|
Post by carlts2020 on Jan 25, 2021 9:58:53 GMT
Our Last 4 Full-Time Managers Facts: Daryll Clarke - P246, W104, D56, L86 Win % = 42.3 Graham Coughlan - P56, W25, D18, L13 Win % = 44.6 Ben Garner - P34, W7, D10, L17, Win % = 20.6 Paul Tisdale - P14, W5, D1, L8, Win % = 35.7 Or if you look at the above as points per game....... Daryll Clarke - 368 points out of 738 Points percentage = 49.9% Graham Coughlan - 93 points out of 168 Points percentage = 55.4% Ben Garner - 31 points out of 102 Points percentage = 30.4% Paul Tisdale - 16 points out of 42 Points percentage = 38.1% Both sets of stats show Coughlan was a better Manager than most gave him credit for ("boring football, no passing game"). It also gives me hope that with a fully fit squad Tisdale can keep us in this division in 2021 and build from there. Worth looking at these tables again when he's managed for 34 games. Are you able to do this for league games only? Would be interesting to see how that changes the percentages
|
|
|
Post by Colyton Gas. on Jan 25, 2021 10:04:14 GMT
Liked GC and even though Mansfield didn't work out for him ,I felt he was a genuine Guy but never did buy why he really left after winning at Ipswich and taking us up amongst the top four. Feel for PT with the mediocre squad he's taken on with very little fire power.Still can't work out if it's our impotent attack ,colander of a defence or non creative and combative midfield that worries me most.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,502
|
Post by eppinggas on Jan 25, 2021 11:02:09 GMT
Liked GC and even though Mansfield didn't work out for him ,I felt he was a genuine Guy but never did buy why he really left after winning at Ipswich and taking us up amongst the top four. Feel for PT with the mediocre squad he's taken on with very little fire power. Still can't work out if it's our impotent attack ,colander of a defence or non creative and combative midfield that worries me most.I think it's a subtle blend of all three (though we do have key players out).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2021 11:45:34 GMT
PT2 has to succeed. We can't change managers again in 2021. He took over when we were rubbish (truly) so I feel he needs two years grace.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jan 25, 2021 13:03:00 GMT
True - but it's not an argument that can be made based on anything he's actually done up to this point. It's merely a hunch. He was an unproven manager when he came to us and now he is a failed manager who demonstrably took his club significantly backwards.
The point is that you can make quite a decent case (though not a perfect one) for Tisdale based on what he's actually achieved in the game. All Garner has is a record of failure.
Garners League one record based on his last / only 26 games is almost identical to Paul Tisdale. What makes Garner a failure and Tisdale successful / proven etc? PT has 23 points from last 26 games in league one and Garner has 22. Why judge Tisdale based on 26 games when you have a decade long career to look back on? A career that includes 3 promotions (one of them recently) and a whole host of money made for his clubs through developing and selling on players. It's ridiculous to draw an arbritary cut off like that. Any manager who was recently out work is going to have a poor recent cumulative record because there was a reason they were sacked.
You seem to think Garner deserves another chance. I'm not sure he does but assuming that some point next season someone appoints him manager and he loses his first 3 games would it be reasonable for those fans to start calling for his head based on the fact that he was on a losing streak dating back to his time at Rovers? Of course not - that would be silly.
I'm all for using statistics if they are meaningful - but that is in no sense a meaningful comparison for judging either Garner or Tisdale. If you don't like Tisdale and you do like Garner that's fine but those stats simply don't make that case in any kind of remotely convincing way. De-contextualised statistics are pretty meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Jan 25, 2021 13:26:47 GMT
Well he missed out on the Chelsea job.
|
|
|
Post by carlts2020 on Jan 25, 2021 14:29:55 GMT
Garners League one record based on his last / only 26 games is almost identical to Paul Tisdale. What makes Garner a failure and Tisdale successful / proven etc? PT has 23 points from last 26 games in league one and Garner has 22. Why judge Tisdale based on 26 games when you have a decade long career to look back on? A career that includes 3 promotions (one of them recently) and a whole host of money made for his clubs through developing and selling on players. It's ridiculous to draw an arbritary cut off like that. Any manager who was recently out work is going to have a poor recent cumulative record because there was a reason they were sacked.
You seem to think Garner deserves another chance. I'm not sure he does but assuming that some point next season someone appoints him manager and he loses his first 3 games would it be reasonable for those fans to start calling for his head based on the fact that he was on a losing streak dating back to his time at Rovers? Of course not - that would be silly.
