Tinnion is back!

[Shauntaylor85]

I was at a wedding this weekend and an Ipswich season ticket holder was there, I explained our view on Ashton, their response was ‘we love him! He’s done an incredible job and really engages with the fans, havent been this together since Burley days’. As I said we couldn’t wait to appoint the most marmite ex city midfielder of all time as manager, that was the reason Ashton seemingly failed in my view and does anyone here seriously think he would have chosen Johnson?

Edited May 6 by Shauntaylor85

[Shauntaylor85]

On another note, time to tag in some of the podcast fans on here, would love to see a joint interview with Danny Wilson and Nigel Pearson! Maybe give it 12 months, Two former Owls discuss Robins exits! 

[Midlands Robin]

3 minutes ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

does anyone here seriously think he would have chosen Johnson?

Yes because he also chose Dean Holden.

He did the same at Ipswich as he did here. Got rid of an experienced manager (who admittedly was struggling) and got in a bloke with almost no track record. The biggest difference was that the guy he brought in at Ipswich turned out to be very good.

[Shauntaylor85]

1 minute ago, Midlands Robin said:

Yes because he also chose Dean Holden.

He did the same at Ipswich as he did here. Got rid of an experienced manager (who admittedly was struggling) and got in a bloke with almost no track record. The biggest difference was that the guy he brought in at Ipswich turned out to be very good.

Again I don’t believe Holden was his choice. 

[Davefevs]

14 minutes ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

I was at a wedding this weekend and an Ipswich season ticket holder was there, I explained our view on Ashton, their response was ‘we love him! He’s done an incredible job and really engages with the fans, havent been this together since Burley days’. As I said we couldn’t wait to appoint the most marmite ex city midfielder of all time as manager, that was the reason Ashton seemingly failed in my view and does anyone here seriously think he would have chosen Johnson?

Rumour was Ashton wanted Appleton!

[Mr Popodopolous]

43 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I do think there was part of them that sort of believed it and all it needed was an on-the-grass coach.  They are still peddling it for next season don’t forget!

Chaplin is very good Champ player, playoffs with Barnsley don’t forget.  Broadhead, Everton, don’t forget, young, upside.

That is true, maybe I'm not giving quite enough credit but it seems like it was the perfect blend at just the right time.

Edited May 6 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

That is true, maybe I'm not giving quite enough credit but it seems like it was the perfect blend at just the right time.

Yeah, don’t get me wrong, it’s a huge achievement with what they went into the season with, but Morsy was in a top 10 team in Boro, when he switched to Town.  Incredible signing really…must’ve got a great contract out of it!

But otherwise, Wolf and Burgess, yeah didn’t see them coping at this level for example.

Fair play.

[ExiledAjax]

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

That's the problem with your logic. Your logic would only work if the points target was the same every season. 

But the points target isn't the same every season, so using a moving target to determine whether or not we have improved each season is flawed.

You and @Capman are conflating single-season success with ongoing improvement of our squad and performance. Your defining our own improvement relative to ourselves by performance relative to outside parties who we cannot control. Potentially, using your method, we can say that we have never improved. It's deeply flawed.

If we concentrate on ourselves then we will improve relative to our peers. If we improve by 4 points every season, then eventually we will hit a points total that inevitably gets us into the top 6.

That is not standing still, that is season on season improvement and ultimately will deliver success.

Apologies, I know you don't like me pointing this out but you keep saying that you speak for most/all of us, and you really don't.

[FNQ]

10 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

But the points target isn't the same every season, so using a moving target to determine whether or not we have improved each season is flawed.

You and @Capman are conflating single-season success with ongoing improvement of our squad and performance. Your defining our own improvement relative to ourselves by performance relative to outside parties who we cannot control. Potentially, using your method, we can say that we have never improved. It's deeply flawed.

If we concentrate on ourselves then we will improve relative to our peers. If we improve by 4 points every season, then eventually we will hit a points total that inevitably gets us into the top 6.

