Steero113 Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 13 hours ago, Kiwivillan said: FMD I've heard of FML for **** my life but what is this you now speak of? **** my Dad?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 2 minutes ago, Condimentalist said: You'd advise him to win more games? How much do you charge for that? The business of being good at everything is unlikely in view of the praise I gave him, I thought it would be remiss of me to not mention something he could improve on. don't panic, it wasn't a criticism, just an observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 (edited) 31 minutes ago, TRO said: Nick, you can't cherry pick, else the calculation has no value.....also other managers have anomalies too, so the comparions become fruitless. Biesla's win ratio is 52.1 % after 144 games at Leeds...... Thomas Frank is 48% after 150 games, (sure he has been in the championship much of the time) , but he also has a weaker squad (that goes with it), than ours....Nuno had a 47% ratio at Wolves after 199 games. If I was Deans adviser, I would be suggesting he gets his numbers up a bit. You're cherry picking mate, you are using unfair comparisons to compare. Of course Frank and Biesla will have better win ratios because being one of the best teams in a division you will have better ratios. Having a starting base of 150 games in the Championship to get a win ratio like Frank means the next 30 odd games isnt going to impact his ratio being one of the worst teams in the higher division as much as Smith who had 25 Villa games in 2018/19 before being one of the worst teams in the higher division. Your calculation has no value because you arent comparing like for like. It's not an anomaly as you state it's a fundamental difference because if you are one of the best in the division at the outset your win ratios is likely to be higher over that season whereas if you are one of the worst then your win ratio is going to be lower. The baulk of Bielsa stats is being one of the best teams in the Championship and the same with Frank. I think we've had this discussion before if memory serves me correctly, you think it should be over their tenure whereas I think it should be based on shorter periods like seasons based on comparable quality of squads. Bielsa out performed Smith on a like for like squad on a win ratios last season, that's a fair comparison but then you cant compare Frank when he's one of the best Championship teams last season to Villa who are a mid table team, that's just bonkers. If Brentford get relegated this season and we end up mid table then Frank is still more likely to have a better win ratios over Smith but does that say anything about either manager? of course not, all you can say is that Frank has a more predictable win ratio in his early tenure at Brentford whereas Smith got us up quicker than expected, had a obvious hard relegation fighting season and then a midtable season the following season. Win ratios stats only make sense for established teams in the same division over time. Teams that have yoyo'd between divisions recently, the win ratio becomes a non-sensical stat because you arent comparing apples with apples and it's definitely not an anomaly because anomaly is short time frames, not whole seasons. Also it doesnt balance out over the 3 or 4 years because as I said Frank and Bielsa have an easier starting base of a couple of seasons or more in the Championship being one of the best teams whereas Smith got us up after ~25 games and then was one of the worst teams in the higher league. For Dean, being successful early on and getting us promoted has harmed his win ratio stat over his tenure so surely that stat has no value because it makes it nonsense. The only way win ratios work is comparable squad/league comparisons. Of course if I was Dean's advisor I would be suggesting he gets his numbers up a bit but that's obvious but nothing to do with his win ratio stats over his tenure, that's more about continued progression. Anyway as I said I think we discussed this before about win ratio stat over tenure and we dont agree so I wont go on about it anymore. Edited September 3, 2021 by nick76 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derryvillan Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 35 minutes ago, Steero113 said: I've heard of FML for **** my life but what is this you now speak of? **** my Dad?? Days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 Could be one of the rare things the whole of VT agrees on: Dean Smith should target a higher win % this season. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillanousOne Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 We can't hold Dean responsible for what are some of the most dire circumstances we've had at the start of a season and they keep getting worse with the Argentine manager being a prick. Plus we don't know how bad Konsa's injury is. It might be another month or two before we can judge what Dean can do with the squad now available to him. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Zatman Posted September 3, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted September 3, 2021 1 hour ago, TRO said: Nick, you can't cherry pick, else the calculation has no value.....also other managers have anomalies too, so the comparions become fruitless. Biesla's win ratio is 52.1 % after 144 games at Leeds...... Thomas Frank is 48% after 150 games, (sure he has been in the championship much of the time) , but he also has a weaker squad (that goes with it), than ours....Nuno had a 47% ratio at Wolves after 199 games. If I was Deans adviser, I would be suggesting he gets his numbers up a bit. Yet Dean managed only 30 Championship games. Nuno 46, Bielsa 94 and Frank about 145 Might blinker the stats 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villalad21 Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 17 minutes ago, Zatman said: Yet Dean managed only 30 Championship games. Nuno 46, Bielsa 94 and Frank about 145 Might blinker the stats 39. 