I'm all for using statistics if they are meaningful - but that is in no sense a meaningful comparison for judging either Garner or Tisdale. If you don't like Tisdale and you do like Garner that's fine but those stats simply don't make that case in any kind of remotely convincing way. De-contextualised statistics are pretty meaningless.
The stats weren’t to prove Garner deserves another chance, it was more to look at why PT was thought as a good option as a replacement. You wouldn’t buy a player based on goals he scored 5 years ago I why do it with a manager. Stats are better than “he made the clubs he managed lots of money”. How do you know other than a cursory look at sales of players? On the stats above and the form this season in the same league with the same players in the same socioeconomic climate you cannot tell me PT is any better than BG.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2021 14:59:49 GMT
If you take on a winning team, then you get a year's grace, and by the end of that you ought to be winning. If you take on a losing team, then you get two years. Garner took on a winning team, and dismantled it. Tisdale has taken on a losing team, and will need time to renew it.
|
|
|
Post by carlts2020 on Jan 25, 2021 15:59:23 GMT
Or if you look at the above as points per game....... Daryll Clarke - 368 points out of 738 Points percentage = 49.9% Graham Coughlan - 93 points out of 168 Points percentage = 55.4% Ben Garner - 31 points out of 102 Points percentage = 30.4% Paul Tisdale - 16 points out of 42 Points percentage = 38.1% Both sets of stats show Coughlan was a better Manager than most gave him credit for ("boring football, no passing game"). It also gives me hope that with a fully fit squad Tisdale can keep us in this division in 2021 and build from there. Worth looking at these tables again when he's managed for 34 games. Are you able to do this for league games only? Would be interesting to see how that changes the percentages League Games for Rovers overall - just PT and BG PT 10 points from a possible 30 = 33% BG 22 points from a possible 78 = 28% Over a season of 46 games, a possible 138 points: PT 46 points BG 39 points League Games for Rovers this season - PT 10 points from a possible 30 = 33% BG 12 points from a possible 33 = 36% PT x 46 = 46 BG x 46 = 50
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jan 25, 2021 18:25:57 GMT
Why judge Tisdale based on 26 games when you have a decade long career to look back on? A career that includes 3 promotions (one of them recently) and a whole host of money made for his clubs through developing and selling on players. It's ridiculous to draw an arbritary cut off like that. Any manager who was recently out work is going to have a poor recent cumulative record because there was a reason they were sacked.
You seem to think Garner deserves another chance. I'm not sure he does but assuming that some point next season someone appoints him manager and he loses his first 3 games would it be reasonable for those fans to start calling for his head based on the fact that he was on a losing streak dating back to his time at Rovers? Of course not - that would be silly.
I'm all for using statistics if they are meaningful - but that is in no sense a meaningful comparison for judging either Garner or Tisdale. If you don't like Tisdale and you do like Garner that's fine but those stats simply don't make that case in any kind of remotely convincing way. De-contextualised statistics are pretty meaningless.
The stats weren’t to prove Garner deserves another chance, it was more to look at why PT was thought as a good option as a replacement. You wouldn’t buy a player based on goals he scored 5 years ago I why do it with a manager. Stats are better than “he made the clubs he managed lots of money”. How do you know other than a cursory look at sales of players? On the stats above and the form this season in the same league with the same players in the same socioeconomic climate you cannot tell me PT is any better than BG. That statement implies start from an equal basis comparison but they patently do not. They're not even particularly close.
BG had an entire summer (and then some) to build a squad of his players and had a complete blank slate with them and struggled to get anything coherent out them. PT inherited somebody else's squad that was already struggling and was heading in the wrong direction. It's more like a Diving Competition than a One Hundred metre race. They are doing the same task but they do not face the equivalent challenge. Instead BG chose a low degree of difficulty and fluffed it badly and PT chose a high one and the jury remains out on whether he'll deliver on it.
I'm a statistician you don't need to convince me of the value of stats. They are never a reflection of some definitive objective reality - they only work as definitive evidence if the base comparison is meaningful and all possible context is taken into consideration (this is rare). Otherwise they are just one piece of subjective evidence among many that may be more or less convincing. Not to mention that most stats used to analyse football are pretty basic, under developed and overly influenced by random error even according to those who work in the football analytics industry - it is lightyears behind other sports in this regard. The quality of the data journalism related to football is comically bad for example.
|
|
|
Post by carlts2020 on Jan 25, 2021 18:36:16 GMT
The stats weren’t to prove Garner deserves another chance, it was more to look at why PT was thought as a good option as a replacement. You wouldn’t buy a player based on goals he scored 5 years ago I why do it with a manager. Stats are better than “he made the clubs he managed lots of money”. How do you know other than a cursory look at sales of players? On the stats above and the form this season in the same league with the same players in the same socioeconomic climate you cannot tell me PT is any better than BG. That statement implies start from an equal basis comparison but they patently do not. They're not even particularly close.
