When to do it

[Alessandro]

3 minutes ago, Marina's Rolls Royce said:

Marginally off topic but....

Are we still going to rename a stand after Nigel Pearson? I'm really concerned that it's just a matter of time before he's only remembered for a couple of seasons of mediocrity.

Yep - a couple of seasons of mediocrity saving our club from points deductions, potential relegation and fines because of the mismanagement of the owners that you so unconditionally support….

Oh and developing on the pitch the best young player we’ve ever had, the money from which your also don’t dare criticise Liam Manning will be benefiting from….

[Marina's Rolls Royce]

Just now, Alessandro said:

Yep - a couple of seasons of mediocrity saving our club from points deductions, potential relegation and fines because of the mismanagement of the owners that you so unconditionally support….

Oh and developing on the pitch the best young player we’ve ever had, the money from which your also don’t dare criticise Liam Manning will be benefiting from….

Blimey- he did all that? Top bloke.

I bet Brian Tinnion , the owners and Richard Gould couldn't believe their luck.

[chinapig]

2 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

Yep - a couple of seasons of mediocrity saving our club from points deductions, potential relegation and fines because of the mismanagement of the owners that you so unconditionally support….

Oh and developing on the pitch the best young player we’ve ever had, the money from which your also don’t dare criticise Liam Manning will be benefiting from….

Remarkable isn't it how some people simply ignore the context a manager is operating in?

Liam has inherited a stable position and doesn't have to spend his time slashing costs, clearing out a bloated squad, changing the toxic cuture and so on as Pearson and Gould did. It's up to him to make the most of it.

[Alessandro]

3 minutes ago, Marina's Rolls Royce said:

Blimey- he did all that? Top bloke.

I bet Brian Tinnion , the owners and Richard Gould couldn't believe their luck.

Well I’m sure they’ll all be glad now he’s gone, giving us nothing but mediocrity!

Can’t wait for all the exceptional progress and football we have to look forward to now Pearson won’t be holding us back!!

[Marina's Rolls Royce]

1 minute ago, Alessandro said:

Well I’m sure they’ll all be glad now he’s gone, giving us nothing but mediocrity!

Can’t wait for all the exceptional progress and football we have to look forward to now Pearson won’t be holding us back!!

#Me too

[mozo]

5 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Still not seen anything which suggests this guy can take us forward and beyond. 

 

Still worries me greatly that he's going to be allowed to shape the squad.

 

Has he managed to get some decent results of late? Yes so credit for that.

 

But the reality is its all too little too late. When it mattered he was found waning. 

 

What people havent factored in is that the results have come against teams that dont play with a low block. It remains to be seen if he can sort that problem out. 

 

The Sunderland performance was almost as worst as youll see and the Blackburn game was the opposite of that (with a huge helping hand from a very poor Blackburn) 

 

It seems the issue of pressing was brought up with him, we then start pressing. The issue of not being pro active with subs was brought up with him and then he starts to be pro active with subs. He shouldn't need to be told how to do his job. 

We can't afford to be a learning ground for a young 'head coach' it's just LJ all over again. Streaky and will just constantly change the plan until one works and then when it stops working will keep trying to find a new plan until he lucks upon one that does work. 

He has simply not shown me what Liam Manning football looks like.

Ultimately Manning has failed this season. We are better than where we are in the league. Without results clouding my judgement, it has largely been poor, dull and difficult to watch.

He has not managed to get the maximum out of this squad (with good availability) and certainly not managed to get them out performing their ability. 

We are obviously not going to sack him now and neither will we this season. But I think we should. We are looking at an October sacking in my opinion.

I fear that he will recruit players that are suited to his preferred possesion based style.

What do you do if you build an F1 car that has decent ability and potential but the driver can't extract that ability and potential? You don't rebuild the car to suit the driver do you? No you get rid of the driver and bring in someone more suited to the car and the teams philosophy. 

I think that's fine so long as you're open-minded and reasonable enough to give Manning credit if by October we're in or around the top 6.

