|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 31, 2021 19:49:46 GMT
Didn't Simon Grayson flop at his last 3 jobs at Blackpool, Bradford and Sunderland, you'd have been totally underwhelmed if he'd replaced BG. I'm not sure how these people still keep getting jobs! Genuine question...if you were a Fleetwood fan would you prefer Grayson or Garner? Why would any fan want Garner after he destroyed a top 6 chasing team and produced one which had won just 3 home games in 9 months. Grayson's bad but at least he's not a total joke as a manager plus he has had some success in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 31, 2021 19:59:07 GMT
So managing is the same at whatever level it’s just the opposition that changes. Strange that Liverpool and Man City waste all that money on Klopp and Pep when Tis might as well have a go in the Premiership. Like I said Tisdale seems like a nice bloke without any proven ability in the top half of the Third Division. Just seems strange that Wael has invested hugely in stabilising the club and setting up the training ground then we appoint a bang average manager. All very odd I get what you’re saying but it’s more than that.... Liverpool bought those managers based upon reputation and historic performance at equivalent levels.... they aren’t prepared to take a gamble and as their ‘brand’, sponsors, fans expectations wouldn’t allow it.... to be fair Klopp was a left field appointment as he had only been successful in Germany and wasn’t a ‘known’ name.... Just look at Moyes at Man Utd compared to his performance at Everton? Mourinho at Man Utd v his time at Chelsea and Tottenham...... Pulis at Stoke v his clubs since..... are they all bad managers or ‘bang average?’ ...... Tisdale isn’t top notch but he’s not bang average ..... he’s a good manager at this level..... Not sure he's been a "good manager" at L1 level Exeter finished 8th once similar to DC's record and he's not considered good at this level? Although the chances of us ever going out and appointing a good manager at this level, such as Paul Cook, were probably remote anyway as we always seem to go for the cheap option, DC/GC/BG/PT all probably earning around the same salaries and we didn't need to pay out compensation to their former clubs before appointing them. |
|
|
|
Post by darkbluegas on Jan 31, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
So managing is the same at whatever level it’s just the opposition that changes. Strange that Liverpool and Man City waste all that money on Klopp and Pep when Tis might as well have a go in the Premiership. Like I said Tisdale seems like a nice bloke without any proven ability in the top half of the Third Division. Just seems strange that Wael has invested hugely in stabilising the club and setting up the training ground then we appoint a bang average manager. All very odd I get what you’re saying but it’s more than that.... Liverpool bought those managers based upon reputation and historic performance at equivalent levels.... they aren’t prepared to take a gamble and as their ‘brand’, sponsors, fans expectations wouldn’t allow it.... to be fair Klopp was a left field appointment as he had only been successful in Germany and wasn’t a ‘known’ name.... Just look at Moyes at Man Utd compared to his performance at Everton? Mourinho at Man Utd v his time at Chelsea and Tottenham...... Pulis at Stoke v his clubs since..... are they all bad managers or ‘bang average?’ ...... Tisdale isn’t top notch but he’s not bang average ..... he’s a good manager at this level..... Of course they’re not bang average they achieved relative success at the highest level with at least one club. As for Klopp ONLY achieving success in Germany and not being a name, I assume that’s a wind up. Tisdale record shows that after 15 years of league football management he once managed to finish 8th in the Third Division. Everything else is quite some way below that. So maybe he doesn’t even manage to make him bang average in the Third Division, he’s below average. My point was, with all the effort Wael is putting into making the club a success Tisdales appointment always seemed a strange one to me. I personally think it reflects Starnes lack of imagination in the search for a new manager. |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Jan 31, 2021 20:21:33 GMT
I get what you’re saying but it’s more than that.... Liverpool bought those managers based upon reputation and historic performance at equivalent levels.... they aren’t prepared to take a gamble and as their ‘brand’, sponsors, fans expectations wouldn’t allow it.... to be fair Klopp was a left field appointment as he had only been successful in Germany and wasn’t a ‘known’ name.... Just look at Moyes at Man Utd compared to his performance at Everton? Mourinho at Man Utd v his time at Chelsea and Tottenham...... Pulis at Stoke v his clubs since..... are they all bad managers or ‘bang average?’ ...... Tisdale isn’t top notch but he’s not bang average ..... he’s a good manager at this level..... Of course they’re not bang average they achieved relative success at the highest level with at least one club. As for Klopp ONLY achieving success in Germany and not being a name, I assume that’s a wind up. Tisdale record shows that after 15 years of league football management he once managed to finish 8th in the Third Division. Everything else is quite some way below that. So maybe he doesn’t even manage to make him bang average in the Third Division, he’s below average. My point was, with all the effort Wael is putting into making the club a success Tisdales appointment always seemed a strange one to me. I personally think it reflects Starnes lack of imagination in the search for a new manager. You didn't find Garner's appointment 'imaginative'? |