BG had an entire summer (and then some) to build a squad of his players and had a complete blank slate with them and struggled to get anything coherent out them. PT inherited somebody else's squad that was already struggling and was heading in the wrong direction. It's more like a Diving Competition than a One Hundred metre race. They are doing the same task but they do not face the equivalent challenge. Instead BG chose a low degree of difficulty and fluffed it badly and PT chose a high one and the jury remains out on whether he'll deliver on it.
I'm a statistician you don't need to convince me of the value of stats. They are never a reflection of some definitive objective reality - they only work as definitive evidence if the base comparison is meaningful and all possible context is taken into consideration (this is rare). Otherwise they are just one piece of subjective evidence among many that may be more or less convincing. Not to mention that most stats used to analyse football are pretty basic, under developed and overly influenced by random error even according to those who work in the football analytics industry - it is lightyears behind other sports in this regard. The quality of the data journalism related to football is comically bad for example.
Just go throw another stick in the fire...was it BGs squad or TWs squad? Was BG bought into coach the selected players?
|
|
|
Post by carlts2020 on Jan 25, 2021 18:54:33 GMT
That statement implies start from an equal basis comparison but they patently do not. They're not even particularly close.
BG had an entire summer (and then some) to build a squad of his players and had a complete blank slate with them and struggled to get anything coherent out them. PT inherited somebody else's squad that was already struggling and was heading in the wrong direction. It's more like a Diving Competition than a One Hundred metre race. They are doing the same task but they do not face the equivalent challenge. Instead BG chose a low degree of difficulty and fluffed it badly and PT chose a high one and the jury remains out on whether he'll deliver on it.
I'm a statistician you don't need to convince me of the value of stats. They are never a reflection of some definitive objective reality - they only work as definitive evidence if the base comparison is meaningful and all possible context is taken into consideration (this is rare). Otherwise they are just one piece of subjective evidence among many that may be more or less convincing. Not to mention that most stats used to analyse football are pretty basic, under developed and overly influenced by random error even according to those who work in the football analytics industry - it is lightyears behind other sports in this regard. The quality of the data journalism related to football is comically bad for example.
Just go throw another stick in the fire...was it BGs squad or TWs squad? Was BG bought into coach the selected players? Of the new signings I think the below improve or as good as the players replaced. The exception is JCH but I consider the forwards a replacement for JCH, Reilly, Nichols. - Nicholson ✅ - McCormick ✅ - Daly ✅ - Hanlan ✅ Juries out on: - Ehmer - Baldwin - Harries - Westbrooke - Grant I wish we still had: - Tone - JCH I also liked Mitchell Lawson (strange to let him go as he can play up front) and Blackman. Can’t think of anyone we let go else I’d want back, maybe Clarke but he turned a new contract down. Westbrooke was my favourite signing as played a lot for cov n winning the league and Ehmer was the leader we craved as Gills captain. Macca, Grant and Harries will all benefit from this experience and I need to see more of Koiki and Dave T (I really liked him every game he played, what happened?)
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jan 25, 2021 18:59:50 GMT
That statement implies start from an equal basis comparison but they patently do not. They're not even particularly close.
BG had an entire summer (and then some) to build a squad of his players and had a complete blank slate with them and struggled to get anything coherent out them. PT inherited somebody else's squad that was already struggling and was heading in the wrong direction. It's more like a Diving Competition than a One Hundred metre race. They are doing the same task but they do not face the equivalent challenge. Instead BG chose a low degree of difficulty and fluffed it badly and PT chose a high one and the jury remains out on whether he'll deliver on it.
I'm a statistician you don't need to convince me of the value of stats. They are never a reflection of some definitive objective reality - they only work as definitive evidence if the base comparison is meaningful and all possible context is taken into consideration (this is rare). Otherwise they are just one piece of subjective evidence among many that may be more or less convincing. Not to mention that most stats used to analyse football are pretty basic, under developed and overly influenced by random error even according to those who work in the football analytics industry - it is lightyears behind other sports in this regard. The quality of the data journalism related to football is comically bad for example.
