qwertySFC Posted 10 November, 2008 Share Posted 10 November, 2008 ........G W L D Gray 19 6 11 2 Wigley 17 3 8 6 Pearson 14 3 4 7 Luggy 13 5 6 2 Jan 19 6 9 4 Dont really see how total football has improved us. Lowe has held patience for no longer than 19 games to realise that things are not working out in the past. As Jan has passed this quota , looks like he is here for the for the long term.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
once_bitterne Posted 10 November, 2008 Share Posted 10 November, 2008 Pearson won all of 3 games then? And some on here would seem to have him as the next coming of Bill Shankley..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 10 November, 2008 Share Posted 10 November, 2008 Of those quoted stats, only Sturrock has a better win percentage. Stats can generally be manipulated to prove any point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tac-tics Posted 10 November, 2008 Share Posted 10 November, 2008 What a complete and utter waste of time. Firstly what the hell is the stats showing? you can compare people's performances with odd number off games. Played 13 under Luggy yet 19 under Gray, hradly a "fair test". Also they have all had different resoruces. Jan has **** all to work with and is a coach, not a manager, a coach. We all know he isnt bringing in the players and wheeling or dealing. I think you may have put your self up for "pointless thread of the year" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted 10 November, 2008 Share Posted 10 November, 2008 Of those quoted stats, only Sturrock has a better win percentage. Stats can generally be manipulated to prove any point To prove a point.... Points per game the above stats show that Sturrock is a worse manager than Jan. In fact the worst manager. Wigley is head and shoulders above the lot. Wigley 17 3 8 6 1.13 Gray 19 6 11 2 0.95 Pearson 14 3 4 7 0.88 Jan 19 6 9 4 0.86 Luggy 13 5 6 2 0.76 This assumes my stats are right. I am posting whilst coming to the end of a 2hr conference call.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 10 November, 2008 Share Posted 10 November, 2008 This assumes my stats are right. That was an assumption too far, I'm afraid. You've done your divisions the wrong way round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted 10 November, 2008 Share Posted 10 November, 2008 Bugger... there's proof I shouldn't attempt to multi-task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 10 November, 2008 Share Posted 10 November, 2008 To prove a point.... Points per game the above stats show that Sturrock is a worse manager than Jan. In fact the worst manager. Wigley is head and shoulders above the lot. Wigley 17 3 8 6 1.13 Gray 19 6 11 2 0.95 Pearson 14 3 4 7 0.88 Jan 19 6 9 4 0.86 Luggy 13 5 6 2 0.76 This assumes my stats are right. I am posting whilst coming to the end of a 2hr conference call.... Not quite right. Also, some of the games in the quoted stats are cup games. Take out cup games and it looks a bit like this: P-W-D-L Gray 17-4-2-11 (two cup games against lower-league opposition) Sturrock 13-5-2-6 (no cup games) Wigley 16-1-8-7 (three cup games against lower-league opposition - also counted the two games of caretaker charge before Sturrock) Pearson 14-3-7-4 (no cup games) Poortvliet 16-4-4-8 (three cup games, two against lower-league opposition) In terms of points-per-game: Gray 0.82 Sturrock 1.31 Wigley 0.69 Pearson 1.14 Poortvliet 1.00 But as has been stated already, the circumstances at the time of each manager are so wildly different that none of those stats can used definitively to state whether any of them has the "best" record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 10 November, 2008 Share Posted 10 November, 2008 In terms of points-per-game: Gray 0.82 * Sturrock 1.31 ** Wigley 0.69 * Pearson 1.23 ** (Omitting the D/G Plymouth match) Poortvliet 1.00 That's better, thank you, although I "corrected" NP's points-per-game. Asterisk (*) means sacked for being crap, and double asterisk (**) means being forced out for not being a Lowe's man. Relegation was the result of Luggy's removal, and history could be repeating itself with NP's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 10 November, 2008 Share Posted 10 November, 2008 Because some of those tenures were in the Premiership, the only really relevant comparison was between the two last managers, NP and JP. The Plymouth match can be discounted from the NP stats as he was not the manager at the time. Contrary to the sneering adopted by OB, Pearson's record stacks up much better than JP's, especially when one considers that he had all those ageing journeymen in his squad, whereas JP has the cream of Saints youngsters, motivated and proud to give their all to wear the shirt. Under NP we at least became hard to beat, something that he has managed to transfer to his new club which has the best defensive record in the division. Shame that after a pre-season and 16 games, our current defence is one of the worst in the division. But as pointed out, usually after a record of failure such as this Lowe has already wielded the axe by this stage. The difference