[Davefevs]

30 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

There’s so many wilful assumptions in his post(s) to make it bizarre in my view.  If you can take a 5 game chunk that is bottom 3rd form and form an opinion then you can, if you are willing, take a 5 game chunk that is top 3rd and form an equally positive opinion.  But there is no will to do so. That is clear. To say it’s too late only adds to the bizarreness. Too late because he’s formed an opinion and will stick to it I guess.  Nothing wrong with saying “do you know what, he has improved us quite a lot in recent games, maybe it’s time to just see what he can do now”. 

Fair also

19 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Remarkable isn't it how some people simply ignore the context a manager is operating in?

Liam has inherited a stable position and doesn't have to spend his time slashing costs, clearing out a bloated squad, changing the toxic cuture and so on as Pearson and Gould did. It's up to him to make the most of it.

it certainly is.  I would’ve used a different word to “remarkable”!

[RedRoss]

48 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I don’t think his posts are bizarre.  The posts are just giving the view that he’s not impressed by Manning, nor can he see Manning progressing us.  And does it matter that he reached that view really early and has stuck to it.  At least he explains why, unlike several who just say it’s all good / it’s all bad without anything to go on. Hey-ho.

 

They are full of massive contradictions when you provide the context of what he's been posting for months. 

We've had him saying 'we missed the play offs by not beating teams in winnable games' whatever that means by winnable i.e lower placed I'm guessing. We then beat those teams and he quantifies it by saying 'low block' teams instead. 

If we beat a better team, it's not because we've played well or set up tactics correctly at all. It's because they were terrible. 

He talks about playing 3 at the back and this apparently by default means Manning is setting up negatively but when we win this way nothing is said. 

He slates Manning for not being adaptable but then when he does adapt i.e more pressing. He gets slated again for not doing it quick enough or without apparent prompt. He's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. 

I could go on and on.. perhaps there is some explanation but it's in an echo chamber. 

 

[Davefevs]

50 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

This is intentional dishonesty. The act of a liar.

Whattttttt? For using a simplistic method of form?  One that we’ve all probably used at some point.  It really didn’t need “super computer” to validate the methodology, 3 points from 6 is quite simply relegation form, just like 15 from 6 is promotion form.  It’s not about other teams, how they did over the same or even a different 6 games.  Your method of challenging Silvio’s statement is just as flawed, just in different ways.

To call someone dishonest and a liar, WOW!

[Red Billy]

I love it when we have a storming victory. Unable to direct their anger at the manager, players and after two pens awarded not even the referee, I like nothing more than to sit back with some popcorn and watch the OTIB community turn in each other to blow off some steam.

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, RedRoss said:

They are full of massive contradictions when you provide the context of what he's been posting for months. 

We've had him saying 'we missed the play offs by not beating teams in winnable games' whatever that means by winnable i.e lower placed I'm guessing. We then beat those teams and he quantifies it by saying 'low block' teams instead. 

If we beat a better team, it's not because we've played well or set up tactics correctly at all. It's because they were terrible. 

He talks about playing 3 at the back and this apparently by default means Manning is setting up negatively but when we win this way nothing is said. 

He slates Manning for not being adaptable but then when he does adapt i.e more pressing. He gets slated again for not doing it quick enough or without apparent prompt. He's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. 

I could go on and on.. perhaps there is some explanation but it's in an echo chamber. 

 

I just think there’s a jumping on everything he posts, when there are some decent points made.

[Bobtherobin]

1 hour ago, Marina's Rolls Royce said:

Marginally off topic but....

Are we still going to rename a stand after Nigel Pearson? I'm really concerned that it's just a matter of time before he's only remembered for a couple of seasons of mediocrity.

Nige isnt the kind of person to want a stand named after him. I think a statue would be more appropriate. Certainly like many supporters I am grateful for him overhauling a freefalling, overpaid, bloated car crash of a squad and leaving us in a far better position on and off the pitch. Doing that without us getting relegated is a pretty significant achievement in itself, but doing it with the shambolic governance structure we have in place is pretty much a miricle. 

[FNQ]

See attached topic posted by JB on the eve of our ‘upturn’ in form. It appears that pretty much no one saw the upturn coming.
 