|
|
|
Post by darkbluegas on Jan 31, 2021 20:34:45 GMT
Of course they’re not bang average they achieved relative success at the highest level with at least one club. As for Klopp ONLY achieving success in Germany and not being a name, I assume that’s a wind up. Tisdale record shows that after 15 years of league football management he once managed to finish 8th in the Third Division. Everything else is quite some way below that. So maybe he doesn’t even manage to make him bang average in the Third Division, he’s below average. My point was, with all the effort Wael is putting into making the club a success Tisdales appointment always seemed a strange one to me. I personally think it reflects Starnes lack of imagination in the search for a new manager. You didn't find Garner's appointment 'imaginative'? Yup if you read my comments in this thread that’s exactly what I said. I could see the point in Garners appointment. It may not have been my choice but I could see the point. Then Starnes gets his fingers burnt and his first reaction is to appoint some bloke he knows when he worked in Devon |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2021 20:49:24 GMT
I get what you’re saying but it’s more than that.... Liverpool bought those managers based upon reputation and historic performance at equivalent levels.... they aren’t prepared to take a gamble and as their ‘brand’, sponsors, fans expectations wouldn’t allow it.... to be fair Klopp was a left field appointment as he had only been successful in Germany and wasn’t a ‘known’ name.... Just look at Moyes at Man Utd compared to his performance at Everton? Mourinho at Man Utd v his time at Chelsea and Tottenham...... Pulis at Stoke v his clubs since..... are they all bad managers or ‘bang average?’ ...... Tisdale isn’t top notch but he’s not bang average ..... he’s a good manager at this level..... Of course they’re not bang average they achieved relative success at the highest level with at least one club. As for Klopp ONLY achieving success in Germany and not being a name, I assume that’s a wind up. Tisdale record shows that after 15 years of league football management he once managed to finish 8th in the Third Division. Everything else is quite some way below that. So maybe he doesn’t even manage to make him bang average in the Third Division, he’s below average. My point was, with all the effort Wael is putting into making the club a success Tisdales appointment always seemed a strange one to me. I personally think it reflects Starnes lack of imagination in the search for a new manager. I get your point but unless I’m mistaken Klopp had only achieved success as a manager in Germany prior to Liverpool appointing him and in his first season at Liverpool he didn’t meet the fans expectations......it was only in his second season that he started to achieve his success with Liverpool.... We can agree to disagree that whether a manager is good or not isn’t dependent on the league they’ve managed in and had success..... there’s more to it than that - the quality of the set up you have around you, the players and their mentality at your disposal, the ‘fit’, the quality of the teams in your league and also you as a manager, the tactical nous you have and the decisions you make.... I also do think there is an element of luck involved and having fortunate decisions go for you ..... I think Tisdale is a good but safe appointment.... Not sure what you mean about Starnes and lack of imagination..... we needed a fairly quick appointment, we also were never going to pay out huge compensation to bring someone in |
|
|
|
Post by darkbluegas on Jan 31, 2021 22:45:07 GMT
Of course they’re not bang average they achieved relative success at the highest level with at least one club. As for Klopp ONLY achieving success in Germany and not being a name, I assume that’s a wind up. Tisdale record shows that after 15 years of league football management he once managed to finish 8th in the Third Division. Everything else is quite some way below that. So maybe he doesn’t even manage to make him bang average in the Third Division, he’s below average. My point was, with all the effort Wael is putting into making the club a success Tisdales appointment always seemed a strange one to me. I personally think it reflects Starnes lack of imagination in the search for a new manager. I get your point but unless I’m mistaken Klopp had only achieved success as a manager in Germany prior to Liverpool appointing him and in his first season at Liverpool he didn’t meet the fans expectations......it was only in his second season that he started to achieve his success with Liverpool.... We can agree to disagree that whether a manager is good or not isn’t dependent on the league they’ve managed in and had success..... there’s more to it than that - the quality of the set up you have around you, the players and their mentality at your disposal, the ‘fit’, the quality of the teams in your league and also you as a manager, the tactical nous you have and the decisions you make.... I also do think there is an element of luck involved and having fortunate decisions go for you ..... I think Tisdale is a good but safe appointment.... Not sure what you mean about Starnes and lack of imagination..... we needed a fairly quick appointment, we also were never going to pay out huge compensation to bring someone in We obviously have very different views on our current situation. Like I’ve said Tisdale may work out ok but I’d be really surprised if he ever achieved sustained success beyond his previous highest level of achievement . Why did we need to make a quick appointment. By making a quick appointment we’ve actually got worse |
