sadoldgit Posted 26 February, 2016 Share Posted 26 February, 2016 Is he still going on about it? Jeez Yeah, a bit like you and Pelle. Jeez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 26 February, 2016 Share Posted 26 February, 2016 Humour us. What exactly are you suggesting his win percentage is evidence of? There are old men managing over 50s pub teams on a Sunday morning who have a 90% win rate. Would you say they are of a higher calibre than Burley? I thought we were talking about whether he was a shyte manager for us or not? I am not sure what the old men managing pub teams have to do with anything. I think that stats about Saints managers are relevant though. I would say that it is important for a manager to win games, wouldn't you? And if you win a lot of games it means that you are quite good doesn't it? If you were to define the top six Saints managers purely by the win per games ratio then they would be Adkins, Pardew, Koeman, Hoddle, Burley and McMenemy. But I am guessing that you would say at least one of that number was shyte so lets not bother with this anymore eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 26 February, 2016 Share Posted 26 February, 2016 Nigel Pearson lost 5% more of his games than Harry Redknapp did. Are you saying that if the periods of their tenure had been changed Pearson would have kept us up? Nigel Pearson lost 4 matches. Harry Redknapp lost 15. How does that equate to Pearson losing 5% more games? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 26 February, 2016 Share Posted 26 February, 2016 Nigel Pearson lost 4 matches. Harry Redknapp lost 15. How does that equate to Pearson losing 5% more games? Well done. It must make you day. As you have pointed out, I should have said he had a 5% worse win ratio. I am such a terrible person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wadesmith Posted 26 February, 2016 Share Posted 26 February, 2016 Can I just apologise to everyone. It was me who slightly took this thread off track when mentioning Saints Managers. I haven't posted in this section in years, and if I'd known that the smurfs posting above would start squabbling like two toddlers in a sand-pit I would never had posted at al.. Christ i'd heard this place had gone down-hill, but I didn't realise it was this bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 26 February, 2016 Share Posted 26 February, 2016 Well done. It must make you day. As you have pointed out, I should have said he had a 5% worse win ratio. I am such a terrible person. That's not what my PC said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 26 February, 2016 Share Posted 26 February, 2016 We're still waiting on Juanmi, "one for the future", was loved at Malaga and was breaking into the National squad but hasn't particularly "improved" significantly here. Yet. They still think very highly of him over there, there was a banner with his name at their game last weekend, can't see that happening for too many of our ex-players (left of pic top tier) Which pixel am I looking at now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 26 February, 2016 Share Posted 26 February, 2016 I thought we were talking about whether he was a shyte manager for us or not? I am not sure what the old men managing pub teams have to do with anything. I think that stats about Saints managers are relevant though. I would say that it is important for a manager to win games, wouldn't you? And if you win a lot of games it means that you are quite good doesn't it? If you were to define the top six Saints managers purely by the win per games ratio then they would be Adkins, Pardew, Koeman, Hoddle, Burley and McMenemy. But I am guessing that you would say at least one of that number was shyte so lets not bother with this anymore eh? Why would you define Saints managers by their win ratio? Might as well grade them by their hair styles for all the relevance it bares. To put it into perspective, Van Gaal has a better W/D/L ratio than Koeman this season. Does that hold any bearing on who has performed better this season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redslo Posted 26 February, 2016 Share Posted 26 February, 2016 Why would you define Saints managers by their win ratio? Might as well grade them by their hair styles for all the relevance it bares. To put it into perspective, Van Gaal has a better W/D/L ratio than Koeman this season. Does that hold any bearing on who has performed better this season? But which one has the better hair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint-Armstrong Posted 26 February, 2016 Share Posted 26 February, 2016 One who has not improved as hoped... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 26 February, 2016 Share Posted 26 February, 2016 But which one has the better hair? Koeman wins that one easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 27 February, 2016 Share Posted 27 February, 2016 Koeman wins that one easily. His point about united stands though, win percentages without context are meaningless and many people believe burley was shyte (for us just before you go off on one again) because he hugely underachieved with the resources at his disposal, scraping us into the playoffs at the last second and playing poorly for the most part with a load of players out of position. You may disagree with that point of view but it doesn't make it wrong, it's just a differing of opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 27 February, 2016 Share Posted 27 February, 2016 I have never said that the win percentages are the be all and end all but they do give an objective way of measuring a performance - as does the football league. Points on the board. You can say scraped in but it is the points total that counts and we finished sixth and qualified for the play offs. If you wanted to be picky you could say that we scraped promotion both times because we came second and not first. I have accepted that I am in a minority about Burley but as you say, it is all a matter of opinion, which we are all allowed to have, and is totally subjective. For the record, although Burley has a better win ratio than McMenemy, McMenemy was clearly a more successful manager. Its a no brainer. Other distinctions are not so clear cut and fall to personal preference. I expect a manager to win matches and to put out teams to play decent football. You say that Burley "higely underachieved." I would say that wasn't the case given that we qualified for the play offs and missed the final on penalties. If you think that is a huge underachievement that is your opinion. I disagree. Can we move on now please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 27 February, 2016 Share Posted 27 February, 2016 But you are ignoring the state the club was in, players available etc Pearson had to contend with players like Pericard whereas Burley had internationals like Saga and Rasiak. Is it any surprise that the win ratios are so different? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 27 February, 2016 Share Posted 27 February, 2016 But you are ignoring the state the club was in, players available etc Pearson had to contend with players like Pericard whereas Burley had internationals like Saga and Rasiak. Is it any surprise that the win ratios are so different? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk And McMenemy had Keagan etc. Where do you draw the line? Every manager has to work with what he has and what he is up against. Adkins inherited some quality players when he took over from Pardew. Does that lessen his achievement? You can never measure like for like as everyone managed in different conditions. What you can say though is how many points they achieved. I have already said that the win ratio measurement is not the be all and end all. But it does give you a measure of performance. Teams that win leagues might not be the best, but they have the most points. To gain most points they have to show a measure of ability even if they are not as good as other teams. If you take your argument about the quality of players then perhaps we should slag off McMenemy as being shyte as he failed to win the league when at one point he had 4 ex England players in his team? If we want to talk about really shyte managers, lets talk about Branfoot and Redknapp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 27 February, 2016 Share Posted 27 February, 2016 I have never said that the win percentages are the be all and end all but they do give an objective way of measuring a performance - as does the football league. Points on the board. You can say scraped in but it is the points total that counts and we finished sixth and qualified for the play offs. If you wanted to be picky you could say that we scraped promotion both times because we came second and not first. I have accepted that I am in a minority about Burley but as you say, it is all a matter of opinion, which we are all allowed to have, and is totally subjective. For the record, although Burley has a better win ratio than McMenemy, McMenemy was clearly a more successful manager. Its a no brainer. Other distinctions are not so clear cut and fall to personal preference. I expect a manager to win matches and to put out teams to play decent football. You say that Burley "higely underachieved." I would say that wasn't the case given that we qualified for the play offs and missed the final on penalties. If you think that is a huge underachievement that is your opinion. I disagree. Can we move on now please? Anyone saying we "scraped promotion" from League One or the Championship would be regarded as a total fu cking idiot. Oh yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st alex Posted 2 March, 2016 Share Posted 2 March, 2016 It could be argued that Bournemouth improve players better than we do at the moment. They've taken a fair few players from the lower leagues and turned them into capable premier league players. In the past couple of years we've taken players from top european clubs and although it might seem like they've improved to us it might just be that they're just suddenly in the lime light (I at least have no real comparison, having never seen the likes of Soares, Pelle, Tadic, Juanmi, VVD, etc play before we signed them). 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