Steven Gerrard

[Lupinthe5th]

On a positive note at least things can only get better right 

[rodders0223]

If you take in PPG from Gerrard's time at Rangers we are actually 3rd in the league.

Quick someone pass the Koolaid.

[calcifer]

1 minute ago, rodders0223 said:

If you take in PPG from Gerrard's time at Rangers we are actually 3rd in the league.

Quick someone pass the Koolaid.

[Peter Griffin]

25 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Last 10 PL games - Draw Won Won Lost Draw Draw Lost - Lost Won Lost

That 10 game form has us on course for a 46 point season. 1 Point better than last season.

With 70% of the data being from last season there is a fair old chance that the trend will look like last season's 

[IrishVilla10]

48 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

Rubbish. As I and others pointed out that wasn’t the case. Lads needed a confidence boost and they take the cup seriously. Take those tinted shades off mate. 

I think you need to take yours off. The only reason we sent that team out to Bolton was because if we had of lost he’d have been gone.  There was no reason for at least Archer to play. You can take the cups seriously without playing a £200 million plus squad against a league one team. 

[useless]

Gerrard wouldn't have been sacked if we'd have lost to Bolton, especially if we had have played a weakend squad, bearing in mind there isn't much scope for us to play a weak team as most of our players are much of a muchness, only way we could have played a much weaker squad than last night is if we played the U21s, in which case his job wouldn't have been under any kind of theat if we'd have lost.

If anything playing a team as strong as he did put him under more pressure, because if we'd have lost with that team it would have reflected way more badly on him than it would have done if we had have fielded a weaker team and lost.

Also not sure why people can't get it into their heads that Archer and Iroegbunam didn't start because they're possibly going out on loan, Gerrard even spoke about this after the Palace game, if they were definitely staying with us, then they both would have started.

[Peter Griffin]

2 minutes ago, useless said:

Gerrard wouldn't have been sacked if we'd have lost to Bolton, especially if we had have played a weakend squad, bearing in mind there isn't much scope for us to play a weak team as most of our players are much of a muchness, only way we could have played a much weaker squad than last night is if we played the U21s, in which case his job wouldn't have been under any kind of theat if we'd have lost.

If anything playing a team as strong as he did put him under more pressure, because if we'd have lost with that team it would have reflected way more badly on him than it would have done if we had have fielded a weaker team and lost.

Also not sure why people can't get it into their heads that Archer and Iroegbunam didn't start because they're possibly going out on loan, Gerrard even spoke about this after the Palace game, if they were definitely staying with us, then they both would have started.

100% agree. Regardless what people think should or should not happen, I just cannot see Gerrard getting sacked after 3 league games with 1 win and a loss in the Carabao Cup, it would be a knee jerk reaction and our owners and CEO are too smart for that. They will give him some time. Absolutely, he is walking on fairly thin ice and he needs to deliver but the hatchet won't be falling until he has had more games or goes on a losing streak

[rodders0223]

4 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

With 70% of the data being from last season there is a fair old chance that the trend will look like last season's 

I'm taking my data personally from 2008 and 2022 only.
Spain are European champions and Pompey just lifted the FA cup.

[Made In Aston]

22 minutes ago, CarryOnVilla said:

Last night wasn’t a good look for ol Stevie G, despite the flattering score line. So much happened that showed how out of his depth he currently is… 

I do agree with everything you said in your post. On top of Gerrard's tactical issues, his man management is a problem.

Aside from the captaincy and Hause contract he is creating a bomb squad, which hurts us as a club. It's bad for morale, reduces our playing options and means other sides know they can low ball us with offers, as we are desperate to sell. Coupled with buying older players with no resale value, the club will struggle to recoup transfer spend and cause FFP issues further down the line (like Everton). 

[Peter Griffin]

4 minutes ago, rodders0223 said:

I'm taking my data personally from 2008 and 2022 only.
Spain are European champions and Pompey just lifted the FA cup.

I think all data should be from 1981 

[tomsky_11]

22 hours ago, ender4 said:

But we shouldn't be comparing to our worst managers ever anyway, let's compare to our best managers or at least our 'in the middle' managers.  Gerrard really needs to be in the top half of our managers over time to achieve what is expected of him. 

Here we go, from 92/93 onwards, league games only...

And for Premier league games only...

So Gerrard sits 8/15 for PPG and 6/13 for PL only PPG. Farily middle of the pack. Better than Garde, Sherwood, Di Matteo, Lambert, McLeish and Houllier and Taylor. Better than Smith for PL games only.

For managers' first 30 games he sits 6th of 11 who made it that far (Atkinson excluded as first 30 prior to 92/93), while for PL games alone he's 4th of 9, only Gregory, O'Leary and Little surpass him. Surprising that O'Neill, with the 2nd best PPG since 92/93 and ranked 1st for PL games alone, was behind Gerrard with 1.13 PPG after 30 games.