WSM Seagull didn’t even post on this topic by the way, but neither did any of the posters who are now proclaiming to have been right about the change in manager all along… where was the confidence for the future? It’s fair to say that pretty much across the forum that as JB’s post shows there was little optimism.

So what’s changed? We played well against Leicester and although we had our chances, we could easily have lost if it were not for Max playing out of his skin and Vardy going completely missing. We were in my opinion good value for our win against Plymouth… but the game against Sunderland was beyond awful, again thank heavens for Max. The game against Blackburn was a bit surreal.. we played well scoring 5 unanswered goals but honestly we’d all agree that Blackburn were rubbish.

So yes, results have improved so optimism obviously rises, but it’s too early to be thinking that LM is now the new messiah.. so far there’s been a lot more bad than good during his tenure.

As DaveFevs says, let’s see what the next few games bring, but as good as our 5-0 win was, that Sunderland performance was only a few days earlier.

[transfer reader]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Whattttttt? For using a simplistic method of form?  One that we’ve all probably used at some point.  It really didn’t need “super computer” to validate the methodology, 3 points from 6 is quite simply relegation form, just like 15 from 6 is promotion form.  It’s not about other teams, how they did over the same or even a different 6 games.  Your method of challenging Silvio’s statement is just as flawed, just in different ways.

To call someone dishonest and a liar, WOW!

To intentionally use stats that are uneven on games played to try and make some kind of point is dishonest, and to continue to do so after it is pointed out is intentionally so 

I get you're pals with that *****, doesn't mean you have to take a side though.

Or is it ok for him to be as patronising as possible and make drugs accusations?

 

[ExiledAjax]

4 hours ago, transfer reader said:

Made the claim of us being relegation form pre Easter when not a single form guide matched that.

The only 'form' tables Silvio provided where we were in relegation form was one with a very specifically curated selection of dates, over about 13 games. So non standard and specifically selected to be the worst case that could be found.

And the 2nd was a table where it had us playing 6 games, about half the teams playing 7, about half also on 6, and a couple on 5.

But over the set of results for that table, if you used an equal number across all teams, whether 5 or 6 (standard amounts used in form guides) or even 7, we were not bottom 3 of them.

I pointed this out but it was still used further.

This is intentional dishonesty. The act of a liar.

 

That is not to say we weren't in bad form. But at least 3 teams were worse, and at least 2 of the 3 from a worse starting point, so not relegation form.

But then I posted an objective, cold, impartial measure of "form" - a simple rolling ten game measure of our games - and you didn't accept that as showing "relegation form" either.

We were trucking along at 0.8ppg over ten games. 

If "form" is a measure of short term results then it has to be defined by a relatively short period of games. It can't be too short or you lose sufficient data points, it can't be too long or we may as well just loom at the table. The standard seems to be between 6 and 10.

Taking the final game of the three games I mentioned -  Ipswich on 5 March.

Previous 6 games - 6 points, 1ppg, not quite "relegation form", but very close.

7 games -  6 points, 0.85ppg. Relegation form.

8 games - 7 points, 0.87ppg. Relegation form.

9 games - 8 points, 0.88ppg. Relegation form.

10 games - 8 points, 0.8ppg. Relegation form.

That is cold and objective and consistent and shows unequivocally that we were, for some time in February 2024, showing the sort of form - in terms of results - that teams that normally get relegated show.

It doesn't mean we were actually in any danger of being relegated - of course we weren't - it just means that for a period of games we were as bad as a team that would be.

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

5 hours ago, transfer reader said:

No, you're just not taking what I'm saying.

The 2nd of the ones you quoted is where I'm showing what my point was.

I am not making the claims about the form, I disagreed with Silvio ********'s one, showed multiple times how they were being dishonest by using a table where teams had different amounts of games played to make a claim about our form.

With the screenshot etc, that's me pointing out how it would be seen, not me making an assertion.

Even the first line of it is out of context because it's a response to someone else saying something way off base.

 

If you have to remove context to misrepresent and then claim I'm gaslighting, that's actually you gaslighting.