86 win percentage with Brentford in over 100 games. Outstanding performance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 How can you look at win percentage in isolation? Surely you have to consider the team that the manager took over. For example when he took over Brentford they had just sacked 2 managers and and were struggling in the championship. When he left them they were a team regularly contending for a playoff place, something the next manager was able to build on. This is not a defence of Smith. Just comparing win percentages without looking at the context makes no sense in my opinion. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post YouUnastanFren Posted September 3, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted September 3, 2021 1 hour ago, Zatman said: Yet Dean managed only 30 Championship games. Nuno 46, Bielsa 94 and Frank about 145 Might blinker the stats Well that's his own bloody fault, I would advise Smith to go back in time and not get promoted so quickly so he could get his win % within the acceptable range. 3 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_avfc Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 3 hours ago, nick76 said: You're cherry picking mate, you are using unfair comparisons to compare. Of course Frank and Biesla will have better win ratios because being one of the best teams in a division you will have better ratios. Having a starting base of 150 games in the Championship to get a win ratio like Frank means the next 30 odd games isnt going to impact his ratio being one of the worst teams in the higher division as much as Smith who had 25 Villa games in 2018/19 before being one of the worst teams in the higher division. Your calculation has no value because you arent comparing like for like. It's not an anomaly as you state it's a fundamental difference because if you are one of the best in the division at the outset your win ratios is likely to be higher over that season whereas if you are one of the worst then your win ratio is going to be lower. The baulk of Bielsa stats is being one of the best teams in the Championship and the same with Frank. I think we've had this discussion before if memory serves me correctly, you think it should be over their tenure whereas I think it should be based on shorter periods like seasons based on comparable quality of squads. Bielsa out performed Smith on a like for like squad on a win ratios last season, that's a fair comparison but then you cant compare Frank when he's one of the best Championship teams last season to Villa who are a mid table team, that's just bonkers. If Brentford get relegated this season and we end up mid table then Frank is still more likely to have a better win ratios over Smith but does that say anything about either manager? of course not, all you can say is that Frank has a more predictable win ratio in his early tenure at Brentford whereas Smith got us up quicker than expected, had a obvious hard relegation fighting season and then a midtable season the following season. Win ratios stats only make sense for established teams in the same division over time. Teams that have yoyo'd between divisions recently, the win ratio becomes a non-sensical stat because you arent comparing apples with apples and it's definitely not an anomaly because anomaly is short time frames, not whole seasons. Also it doesnt balance out over the 3 or 4 years because as I said Frank and Bielsa have an easier starting base of a couple of seasons or more in the Championship being one of the best teams whereas Smith got us up after ~25 games and then was one of the worst teams in the higher league. For Dean, being successful early on and getting us promoted has harmed his win ratio stat over his tenure so surely that stat has no value because it makes it nonsense. The only way win ratios work is comparable squad/league comparisons. Of course if I was Dean's advisor I would be suggesting he gets his numbers up a bit but that's obvious but nothing to do with his win ratio stats over his tenure, that's more about continued progression. Anyway as I said I think we discussed this before about win ratio stat over tenure and we dont agree so I wont go on about it anymore. Couldn't agree more with this but I'd add that I think comparing managers win percentages is pretty pointless in almost any situation. Having a really high win percentage when you're playing Championship football having just signed the captain of Porto and other Champions League players is pretty predictable. Ironically if Leeds had got promoted rather than us then it would have given Smith another season to try and boost that all important win percentage and probably would have seen Bielsa's win percentage decrease from what it is. If that doesn't sum up how meaningless the comparison is then I don't know what does. I'd rather look subjectively at how a manager is performing with the resources available to them. Given what Smith has achieved here there's very few managers who I'd say have done a better job than him. The fact that people are picking managers like Bielsa (who has also done an exceptional job) to compare him to highlights how good a job Smith is doing to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 2 hours ago, nick76 said: You're cherry picking mate, you are using unfair comparisons to compare. Of course Frank and Biesla will have better win ratios because being one of the best teams in a division you will have better ratios. Having a starting base of 150 games in the Championship to get a win ratio like Frank means the next 30 odd games isnt going to impact his ratio being one of the worst teams in the higher division as much as Smith who had 25 Villa games in 2018/19 before being one of the worst teams in the higher division. Your calculation has no value because you arent comparing like for like. It's not an anomaly as you state it's a fundamental difference