Rogers must go? (POLL)

[peterroyal76]

Is this the worst poll ever?

[Royalee]

Is this the worst poll ever?

Yep.

[The Cap]

Brendan to definitely stay. 'Av a word with yourself if you think we should be doubting a bloke who's only been here five minutes.
Patience is definitely required when a club's going through a transitional period. Keep the faith. Are we Na'rch in disguise? Doubt it.

[Hogmeister Royal]

Is this the worst poll ever?

Yep.

Definitely.

[phil in cornwall]

Is this the worst poll ever?

Yep.

It's completey stupid because all the options are different versions of Ideal's opinion.

I don't share Ideal's opinion so how an I supposed to vote?

It's a bit like a general election where you can only vote for the BNP, National Front and UKIP.

[Royalee]

Is this the worst poll ever?

Why? Because you don't agree with it doesn't make it so.
1 in 5 who voted wants Rodgers out now. A lot of the others just want to give him more time, and then get him out.
He's bought himself some time with these signings, so lets see how it goes. I still don't rate him as a manager, he's not the finished article and I'd want him to do his learning elsewhere than here.

'A lot of others want to give him more time, and then get him out.' - Why do people want to give him time if they've made their minds up like you seem to think they have? 4 in 5 don't want him to leave apparently and this in on HNA where you get posters like yourself who are judging him on hearsay so that number is probably higher with people who get to games.

[Platypuss]

Well I'm a falsificationalist. So unless you can prove me wrong the hypothesis stands.

That's not how these things work you know...

It's how falsification works.....as opposed to inductivism.

As a Popperian then I'm sure you'll agree that under falsificationism, he doesn't need to "prove" you wrong, just find one valid counter-example. He has (Burns), so your hypothesis fails.

[winchester_royal]

As a Popperian then I'm sure you'll agree that under falsificationism, he doesn't need to "prove" you wrong, just find one valid counter-example. He has (Burns), so your hypothesis fails.

Au contraire.

If you look at my original hypothesis, I say that they USUALLY succeed. Therefore you will need a majority of counter-examples to falsify my theorem.

[Platypuss]

As a Popperian then I'm sure you'll agree that under falsificationism, he doesn't need to "prove" you wrong, just find one valid counter-example. He has (Burns), so your hypothesis fails.

Au contraire.

If you look at my original hypothesis, I say that they USUALLY succeed. Therefore you will need a majority of counter-examples to falsify my theorem.

I'm not convinced that that hypothesis is properly falsifiable without better definitions....

[winchester_royal]

As a Popperian then I'm sure you'll agree that under falsificationism, he doesn't need to "prove" you wrong, just find one valid counter-example. He has (Burns), so your hypothesis fails.

Au contraire.

If you look at my original hypothesis, I say that they USUALLY succeed. Therefore you will need a majority of counter-examples to falsify my theorem.

I'm not convinced that that hypothesis is properly falsifiable withour better definitions....

You've lost me.

[RoyalBlue]

Rodgers isn't to blame for our current troubles.

The culprit is the guy right at the top of the organisation. Sadly I can't see Madejski sacking himself - nor is he likely to be able to sell the club as I am sure he wants far more than it is actually worth, particularly with his name still plastered over the stadium.

[Arch]

As a Popperian then I'm sure you'll agree that under falsificationism, he doesn't need to "prove" you wrong, just find one valid counter-example. He has (Burns), so your hypothesis fails.

Au contraire.

If you look at my original hypothesis, I say that they USUALLY succeed. Therefore you will need a majority of counter-examples to falsify my theorem.

I think you mean thesis, rather than theorem. But anyway, as a falsificationist, the fact that your thesis has not been falsified means no more than that. It's in no way positive grounds for believing it because falsificationists think there are never positive grounds for believing any proposition.

[The Cap]

As The Quiet Man says in the STAR AGM thread:

BR fully aware of the pitfalls surrounding the rebuild and the need for experience to gell the team, boy is he desperate to succeed

Say no more.

[Sir Rodger Doyle]

Round your house and sh1t on your doorstep. Maybe push some through your letter box for good measure.

[Very near...far away]

Spelling the manager's name wrong must go!
Tw@tty polls must go!

We all have to go! sometime....

[The Cap]

Sir Rodger Doyle wrote:

Round your house and sh1t on your doorstep. Maybe push some through your letter box for good measure.

WTF is that all about

[chandog]

Spelling the manager's name wrong must go!
Tw@tty polls must go!

AGREED

[Snowball]

The idea that we can base any serious inference from such a small slice of games is patently silly.

We could have lost to Forest, we could easily have won.
We played well for the most part at Newcastle who, quite simply, still looked Premiership quality and may well win this league in a canter.
We probably should have lost at Swansea but we didn't, thanks to Federici, and we could have won it at the death.
We were playing very well v Sheffield and had we gone in 1-0 at HT would probably have got a good result.

But FOUR GAMES? How can we make realistic judgments on four games?

What would you do with this manager?

Here is a run of league results from last year

DDLDLWDLLDL 8 points from 11 consecutive league games


SACK HIM! SACK HIM! SACK HIM!

That's Wolves in mid-season, eventual Champions, now in the Premiership

They also had another 3 defeats in four games LLWL 3 Points

another 1 win in 4 games DLLW 4 Points

and DLLDL 2 Points from FIVE games


Posters have already mentiones Burnley’s opening four games

LLDD 1-7


And another stunning run of form they had mid-season…

L 1-2 Barnsley FLC
L 1-2 Doncaster FLC
L 0-2 Swansea FLC
L 1-2 Preston FLC
L 0-3 Watford FLC

Five consecutive league games, five losses 3F 11A

The Manager?


SACK HIM! SACK HIM! SACK HIM!

[Lamberts Tipple]

Spot on Snowball.

[winchester_royal]

I have reset/edited the poll, so we can see if the results will be different at this point in time.

I say: SACK RODGERS NOW.

Wow, just Wow.

I can just imagine you sitting there chuckling gleefully when Cardiff scored.