That is not standing still, that is season on season improvement and ultimately will deliver success.

Apologies, I know you don't like me pointing this out but you keep saying that you speak for most/all of us, and you really don't.

One of the reasons that we were actually 4 points better off this season compared to last was that we managed to beat the bottom side, who we would all agree were sh1t, they only won 4 games all season, twice. The season before we dropped the 4 points by drawing twice with Wigan who finished bottom albeit with a lot more points.

Points may well make prizes, but in my view to be optimistic and call this season out as somehow being successful / progressive with all that has gone on, which now includes a final day thumping with a revert-to-type style performance against a side well below us, is just wrong.

[Galley is our king]

9 hours ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

On another note, time to tag in some of the podcast fans on here, would love to see a joint interview with Danny Wilson and Nigel Pearson! Maybe give it 12 months, Two former Owls discuss Robins exits! 

Yes, nice pick.

Perhaps also Danny Wilson and Brian Tinnion...

 

Just saying..

 

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

But the points target isn't the same every season, so using a moving target to determine whether or not we have improved each season is flawed.

You and @Capman are conflating single-season success with ongoing improvement of our squad and performance. Your defining our own improvement relative to ourselves by performance relative to outside parties who we cannot control. Potentially, using your method, we can say that we have never improved. It's deeply flawed.

If we concentrate on ourselves then we will improve relative to our peers. If we improve by 4 points every season, then eventually we will hit a points total that inevitably gets us into the top 6.

That is not standing still, that is season on season improvement and ultimately will deliver success.

Apologies, I know you don't like me pointing this out but you keep saying that you speak for most/all of us, and you really don't.

How can using a moving target be flawed when the target is a constant moving target every single season? 

Why you're trying to put a positive spin on this, who knows. 

As I said in my post, 62 points would have got us 14th last season. 

I don't claim to speak for most/all of us and have never ever said "I speak for all of us" you're losing credibility now. I said "most us expected progression this season" that's a fact. Don't spin it any other way. Its not a good look. 

Maybe next season 68 points will be enough for play offs, or it could be 80. There is absolutely no guarantees we will improve by 4 points a season which is what you are banking on to make your logic work. The target is not static like you're trying to make out. The league placings to achieve the play offs is static but the points total to achieve those placings are simply not. 

The reality is we need to aim for between 70-80 points to get a play off spot and that's quite a big leap. 

 

[Sir Geoff]

1 hour ago, FNQ said:

One of the reasons that we were actually 4 points better off this season compared to last was that we managed to beat the bottom side, who we would all agree were sh1t, they only won 4 games all season, twice. The season before we dropped the 4 points by drawing twice with Wigan who finished bottom albeit with a lot more points.

Points may well make prizes, but in my view to be optimistic and call this season out as somehow being successful / progressive with all that has gone on, which now includes a final day thumping with a revert-to-type style performance against a side well below us, is just wrong.

Wigan away last year really should have yielded 2 extra points. Ref bottled a blatant sending off, first half and Tommy guided a point blank header wide when it was easier to score.

Imo we have stood still, not progressed.

Mid table is mid table 11-14th.

[Capman]

2 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

But the points target isn't the same every season, so using a moving target to determine whether or not we have improved each season is flawed.

You and @Capman are conflating single-season success with ongoing improvement of our squad and performance. Your defining our own improvement relative to ourselves by performance relative to outside parties who we cannot control. Potentially, using your method, we can say that we have never improved. It's deeply flawed.

Just to be clear, the target of getting into the play offs is not a ‘moving target’. It is fixed, it is getting into the top 6. Therefore the number of points off 6th place is also not a ‘moving target’. It is also fixed.

If next season there are 10 dreadful teams in the league who everyone beats twice we could easily end up with more points but again be further away from the play offs. I doubt many would see that as ‘success’. So to argue points gained is not a moving target could also be seen as flawed. It changes with the standard of the league. 
In the end my view is that you have to measure outcomes against your target. The club said it was targeting promotion. Therefore for me the only legitimate matrix is how far we were away from getting that target. That does not make my view right and everyone else wrong, but it is certainly not an invalid view. It is a perfectly reasonable and logical position to take. 

[Davefevs]

13 minutes ago, Capman said:

Just to be clear, the target of getting into the play offs is not a ‘moving target’. It is fixed, it is getting into the top 6. Therefore the number of points off 6th place is also not a ‘moving target’. It is also fixed.

If next season there are 10 dreadful teams in the league who everyone beats twice we could easily end up with more points but again be further away from the play offs. I doubt many would see that as ‘success’. So to argue points gained is not a moving target could also be seen as flawed. It changes with the standard of the league. 
In the end my view is that you have to measure outcomes against your target. The club said it was targeting promotion. Therefore for me the only legitimate matrix is how far we were away from getting that target. That does not make my view right and everyone else wrong, but it is certainly not an invalid view. It is a perfectly reasonable and logical position to take. 

Definitely think this is a valid argument.

Think there are numerous ways to measure “progress” too.

The fact that we are debating it, probably shows what a poor job the hierarchy have done in positing the expectations…and how they measure.

[Capman]

10 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Definitely think this is a valid argument.

Think there are numerous ways to measure “progress” too.

The fact that we are debating it, probably shows what a poor job the hierarchy have done in positing the expectations…and how they measure.

I absolutely agree with that, and the cynical part of me wonders if that is deliberate. Allowing ambiguity into targets is a great way to cover failure. If no one knows what you are aiming for how do they know if you have been successful or not? 
I am using the boards own judgement of what they believe they have supplied the manager. They claimed they were supplying a ‘top six squad’ so that is what I believe we should judge the club against. 
Fact is the club were significantly away from that so the board did not supply the squad they claimed they did, or the managers failed to utilise it properly (or some combination of the two). The reason I think that’s important is because without being honest about that I have no idea how we can target 6th place next season. 

[chinapig]

15 minutes ago, Capman said:

I absolutely agree with that, and the cynical part of me wonders if that is deliberate. Allowing ambiguity into targets is a great way to cover failure. If no one knows what you are aiming for how do they know if you have been successful or not? 
I am using the boards own judgement of what they believe they have supplied the manager. They claimed they were supplying a ‘top six squad’ so that is what I believe we should judge the club against. 
Fact is the club were significantly away from that so the board did not supply the squad they claimed they did, or the managers failed to utilise it properly (or some combination of the two). The reason I think that’s important is because without being honest about that I have no idea how we can target 6th place next season. 

Indeed, if you set no explicit target or set a vague one (like 'top end') you can claim success on your own terms, so you can't be easily held to account. They may regard this as clever thinking but it's easily seen through.

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Capman said:

I absolutely agree with that, and the cynical part of me wonders if that is deliberate. Allowing ambiguity into targets is a great way to cover failure. If no one knows what you are aiming for how do they know if you have been successful or not? 
I am using the boards own judgement of what they believe they have supplied the manager. They claimed they were supplying a ‘top six squad’ so that is what I believe we should judge the club against. 
Fact is the club were significantly away from that so the board did not supply the squad they claimed they did, or the managers failed to utilise it properly (or some combination of the two). The reason I think that’s important is because without being honest about that I have no idea how we can target 6th place next season. 

“Promotion” seems pretty clear, but even that can be taken apart.  It either means, 1st or 2nd, or 3rd to 6th, but winning the play-off final.  So is 3rd but losing out in semi’s or final, acceptable?

Or do they really mean top-6, ie in with a chance?

We don’t know!

Ditto the term “top end”.

Frustrating!

 

[westred1]

13 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Rumour was Ashton wanted Appleton!

Substance behind this.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, westred1 said:

Substance behind this.

Illegal substances!

The usual hearsay!

[Bazooka Joe]

Why is the title of this thread incomplete?