|
|
|
Post by carlts2020 on Feb 1, 2021 8:16:43 GMT
Alot of grief in that post, there. It's interesting that the points in my post aren't contested. "Systematically destroyed" and then go on to not address any of the points, attack the structure of the club that had played us over 5 years into a place of potential Championship football. Something we haven't seen in a generation. The post enthuses after long term plan....but at what cost? There's a huge difference between articulating the benefits of a theorised approach to long term sustainable youth football, then going to Southend United away and being outplayed by their youth team because we've employed an over complicated system that brings about confusion. I know, I was there. 3rd division football is a light year away from where we wished we could be and it's naive to expect that experiment to work unless you've got a light year to wait....in the meantime we were losing to the 91st placed league club....and BG continued to scratch his beard and make like for like subs, much like at Southend. Hey, I know things aren't perfect....hell, are they perfect anywhere? (Look over the river and there's plenty complaints on that s hole) but we were there, believing, playing well and winning, we were there, I was there singing walking out of Portman Road.......this season all we can sing coming out of Portman Road was the f*cking journey. It's not right for hijacking thread to deviate into a BG bashing, because it's not the time or place, but if BG is such a desirable commodity, why hasn't he been snapped up by....Sheff Wed or Cardiff (before MM) or any club else? I was at Southend as well. It was dire, probably the low point of the season. However, the long term plan was working. I am a stats geek but I appreciate live football tells a different story so I do both. But...the plan was working. Bare with me: Garners first 13 games = 0.54 points per game Garners last 12 games = 1.25 points per game Split even further into more recent sets of games: Garner first 9 games = 0.44 points per game. Garner second 8 games = 1.00 points per game. Garner last 8 games = 1.38 points per game. The trajectory is exactly what you would expect of a new, rookie, young manager in their first job. Just resonate on the key point here. We sacked a manager with 1.38 points per game in the last 8 games. Tisdale first 6 v latest 6: First 6 = 1.16 PPG Last 6 = 0.66 PPG This is the sort of analysis you use for decision making. Garner was improving. Tisdale not only fails to match Garners current PPG when appointed he is getting a lot worse. |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Feb 1, 2021 10:30:50 GMT
Alot of grief in that post, there. It's interesting that the points in my post aren't contested. "Systematically destroyed" and then go on to not address any of the points, attack the structure of the club that had played us over 5 years into a place of potential Championship football. Something we haven't seen in a generation. The post enthuses after long term plan....but at what cost? There's a huge difference between articulating the benefits of a theorised approach to long term sustainable youth football, then going to Southend United away and being outplayed by their youth team because we've employed an over complicated system that brings about confusion. I know, I was there. 3rd division football is a light year away from where we wished we could be and it's naive to expect that experiment to work unless you've got a light year to wait....in the meantime we were losing to the 91st placed league club....and BG continued to scratch his beard and make like for like subs, much like at Southend. Hey, I know things aren't perfect....hell, are they perfect anywhere? (Look over the river and there's plenty complaints on that s hole) but we were there, believing, playing well and winning, we were there, I was there singing walking out of Portman Road.......this season all we can sing coming out of Portman Road was the f*cking journey. It's not right for hijacking thread to deviate into a BG bashing, because it's not the time or place, but if BG is such a desirable commodity, why hasn't he been snapped up by....Sheff Wed or Cardiff (before MM) or any club else? I was at Southend as well. It was dire, probably the low point of the season. However, the long term plan was working. I am a stats geek but I appreciate live football tells a different story so I do both. But...the plan was working. Bare with me: Garners first 13 games = 0.54 points per game Garners last 12 games = 1.25 points per game Split even further into more recent sets of games: Garner first 9 games = 0.44 points per game. Garner second 8 games = 1.00 points per game. Garner last 8 games = 1.38 points per game. The trajectory is exactly what you would expect of a new, rookie, young manager in their first job. Just resonate on the key point here. We sacked a manager with 1.38 points per game in the last 8 games. Again, important points have been missed. The long term project was not working, hence the changes in management. If it was working, by the time it had worked we'd be in National League South.. Your post says live football and stats tell a different story. But you pick and choose your stats carefully. Here's a stat for you.....how many matches did BG win when opposition did not have a man sent off? Your post says you were at Southend. And confirmed it was dire, but it wasn't just a one off, we had many dire performances last season. Southend was just the straw. We have continued to play dire intermittently more frequently in the last year than at any time in previous 5 years. PT has a major job to turn this form around with underperforming players and one striker that always seems to find opposition m o m defenders. BG decisions has put us back years, and like I said in previous post, why has he not been snapped up by now in a prominent role? What's the stat for how many offers BG has had? |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Feb 1, 2021 10:41:42 GMT
I was at Southend as well. It was dire, probably the low point of the season. However, the long term plan was working. I am a stats geek but I appreciate live football tells a different story so I do both. But...the plan was working. Bare with me: Garners first 13 games = 0.54 points per game Garners last 12 games = 1.25 points per game Split even further into more recent sets of games: Garner first 9 games = 0.44 points per game. Garner second 8 games = 1.00 points per game. Garner last 8 games = 1.38 points per game. The trajectory is exactly what you would expect of a new, rookie, young manager in their first job. Just resonate on the key point here. We sacked a manager with 1.38 points per game in the last 8 games. Tisdale first 6 v latest 6: First 6 = 1.16 PPG Last 6 = 0.66 PPG This is the sort of analysis you use for decision making. Garner was improving. Tisdale not only fails to match Garners current PPG when appointed he is getting a lot worse. Tisdale first 6 v latest 6: First 6 = 1.16 PPG (with 100% inherited BG players) Last 6 = 0.66 PPG (with around 90% inherited BG players) |
|
|
|
Post by carlts2020 on Feb 1, 2021 11:24:56 GMT
Tisdale first 6 v latest 6: First 6 = 1.16 PPG Last 6 = 0.66 PPG This is the sort of analysis you use for decision making. Garner was improving. Tisdale not only fails to match Garners current PPG when appointed he is getting a lot worse. Tisdale first 6 v latest 6: First 6 = 1.16 PPG (with 100% inherited BG players) Last 6 = 0.66 PPG (with around 90% inherited BG players) 100% and 90%....you forgetting the players that were here before BG? Jakkola Leahy Upson Rodman JVS Kelly Little Hare Hargreaves |
|
|
|
Post by carlts2020 on Feb 1, 2021 11:28:01 GMT
I was at Southend as well. It was dire, probably the low point of the season. However, the long term plan was working. I am a stats geek but I appreciate live football tells a different story so I do both. But...the plan was working. Bare with me: Garners first 13 games = 0.54 points per game Garners last 12 games = 1.25 points per game Split even further into more recent sets of games: Garner first 9 games = 0.44 points per game. Garner second 8 games = 1.00 points per game. Garner last 8 games = 1.38 points per game. The trajectory is exactly what you would expect of a new, rookie, young manager in their first job. Just resonate on the key point here. We sacked a manager with 1.38 points per game in the last 8 games. Again, important points have been missed. The long term project was not working, hence the changes in management. If it was working, by the time it had worked we'd be in National League South.. Your post says live football and stats tell a different story. But you pick and choose your stats carefully. Here's a stat for you.....how many matches did BG win when opposition did not have a man sent off? Your post says you were at Southend. And confirmed it was dire, but it wasn't just a one off, we had many dire performances last season. Southend was just the straw. We have continued to play dire intermittently more frequently in the last year than at any time in previous 5 years. PT has a major job to turn this form around with underperforming players and one striker that always seems to find opposition m o m defenders. BG decisions has put us back years, and like I said in previous post, why has he not been snapped up by now in a prominent role? What's the stat for how many offers BG has had? Pick and choose stats carefully? These are Points Per League Match for Garner and Tisdale. They are literally the most prominent, honest and clear stats you can get. Nothing else matters other than points per game. You then go with “points won when the opposition have 10 men” the most obscure stat of all time |
|
|
|
Post by darkbluegas on Feb 1, 2021 11:35:15 GMT
