pink_triangle

What do you think it was about? I thought it was pretty clear the point they were making. Why would it be perceived more negatively by Newcastle fans? I got the impression most accept that human rights abuses take place in Saudi Arabia. Surely Newcastle fans support the right to protest. I also agree it's stupid that it needed a referral. Who is the person who complains about a sign protesting human rights abuse.

Police are now investigating a Crystal Palace banner highlighting human right abuses in Saudi Arabia. My view is the right to protest should be protected, this is a complete waste of police time.

It feels that Buendia was such an influential player for them that it was always going to be tough to replace that influence. Oh well they can swap with WBA or Fulham for 2022/2023 before swapping back the following year.

The media ask managers meaningless questions every week. As I have said this week they were asking Klopp and OGS who the best player is out of Salah and Ronaldo. The meaningless questions are then countered by meaningless answers. Most weeks Newcastle fans would accept that and just ignore like the rest of us. It just happens this week they are reading into things that really don't need reading into.

I don't think many are arguing who was the better manager. I think if you polled premiership fans who they would have between Benitez and Bruce most would choose the former by a significant margin. I think the argument is more that the stats dont really reflect one being amazing and the other terrible. I think an argument can be made to support that viewpoint, however as I have said consistently today I am very dubious how football fans use statistics.

If you were to ask me what would be a sensible qualifying criteria in terms of games managed. I would say one that covers 50 % of premiership managers rather than 5-10%. Although you could argue that this would still end up excluding a lot of the worst who wouldn't get to this level.

You actually dropped it to a criteria that decreased the amount of people who met the criteria, not increased it! Edit my mistake I miscounted and I think that both criteria are pretty much equal in terms of the amount of managers who meet them. Still is definitely not a significant widening so I think point stands.

As a scientist silly interpretation of statistics is something that should always be called out and is something football fans and politicians are particularly guilty of. If 1000 games is sensible, why is 1400 not. Where is the line?

Looking at those managerial statistics from earlier I think we need to re-evaluate the career of Brian Clough. I think of all the managers who have managed 1400 games and managed in the the premiership he is second worst.

It said something along the lines of not since Hillsborough have fans had to put up with a campaign against them from the media. I can't remember exact wording.

The fact he even thought (before being pressured to take down) it was a valid comparison is beyond me.

https://www.themag.co.uk/2021/10/this-appalling-treatment-of-newcastle-united-fans/ Its horrific that they even mention Hillsborough when talking about treatment of Newcastle fans, they should really take this down.

No I don't think he has done enough in his career to justify the job. I think there are managers with similar qualifications (including the man utd incumbent) but don't think they should have got their jobs either. I also wouldnt want him to get another premiership job as I would prefer someone new to get a job. He has had his time, had an overall decent run, but I would rather the next generation of managers get an opportunity.

The thing is neutral is good enough for most premiership teams. Most teams are happy just to finish in the position that reflects their wage budget.

I thought we were judging on a career and not a season. As I have said I think Bruce has had a solid but mixed career based on the resources he has had at his disposal. Many Newcastle fans seem to think that anyone who doesn't think Bruce has had a terrible career think he has had an amazing one. I think very few have that viewpoint.

On that basis did moneybag clubs give Lampard, Di Matteo, OGS and Grant a go because of their amazing track records? Of course things are not that simple. However very few (if anyone) have said Bruce deserved a job at a big club. However it is oversimplistic to say every manager belongs in the great or shit territory. Bruce is one of many who is somewhere in the middle.

I am quite happy to judge reasonable evidence, but the 2 most recent pieces of evidence you have used rate on points per game (a metric I don't believe fairly ranks managers) and ridiculous inclusion/exclusion criteria which eliminate 90+ percent of managers who have ever managed in the league. I think it's quite subjective how many games we think we would need to judge a premiership manager, nobody however would set that bar at 300 league games or 1000 games in total.

While the point is winning it's clearly easier for some managers to win than others. If we compare win percentage in absolute terms then we are suggesting that it is just as easy for Farke or Dyche to win a premiership match as Pep or Tuchel. Nobody with any knowledge of football believes that to be true.

I will take them one at a time. The 1000 game one is a massively flawed use of statistics. The statistics are a rank of a managers win percentage which is not the same as a managers ability. As I have said before my belief is wage budget as a far bigger factor regarding win percentage than perceived managerial ability. Also by setting the criteria at 1000 you automatically eliminate the vast majority of managers who have managed in the league. I think most would also accept it's unlikely that the worst Premiership managers would have got to 1000 games. My view is everyone on that list has solid accomplishments just for getting to 1000 games. As for the second list it again uses win percentage which again I do not accept as a useful way of comparing managers. Compare the win percentage of Lampard and Dyche, the former is much greater and you can draw no conclusion. Also by setting the criteria at 300 games you are again massively reducing your sample size, as only a tiny proportion of premiership managers (all British) reach that amount. Again Newcastle fans are not using these stats to form a balanced view of Bruce, they are using them to support pre determined views, without any analysis of what the statistics really reflect. If I want to use statistics to judge Bruce in comparison with other managers. I am definitely not setting the threshold as high as 300 premiership games. I would also use a metric which somehow compares points to finances which would be far more meaningful than the meaningless (but simple)points per game.

Nope your exact wording was statistically one of the worst managers ever. When I asked what statistics you were basing it on, you linked to statistics which did not prove the point you were making. I am listening and if you are able to explain why managers need to manage 1000 games to be considered amongst the worst ever and why win percentage is a good way to compare managers. I am open to changing my mind about Bruce who I regard as a middling Premiership manager with a mixed track record.

I honestly can't remember a single person saying he was an amazing manager. Neither is he one of the worst managers the premier League has seen. However having a top job does not mean you are an amazing manager. I use Lampard, Avram Grant, OGS, Roy Evans as evidence.

Come on you stated you had some statistics that showed Bruce was statistically the worst manager. The statistics you linked did not show that. Now someone has called out your stats rather than countering you just say you can't be arsed discussing. That's the reply of someone who doesn't have an answer. If you believe those stats support Bruce being statistically the worst manager explain why. The key questions are why do you need to manage 1000 games to qualify to be the worst manager and why is win percentage the correct marker to judge a manager. I am willing to be persuaded to your argument if you can justify either point. In terms of your point about the managers with the most money winning the most points, just look at the final table every season and look at the trend. Even look at those 1000 games stats and who is in the top and bottom half. Do you think it's pure coincidence that the managers who have had the biggest spending power are generally at the top

I would also argue a club having a bad spell is not always down to the manager. I have no doubt the manager makes a difference, but finances is a far greater factor. It's not as easy as looking through a manager (Bruce or anyone) and looking at their w-d-l record. There are loads of factors involved.

Above you said statistically one of the worst ever. Those statistics do not show what you have stated. The exclusion criteria is managers who have managed 999 games are less ,which no statistician trying to rank managers would ever consider using. All the statistics that you link show is that Bruce has the second lowest win percentage of managers who have done 1000 games, it is not any ranking of managerial ability. If you look at the list what it basically shows is a trend that the managers with the most money win the most games, who would have thought it! The record of Bruce is in line with the others who have managed similar club. Any statistic like win percentage that compares OGS and Sean Dyche in the same way is clearly massively flawed, that's before you use the ridiculous exclusion criteria that those statistics do. What the statistics you link are basically just Newcastle fans looking for statistics to fit in with a predetermined view. They in no way judge managerial capability.

What statistics are you using to make that judgement?