning by the way), is that you haven’t really factored in the relativity. Relatively speaking, if we were 4 points off the playoffs after 15 games, then under the same trends we’d be 8 points off the playoffs after 30 games. Now on 36 games, under the same trends, we’d be roughly 9.5 to 10 points off the playoffs (well, 10 would be after 37.5 games in that 15 game model). So we are currently 13 points off the playoffs, so the relative regression is only 3 points. Well there is that but there is also the increased movement towards the relegation zone. Had we maintained 1.4 PPG we would be on 50.4 points. Round down so 50 it is. Relegation would be but a distant glimmer and the playoffs, not really but you never know. Likewise yes if 4 from 15 then we would be 10 off now I accept we aren't top 6 but we also shouldn't be trending on what we have for a while now. Edited March 8 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 8 Author Report Share Posted March 8 42 minutes ago, phantom said: Apart from the fact different teams were played in those period of changes I don't know if we should include or how we should categorise the Fleming game but..excluding this we had +3 from the equivalent figures ie Preston under NP v Preston under Manning and if we were to include the Fleming game as pre Manning if would be +6. Alternatively +3 and +3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 8 Author Report Share Posted March 8 There were also 6 sides in our next 10 who we faced under NP before November. We need 10 points to maintain par. Swansea (H), WBA (A) Leicester (H), Plymouth (A), Rotherham (H), Stoke (A). 10 from those 6 will maintain par, less the 3-6 we are already down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjmcity Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 (edited) Granted the ppt is worse this season but still, after a positive start (again) things were looking like they were going stale, if we are going to look at the stats you could summarise the board could see a repeat of the previous season and that’s why they rolled the dice? He was always going to leave at the end of the season and we needed something more long term. Why not now (October) because things were starting to go sour Ps. That’s a good tool you found! Even if it does help bring real history into sharper focus which I understand may be painful Edited March 8 by Fjmcity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capman Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 17 minutes ago, Fjmcity said: He was always going to leave at the end of the season and we needed something more long term. Why not now (October) because things were starting to go sour I don’t recall him saying he would not accept a new contract? In fact just the opposite. There was no need to change and the consequences for that change rest with those who made it. I certainly do not agree that things were ‘going sour’. In fact my view is that without this change we would still be in contention for the playoffs. 8 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjmcity Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Capman said: I don’t recall him saying he would not accept a new contract? In fact just the opposite. There was no need to change and the consequences for that change rest with those who made it. I certainly do not agree that things were ‘going sour’. In fact my view is that without this change we would still be in contention for the playoffs. It seemed likely it would come to an end, great job done by NP but there wasn’t much to signal (in my opinion) that he would take us to the next level.. I should also add LM has not provided any indication of that either we would be fighting for playoffs Based on what? the capitulation based on the same data set from last season seems to suggest we wouldn’t be Edited March 8 by Fjmcity 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capman Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 2 minutes ago, Fjmcity said: we would be fighting for playoffs Based on what? the capitulation based on the same data set from last season seems to suggest we wouldn’t be Based on nothing more than the assertion that things were ‘starting to go sour’. Personal opinion, which is after all what a forum is for. You might note that I prefixed my statement by making it clear it was a personal opinion, not the same as the statement about things ‘going sour’ which was seemingly presented as ‘fact’. I think Pearson was showing plenty of promise to take us to the next level. He had created a decent team on a shoestring and generated a war chest of tens of millions which, with the right backing, could have created a great team. We have seen since he left that his squad, when given their head, can perform against the best opposition. Personally I would rather trust a manager with a good track record to spend the money Pearson and Gould harvested. We have adopted a different approach. We will have to see how that goes. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: I'll keep it brief. As we recall we were 4 points off the playoffs, 11th place. 1.4 PPG, 40% win ratio and 10 above the drop the day that Manning took charge. Since then and some sites you can pull the table out between specific dates... The day Manning took over. Our record under his tenure. Huge regression. That shows "huge regression" does it? Ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjmcity Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 4 minutes ago, Capman said: Based on nothing more than the assertion that things were ‘starting to go sour’. Personal opinion, which is after all what a forum is for. You might note that I prefixed my statement by making it clear it was a personal opinion, not the same as the statement about things ‘going sour’ which was seemingly presented as ‘fact’. I think Pearson was showing plenty of promise to take us to the next level. He had created a decent team on a shoestring and generated a war chest of tens of millions which, with the right backing, could have created a great team. We have seen since he left that his squad, when given their head, can perform against the best opposition. Personally I would rather trust a manager with a good track record to spend the money Pearson and Gould harvested. We have adopted a different approach. We will have to see how that goes. I think the fact the manager was sacked is a pretty clear indication that things had gone sour. Based on niges interviews in the lead up It wasn’t exactly out of the blue was it 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrizzleRed Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 I’m sensing some very worrying echo’s of LJ with the discussions we’re having regarding LM. There’s the ‘give him time’ side and the ‘he’s not showing much that makes us think he’ll improve’ on the other side and I’m in the latter category Do we give him hard earned funds for new players in the summer, when he really doesn’t look like the person we hoped we were getting and could well be gone before Christmas, even if he made it through the summer. Do we learn by our previous mistske of keeping LJ for far too long, hoping he would eventually come good, but it never happened. We’ll never get those wasted years back. My only question would be, do we get shot sooner, or give him until the end of the season? I’m massively underwhelmed with him so far, on so many counts. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 8 Author Report Share Posted March 8 7 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said: That shows "huge regression" does it? Ok. Down on many metrics. Maybe not huge but clear. PPG- 22% Win Ratio- 30% Perhaps it'll get worse before it gets better, well let's hope so anyway. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capman Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 9 minutes ago, Fjmcity said: I think the fact the manager was sacked is a pretty clear indication that things had gone sour. Based on niges interviews in the lead up It wasn’t exactly out of the blue was it :laugh: only if you judge the well being of the entire football club on the view of the chairman. A view which seems somewhat flawed. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leabrook Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 Being four points off the play offs after 15 games is the same as being 12 off the play offs at the end of the season so let’s not pretend anymore than four is a bad result here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjmcity Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 4 minutes ago, BrizzleRed said: I’m sensing some very worrying echo’s of LJ with the discussions we’re having regarding LM. There’s the ‘give him time’ side and the ‘he’s not showing much that makes us think he’ll improve’ on the other side and I’m in the latter category Do we give him hard earned funds for new players in the summer, when he really doesn’t look like the person we hoped we were getting and could well be gone before Christmas, even if he made it through the summer. Do we learn by our previous mistske of keeping LJ for far too long, hoping he would eventually come good, but it never happened. We’ll never get those wasted years back. My only question would be, do we get shot sooner, or give him until the end of the season? I’m massively underwhelmed with him so far, on so many counts. Strong similarities in baggage too, LJs due him dividing opinion after his playing days and LM having to follow Jesus Christ himself. underwhelming is a good summation for sure and we are certainly at cross roads and we are potentially facing the sunk cost fallacy. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galley is our king Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 4 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said: That shows "huge regression" does it? Ok. Well it certainly doesn't show anything remotely positive does it? I cannot agree with the way @Harry has worked this. If you went back to that moment in time and did the same calculation for all the teams in the league no one would have changed positions! Some teams in the relegation places would probably now be on mimus points! Ppg is the only real barometer and yes, we HAVE regressed! Funny now we want " context" now but lots poo pood the injuries under Pearson eh? Sorry @Harry looks like you are trying to spin Mannings stats higher than they actually are. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 8 Author Report Share Posted March 8 52 minutes ago, Fjmcity said: Granted the ppt is worse this season but still, after a positive start (again) things were looking like they were going stale, if we are going to look at the stats you could summarise the board could see a repeat of the previous season and that’s why they rolled the dice? He was always going to leave at the end of the season and we needed something more long term. Why not now (October) because things were starting to go sour Ps. That’s a good tool you found! Even if it does help bring real history into sharper focus which I understand may be painful This table shows possible glitches as it said we had 21 from 15 last season. We did not. We had 18 from 15...then 48 from 36. 21 from 16 by that date. By metrics set against this and last year we're down. 22 from the next 20 this year, post Manning Day 1 and 27 from 20 under NP.. Trying to even it out but we had games in hand in teams around us, other way round this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leabrook Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 1 minute ago, Galley is our king said: Well it certainly doesn't show anything remotely positive does it? I cannot agree with the way @Harry has worked this. If you went back to that moment in time and did the same calculation for all the teams in the league no one would have changed positions! Some teams in the relegation places would probably now be on mimus points! Ppg is the only real barometer and yes, we HAVE regressed! Funny now we want " context" now but lots poo pood the injuries under Pearson eh? Sorry @Harry looks like you are trying to spin Mannings stats higher than they actually are. Nobody has said it is positive. It has been argued it’s not huge regression. Even the complete Manning haters can’t believe it’s huge regression really. Pearson was a father figure to some fans who maybe need one. Manning isn’t. But going over the top wiry criticism isn’t necessary 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDOXO Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 Mr Pearson’s last game he had Joe James at CB On the bench we had Nelson Idehen Yeboah Backwell Thomas and Knight-Labell. Tommy Conway on the bench coming back from injury too No Wells James the list goes on and Brian Tinnion recommends Mr Manning as our squad made up of U18s and U21s was a top six squad. The revisionism on here is astounding! 6 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 8 Author Report Share Posted March 8 I'll hold my hands up, maybe huge regression is overplaying it but the direction of travel is alarming. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2015 Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 2 hours ago, Merrick's Marvels said: They're betting the farm on "He needs the summer to get his own players in". He does deserve time and he does deserve his own players but there's a lot of evidence this season to make you wonder whether even that is the answer. I fear we won't enjoy finding out. My issue is, LM wants us to be a slow possession based side and unfortunately unless you have a massive budget or have Parachute payments it is very unlikely to get the players in to play this way and be successful in the Championship. You have to be able to mix things up (Which I felt we were able to do under NP and LJ at times). I think everyone else outside the top say 4 or 5 teams in the Championship are of an equal level of ability and the playing style tends to go out of the window. This is where I have issues with what LM wants. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 8 Author Report Share Posted March 8 1 minute ago, 2015 said: My issue is, LM wants us to be a slow possession based side and unfortunately unless you have a massive budget or have Parachute payments it is very unlikely to get the players in to play this way and be successful in the Championship. You have to be able to mix things up (Which I felt we were able to do under NP and LJ at times). I think everyone else outside the top say 4 or 5 teams in the Championship are of an equal level of ability and the playing style tends to go out of the window. This is where I have issues with what LM wants. Brentford, Leeds under Bielsa? Albeit they probably weren't slow mostly but they were quite possession heavy, dominant and dominant. The latter also spent big. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2015 Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Brentford, Leeds under Bielsa? Albeit they probably weren't slow mostly but they were quite possession heavy, dominant and dominant. The latter also spent big. I wouldn't have classed either as slow. They had a lot of pace in their sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 8 Author Report Share Posted March 8 3 minutes ago, 2015 said: I wouldn't have classed either as slow. They had a lot of pace in their sides. True true. Just trying to think of non Parachute possession and dominant sides..Swansea under Rodgers after Martinez and Sousa put in early work too- but there aren't many are there. I don't think Manning ball is right for us anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2015 Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: True true. Just trying to think of non Parachute possession and dominant sides..Swansea under Rodgers after Martinez and Sousa put in early work too- but there aren't many are there. I don't think Manning ball is right for us anyway. I think it's hard to stretch it back to Swansea nearly 15 years ago as the game (especially in the championship) has changed so much since then 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.