The value of managers

[Bugzy1991]

40 minutes ago, VillaChris said:

0-0 v Burnley must've been most predictable result of the season.

Their season is actually mirroring our year under McLeish. Getting to 25 points around xmas and wondering how on earth we did that, peaking for games like Chelsea and then the goals and wins start drying up around Feb.

We only finished on 38 points that season so can see Newcastle posting similar although will likely be enough to keep them up still.

They are going into matches now believing they won't score. If you don't you don't win so bad mentality to have at this stage of the season.

Yeh but it's Bruce ball and it isn't lucky...

 

how's mcliesh doing again? Sample size is hilarious. They deserve to go down and will go down next season if they keep Bruce in charge and playing the same way. Will happily bet money on it against people here who think Bruce is doing a good job.

[Genie]

8 minutes ago, Bugzy1991 said:

Yeh but it's Bruce ball and it isn't lucky...

 

how's mcliesh doing again? Sample size is hilarious. They deserve to go down and will go down next season if they keep Bruce in charge and playing the same way. Will happily bet money on it against people here who think Bruce is doing a good job.

Bruce will have been employed to keep Newcastle up this year. If he does that I’m sure his boss will be delighted and consider he has done a good job. Everyone said they were as good as down this year when he was appointed... gonna keep pushing it back year on year?

[Bugzy1991]

44 minutes ago, Genie said:

Bruce will have been employed to keep Newcastle up this year. If he does that I’m sure his boss will be delighted and consider he has done a good job. Everyone said they were as good as down this year when he was appointed... gonna keep pushing it back year on year?

This is dumb no offence. 

Are you confident Bruce can keep any team up? I'm sure they will hire him for the same next year. Will they get this lucky again over a short sample? 

Same as Pearson at Watford. 

Same as pulis with who ever team 

Same as Bruce with hull. 

 

 

 

[Genie]

17 minutes ago, Bugzy1991 said:

This is dumb no offence. 

Are you confident Bruce can keep any team up? I'm sure they will hire him for the same next year. Will they get this lucky again over a short sample? 

Same as Pearson at Watford. 

Same as pulis with who ever team 

Same as Bruce with hull. 

What are you on about?

Bruce has Newcastle in a really good place to stay up this year which was the number one objective. So yes, credit where it’s due. Same for Pearson, if he gets Watford to safety given their position when he came in then well done to him.

If either side stay up this year but go down next year then the clubs will have the £100m or so they wouldn’t have had if the manager hadn’t kept them up.

Not sure what Pulis or Hull have to do with anything.

[Bugzy1991]

They literally do have a lot to do with it? 

Unless you think 28 games is a good sample size to judge a manager over a team. Which is quite frankly, absurd. 

 

A few years ago we just witnessed a managerial masterclass by ranieri over a 38 game sample to make a team massively over achieve whilst the year before struggling to beat some welders and carpenters at international level. And there's idiots like me who think we shouldnt praise Bruce getting insanely lucky over a 28 game sample size. Maybe we should learn a few things about managers and sample size.

 

Surprised every team in the league didn't hire this  masterclass of a manager to win the league every year. Almost as if things arnt sustainable and people get stupidly lucky + don't deserve praise 

Edited February 29, 2020 by Bugzy1991

[Genie]

Alright mate. Lesson learned for me. 

[Genie]

19 minutes ago, S-Platt said:

Boring your way to safety is ok for some but not for me I prefer our way.  We might not make it but at least we will have been to Wembley and know we gave it our best shot.

My theory is that attractive football is a layer added to a well organised tough to be beat side. There’s no point trying to play sexy football, failing and losing.

I’d take survival at any cost as an owner of a club like Newcastle of West Ham, then once stabilised in the middle of the table add some flair and take some risks.

People like Bruce, Pearson, Big Sam etc are good for that first phase, but then move on once established.

[S-Platt]

7 hours ago, Genie said:

My theory is that attractive football is a layer added to a well organised tough to be beat side. There’s no point trying to play sexy football, failing and losing.

I’d take survival at any cost as an owner of a club like Newcastle of West Ham, then once stabilised in the middle of the table add some flair and take some risks.

People like Bruce, Pearson, Big Sam etc are good for that first phase, but then move on once established.

We had Bruce to build a solid base and Deano to add the excitement.  Ok it was the level below but last year was fun.

West Ham had Big Sam and Moyes then went to Premier League winning Manager Pellegrini before back to Moyes! They are no further forward.

I agree you need to be defensively solid to be successful Kevin Keegan had some great attacking teams but won bugger all.  

I think certain managers buy certain players to fit their ideals and going from one style to the next adds it's own issues. 

The best managers find a balance or adjust their tactics to the opposition.  Play the percentages.

Deano is learning the hard way but should we survive he will be better for it.  

Bruce is Bruce and will never change.

 

[kurtsimonw]

12 hours ago, Bugzy1991 said:

They literally do have a lot to do with it? 

Unless you think 28 games is a good sample size to judge a manager over a team. Which is quite frankly, absurd. 

