Steven Gerrard

[useless]

Chances are we will drop a few places in that table based on Gerrard's games, after the weekend unless we can cause an upset against Man City, as Brentford, Leicester and West Ham all have very winnable games, still if we can say we've shown top half form since he arrived once the season has finished that won't be bad considering the circumstances, I'd call it a satisfactory start, fulfilling expectations and needs; acceptable, though not outstanding or perfect.

Taking the season as an whole though, and fourteenth if that is indeed where we finish is very disappointing.

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

4 minutes ago, nick76 said:

What you are describing is fact answer to the only question you want to ask, which is what is SG tenure stats because you aren’t keen on looking at other stats because they don’t reflect so well.  

Not necessarily Nick.

What i'm trying to say is that, regardless of which side of the aisle one is on, the " Tenure Table " is the most factual measurement of the job he has done since he has been here.

Yes, we can take different runs ( Positive and negative in isolation ) to suit whichever narrative we would like, but at the end of the day, the cliche " The table doesn't lie " is ultimate.

For example, West Ham, Wolves, and Arsenal have had some rough patches this season, however , it would be grossly unfair to take those rough patches in isolation to try and discredit their overall performance , or the jobs Moyes, Lage and Arteta have done over the course of the season?

 

[Tayls]

2 hours ago, CVByrne said:

Was there no news conference today for City game? I don't see one on villa site

They usually come out the day before a game…

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

4 minutes ago, useless said:

Chances are we will drop a few places in that table based on Gerrard's games, after the weekend unless we can cause an upset against Man City, as Brentford, Leicester and West Ham all have very winnable games, still if we can say we've shown top half form since he arrived once the season has finished that won't be bad considering the circumstances, I'd call it a satisfactory start, fulfilling expectations and needs; acceptable, though not outstanding or perfect.

Taking the season as an whole though, and fourteenth if that is indeed where we finish is very disappointing.

That's a FAR RIGHT opinion!

[nick76]

Just now, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

What i'm trying to say is that, regardless of which side of the aisle one is on, the " Tenure Table " is the most factual measurement of the job he has done since he has been here.

Nope!  It just plainly isn’t.

I hate referencing back to Smith but if I said I can’t believe Smith got sacked after only 11 games this season because he got a fabulous 55 points last season.  You can imagine the responses to that being “but his second half of the season was poor which continue into this season and that’s why he got sacked”. Things are always split into parts.

Going to another extreme if Gerrard had won his first 11 games, then drawn 2 and then lost his next 13 games…would you still look at tenure because he’d have 35 points so done ok.  Of course not! 

Tenure stat is one stat to look at but you look at other stats to see how he’s done, that’s why there are so many stats like xG, home vs Away form, even league tables show more than just points including wins and losses, goal difference and last six game form.

Plus something isn’t more factual than something else in this context, they are all facts to show how he’s doing

11 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

Yes, we can take different runs ( Positive and negative in isolation ) to suit whichever narrative we would like, but at the end of the day, the cliche " The table doesn't lie " is ultimate.

and we are 14th, not what the board were expecting.  Even in your little table we’ll likely drop places after Sunday.

12 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

For example, West Ham, Wolves, and Arsenal have had some rough patches this season, however , it would be grossly unfair to take those rough patches in isolation to try and discredit their overall performance , or the jobs Moyes, Lage and Arteta have done over the course of the season?

How is 20 games that I reference a patch? It’s over half a season.  Plus I don’t care about those clubs or even comparing to them.  We have 23 points from the last 20 games with Man City away next, we have 2 wins in the last 10 and 2 wins in the last 11 homes games apparently.  Who cares what West Ham, Arsenal and Wolves do, I only care about Villa.

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

26 minutes ago, nick76 said:

Nope!  It just plainly isn’t.

I hate referencing back to Smith but if I said I can’t believe Smith got sacked after only 11 games this season because he got a fabulous 55 points last season.  You can imagine the responses to that being “but his second half of the season was poor which continue into this season and that’s why he got sacked”. Things are always split into parts.

