Have you taken to Steve Clarke yet?

[Snowball]

Always foolish to translate cup games to points, even against opposition from your own division. It's just a totally different beast.

I see it as a whole. Total games where the manager has had at least a week with the players.

To IGNORE 3 away wins at Huddersfield, Cardiff, Derby just seems ridiculous.


Do we ignore the magnificent wins away in the cup under McDermott?

[Ian Royal]

Always foolish to translate cup games to points, even against opposition from your own division. It's just a totally different beast.

I see it as a whole. Total games where the manager has had at least a week with the players.

To IGNORE 3 away wins at Huddersfield, Cardiff, Derby just seems ridiculous.


Do we ignore the magnificent wins away in the cup under McDermott?

We don't ignore anything. We just treat everything in context and don't try to pretend Cup games are League games. I'm sorry this is too complicated for you to get into a line of stats. But Clarke's record is:

All comps
P12, W6, D3, L3
League
P9, W3, D3, L3, F9, A9, Pts 12, PPG 1.33
Cup
P3, W3, D0, L0.

And it speaks for itself. It doesn't need manipulating to attribute points to cup games. The League record is decent considering where we are and the cup record is great and suggests if you give it another 5 - 10 games the league record will continue to improve. But it doesn't make the League record, which is what is important for the league, any different to what it is and pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

[Lower West]

Always foolish to translate cup games to points, even against opposition from your own division. It's just a totally different beast.

Wins provide confidence. Also for some players a Wembley appearance is a life times dream. So not to be underestimated.

The games are providing SC with a lot of insight into the squad he inherited.

[Snowball]

We don't ignore anything. We just treat everything in context and don't try to pretend Cup games are League games. I'm sorry this is too complicated for you to get into a line of stats. But Clarke's record is:

All comps
P12, W6, D3, L3

And THAT my drivel-brained correspondent, is all I'm saying.

Altho' I prefer to ignore the Watford game as I don't consider it fair to lay that at SC's feet

All comps
P11, W6, D3, L3

"and if these were all league games" that would be promotion form

I think I have worked out (with the help of your inestimable intelligence) that 'cup games are not league games', but, when the sample size is extremely small we take ALL GAMES into consideration to judge whether the manager is doing a good job.


So, for example, if the manager avoids relegation and wins the FA Cup, we will ignore the cup results and make the point that Clarke is a failure, right?



Ignoring the cup, by the end of the season we will have played 9 + 16 = 25 league games and will be able to compare the ppg, defence etc versus the 21 games under Adkins. Meanwhile, I will include the cup games, at least until we've had THIRTEEN league games under SC, and I will continue to ignore the Watford game.

If you don't like it Sweet-Pea, turn your radio up.

[Ian Royal]

Always foolish to translate cup games to points, even against opposition from your own division. It's just a totally different beast.

Wins provide confidence. Also for some players a Wembley appearance is a life times dream. So not to be underestimated.

The games are providing SC with a lot of insight into the squad he inherited.

I agree completely.

[Ian Royal]

away he goes again.

[harry]

We don't ignore anything. We just treat everything in context and don't try to pretend Cup games are League games. I'm sorry this is too complicated for you to get into a line of stats. But Clarke's record is:

All comps
P12, W6, D3, L3

And THAT my drivel-brained correspondent, is all I'm saying.

Altho' I prefer to ignore the Watford game as I don't consider it fair to lay that at SC's feet

All comps
P11, W6, D3, L3

"and if these were all league games" that would be promotion form

I think I have worked out (with the help of your inestimable intelligence) that 'cup games are not league games', but, when the sample size is extremely small we take ALL GAMES into consideration to judge whether the manager is doing a good job.


So, for example, if the manager avoids relegation and wins the FA Cup, we will ignore the cup results and make the point that Clarke is a failure, right?



Ignoring the cup, by the end of the season we will have played 9 + 16 = 25 league games and will be able to compare the ppg, defence etc versus the 21 games under Adkins. Meanwhile, I will include the cup games, at least until we've had THIRTEEN league games under SC, and I will continue to ignore the Watford game.

If you don't like it Sweet-Pea, turn your radio up.

The Football League have just announced the Watford game is void and needs to be replayed as it was too soon after SC's appointment. Now rescheduled for 7th March.

[From Despair To Where?]

but, when the sample size is extremely small we take ALL GAMES into consideration to judge whether the manager is doing a good job..

I actually agree with the point you are trying to make here, Snowball but you do make a complete twat of yourself by declaring that we must take ALL GAMES into consideration because of the sample size and then promptly disregard the Watford game.

So is it ALL GAMES, or just the ones you cherry pick to skew the statistics further in your favour?