Again, important points have been missed. The long term project was not working, hence the changes in management. If it was working, by the time it had worked we'd be in National League South.. Your post says live football and stats tell a different story. But you pick and choose your stats carefully. Here's a stat for you.....how many matches did BG win when opposition did not have a man sent off? Your post says you were at Southend. And confirmed it was dire, but it wasn't just a one off, we had many dire performances last season. Southend was just the straw. We have continued to play dire intermittently more frequently in the last year than at any time in previous 5 years. PT has a major job to turn this form around with underperforming players and one striker that always seems to find opposition m o m defenders. BG decisions has put us back years, and like I said in previous post, why has he not been snapped up by now in a prominent role? What's the stat for how many offers BG has had? Pick and choose stats carefully? These are Points Per League Match for Garner and Tisdale. They are literally the most prominent, honest and clear stats you can get. Nothing else matters other than points per game. You then go with “points won when the opposition have 10 men” the most obscure stat of all time I really thought Wael was going to stick to the plan with Garner. I did also believe we may have got relegated in the process but come back stronger. In reality to achieve a long term goal there will be bumps along the road but clearly things were improving with Garner. Now we’ve panicked and look to be in a real mess with players looking not too bothered and the manager at a loss as to why they won’t do as they’re told. I think Wael really needs to be hands on as President and CEO to give the club clear direction. I can’t see this mess being allowed to continue for too long |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Feb 1, 2021 11:38:57 GMT
Again, important points have been missed. The long term project was not working, hence the changes in management. If it was working, by the time it had worked we'd be in National League South.. Your post says live football and stats tell a different story. But you pick and choose your stats carefully. Here's a stat for you.....how many matches did BG win when opposition did not have a man sent off? Your post says you were at Southend. And confirmed it was dire, but it wasn't just a one off, we had many dire performances last season. Southend was just the straw. We have continued to play dire intermittently more frequently in the last year than at any time in previous 5 years. PT has a major job to turn this form around with underperforming players and one striker that always seems to find opposition m o m defenders. BG decisions has put us back years, and like I said in previous post, why has he not been snapped up by now in a prominent role? What's the stat for how many offers BG has had? Pick and choose stats carefully? These are Points Per League Match for Garner and Tisdale. They are literally the most prominent, honest and clear stats you can get. Nothing else matters other than points per game. You then go with “points won when the opposition have 10 men” the most obscure stat of all time You can do what you like with stats because you've picked and chose to separate 12/13 matches. Also, as above it's disingenuous to compare stats where BG acquired his own players v PT inherited squad and can only play 2. I didn't say BG acquired all his players, I said PT inherited players that BG picked. Holistically BG has put us back years as he's failed to learn the lesson of not replacing JCH....which goes towards the awful scoring stat and proves managerial prowess is much much more than a stat based theory. |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Feb 1, 2021 11:41:27 GMT
Pick and choose stats carefully? These are Points Per League Match for Garner and Tisdale. They are literally the most prominent, honest and clear stats you can get. Nothing else matters other than points per game. You then go with “points won when the opposition have 10 men” the most obscure stat of all time I really thought Wael was going to stick to the plan with Garner. I did also believe we may have got relegated in the process but come back stronger. There is absolutely no evidence for this. It's just sentimental, emotional and irrational. We all thought that when we were relegated to the 4th division for the first time. |
|
|
|
Post by carlts2020 on Feb 1, 2021 11:57:22 GMT
I really thought Wael was going to stick to the plan with Garner. I did also believe we may have got relegated in the process but come back stronger. There is absolutely no evidence for this. It's just sentimental, emotional and irrational. We all thought that when we were relegated to the 4th division for the first time. The evidence is above....1.38 PPG including playing Peterborough, Fleetwood and Hull. Ignoring the clear facts is just flat earthing. |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Feb 1, 2021 12:03:49 GMT
There is absolutely no evidence for this. It's just sentimental, emotional and irrational. We all thought that when we were relegated to the 4th division for the first time. The evidence is above....1.38 PPG including playing Peterborough, Fleetwood and Hull. Ignoring the clear facts is just flat earthing. There is absolutely no evidence we would have come back stronger after relegation. No matter how many PPG you want to quote! It's purely speculation.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2021 12:10:35 GMT
I was a supporter of Garner and the vision and plan that was in place and did feel that we were going in an improving direction...... that said, I am discounting last season as I felt there were significant mitigating circumstances and I do believe Garner made mistakes and was naive.... he focused too heavily on possession and short midfield passing rather than adding direction and urgency to penetrate and actually score goals.... his view was if we keep the ball then the opposition won’t have it to score and I do think he over complicated things a little bit.... his biggest mistake though was the lack of firepower and experience in the key centre forward position.... hindsight is a wonderful thing though...
Tisdale is a different character and different type of manager and in some ways he is suffering from some of the same issues Garner did when he first joined - trying to change style, philosophy and shape of play etc at a point in a season where the players have had months of coaching to play in a different way and Tisdale challenges are compounded by the fact he doesn’t get much coaching time as we’ve got games every Tues & Thurs and players need recovery periods otherwise they’ll end up completely fatigued...
I think he’ll turn out ok for us but just like we don’t know what would have happened if Garner stayed in charge, we don’t know what will happen with Tisdale until it happens....
Comparing the 2 doesn’t achieve anything as they are completely different and the circumstances around them are different... all we can do is give our support.... if Tisdale fails and we go down then a decision will need to be made but we have to get out of the cycle of hiring and sacking managers in quick succession... we need to stick with one and ride it through as the last time we had so many new managers in quick succession we all know how that ended....
Whether Tisdale is the right man to stick with or not remains to be seen. I believe he will be based upon gut feelings and his overall experience and historical performances (albeit mainly at a lower level I appreciate) but who knows?
|
|
|
|
Post by lastminutewinner on Feb 1, 2021 12:41:34 GMT
I was a supporter of Garner and the vision and plan that was in place and did feel that we were going in an improving direction...... that said, I am discounting last season as I felt there were significant mitigating circumstances and I do believe Garner made mistakes and was naive.... he focused too heavily on possession and short midfield passing rather than adding direction and urgency to penetrate and actually score goals.... his view was if we keep the ball then the opposition won’t have it to score and I do think he over complicated things a little bit.... his biggest mistake though was the lack of firepower and experience in the key centre forward position.... hindsight is a wonderful thing though... Tisdale is a different character and different type of manager and in some ways he is suffering from some of the same issues Garner did when he first joined - trying to change style, philosophy and shape of play etc at a point in a season where the players have had months of coaching to play in a different way and Tisdale challenges are compounded by the fact he doesn’t get much coaching time as we’ve got games every Tues & Thurs and players need recovery periods otherwise they’ll end up completely fatigued... I think he’ll turn out ok for us but just like we don’t know what would have happened if Garner stayed in charge, we don’t know what will happen with Tisdale until it happens.... Comparing the 2 doesn’t achieve anything as they are completely different and the circumstances around them are different... all we can do is give our support.... if Tisdale fails and we go down then a decision will need to be made but we have to get out of the cycle of hiring and sacking managers in quick succession... we need to stick with one and ride it through as the last time we had so many new managers in quick succession we all know how that ended.... Whether Tisdale is the right man to stick with or not remains to be seen. I believe he will be based upon gut feelings and his overall experience and historical performances (albeit mainly at a lower level I appreciate) but who knows? This is the big issue for me; If true, why does Wael hire managers with such different styles, thus creating a much longer transition period? You would have thought he had in his mind, a way of his football club playing, and hire managers to suit that style? |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Feb 1, 2021 12:41:37 GMT
There is absolutely no evidence for this. It's just sentimental, emotional and irrational. We all thought that when we were relegated to the 4th division for the first time. The evidence is above....1.38 PPG including playing Peterborough, Fleetwood and Hull. Ignoring the clear facts is just flat earthing. It's one thing having some stats, but you have to be careful of using stats selectively in order to 'prove' the points you wish to prove. It's pretty clear you're choosing numbers that suit your argument and ignoring the ones that don't. Why not quote the twelve or thirteen matches we went without winning under BG. Pretty sure you would have quoted that if it applied to PT, in the same way you've been selective (and inaccurate actually) on other stats. Why is losing five matches in a row objectively significant (and BG lost five out of six only saved by a cup draw) but going twelve matches without winning not worth mentioning? |
|