is this time around, if he sacks JP he admits that his mad experiment hasn't worked and his ego won't allow that. I'm afraid that instead the club will die a slow death with crowd numbers diminishing weekly until we go into administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Posted 10 November, 2008 Share Posted 10 November, 2008 Pearson only lost 4 = the next Bill Shankley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Jason Posted 10 November, 2008 Share Posted 10 November, 2008 Pearson won all of 3 games then? And some on here would seem to have him as the next coming of Bill Shankley..... The point is Once Bittern he only lost 4!!!! Also he had no pre-season, no time for the 'team to get to know each other'. Turn the tables mate, Jan taking over from Dodd & Gorman then Pearson taking over from Jan, for my money Pearson would be starting of from Div 1 as there's not a snowball in hell's chance that Jan would of kept us up!! All imo obvioulsy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenridge Posted 10 November, 2008 Share Posted 10 November, 2008 The point is Once Bittern he only lost 4!!!! Also he had no pre-season, no time for the 'team to get to know each other'. Turn the tables mate, Jan taking over from Dodd & Gorman then Pearson taking over from Jan, for my money Pearson would be starting of from Div 1 as there's not a snowball in hell's chance that Jan would of kept us up!! All imo obvioulsy! Of course you are absolutely correct along with the fact that the team he took over was in rapid freefall and devoid of any confidence. These points however are of little relevance to OB I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Jason Posted 10 November, 2008 Share Posted 10 November, 2008 of course you are absolutely correct along with the fact that the team he took over was in rapid freefall and devoid of any confidence. These points however are of little relevance to ob i'm afraid. 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 10 November, 2008 Share Posted 10 November, 2008 pearson was good and i liked him,but i remember he went threw the same nonsense on this forum has jan is going threw now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 November, 2008 Share Posted 10 November, 2008 The point is Once Bittern he only lost 4!!!! Also he had no pre-season, no time for the 'team to get to know each other'. Turn the tables mate, Jan taking over from Dodd & Gorman then Pearson taking over from Jan, for my money Pearson would be starting of from Div 1 as there's not a snowball in hell's chance that Jan would of kept us up!! All imo obvioulsy! It's worth making the point Pearson didn't actually keep us up though. We stayed up because Leicester couldn't score against Stoke. Relegation was out of our hands on the last day of the season. I wanted Pearson to stay but fuc k me I can't believe the way people talk about him on here as some kind of mangerial messiah. He achieved bare, bare minumum in his time here. Nice bloke, probably be a decent enough Leicester boss, but enough bloody hero worship please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TijuanaTim Posted 10 November, 2008 Share Posted 10 November, 2008 ........G W L D Gray 19 6 11 2 Wigley 17 3 8 6 Pearson 14 3 4 7 Luggy 13 5 6 2 Jan 19 6 9 4 Dont really see how total football has improved us. Lowe has held patience for no longer than 19 games to realise that things are not working out in the past. As Jan has passed this quota , looks like he is here for the for the long term.. Completely different set of circumstances.....not an appropriate comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 10 November, 2008 Share Posted 10 November, 2008 It's the disappointment of not seeing what NP would have one this year that has elevated NP to a position above his stats. I always felt that what he achieved last season was going to be a decent spring board for this season. We will never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timbatop Posted 10 November, 2008 Share Posted 10 November, 2008 in comparing those managers, you have to take into account the quality of the squads they had to work with. Some of those managers had half-decent premiership squads, and all had significantly more expensive squads. To be getting ~1 point per game while having a squad's average age of 20 or so is not terrible in my book! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwertySFC Posted 10 November, 2008 Author Share Posted 10 November, 2008 What a complete and utter waste of time. Firstly what the hell is the stats showing? you can compare people's performances with odd number off games. Played 13 under Luggy yet 19 under Gray, hradly a "fair test". Also they have all had different resoruces. Jan has **** all to work with and is a coach, not a manager, a coach. We all know he isnt bringing in the players and wheeling or dealing. I think you may have put your self up for "pointless thread of the year"[/quote] MLF , the point is that some of Lowes appointments have not been that successful , he has shown that when it has not worked out he has made a decision after no more than 19 