Mods please change it to "Tinnion is back-stabber".

Thanks

[Gert Mare]

Bloody hell Tins.

There's big difference between top half and top end.

Never known a manager to be sacked in 15th with a seemingly impossible bar set to.....ummm.....11th.

What a joker!

[Sir Geoff]

20 minutes ago, Gert Mare said:

Bloody hell Tins.

There's big difference between top half and top end.

Never known a manager to be sacked in 15th with a seemingly impossible bar set to.....ummm.....11th.

What a joker!

Yes, quite clear now what a terrible job NP was doing at the time. 15th blimey, particularly when the "we finished (11th) in a position we  roughly expected to be in at the start of the season." (either GM or JL, can't remember which now). We were a whole 1 point away from 11th at the time, totally warranted sacking and abject failure on NP's part to be that far short of expectations.

Edited May 7 by Sir Geoff

[Gert Mare]

1 minute ago, Sir Geoff said:

Yes, quite clear now what a terrible job NP was doing at the time. 15th blimey, particularly when the "we finished (11th) in a position we  roughly expected to be in at the start of the season." (either GM or JL, can't remember which now).

They must have really panicked about Nige being able to move 4 places up the table so obviously they had no choice 

[Sir Geoff]

7 minutes ago, Gert Mare said:

They must have really panicked about Nige being able to move 4 places up the table so obviously they had no choice 

1 point off 11th, worrying times indeed.

[Capman]

4 hours ago, chinapig said:

Indeed, if you set no explicit target or set a vague one (like 'top end') you can claim success on your own terms, so you can't be easily held to account. They may regard this as clever thinking but it's easily seen through.

 

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

“Promotion” seems pretty clear, but even that can be taken apart.  It either means, 1st or 2nd, or 3rd to 6th, but winning the play-off final.  So is 3rd but losing out in semi’s or final, acceptable?

Or do they really mean top-6, ie in with a chance?

We don’t know!

Ditto the term “top end”.

Frustrating!

 

It’s more than that for me it’s dishonest. The establishment talk with forked tongue. When they want money from the supporters for season tickets and the rest it’s all about an inexorable rise to the holly land of the premier league. But when we fall short they resort to meaningless platitudes like ‘steady progress’ or ‘top end’. 

Getting out of the championship is one of the most difficult things to do in football. You don’t achieve difficult things by making excuses and backing away from difficult conversations. We have gone backwards this season. I accept sometimes you need to do that if you have made a wrong turn, but that does not seem to me to be what has happened. We went backwards because the terrible two were incapable of dealing with an experienced manager who spoke difficult truth to them. That does not bode well for the future. They need to consider if they really have the experience or skill to deliver for the club in the current structure. My view has been for some time that they do not. We have lost a manager and a chief executive who know how to win promotion and now have a leadership which has delivered nothing in football. Of course we may just get lucky and it might work, but if I were a betting man it is not a scenario which would appeal as a gamble. 

[MarcusX]

On 05/05/2024 at 19:23, Bar BS3 said:

Comparing their time here - not their overall managerial career...

I'm looking it up now & it seems that the "failure" (I agree, it was) of BT's time in charge here wasn't all that different to NP's time here.

 

I know I’m late to the thread and this has probably been replied to but there’s absolutely no way you can compare Pearson’s tenure and Tinnion’s.

We were a fairly big fish in League 1 and playoffs minimum expectation.

That is in no way comparable to the job Pearson had to do keeping us up whilst reducing the wage budget, losing his best players and competing at a higher level against half a dozen teams with parachute payments

[ExiledAjax]

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

...the points total to achieve those placings are simply not. 

The reality is we need to aim for between 70-80 points to get a play off spot and that's quite a big leap. 

In one breath you say it's not a static target, then your very next sentence state an approximate minimum threshold of points. A threshold that I agree with, and that we should work towards.

You identify that threshold because, in general, and on average, achieving such a points total gets a team into the playoffs.