Look you've clearly called into question someone's assertion that over certain 14 games that it was relegation form.  It clearly was 0.85 points per game is a pretty big cause for concern.  You've then conflated that with the notion of bookies form guides which I provided you link for that explains they're way more random than that, so an actual window of a 14 game run is appalling as it's more than 1/4 of a season, it ended our playoff hopes and allowed a fair few teams to leapfrog us.   Yet your obsessed with calling someone a liar because you think the bookies view on form is best, right?

Edited April 12 by Lorenzos Only Goal

[transfer reader]

21 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

But then I posted an objective, cold, impartial measure of "form" - a simple rolling ten game measure of our games - and you didn't accept that as showing "relegation form" either.

We were trucking along at 0.8ppg over ten games. 

If "form" is a measure of short term results then it has to be defined by a relatively short period of games. It can't be too short or you lose sufficient data points, it can't be too long or we may as well just loom at the table. The standard seems to be between 6 and 10.

Taking the final game of the three games I mentioned -  Ipswich on 5 March.

Previous 6 games - 6 points, 1ppg, not quite "relegation form", but very close.

7 games -  6 points, 0.85ppg. Relegation form.

8 games - 7 points, 0.87ppg. Relegation form.

9 games - 8 points, 0.88ppg. Relegation form.

10 games - 8 points, 0.8ppg. Relegation form.

That is cold and objective and consistent and shows unequivocally that we were, for some time in February 2024, showing the sort of form - in terms of results - that teams that normally get relegated show.

It doesn't mean we were actually in any danger of being relegated - of course we weren't - it just means that for a period of games we were as bad as a team that would be.

That's because it isn't objective. I said to you already you cannot put a number value on what relegation form is because of how it changes year on year.

At the moment, based on the current ppg of the teams in the bottom 3, 30 points would be enough for safety in the Premier League 

That requires less than 0.8 ppg. So all of those ppg values wouldn't be relegation form.

Yes, it's a different division, but it's an easy example and I already listed to you before several seasons where teams stayed up in the Championship with a lower ppg than the value you were using.

 

IF relegation was based on a minimum points level, then you could say below X ppg is objectively relegation form.

 

[transfer reader]

5 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

Look you've clearly called into question someone's assertion that over certain 14 games that it was relegation form.  It clearly was 0.85 points per game is a pretty big cause for concern.  You've then conflated that with the notion of bookies form guides which I provided you link for that explains they're way more random than that, so an actual window of a 14 game run is appalling as it's more than 1/4 of a season, it ended our playoff hopes and allowed a fair few teams to leapfrog us.   Yet your obsessed with calling someone a liar because you think the bookies view on form is best, right?

No, I called them dishonest and a liar for using a dishonest and inequitable table.

I didn't say anyone needs to use a bookies form guide, or even mention bookies until now.  I did reference that most media uses either 5 or 6 games. I took issue with them using a very deliberately curated set to paint the worst picture possible, and questioned whether they'd show consistency with using that same number of games for a dataset going forward and doubt that they would.

This has already been covered multiple times though, at least the first part has, so you should know that, instead of making assertions on my supposed motivation.

[ExiledAjax]

6 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

That's because it isn't objective. I said to you already you cannot put a number value on what relegation form is because of how it changes year on year.

At the moment, based on the current ppg of the teams in the bottom 3, 30 points would be enough for safety in the Premier League 

That requires less than 0.8 ppg. So all of those ppg values wouldn't be relegation form.

Yes, it's a different division, but it's an easy example and I already listed to you before several seasons where teams stayed up in the Championship with a lower ppg than the value you were using.

IF relegation was based on a minimum points level, then you could say below X ppg is objectively relegation form.

This is the internet so I know I can't change your mind. But, if I may be so bold, this comes across as an eccentric definition of "form".

[transfer reader]

2 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

This is the internet so I know I can't change your mind. But, if I may be so bold, this comes across as an eccentric definition of "form".

No more eccentric than you defining something that isn't objective as objective.

[Alessandro]

@transfer reader - so if @Silvio Dante had said - during some seasons over the last 10 years, that period of PPG extrapolated over a season would be ‘relegation form’ - would that be acceptable? 

[Malago]

The problem is stats are easily manipulated and can be used to support just about any point of view.

QPR to Ipswich 4 games, 0 points, we definitely going to get relegated 

Leicester to Blackburn, 4 games, 10 points, the prem here we come.