Going to another extreme if Gerrard had won his first 11 games, then drawn 2 and then lost his next 13 games…would you still look at tenure because he’d have 35 points so done ok.  Of course not! 

Tenure stat is one stat to look at but you look at other stats to see how he’s done, that’s why there are so many stats like xG, home vs Away form, even league tables show more than just points including wins and losses, goal difference and last six game form.

Plus something isn’t more factual than something else in this context, they are all facts to show how he’s doing

and we are 14th, not what the board were expecting.  Even in your little table we’ll likely drop places after Sunday.

How is 20 games that I reference a patch? It’s over half a season.  Plus I don’t care about those clubs or even comparing to them.  We have 23 points from the last 20 games with Man City away next, we have 2 wins in the last 10 and 2 wins in the last 11 homes games apparently.  Who cares what West Ham, Arsenal and Wolves do, I only care about Villa.

Quote

Nope!  It just plainly isn’t.

But factually, it is.

Quote

I hate referencing back to Smith but if I said I can’t believe Smith got sacked after only 11 games this season because he got a fabulous 55 points last season.  You can imagine the responses to that being “but his second half of the season was poor which continue into this season and that’s why he got sacked”. Things are always split into parts.

We don't get League positions or placings for " parts though ".

55 points last season was indeed " Fabulous " but this is a totally different season, with a different set of circumstances and competition. ( Alot of which are quite obvious and have been discussed to death )

Quote

Going to another extreme if Gerrard had won his first 11 games, then drawn 2 and then lost his next 13 games…would you still look at tenure because he’d have 35 points so done ok.  Of course not! 

It would be a horrendous run of games and form, but he's still have the same PPG, and still have the same performance position in the table. 

Also, your example is not the reality, it has just been up and down and streaky, inconsistency, In reverse, Howe won 2 out of 10, then went off on a flyer after the transfer window. Should Newcastle fans now do the reverse and gauge his performance over the first 10 games, instead of as a whole? lol

If Ollie scored 25 goals over 10 games, then never scored another goal for the rest of the season, he'd still be a 25 goal a season striker.

Quote

and we are 14th, not what the board were expecting.  Even in your little table we’ll likely drop places after Sunday.

You said things are always " split into parts " , but when it comes to the optics of the League position, you don't want to split it into " parts " .  So we just give SG the sub - 1 PPG he came in with , from Dean Smith.

Quote

How is 20 games that I reference a patch? It’s over half a season.  Plus I don’t care about those clubs or even comparing to them.  We have 23 points from the last 20 games with Man City away next, we have 2 wins in the last 10 and 2 wins in the last 11 homes games apparently.  Who cares what West Ham, Arsenal and Wolves do, I only care about Villa.

Yeah but we have 35 points from 26, that's factual.

There are a multitude of reasons for dropped points in the " poor run " as well, opposition also taken into account.

Similarly to how a loss against the Champions elect should be taken into account for what it is, but it won't be, as the stat will look better for whoever wants it to look worse.

It's not whether you care about the clubs or not, it's a real life and direct example in context.

And why is it that the only time we seem to  " Care about other clubs " is when we can use them as an example of why we are doing poorly?

Aside from that the most clear and obvious " Variable " in all of this, is that the Manager has only been here for 27 games.

Edited May 20, 2022 by JAMAICAN-VILLAN

[TRO]

3 hours ago, nick76 said:

But this table gets rolled out every day, I reply and I get told that I’m boring repeating the same arguments against it.  Just as people are bored with my reply I’m bored with that table.  So let’s do the dance again

New manager bounce of 6 games, 12 points playing very different to now.

Then the last 20 games getting 23 points (I’m guessing 21 games with 23 points by the end of Sunday).

Since the fanfare of him joining and that initial bounce his record hasn’t been decent it’s been (being generous) mediocre!

Have your little table but all that shows is that he started really well but then got worse and the last 10 games has been 2 wins, 3 draws and 5 losses.  

Those first six games of his tenure inflates his stats which maybe fair but the devil is in the detail and covering that we have gone backwards since those initial games…

Im assuming the same usual flawed arguments come back at me from people  so I will refrain from responding tonight because we’ve heard them before, we responded to them before, no point rehashing them.  We just look forward to next season and see if he can improve this poor run!

but its a league table Nick, not a form table, where anyone can pick random games to suit a narrative.