 

A few years ago we just witnessed a managerial masterclass by ranieri over a 38 game sample to make a team massively over achieve whilst the year before struggling to beat some welders and carpenters at international level. And there's idiots like me who think we shouldnt praise Bruce getting insanely lucky over a 28 game sample size. Maybe we should learn a few things about managers and sample size.

 

Surprised every team in the league didn't hire this  masterclass of a manager to win the league every year. Almost as if things arnt sustainable and people get stupidly lucky + don't deserve praise 

So does Ranieri not deserve praise then, for arguably the biggest achievement in English football history? Because of his "sasmple size" being too small?

[Bugzy1991]

9 hours ago, kurtsimonw said:

So does Ranieri not deserve praise then, for arguably the biggest achievement in English football history? Because of his "sasmple size" being too small?

No? You think ranieri is capable of massively over achieving a side to win the title? I can't tell if this is serious? You think ranieri is responsible for that achievement?? 

Maybe we should give Walsh credit for recruiting Mahrez and Kante..

But wait...Walsh got hired by everton and then got sacked because his awful signings.

If you give ranieri credit for that...why should people who have unlimited money and need managers to over achieve like ranieri did , not hire him? 

Maybe it was ranieri offering pizza after a good win which made the difference. Like the usual evidence, no. He's just clueless

You guys need to learn how much luck is involved in football. 

 

Of course.genie likes that post .

 

At least we know that ranieri is good enough to over achieve to win title but is such a stupid manager that he can't beat carpenters at international level. 

Edited March 1, 2020 by Bugzy1991

[kurtsimonw]

Awful and clueless you say. I can definitely think of one person that applies to, and it certainly isn't Mr Ranieri.

[Stevo985]

2 hours ago, Bugzy1991 said:

No? You think ranieri is capable of massively over achieving a side to win the title? I can't tell if this is serious? You think ranieri is responsible for that achievement?? 

 

I can’t tell if this is a serious post?

 

[Kiwivillan]

12 hours ago, kurtsimonw said:

So does Ranieri not deserve praise then, for arguably the biggest achievement in English football history? Because of his "sasmple size" being too small?

Inherited Pearson team and the best scouts in the country at the time that got Mahrez and Kante on the cheap

[Keyblade]

3 hours ago, Bugzy1991 said:

You think ranieri is capable of massively over achieving a side to win the title?

He literally did it? You think it was just luck that Danny Simpson and Wes Morgan and co who were relegation fodder the year before became title winners by a margin of 10 points?

[Bugzy1991]

On 02/03/2020 at 06:42, Stevo985 said:

I can’t tell if this is a serious post?

 

Why. You think ranieri can over achieve like that? 

 

I can't tell if you guys are serious. Of course he gets 0 credit for it. Maybe like 3%. Why cant he do it at another team? Why was he a failure in his previous management? 

Whats difference between ranieri and some other counter attacking manager?

What was his credit? What did he do right? 

 

Why arnt you guys going crazy over Smith for not over achieving at villa? You think a manager can have that much of a swing on a teams results if you think ranieri deserves credit for that. Its just not realistic. 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Bugzy1991

[Stevo985]

18 minutes ago, Bugzy1991 said:

Why. You think ranieri can over achieve like that? 

 

I can't tell if you guys are serious. Of course he gets 0 credit for it. Maybe like 3%. Why cant he do it at another team? Why was he a failure in his previous management? 

Whats difference between ranieri and some other counter attacking manager?

What was his credit? What did he do right? 

 

Why arnt you guys going crazy over Smith for not over achieving at villa? You think a manager can have that much of a swing on a teams results if you think ranieri deserves credit for that. Its just not realistic. 

He won the league with Leicester. He did exactly what you're asking for. He over achieved with a team, unless you're saying Leicester winning the league wasn't a surprise?

What's it got to do with Smith. No Smith isn't overachieving like that. But Leicester winning the league was a 1 in a million situation. Slating a manager for not doing that would be ridiculous.

[Bugzy1991]

4 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

He won the league with Leicester. He did exactly what you're asking for. He over achieved with a team, unless you're saying Leicester winning the league wasn't a surprise?

What's it got to do with Smith. No Smith isn't overachieving like that. But Leicester winning the league was a 1 in a million situation. Slating a manager for not doing that would be ridiculous.

Huh? What you said make no sense..what was his influence for them to win the league? Why can't nobody replicate it? Maybe because it's actually a tiny % towards the manager 

Love to know the bookies odds straight after to know their % of winning the league after they won the league because this guy shows he's the greatest.

 

Ranieri. Can't beat carpenters at international level. 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Bugzy1991

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, Bugzy1991 said:

Huh? 

Love to know the bookies odds straight after to know their % of winning the league after this guy shows he's the greatest

What are you talking about?

I didn't say anyone was the greatest. I said Ranieri overachieved by winning the title with leicester. I'm not sure how you can possibly disagree with that.

[kurtsimonw]

28 minutes ago, Bugzy1991 said:

Whats difference between ranieri and some other counter attacking manager?

Ranieri won the Premier League.

Edited March 4, 2020 by kurtsimonw

[Bugzy1991]

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

What are you talking about?

I didn't say anyone was the greatest. I said Ranieri overachieved by winning the title with leicester. I'm not sure how you can possibly disagree with that.

And how much was that down to him? Do you think?