because if you are one of the best in the division at the outset your win ratios is likely to be higher over that season whereas if you are one of the worst then your win ratio is going to be lower. The baulk of Bielsa stats is being one of the best teams in the Championship and the same with Frank. I think we've had this discussion before if memory serves me correctly, you think it should be over their tenure whereas I think it should be based on shorter periods like seasons based on comparable quality of squads. Bielsa out performed Smith on a like for like squad on a win ratios last season, that's a fair comparison but then you cant compare Frank when he's one of the best Championship teams last season to Villa who are a mid table team, that's just bonkers. If Brentford get relegated this season and we end up mid table then Frank is still more likely to have a better win ratios over Smith but does that say anything about either manager? of course not, all you can say is that Frank has a more predictable win ratio in his early tenure at Brentford whereas Smith got us up quicker than expected, had a obvious hard relegation fighting season and then a midtable season the following season. Win ratios stats only make sense for established teams in the same division over time. Teams that have yoyo'd between divisions recently, the win ratio becomes a non-sensical stat because you arent comparing apples with apples and it's definitely not an anomaly because anomaly is short time frames, not whole seasons. Also it doesnt balance out over the 3 or 4 years because as I said Frank and Bielsa have an easier starting base of a couple of seasons or more in the Championship being one of the best teams whereas Smith got us up after ~25 games and then was one of the worst teams in the higher league. For Dean, being successful early on and getting us promoted has harmed his win ratio stat over his tenure so surely that stat has no value because it makes it nonsense. The only way win ratios work is comparable squad/league comparisons. Of course if I was Dean's advisor I would be suggesting he gets his numbers up a bit but that's obvious but nothing to do with his win ratio stats over his tenure, that's more about continued progression. Anyway as I said I think we discussed this before about win ratio stat over tenure and we dont agree so I wont go on about it anymore. respectfully Nick, I don't agree with you....its as good a measure as it gets. The Thomas Frank study is inaccurate....if he turned out to be unsuccessful, that would be reflective in his ratio's, its only because he has been successful you question it.....I accept to a degree, what you are saying, but its still a popular benchmark to glean from. There are teams that come up from the championship like a steam train as in Nuno's & Biesla's case and give themselves a better chance of securing good ratio's, but you can't be making cases for every one, when it suits. Like all measurements, they can be challenged.....but they are usually conducted as a guideline, you can either use them or discard them....I don't think the industry would be interested in producing them, if they thought as you have proposed....there is no caveate to say across leagues or not counting abroad...that is not in the spirit of the representation. I would hazard a guess if Dean was between 45-50% he would be looking for a pay rise, and I wouldn't blame him either. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 (edited) 7 minutes ago, TRO said: its as good a measure as it gets. It’s just not though! Seems other agree with me which not conclusive but suggests that you may not be correct. Edited September 3, 2021 by nick76 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 4 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said: You’d be suggesting to Dean Smith that he should win more games? I really think you should make every effort to get that message to Dean…..I’m sure it would be a life changing moment for him. so do you think he shouldn't? do you have his number? It might be a life changing moment, if he doesn't improve it....his missus might kick him out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_avfc Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 16 minutes ago, TRO said: respectfully Nick, I don't agree with you....its as good a measure as it gets. The Thomas Frank study is inaccurate....if he turned out to be unsuccessful, that would be reflective in his ratio's, its only because he has been successful you question it.....I accept to a degree, what you are saying, but its still a popular benchmark to glean from. There are teams that come up from the championship like a steam train as in Nuno's & Biesla's case and give themselves a better chance of securing good ratio's, but you can't be making cases for every one, when it suits. Like all measurements, they can be challenged.....but they are usually conducted as a guideline, you can either use them or discard them....I don't think the industry would be interested in producing them, if they thought as you have proposed....there is no caveate to say across leagues or not counting abroad...that is not in the spirit of the representation. I would hazard a guess if Dean was between 45-50% he would be looking for a pay rise, and I wouldn't blame him either. His win percentage in the Premier League last season was 42%. One extra win would have got him to 44.7% so as close to the magic 45% mark as you could get. If we'd got that extra win we'd have finished in exactly the same position as we did anyway. I don't really get what a win percentage is supposed to show that looking at finishing positions in the table doesn't. The easiest way to look at the progress a club is making is to look at their finishing positions in the table in comparison to expectations. In my opinion we dramatically outperformed what I was expecting from last season and, having lost our best player, a similar finishing position this season would be a good showing. If we finish in the top half then I couldn't really care less if Smith's win percentage is higher or lower than any other manager in the league. We finished two places higher than Wolves last season - am I supposed to care that Nuno has a higher win percentage at Wolves than Smith at Villa? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 3 minutes ago, tom_avfc said: His win percentage in the Premier League last season was 42%. One extra win would have got him to 44.7% so as close to the magic 45% mark as you could get. If we'd got that extra win we'd have finished in exactly the same position as we did anyway. I don't really get what a win percentage is supposed to show that looking at finishing positions in the table doesn't. The easiest way to look at the progress a club is making is to look at their finishing positions in the table in comparison to expectations. In my opinion we dramatically outperformed what I was expecting from last season and, having lost our best player, a similar finishing position this season would be a good showing. If we finish in the top half then I couldn't really care less if Smith's win percentage is higher or lower than any other manager in the league. We finished two places higher than Wolves last season - am I supposed to care that Nuno has a higher win percentage at Wolves than Smith at Villa? I was answering another poster....am I supposed to care what you care, (but it was a mere part of an example)....but that would be a bit rude wouldn't it and we are not rude are we Tom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_avfc Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 1 minute ago, TRO said: I was answering another poster....am I supposed to care what you care, (but it was a mere part of an example)....but that would be a bit rude wouldn't it and we are not rude are we Tom? Apologies wasn't meant as a dig. Was more a response to the general comparisons being made of varying manager's win percentages. As far as I'm concerned the team's position in the table is what matters and how those develop over a manager's time at a club given the resources that manager has to work with. Looking at win percentages stretching back over 100 games or 3 seasons worth of football doesn't really inform people of how a manager is performing at a given time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 7 minutes ago, tom_avfc said: Apologies wasn't meant as a dig. Was more a response to the general comparisons being made of varying manager's win percentages. As far as I'm concerned the team's position in the table is what matters and how those develop over a manager's time at a club given the resources that manager has to work with. Looking at win percentages stretching back over 100 games or 3 seasons worth of football doesn't really inform people of how a manager is performing at a given time. I don't think you would refer to win percentages to discuss how a manager is performing at a given time, they might be used in an interview for another job or a case for a pay rise.....I think the more games you can cover the more the anomalies average out....In the end they don't lie....They reflect what you are. I would suspect if we took on another manager ( hope we don't) and he had low win percentages, it could pose a bit of a risk....if we took on a manager with high win ratio's the expectation may be commensurate. I think it is folly, to think they are meaningless, when the football industry produces and uses them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 16 hours ago, The Fun Factory said: Er even Ron Saunders only just got above 45% (45.6%) with Villa. If Deano gets a 50% win percentage I would be staggered. Graham Taylor first era was 45.77. Big Ron and John Gregory got 43% odd, with O'Neill at 42% and Little at 41.5%. I couldn't be bothered to look at the rest as I suspect they would be deeply mediocre. If Smith gets about a 42-43% win percentage that would be very good and we would be looking at being a top 6-8 side again. That shows how good Graham Taylor did in his first spell when you consider the state of the club when he took over. Promotion to 2nd in the top flight within three years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_avfc Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 10 minutes ago, TRO said: I don't think you would refer to win percentages to discuss how a manager is performing at a given time, they might be used in an interview for another job or a case for a pay rise.....I think the more games you can cover the more the anomalies average out....In the end they don't lie....They reflect what you are. I would suspect if we took on another manager ( hope we don't) and he had low win percentages, it could pose a bit of a risk....if we took on a manager with high win ratio's the expectation may be commensurate. I think it is folly, to think they are meaningless, when the football industry produces and uses them. The football industry produces a lot of stats - how meaningful and how widely used a lot of these stats are is pretty questionable. Looking at somebody's win percentage doesn't tell you anything though without recognising the state of the club that a manager is working at and has historically been working at. Sean Dyche has a 36% win ratio. Given that he has spent a long time at Burnley keeping them in the division whilst spending very little money I can see why a team of similar stature would seek to hire him. By the same token other managers will have higher win percentages purely because they were at bigger clubs. Its far easier to assess a managers performance by looking at what they have achieved in terms of league finishes etc. than to look at a win percentage figure. If Smith continues to achieve for us then he will be rewarded with pay rises based on how Villa perform and whether we continue to progress not because he's raised a win percentage to a certain level. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts