mrtourette Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said: LVG has spent a lot of mulla to have a worse record than Moyes as Utd manager. The thing is you can't just judge these things on numbers. The actual performances, team spirit and relationship with the media are so much b....no sorry I can't do it. Maybe allowing the players to have chips is keeping him around, or the fact he's happy to have the personality-vacuum that is Ryan Giggs sit on the bench and help stay connected to THE UNITED WAY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Nal Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) 15 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said: LVG has spent a lot of mulla to have a worse record than Moyes as Utd manager. Why are Utd not being as cut throat? Because they are embarrassed they fell for a big name? Or is it because they are waiting for a certain moment in the season when they can get rid and it would cost them less then now, say when its mathematically impossible for Utd to qualify for the CL? His record against the top teams is good. 29 points in 16 games against last seasons top 6. Its the style of football thats going to get him sacked though. 250m spent yet he sold all the strikers. RVP, Wilson, Hernandez, Welbz, Falcao. And he got rid of any attack minded non forwards too. Rafael was a liability at times but he got forward. And was sold for what... 2.5m or something? 16 minutes ago, mrtourette said: Yeah I know, I just hate this "the standard of the league is poor this year because none of the teams we thought were good are doing very well". It's incredible arrogance on the part of supporters of the big clubs, completely unaware that just because the 'good' teams aren't good or playing decent football that there aren't other teams coming through that fill that hole. Tottenham, Leicester and Stoke playing better, more clinical football than Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea doesn't mean the league is weak, it means you need to adjust your preconceptions about what is 'supposed' to happen. People give out about when its a Chelsea, Utd, Arsenal, City top 4 aswell. Can't win really. I find this year very exciting despite Utd being as bad as I've ever seen them. But Leicester, West Ham etc a breath of fresh air. Reminds me of the early Prem days when Villa, Blackburn and Norwich were good. And it was the same arguement - "oh they'll get hammered in Europe next season". I remember Norwich beating Bayern Munich. Edited January 25, 2016 by The Nal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomThomDrum Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 6 minutes ago, The Nal said: His record against the top teams is good. Butters no parsnips if ye aint beating the "lesser" teams too. I just find it amazing that after getting the "big name" and after spending so so much money (like it's really a stupid amount of money he has spent!) that at this point in the current season, compared to this point in the dark days of the Moyes season, Moyes' Utd had a better record/points tally and overall Moyes' Utd win % is better than LvG's overall win %. Its pretty perplexing stuff TBF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtourette Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 Unfortunately it seems to be an extension of the obsession with the Champions League at the expense of the domestic game. Who gives a shit if Leicester win the league but bow out of European Competition early next season? The domestic leagues being interesting should be the number one priority. Do people want the Premier League to be more like the Bundesliga or the Primera? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink_triangle Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 46 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said: I think thats probably due to the amount of hate toward/success had by the other team from Manchester I also think a lot of the city players and managers come across as decent blokes. Where a lot of the man utd and chelsea players came across as dicks, who knows maybe thats why they were succesfull. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Nal Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 1 minute ago, ThomThomDrum said: Its pretty perplexing stuff TBF. No its not. You don't commit men forward and don't take risks you don't score. And then you don't win. Managers will always keep it a bit tighter against the "top" teams. Hence why Utd have being nicking wins against them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomThomDrum Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) 4 minutes ago, The Nal said: No its not. I mean in general really. I can see with my own eyes why Utd are doing poorly. They are playing shit. Thats simple to understand. I just mean in the context of the big named manager and the big pockets resulting in fuck-all is pretty amazing stuff. Logic dictates that some improvement would happen getting in a big time experienced manager who has won at the highest level and allowing him to throw about tons of cash. Edited January 25, 2016 by ThomThomDrum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackarmy Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) 37 minutes ago, The Nal said: Everton have won 18 of their last 61 games under Martinez. Hes under big pressure now it seems. As is LVG obviously. Huge month coming up. Stoke, Sunderland, Chelsea, Arsenal and the Europe pisspot. Wouldn't be surprised to see him gone after another defeat. Which would be on Friday night against Derby. Martinez win ratio at Wigan - 29%. Martinez win ratio at Everton - 29%. Edited January 25, 2016 by jackarmy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomThomDrum Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 Just now, jackarmy said: Martinez win ratio at Wigan - 29%. Martinez win ration at Everton 29%. Wow, that really says it all..............is that stat legit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackarmy Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said: Wow, that really says it all..............is that stat legit? 