Its like saying remove Dean Smiths 4 initial games of last season from the 55 points as its not representative of the season as a whole.....that too would be rubbish.....or what was his league position without Jack?...would also be rubbish.

League tables and form tables are 2 different measurements and suggest different things.

This table is to represent the league points from SG's tenure with us this season.....I can't see much wrong with that.

Edited May 21, 2022 by TRO

[Laughable Chimp]

This is why I propose we standardize the number of games we use to judge. 30 most recent games is the standard I always use. 

Edited May 21, 2022 by Laughable Chimp

[VillaHatesMe]

I don't know if Gerrard will take us where we want to go, but here are some facts that are hard to argue with.

In 87 Premier League matches under Dean Smith: 1.15 points per match

In 26 Premier League matches under Gerrard: 1.35 points per match

The sample size is small, but the improvement is there. The question is how much more improvement we'll see.

[WallisFrizz]

47 minutes ago, VillaHatesMe said:

I don't know if Gerrard will take us where we want to go, but here are some facts that are hard to argue with.

In 87 Premier League matches under Dean Smith: 1.15 points per match

In 26 Premier League matches under Gerrard: 1.35 points per match

The sample size is small, but the improvement is there. The question is how much more improvement we'll see.

We’ll improve, problem is other teams will aswell. Newcastle will, Leicester will, Everton won’t be as bad as this season. Brighton, Palace and Southampton will probably stay stay about the same, my Wolves colleague thinks they might struggle next season if their owner doesn’t invest. My point is, it’s a battle to stay mid table never mind climb up it.

I think SG might have under estimated how difficult the PL is. That’s why he’s talked about cups a few times, the only real chance of any joy. We could do with a bit of luck with the draws next season. None of the top 6 in the early rounds would be a start.

[tinker]

Gerrard has a points per match of 1.30 at villa, Dean Smiths was 1.41. We still have Sunday's game to go so it might change. 

[Vive_La_Villa]

I think what’s more disappointing about that table is the top 6 are the sky 6. Gerrard has us where we probably should be but you do wonder what it will take to get in to that top 6. 

[Vive_La_Villa]

3 hours ago, VillaHatesMe said:

I don't know if Gerrard will take us where we want to go, but here are some facts that are hard to argue with.

In 87 Premier League matches under Dean Smith: 1.15 points per match

In 26 Premier League matches under Gerrard: 1.35 points per match

The sample size is small, but the improvement is there. The question is how much more improvement we'll see.

 

2 minutes ago, tinker said:

Gerrard has a points per match of 1.30 at villa, Dean Smiths was 1.41. We still have Sunday's game to go so it might change. 

So which one is it ?

Im assuming championship games haven’t been used as that would be pretty ridiculous. 

[picicata]

21 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

 

So which one is it ?

Im assuming championship games haven’t been used as that would be pretty ridiculous. 

I suspect it has. Just goes to show how stats can be manipulated to show and prove what you want 

**** statistics, go on what you see on the pitch

[DCJonah]

4 hours ago, VillaHatesMe said:

I don't know if Gerrard will take us where we want to go, but here are some facts that are hard to argue with.

In 87 Premier League matches under Dean Smith: 1.15 points per match

In 26 Premier League matches under Gerrard: 1.35 points per match

The sample size is small, but the improvement is there. The question is how much more improvement we'll see.

This doesn't mean shit. 

Compare the squads each manager mainly had to work with. 

Our first year in the prem 17th was our title with the fact we had to rebuild a squad and have them prem ready in a summer. 

This is the problem with select statistics, it doesn't take into account all the variable around it or the actually real life situations. 

 

[nick76]

7 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

But factually, it is.

It just isnt, I’m not sure you know what factually means.

7 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

We don't get League positions or placings for " parts though ".

I agree and thus why do you only bring up Gerrard’s tenure because by the same manner that is “part” of the season.  You can’t say judge Smith on part of last season but say no to me when I judge part of Gerrard’s season.  You are judging Smiths 2nd half of last season, I’m judging a little more than Gerrard’s second half of this season.  You can’t change your argument for for different managers because you’re then hypocritical.