All 4 four managers with a shorter or equal tenure to him had worse PPG records, while 3 managers with worse records lasted longer than 30 games - Lambert 71 more, Taylor 21, McLeish 8. All 3 of them had worse records after 30 games.

Worth also pointing to the W/D/L ratios I think. Gerrard 7th for wins (5th of 13 in PL, only Gregory, O'Neill, Little and Atkinson had more) but 12th worst for losses (9th in PL) which also means his draw % is the 2nd lowest of the 15 mangers listed. Perhaps supports the inconsistent rather than consistently bad argument.

On the new manager bounce thing, 7 of 14 managers had worse records after 5 games than over their entire tenure, which reduces to 5 of 14 after 10 games. Doesn't overwhelmingly support the theory, though obviously a small sample and many other considerations here so probably hard to judge either way.

 

 

 

Edited August 24, 2022 by tomsky_11
fixed headings

[Peter Griffin]

4 minutes ago, tomsky_11 said:

Here we go, from 92/93 onwards, league games only...

And for Premier league games only...

So Gerrard sits 8/15 for PPG and 6/13 for PL only PPG. Farily middle of the pack. Better than Garde, Sherwood, Di Matteo, Lambert, McLeish and Houllier and Taylor. Better than Smith for PL games only.

For managers' first 30 games he sits 6th of 11 who made it that far (Atkinson excluded as first 30 prior to 92/93), while for PL games alone he's 4th of 9, only Gregory, O'Leary and Little surpass him. Surprising that O'Neill, with the 2nd best PPG since 92/93 and ranked 1st for PL games alone, was behind Gerrard with 1.13 PPG after 30 games.

All 4 four managers with a shorter or equal tenure to him had worse PPG records, while 3 managers with worse records lasted longer than 30 games - Lambert 71 more, Taylor 21, McLeish 8. All 3 of them had worse records after 30 games.

Worth also pointing to the W/D/L ratios I think. Gerrard 7th for wins (5th of 13 in PL, only Gregory, O'Neill, Little and Atkinson had more) but 12th worst for losses (9th in PL) which also means his draw % is the 2nd lowest of the 15 mangers listed.

On the new manager bounce thing, 7 of 14 managers had worse records after 5 games than over their entire tenure, which reduces to 5 of 14 after 10 games. Doesn't overwhelmingly support the theory, though obviously a small sample and many other considerations here so probably hard to judge either way.

 

Interesting data, thanks for posting. One observation, Gerrard's 6 ppg is more than double my wildest dreams of success, why the hell are people moaning  

(I think u may have mixed up the headings of First 30 rank and First 30 ppg )

[HKP90]

You guys are really making it difficult for me to get on with work today, I must say. 

[Peter Griffin]

@tomsky_11

Again, thx for posting, it is interesting data. If you have all the underlying data behind this would u be so kind as to show a report on a manager's last 10 or 20 or 30 games and let us see the comparison with his successors first 10 or 20 or 30 games. It would be good to see if the new manager was able to improve the ppg from the previous manager's and what timescale it took. 

Thanks,

[TRO]

On 23/08/2022 at 11:27, markavfc40 said:

I think it needs to be remembered Gerrard didn't inherit something that was broken or a club in complete disarray. He inherited a squad that the season before had finished 11th with a points total that would more often than not have seen us finish top 9. We had suffered the loss of our captain and talisman but had just recruited Buendia, Bailey and Ings. The previous manager was sacked, rightly in my opinion, for underperforming and not getting the best out of the squad. I don't remember many disputing that at the time.

The expectation is when you sack one manager for underperforming/not getting the best of what he has at his disposal is that the guy replacing him will do better. Maybe not instantly but certainly after 9 months, the best part of two transfer windows, a full pre season and 31 games.

Gerrard has added 4 starters to what he inherited. Digne, Coutinho, Carlos, Kamara who I'd be confident in saying are now our four highest earners. Add in Chambers, Olsen, Augustinsson and he has been backed and some with more to come this window I'd imagine. I'd be confident in saying we now have one of the top 8 wage bills in the country and with that has to come some expectation that you are going to get at least close to replicating that with your league position. Performances and results over the last 31 games under Gerrard tell us we are miles away. That can't be defended for me.

On paper I think we do have a good squad. I think Gerrard inherited a decent squad and recruitment has only enhanced it. It is not perfect and certainly needs more in midfield but lacking in the odd area is going to be the case for 80% of clubs in the league. The problem we have is we have a manager who is not getting anything like the best out of his squad, a squad that contains seven of his own signings. His predecessor was sacked for the same failings, despite having put plenty of good will in the bank. Gerrard having failed to bank any good will over 9 months has to be on borrowed time.

Fair comments Mark, as always....... but on paper, is exactly what it is....we have some very talented players, but when yoU can't defend as a team, its not a great help, as Man U have shown, too.....until they got their arse in to gear, the other night.

Under Ron Saunders is was the opposite, on paper it was questionable, but we had a team, a functional team, sure there was some talent, but in the main it was functional.....and workrate, urgency and intensity, was not a nice add on, it was the mantra, it was central to all what we did.....and we was "Hard to play against" which is precisely what we have missing, now.

"Defend" has a context....its hard to defend him on the shambles, we are dishing up and you are right to point out his record over 31 games....he has acquired 2 more points than Dean, The difference is obviously the time in the job, which I would imagine is what is being considered by the owners.....His signings have been a bit iffy for me, 4 first teamers, 2 a bit light weight to what was already a light weight team, so he compounded that, for starters, 1 who has had a cruel injury, so we hardly count that....and the other 3 no more than cover, hardly a plan to strengthen, the first team, profile.

The squad, is subjective, some think its good, and others not so sure.....I am still doubtful, that we have enough nous amongst the players, who can stop, disrupt or challenge opposing players, but thats just my take....as a team, I do not see the organisation, that can pose opposition teams problems.....I see a team " easy to play against" and until that is no longer, I see no ambition, worth pursueing......we are simply, living in hope and kidding ourselves.

Having said all that.....The football business, should be work in progress, how long that takes, I have no idea....but 9 mths v 3 years, does not seem fair to me....and I would guess the owners, would have that consideration, firmly in their thoughts.

Please don't take this as a SG get out of jail card......because its certainly, not meant to be and judging by the performances and results, my comments may not be popular.

The biggest disappointment for me, is seeing the same traits under SG as I saw, under DS, despite their playing styles, being different....both managers presided over a team "easy to play against" and 15/14 losses respectively in 31 games, reflects that.

I have no idea, how this will end up, but with the present playing staff ( First teamers) I don't see another manager changing it.....Its hard to get rid of a soft underbelly, but our recruitment in doing so, is not convincing me....those responsible, leave me in doubt and my mood is of melancholy.

The only thing, I can hold my hope for, is these owners, will only run with poor performances, for so long, they will know what work is going in behind the scenes to fix it......if they don't believe in it, they will act.

We just have to watch, to see how it unfolds.

UTV

Edited August 24, 2022 by TRO

[tomsky_11]

13 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

Interesting data, thanks for posting. One observation, Gerrard's 6 ppg is more than double my wildest dreams of success, why the hell are people moaning  

(I think u may have mixed up the headings of First 30 rank and First 30 ppg )

Lol yep sorry

[tomsky_11]

9 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

@tomsky_11

Again, thx for posting, it is interesting data. If you have all the underlying data behind this would u be so kind as to show a report on a manager's last 10 or 20 or 30 games and let us see the comparison with his successors first 10 or 20 or 30 games. It would be good to see if the new manager was able to improve the ppg from the previous manager's and what timescale it took. 

Thanks,

Can do later sure.

[DaveAV1]

1 hour ago, Peter Griffin said:

With 70% of the data being from last season there is a fair old chance that the trend will look like last season's 

It could look worse in three games time. The point is Dean was sacked for not making progress but perhaps the alarm bells started to really ring when we thought we may be dragged into a relegation  fight. 
 

Peope saying we shouldn’t have sacked Dean because we’d be no worse off than we are now are missing the point. The aim is to appoint a manager that is better than Dean and to move us forward. Perhaps when SG was appointed the first thing on his to do list was to halt the slide which he did. Unfortunately since then he hasn’t improved us.
 

The next three games will perhaps set the alarm bells ringing. Saying two of them are very tough isn’t completely  irrelevant, however writing off games against top six teams is not only alarmingly defeatist and I doubt a view shared by NSWE, but it also means we can only get our points from 26 games. Even to get to 40 points we’d need just over 1.5 points per game. We’re not currently achieving that and we’ve played 3 games against, theoretically at least, none top 6 teams already. 

Edited August 24, 2022 by DaveAV1

[CarryOnVilla]

Just now, DaveAV1 said:

It could look worse in three games time. The point is Dean was sacked for not making progress but perhaps the alarm bells started to really ring when we thought we may be dragged into a relationship fight. 
 

Peope saying we shouldn’t have sacked Dean because we’d be no worse off than we are now are missing the point. The aim is to appoint a manager that is better than Dean and to move us forward. Perhaps when SG was appointed the first thing on his to do list was to halt the slide which he did. Unfortunately since then he hasn’t improved us.
 

The next three games will perhaps set the alarm bells ringing. Saying two of them are very tough isn’t completely  irrelevant, however writing off games against top six teams is not only alarmingly defeatist and I doubt a view shared by NSWE, but it also means we can only get our points from 26 games. Even to get to 40 points we’d need just over 1.5 points per game. We’re not currently achieving that and we’ve played 3 games against, theoretically at least, none top 6 teams already. 

[DaveAV1]

2 minutes ago, CarryOnVilla said:

I’m not sure there’s much difference!