[Snowball]

but, when the sample size is extremely small we take ALL GAMES into consideration to judge whether the manager is doing a good job..

I actually agree with the point you are trying to make here, Snowball but you do make a complete twat of yourself by declaring that we must take ALL GAMES into consideration because of the sample size and then promptly disregard the Watford game.

So is it ALL GAMES, or just the ones you cherry pick to skew the statistics further in your favour?

So if the manger became the manager 5 minutes before the Watford game, would you consider the Watford result down to him?
So if the manger became the manager 3 hours before the Watford game, would you consider the Watford result down to him?
So if the manger became the manager 1 day before the Watford game, would you consider the Watford result down to him?
So if the manger became the manager 2 days before the Watford game, would you consider the Watford result down to him?


The idea that a manager can come in and "take over" a team that has been under another manager for 18 months or longer and in 48 hours can change them so much that the result is "his", is patently ridiculous.


There is no "skew" or selectivity in ignoring a game that comes a mere 48 hours after the manager arrived.

It's patent common sense.

[From Despair To Where?]

But you said in the very same post that we have to count ALL GAMES.

It's patently common sense that when you say you will include

ALL GAMES

, you include

ALL GAMES

regardless of how soon after he was appointed it was played.

He took training for 3 days, whilst it takes time to improve confidence, he would have had an impact. The impact being that instead of losing 6-1 with a gutless performance against a team in the bottom half of the table , we got a battling single goal defeat against a team in the top 6 and looked a different team. It's not all about results, it's about seeing us going in the right direction and seeing performances improve.

Actually, i don't know why i'm bothering, you won't get it because you never do.

[tidus_mi2]

Fact is, you'd have included the Watford game if we hadn't lost so your argument is flawed.

[Ian Royal]

But at least he's doing it more concisely these days, rather than spamming 4 or 5 replies at a time, all unnecessarily long windedly bollox.

[marlowuk]

OMG! I don't know why I am bothering with this but I am inexorably drawn to reply. Please help me someone!!!!!!!

In assessing SC's overall achievement with our side we include all the games he has managed.

If we are extrapolating some sort of league form, or final league placing, or 'with this form we could have been ...' scenario, we should only include league games. Why? Because, although we have fielded (pretty much) our strongest side for cup matches, not all managers do. Some managers see the FA Cup as a different priority than others. Some use cup ties to rest players. Some have one or more of their players unavailable because they are 'cup-tied'. And so on ... Cup matches are - as someone (IR?) said - a different animal!

When looking at league form we should include all league matches. That's hardly a revolutionary idea! The Watford match was very shortly after SC took over but it would have been a match in which our players would have been very much aware of the need to impress the (very new) manager. So it has to be included. I also share the cynical opinion that, had we won that game, Snowball would have included it without hesitation. For statistics to shed any light on a situation they have to be used consistently and without prejudice. You usually do this Snowball so I don't understand (unless you are the love child of SC) why you refuse to do so in this case???

[Snowball]

Because they lost?

[Platypuss]

Fact is, you'd have included the Watford game if we hadn't lost so your argument is flawed.

Exactly this.

Snowball selects the stat to suit his argument, rather than choosing his argument to fit the stats.

Which is why, despite all his hard work, you can place precisely zero initial trust in his arguments.

[From Despair To Where?]

If Clarke had not been here long enough to have any input or impact on the players and wasn't ready to manage the team for the Watford game, what the oxf*rd was he doing in the dugout making the decisions?

In the 5 minutes/3hrs/1 day scenario, a caretaker wuld have taken charge for that game and Clarke would have sat in the directors' box

[poohs pure]

What a lot of folk have failed to understand, is that snowball is a wind up merchant and an excellent fisherman, always looking for the next bite, but he is clever, using stats as his bait. Casting them out there for the unwary to take a nibble at. He thrives on hooking you and playing you for hours, sometimes days even. As with all fishermen, ignore the bait, swim on by and he has nothing, which will infuriate him, take the bait and you are doing exactly what he wants.

[Snowball]

What a lot of folk have failed to understand, is that snowball is a wind up merchant and an excellent fisherman, always looking for the next bite, but he is clever, using stats as his bait. Casting them out there for the unwary to take a nibble at. He thrives on hooking you and playing you for hours, sometimes days even. As with all fishermen, ignore the bait, swim on by and he has nothing, which will infuriate him, take the bait and you are doing exactly what he wants.

but...

[parky]

I'd include cup games. Adkins didn't win a cup game at his entire time at the club.

[Big Foot]

I'd include cup games. Adkins didn't win a cup game at his entire time at the club.

What a pcunt, so so so happy we sacked him