7 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

It would be a horrendous run of games and form, but he's still have the same PPG, and still have the same performance position in the table. 

So, if he had lost 13 games on the trot as per the example, it doesn’t matter if his tenure ppg was good, he would’ve been sacked.  No manager would survive a run of losses anywhere close to that hence you can’t just look at tenure.

8 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

Also, your example is not the reality, it has just been up and down and streaky, inconsistency

It’s basically been on a downward curve.  We had three great wins in the middle but either side in 20 games has been poor.  That’s not streaky, that’s a blip!  That using a word disingenuously because when you look at the past 10 games ppg and then 20 games ppg it’s going downwards.

8 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

You said things are always " split into parts " , but when it comes to the optics of the League position, you don't want to split it into " parts " .  So we just give SG the sub - 1 PPG he came in with , from Dean Smith.

That was in answer to your question that it only matters what our league position is.  Wasn’t about my assessment, that’s where you have taken my answer out of context of the question.

8 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

Yeah but we have 35 points from 26, that's factual.

There are a multitude of reasons for dropped points in the " poor run " as well, opposition also taken into account.

Similarly to how a loss against the Champions elect should be taken into account for what it is, but it won't be, as the stat will look better for whoever wants it to look worse.

Yeah but I haven’t picked individual games I picked 20 games, somebody else picked 10 games.  It’s a poor run over a long period, not a short period.  Your argument doesn’t stand up.  Even in your twelve game analysis earlier our only wins were against relegation fighting teams and Southampton who are just above the relegation zone, so we are playing great teams and poor teams in those “poor runs” but you only want to take into account in the narrative playing the good teams.

8 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

Aside from that the most clear and obvious " Variable " in all of this, is that the Manager has only been here for 27 games.

Yeah and I have never said he should be sacked, he obviously gets more time but you can analyse him along the way and even he said it’s not been good enough this season.  This is a forum where we discuss events around the Villa, rosy or not so rosy.  We don’t have to be positive until he hits a certain amount of games and then have an honest conversation, we can have honest conversations now.  His run has been poor.  He started so well for whatever reason but as the season has gone on it faded and has largely had poor returns.

[nick76]

4 hours ago, VillaHatesMe said:

I don't know if Gerrard will take us where we want to go, but here are some facts that are hard to argue with.

In 87 Premier League matches under Dean Smith: 1.15 points per match

In 26 Premier League matches under Gerrard: 1.35 points per match

The sample size is small, but the improvement is there. The question is how much more improvement we'll see.

That disingenuous because the squad capability is very different or the various seasons.  The first season back in PL was a much weaker squad and the goal was to survive.  Maybe a season by season ppg would be closer or maybe a rolling average trend.

[Rolta]

This has been a bit of a weird season in many ways. There's a lot I like about Gerrard and he's clearly here to stay for now, so despite some disappointing moments too, I personally just hope they have a great transfer window and we kick on and have a good season next season. He's going to stay and he's going to be given money to spend, so what other choice is there but to go with it for now.

This season was messed up first and foremost by our shitty summer transfer window. Obviously one big factor was out of our hands, but we came into 21/22 with a crazily off-kilter squad having lost our captain and best player by a mile. Bailey has only been a massive letdown, we had nobody to play on the left, conundrums abounded with how to fit both Ings and Watkins and so on. It cost Smith his job. Maybe Smith wasn't a big enough name to bring in the kind of players we needed to replace Grealish. Hopefully Gerrard will do better—and to be fair, getting Digne and Coutinho (granted, Gerrard's mate) is possibly a positive hint that he can. Nobody knows, but we are going to see if he can whether we like it or not!

[Brumstopdogs]

It is a shame we can’t just finish games at half time!

 

[Sam-AVFC]

1 hour ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

 

So which one is it ?

Im assuming championship games haven’t been used as that would be pretty ridiculous. 

Why is that more ridiculous than comparing points achieved with our current, vastly superior squad compared to the one we had our first year back up?