18 wins in 61 games = 29% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Nal Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 8 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said: I mean in general really. I can see with my own eyes why Utd are doing poorly. They are playing shit. Thats simple to understand. I just mean in the context of the big named manager and the big pockets resulting in fuck-all is pretty amazing stuff. Logic dictates that some improvement would happen getting in a big time experienced manager who has won at the highest level and allowing him to throw about tons of cash. I know. Its (sadly) astonishing. But Utd/he/Woodward got rid of so many players and replaced them with relative cack. 8 minutes ago, jackarmy said: Martinez win ratio at Wigan - 29%. Martinez win ratio at Everton - 29%. Christ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink_triangle Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, jackarmy said: Martinez win ratio at Wigan - 29%. Martinez win ratio at Everton - 29%. I think stats like that need a bit fo context, you could argue that 29% win ratio isnt bad for a team whos aim is to reach 40 points a season. Its certainly not good enough for everton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtourette Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) I'm loathe to defend Martinez, but win % has always been a retarded measurement. Since when were league positions decided on win %? Winning 29% and drawing 70% is a hell of a lot different to winning 29% and drawing 1%. It's still not good enough, but win % doesn't even tell half a story. What's the comparison in points per game? Edited January 25, 2016 by mrtourette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtourette Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 29 minutes ago, pink_triangle said: I also think a lot of the city players and managers come across as decent blokes. Where a lot of the man utd and chelsea players came across as dicks, who knows maybe thats why they were succesfull. Certainly is the case for Man Utd/Man City. Also Man City have generally played exciting attacking football, whereas no matter what people try to insist in retrospect Man Utd never did. They were very effective in pressuring and closing, and then punishing on the break, and were far closer to how Chelsea played when they were successful to how Man City did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wooderson Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 1 hour ago, mrtourette said: Yeah I know, I just hate this "the standard of the league is poor this year because none of the teams we thought were good are doing very well". It's incredible arrogance on the part of supporters of the big clubs, completely unaware that just because the 'good' teams aren't good or playing decent football that there aren't other teams coming through that fill that hole. Tottenham, Leicester and Stoke playing better, more clinical football than Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea doesn't mean the league is weak, it means you need to adjust your preconceptions about what is 'supposed' to happen. Ive been saying the "best league in the world" stuff is horsepiss for years and years on here mate. Usually investment is linked to performance like most endeavors. The return on investment at LFC for example is fucking abysmal. In a league where the clubs investing most are outperformed by those with less resources why is that? Its down to poor choices, poor management. A poorly run league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtourette Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 A selection of poorly run clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eFestivals Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 43 minutes ago, mrtourette said: I'm loathe to defend Martinez, but win % has always been a retarded measurement. Since when were league positions decided on win %? Winning 29% and drawing 70% is a hell of a lot different to winning 29% and drawing 1%. It's still not good enough, but win % doesn't even tell half a story. What's the comparison in points per game? if you're getting into detail, surely the squad strength he has to work with is relevant? cos everton is a much better squad than wigan ever were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtourette Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 3 minutes ago, eFestivals said: if you're getting into detail, surely the squad strength he has to work with is relevant? cos everton is a much better squad than wigan ever were. Absolutely, there is so much more than just a simple number to be considered. And unless you have a formula for calculating the strength of a squad and what the return on that should be (taking into account of course the fluctuating squad strengths of all the other teams in the league as well as things like injuries, suspensions and transfers) then you will never have a definitive answer as to whether a team or manager has over- or under-performed, or done better in one situation that in another. In short, it's an opinion, and while at the moment its easy to come to the opinion that Everton 'should' be doing 'better', it's not easy to define