games. Obviously NP was not a Lowe choice , but, as Jan has has been coach/ manager for 19 games it appears that Lowe is not to ready to make a manageria decision about his choice of manager. If the point was a bit to complicated for you I take full responsibility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tac-tics Posted 11 November, 2008 Share Posted 11 November, 2008 Many a sorrys I am. I thought you was proving appoint of their success not the fact Lowe evaluates staff around 19/20 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 12 November, 2008 Share Posted 12 November, 2008 It's worth making the point Pearson didn't actually keep us up though. We stayed up because Leicester couldn't score against Stoke. Relegation was out of our hands on the last day of the season. I wanted Pearson to stay but fuc k me I can't believe the way people talk about him on here as some kind of mangerial messiah. He achieved bare, bare minumum in his time here. Nice bloke, probably be a decent enough Leicester boss, but enough bloody hero worship please. Who's hero-worshipping him? The point is, he shouldn't have been sacked. He achieved a decent 1.23 points per game (considering the rubbish he had to work with), and Saints finished on 54 points (no team in any league anywhere has been relegated even with 53 points). He wasn't lucky, Leicester were unlucky to go down with 52 points. BTW, even if Leicester had scored against Stoke, NP still would've saved us (Coventry would've gone down). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 12 November, 2008 Share Posted 12 November, 2008 Pearson only lost 4 = the next Bill Shankley Pearson only lost 3 = shouldn't have been forced out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckster Von Doodle Posted 12 November, 2008 Share Posted 12 November, 2008 Of those quoted stats, only Sturrock has a better win percentage. Stats can generally be manipulated to prove any point If you manipulate them they can. I think this is a fairly good metre stick - all the facts are there not just that say, JP has won more games than any of the others. What can be added is that JP has done it with no money, relatively, a bunch of kids fresh out of the academy and with no previous experience of English football other than having the ball poked between his legs by Archie Gemmill in 1978. You could of course argue the above points until the cows come home as to whether they are good or bad but for now I will stick with him. What we need now is an experienced player for the centre of the park to hold everything together, how about Robbie Savage? I hate the guy and the way he plays football but he does seem to ooze enthusiasm and maybe what the kids need to gel them a bit better. I think another mistake was keeping Perry and not Lucketti, the latter would have been better for us this season. Also JP has had probably more 'intervention' by the board than any other manager - however finiancial issues are probably driving this at the moment and therefore criticism although justified needs to be tempered with that fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckster Von Doodle Posted 12 November, 2008 Share Posted 12 November, 2008 Completely different set of circumstances.....not an appropriate comparison. All things are relevant, some had better squads in better leagues some had more money. I think the CCC this year is as close at it evr has been and apart from Readin who I think will end up winning the league by a mile again anybody else even us could sneak in. That said I don't thinkk we will, but a run of three or four wins will move any team from bottom top very rapidly. So worst league and probably our weakest squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 12 November, 2008 Share Posted 12 November, 2008 and with no previous experience of English football other than having the ball poked between his legs by Archie Gemmill in 1978. Ah, the World renowned English footballer Archie Gemmil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Jason Posted 12 November, 2008 Share Posted 12 November, 2008 It's worth making the point Pearson didn't actually keep us up though. We stayed up because Leicester couldn't score against Stoke. Relegation was out of our hands on the last day of the season. I wanted Pearson to stay but fuc k me I can't believe the way people talk about him on here as some kind of mangerial messiah. He achieved bare, bare minumum in his time here. Nice bloke, probably be a decent enough Leicester boss, but enough bloody hero worship please. Who's hero worshipping, not me mate! If Leicster had won that day we'd still of stayed up as Coventry lost and would of taken their place, so by Pearson doing HIS job and guiding Saints to the win against Shef Utd we stayed up, we stayed up because we won! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckster Von Doodle Posted 12 November, 2008 Share Posted 12 November, 2008 Ah, the World renowned English footballer Archie Gemmil. Who although Scottish played for Derby and Forest I believe which of course is English football!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now