I remember in the early days of wind farm development, some amateur psychologist did a study down in Cornwall trying to prove the negative impact of the wind turbines on the local populace and came up with the stat that 14 of the 15 local resident suffered depression due to the installation of the wind farm.

As was pointed out, since the psychologist didn’t do a comparative study beforehand it’s quite possible that before the wind farm was erected all 15 of the residents were depressed and the wind farm had actually cheered one of them up.

you pays your money and you chooses your stat.

 

[Numero Uno]

5 hours ago, Marina's Rolls Royce said:

Blimey- he did all that? Top bloke.

I bet Brian Tinnion , the owners and Richard Gould couldn't believe their luck.

Most of us couldn't believe our luck that we had a billionaire take charge of the club.......then he started making decisions and spending his money. But it would be "ungrateful" to suggest that according to some.

However it is clearly not ungrateful at all to suggest a manager that has worked under significant budget restrictions (with Richard Gould) and, at the same time, kept us in the Championship whilst accelerating the career of two players sold for £30m and benefitted said owner is a complete and utter dud........

Brian Tinnion can't believe his luck, that's a certainty.

[transfer reader]

1 minute ago, Alessandro said:

@transfer reader - so if @Silvio Dante had said - during some seasons over the last 10 years, that period of PPG extrapolated over a season would be ‘relegation form’ - would that be acceptable? 

Yes, if it was an accurate statement because then it would be correct.

I'd still have an issue with the very selective dataset for the first table and the second table having uneven amounts of games, but that's seperate to whether a statement is actually true.

[transfer reader]

1 minute ago, Malago said:

The problem is stats are easily manipulated and can be used to support just about any point of view.

QPR to Ipswich 4 games, 0 points, we definitely going to get relegated 

Leicester to Blackburn, 4 games, 10 points, the prem here we come.

I remember in the early days of wind farm development, some amateur psychologist did a study down in Cornwall trying to prove the negative impact of the wind turbines on the local populace and came up with the stat that 14 of the 15 local resident suffered depression due to the installation of the wind farm.

As was pointed out, since the psychologist didn’t do a comparative study beforehand it’s quite possible that before the wind farm was erected all 15 of the residents were depressed and the wind farm had actually cheered one of them up.

you pays your money and you chooses your stat.

 

And this is what my point was with regards the tables SD used.

First one was intentionally selected to be between the two good runs of results under LM. 

The second was a response to me saying something about if at least 3 teams were in worse form, then their form is relegation form as it's 3 down. The 2nd table had us on 6 games, but Birmingham above us with 7 games.

If you removed the oldest game from Birmingham (the way that form charts always work, by removing the oldest and updating with the newest) then over equal games they'd have also been below us and we wouldn't have been bottom 3.

 

So both tables were manipulated data.

[Alessandro]

3 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

Yes, if it was an accurate statement because then it would be correct.

I'd still have an issue with the very selective dataset for the first table and the second table having uneven amounts of games, but that's seperate to whether a statement is actually true.

So you agree then, at some points during this season, we have been in the form that would, some seasons in the championship, be relegation form?

[transfer reader]

Just now, Alessandro said:

So you agree then, at some points during this season, we have been in the form that would, some seasons in the championship, be relegation form?

Have I denied that at any point?

[Numero Uno]

Guys, just say the form between x and y was absolute shite, don't mention the R word and hopefully you won't go to prison.......

[ExiledAjax]

13 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

No more eccentric than you defining something that isn't objective as objective.

Eh? You're creating subjectivity by requiring a qualifying characteristic - that it relates only to the current ongoing season - to be used to determine whether or not form is relegation form or not. Using your definition we are only able to analyse form if we make it subject to another data set.

I (and everyone else it seems) present a definition of relegation form that can be used independently of any particular season, or even any other team. It can be applied across any division and any range  of results. That's a definition that is without qualification and is not influenced by an outside or third-party action or opinion. It's objective.

[Alessandro]

Just now, transfer reader said:

Have I denied that at any point?

Ha mate - well if you haven’t, then you seem to have got yourself in a right old lather with multiple posters for no reason!