• limpid

      Just visiting?   27/12/16

      Please click "Sign Up" and login to use the full functionality of the site.

briny_ear

Full Members
  • Content count

    8,083
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

briny_ear last won the day on June 2 2014

briny_ear had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,254 Excellent

About briny_ear

  • Rank
    Star Player

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Steve Bruce

    So he's not available.
  2. Tony Xia

    Oh crikey.
  3. Steve Bruce

    What possible reason could Rodgers have for coming to Villa? There is far too much delusional talk in this thread.
  4. Steve Bruce

    I have this vision: "The President has made clear that 19th place is nearer to 6th place than 13th is! FACT! PERIOD!"
  5. Steve Bruce

    Editing while I remember how to post an image online
  6. Steve Bruce

    OK, it finishes here for me. I've tried to explain this to you in terms of extreme simplicity, but you still haven't got it. So you can take comfort from your belief that RDM's performance as a manager, which achieved less than 1 point per game and dragged us down to the edge of the relegation zone, is best judged by the obscure fact that, at that stage in the season, he was 10 points off 6th. Maybe you are disappointed he didn't stay to complete the job? I usually avoid this thread because the widespread specious use of statistics to try to back up opinions drives me to despair. I only started reading it today because I am laid up ill and was bored. I won't be back tomorrow! The rest of your post which I didn't quote suggests that in your opinion RDM a better manager than Bruce. You are absolutely entitled to that opinion and you use anecdotal and selective evidence to support it. What you mustn't do is take one tiny and obscure aspect of the statistics of our performance and blow that out of all proportion to try to give some pretence of factual basis to your opinions. In a strong sense it actually weakens your argument because the misuse of statistics is so easily dismissed.
  7. Steve Bruce

    Sigh. True statement, false analysis. Chelsea just won the premier league but lost more games than Spurs in 2nd. So nobody counts and gives trophies for the number of games you lost. You win the premier league if you get enough points. Chelsea got more points so win it. RDM may have "only" lost 3 games but he "only" won one and "only" got 10 points from 11. Which of these do you think is the most relevant statistic?
  8. Steve Bruce

    So I write all that, glance back up the thread and there is a perfect example of the false analysis! "Only" 3 games lost??? it doesn't matter how many games we "only" lost - we only had 10 points from 11 games and we were spiralling towards the relegation zone! That form would actually have got us relegated. D C Jonah, your comments sound a lot like the complacent, delusional remarks RDM was given to making after every new setback - dominated the game, just a bit of bad luck in defence, etc. In my view it was actually that self-deception that got him the sack in the end. Not the poor results but the fact that he couldn't accept how much needed to be done to improve things.
  9. Steve Bruce

    It's simple maths but false analysis. If your aim is to achieve a particular position in the table, how many points you have is irrelevant. You just have to achieve the position. We didn't, we came 13th. Coming 13th would have been just as much a failure if we had been 5, 10 or 18 points off. So Bruce's 13th was nearer to 6th than Di Matteo's 19th. They both failed but Bruce got us nearer to success. These attempts to paint Di Matteo's time here as more successful than Bruce's are laughable. They pick irrelevant statistics such as percentage of losses (what matters is points per match) or "number of points away from 6th place" and regard those as the only statistics that matter. They don't. Bruce got more points per match (nearly 1.5) than Di Matteo (0.9) and got us nearer to the minimum target of 6th place (13th not 19th). This was of course not good enough, as Bruce has said. He expected to get into the playoffs. It always looked like a two-season job to me so I'm less surprised than he is that he failed. But the idea being spread on this thread that when he took over we were in good shape to get to the playoffs is just ludicrous. We were 19th with 10 points from 11 games, with an unbalanced squad that didn't know how to win games. I don't think we will be celebrating the Di Matteo era in years to come.
  10. Steve Bruce

    Anyone who doesn't appreciate that the club Bruce became manager of was a basket case with a long history of deterioration and a fairly disastrous false start in the Championship ( squad membership, manager and results) is living in la-la-land. Warnock would likely be in a nursing home by now if he had tried to take on our club.
  11. Steve Bruce

    Apert from the obvious issue of what is the point of the comparison? He wasn't managing Aston Villa so we don't know how he would have performed with us.
  12. Steve Bruce

    Maybe he's one of these "progressive" managers we hear so much about?
  13. Steve Bruce

    If I were still handing out Old Briny's "dodgy statistics" awards, this one, which has been repeated over and over again, would have won the Oscar. (I've given up handing out awards because the bogus and facile statistics regularly thrown around in this thread alone would have made it a full time job.) The hint is in the phrase "play off positions". So to qualify you need to end up at least in 6th position. When di Matteo left, we were in 19th position, 13 places below the playoffs. By the end of the season we were 13th position, so 7 places below the playoffs. So by the end of the season we were nearer the playoff positions than when di Matteo was ejected. This is a very simple fact that can't be altered by playing around with other stats. if you have read all I have posted this morning you will see that I am not simply saying that di Matteo left us with too much to do. Rather 5 years of abysmal board policy and management, systematic turbulence in and downgrading of the squad, and a dismal start to the season by di Matteo on top of that left us more or less stranded. Having two managers and bringing in 14 new players while shipping out 17 probably didn't help towards a strong and stable campaign either.