how much better. Logic suggests that Martinez should be doing better at Everton than he did at Wigan. Is he? League positions suggest so. If so how much better should he be doing with Everton to be 'enough'? Because just doing 'better' clearly isn't enough. He couldn't organise a defense at Wigan so I'm not sure why the hell people expect him to be able to at Everton. He's got his team playing good attacking football and he is popular with his players while still struggling for consistency and can't instill a defensive mindset into players. This is the same as at Wigan, so it sounds like he's performing exactly as should have been expected. Is he under-performing as a manager, or is too much expected of an average manager? Can a team with an average manager ever be more than average? There's a lot of playing devil's advocate there of course, but there's a lot more to consider when weighing up performance against expectations that just a simple statistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtourette Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 1 hour ago, jackarmy said: Martinez win ratio at Wigan - 29%. Martinez win ratio at Everton - 29%. http://www.managerstats.co.uk/managers/roberto-martinez/ http://www.soccerbase.com/managers/manager.sd?manager_id=2075 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eFestivals Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 1 minute ago, mrtourette said: http://www.managerstats.co.uk/managers/roberto-martinez/ http://www.soccerbase.com/managers/manager.sd?manager_id=2075 Not sure there's much relevance to the Swansea stat, as that was in the Champs. And while the Everton stat since year zero is better than the stat for this season, surely this season is what's really relevant? After all, comparing the year-zero stat with this season only suggests he's making a decent team worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtourette Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 1 minute ago, eFestivals said: Not sure there's much relevance to the Swansea stat, as that was in the Champs. And while the Everton stat since year zero is better than the stat for this season, surely this season is what's really relevant? After all, comparing the year-zero stat with this season only suggests he's making a decent team worse. The Swansea stat is only in there as its part of the image. You're correct about the other point, but that's something different from the original claim that was comparing his record with Everton to his record with Wigan. If you're going to compare his record solely with Everton but season vs season then yes that would point to something else (although again you'd have to take in a lot more than just that one statistic). You probably should have asked that question of the guy who first posted the data, as yet again it shows that a single basic (and potentially flawed) statistic doesn't really show the true picture at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackarmy Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 1 hour ago, mrtourette said: The Swansea stat is only in there as its part of the image. You're correct about the other point, but that's something different from the original claim that was comparing his record with Everton to his record with Wigan. If you're going to compare his record solely with Everton but season vs season then yes that would point to something else (although again you'd have to take in a lot more than just that one statistic). You probably should have asked that question of the guy who first posted the data, as yet again it shows that a single basic (and potentially flawed) statistic doesn't really show the true picture at all. It does show that you can manipulate statistics in any way you choose to suit your agenda. As a Swansea fan, naturally I still hold a bit of an agenda against Roberto... I find it crazy that despite him never being able to organise a defence, two of his signings (Williams and Rangel) still make up half of our backline 8/9 years on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink_triangle Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 7 hours ago, mrtourette said: Can a team with an average manager ever be more than average? Lets be honest managerial ability (however you measure that) is far less of a factor than financial resources. I also think luck is a factor that is often underestimated. So much about the success of the likes of Ferguson and Mourinio is having the fortune to be in the right place at the right time. When people say there will never be a manager as good as Ferguson, I think its bollocks. There may not be managers who win as much, but the measuring stick for what makes a great manager will change as time goes on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingcrawler Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/jan/25/anchester-united-louis-van-gaal-resign-offer?CMP=twt_gu Fair play to Van Gaal if this is true for admitting that it's not working. Ed Woodward on the other hand... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonTom Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) On 1/24/2016 at 11:20 PM, Celery said: The fact you bothered to write that proves you're talking bollocks as usual. The level of delight at our failure this season illustrates just how much 10 odd years of big success has wound certain people up, particularly those who support teams who used to be successful - liverpool, west ham, etc... I'm sorry we cost you the title but you need to let it go now and move on. Erm when was this great period of success West Ham had? Edited January 25, 2016 by LondonTom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.