Just go throw another stick in the fire...was it BGs squad or TWs squad? Was BG bought into coach the selected players? OK - yeah. If you want to talk about accountability we should definitely be asking questions about the guy who oversaw the recruitment. I have no problem with that. I'm not sure that helps BG's case much though. There's a lot made of BG's vaunted coaching skills and maybe that is a long term effect. But we didn't see much of this and there seems anecdotal evidence of him not neccesarily being as highly respected in this regard as we might have initially been led to believe....Didn't someone highlight that he had been frozen out of the senior coaching staff at one club? And other suggestions of ex-players not respecting his coaching abilities etc. Granted this could be a few malcontents or dinosaurs but stories like that don't tend to float around people who are genuinely respected in the game.
The point is that whatever else occurred, BG provided very little evidence that he was up to the job in the short or long-term and 10 months of very little positive results with a sharp decline at the end would do for most managers as would the atrocious run we went on last season. Some managers do get 2nd chances and do well with them. An awful lot don't though and I'd be more confident of BG being one of those - there are lots of reasons managers fail first time around but you need to show you have at least something about you. He didn't.
|
|
|
Post by carlts2020 on Jan 25, 2021 19:02:57 GMT
Just go throw another stick in the fire...was it BGs squad or TWs squad? Was BG bought into coach the selected players? OK - yeah. If you want to talk about accountability we should definitely be asking questions about the guy who oversaw the recruitment. I have no problem with that. I'm not sure that helps BG's case much though. There's a lot made of BG's vaunted coaching skills and maybe that is a long term effect. But we didn't see much of this and there seems anecdotal evidence of him not neccesarily being as highly respected in this regard as we might have initially been led to believe....Didn't someone highlight that he had been frozen out of the senior coaching staff at one club? And other suggestions of ex-players not respecting his coaching abilities etc. Granted this could be a few malcontents or dinosaurs but stories like that don't tend to float around people who are genuinely respected in the game.
The point is that whatever else occurred, BG provided very little evidence that he was up to the job in the short or long-term and 10 months of very little positive results with a sharp decline at the end would do for most managers as would the atrocious run we went on last season. Some managers do get 2nd chances and do well with them. An awful lot don't though and I'd be more confident of BG being one of those - there are lots of reasons managers fail first time around but you need to show you have at least something about you. He didn't.
I agree the atrocious run early on killed him. So many managers come in when things are dire so can only improve things. Anyhow, going forward I think any young manager should be treated like a young player. Be assistant first, take the cup and trophy games, a few friendlies and then take the reins when the incumbent retires / walks / gets sacked
|
|
bluetornados
Predictions League
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 14,920
|
Post by bluetornados on Feb 3, 2021 21:40:28 GMT
A massive mistake in hiring Ben Garner. Hopefully lessons learnt. Hiring Paul Tisdale a very good move. I'm happy. Basel, Considering this was only Jan 17th, are you still happy now ?, all those that are and believe in PT say I.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2021 22:01:33 GMT
I'm in. Tisdale can get us promoted from the fourth division next season if we go down, and if we don't, he gets a season or two to attack the top half of the third, which would be just splendid.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2021 22:05:55 GMT
If you take on a winning team, then you get a year's grace, and by the end of that you ought to be winning. If you take on a losing team, then you get two years. Garner took on a winning team, and dismantled it. Tisdale has taken on a losing team, and will need time to renew it. In football you can't give a losing manager 2 years. As for us getting relegated and then promoted, maybe, but on the football side of things everything has slowly drifted backwards since Wael arrived, what evidence is there that he has any idea of how to reverse that at any level at all?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2021 22:07:22 GMT
I think I can.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2021 22:08:22 GMT
Then go buy yourself a club and get relegated twice before you do anything about the things that are wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2021 22:15:40 GMT
Don't whine, Bambi. No I'm certain a manager taking on a losing team mid-season needs to 'try' in that half season, and to be judged on where he finishes his full season, come the end. So more 1½ years than 2, depending on when his predecessor was sacked. You're right that nobody should survive consecutive relegations. But if there are two consecutive losing managers appointed, I no longer blame the managers but the director appointing them. On this perhaps we are more in agreement. I don't think Al Qadi knows how to recruit football personnel, and I'm not sure his fellow directors do either. You attribute the one successful appointment of the successful Coughlan to 'luck', and I fear this may prove correct. I'm not wealthy, but I buy tickets and claim the right to a view, like you.
|
|