That's why aiming for a points total of, say, 72, is much better than aiming for something vague like "the top end" or "promotion". As you say, the specific total needed for that can change each season. But, crucially, no one knows for certain in August what you'll need in May. But, what we do know, is the average, normal, usual total needed. It therefore makes logical sense for that to be the target, and for progress to therefore be measured by our distance from that normal target figure at seasons end.

We got closer to that target (my target, but also the target implied by Tinnion on his SOTC interview a couple of months ago). That is progress.

7 hours ago, Capman said:

Just to be clear, the target of getting into the play offs is not a ‘moving target’. It is fixed, it is getting into the top 6. Therefore the number of points off 6th place is also not a ‘moving target’. It is also fixed.

As above, at kick off of the first match we cannot know precisely how many points we need to get to get 6th in a season. But we do know that in a normal season something in the low 70's gives you damn good chance of it. 

So if in each season we get a few points closer to that target, we are progressing, and are getting closer to where we need to be.

I'm not trying to argue that this season is a runaway success, or that we have progressed to a great degree, but it's wrong, in my opinion, to paint this season's on the pitch results (note. I emphasise that this is on the pitch and results) as a complete failure or regression.

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

There is absolutely no guarantees we will improve by 4 points a season which is what you are banking on to make your logic work.

You know that's not what I'm assuming, that was an example of what steady progress would look like if it happened. Nothing I said showed an assumed improvement like that every season.

But, if we were to do that, then in a couple of seasons we'd be well in the play off hunt. Regardless of how other teams fare in that time.

[W-S-M Seagull]

13 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

So if in each season we get a few points closer to that target, we are progressing, and are getting closer to where we need to be.

This is where your whole trying to put a positive spin on it falls apart. 

We may have finished higher position wise, but we finished 1 point further away from the target than we did last season. That's not progression. That's regression and when you factor in most of us thought this was the season to kick on then it can only be viewed as a failure. 

I think the vital bit you are missing is that most of us (don't try and twist this again) expected us to progress from being a mid table table. To make this clear to you, that's not me saying most expected us to progress into play off challangers, but it's saying most of us expected us to move into that space between being mid table and play off challangers and not even you could argue that we've done that. 

Edited May 7 by W-S-M Seagull

[Capman]

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

 

As above, at kick off of the first match we cannot know precisely how many points we need to get to get 6th in a season. But we do know that in a normal season something in the low 70's gives you damn good chance of it. 

So if in each season we get a few points closer to that target, we are progressing, and are getting closer to where we need to be.

I'm not trying to argue that this season is a runaway success, or that we have progressed to a great degree, but it's wrong, in my opinion, to paint this season's on the pitch results (note. I emphasise that this is on the pitch and results) as a complete failure or regression.

There is a danger of us getting into a discussion which is just arguing for the sake of it. Because in many ways I don’t disagree with what you are saying. But my point is that our ‘target’ was not to achieve points, our target is to get promoted. You cannot even start to think of that until you get to 6th place. So you right to say we don’t know before a ball is kicked how many points are needed to get to 6th. But essentially I do not really care. We need to be at least the sixth best team in the league. I think of it like this, if we scraped 72 points got 6th and then fluked the playoffs and went up, I would consider that more of a successful season than if we got 90 points finished 3rd and then lost the playoff semi final. Would you not agree? 
I also don’t consider this season a massive step backwards. Had Pearson stayed I think we would have been in contention for the playoffs longer but we would have been very lucky to get promotion, the squad is not strong enough. My concern is that I think the club is much weaker now than it was 12 months ago. I had some confidence that a management structure which had delivered promotion out of the championship and the Scott money gave the club a good chance of promotion in the next couple of seasons. I have less faith in the current leadership  as it has delivered nothing but excuses and lies. 

[Davefevs]

Merits to both sides of the debate.

We can re-open when we hear the next set of ambiguous expectations ahead of next season!