Time To Deliver

[foxin_oz]

I'm not criticising, I'm asking a question.

I'm guessing the answer will provide me with a basis on which to decide whether to criticise or not.

I'm not hoping for him to leave either. I'm still VERY curious as to why he's escaping criticism though when others haven't, and yet seem to have a better record.

Yes alex, it's getting repetetive, but I like answers to my questions. The fact nobody appears to be able to give me a satisfactory answer, means the topic keeps arising.

If you're all getting bored of me asking this question, I'll retire it and draw the conclusion that you lot obviously know as little about football and football management as I do.

I think after all the upheaval we've had with so many managers coming and going already this year people are wanting stability. Plus we've had a good look at most of the squad now and realised it can't be the manager's fault totally, as they've played crap under all of them. Apart from that I have no idea why Holloway hasn't received criticism. I find some of his substitutions strange, bordering on stupid at times. However, I am no manager.:icon_conf

 

[Melton Fox]

Whereas I'm happy for you to appear a dimwit, which is quite good considering all these anti-Hollway posts you are shitting out....... :icon_wink

Again, you failed to read my post.

I am asking questions, I'm not really "churning out" anti Holloway posts. It would be very silly really as I'm desperate for the guy to succeed here and be a success.

I guess it's all down to interpretation really, and I suppose a dimwit might struggle to understand my viewpoint.

 

[Nottingham Fox]

I know, but that still doesn't answer my question.

Whether the players are crap, mediocre, or brilliant, all of our Managers so far this season have had the same squad to choose from. All I'm asking for is if anybody knows the stats to say who has achieved the best results with this set of players.

I'd then like to to take those stats and balance them off against the way the different Managers were treated.

Melts, I agree.

I was thinking exactly the same at the weekend. Allen, Megson and Holloway have had practically the same squad to choose from.

We were solid at the back, yet we are leaking goals galore ever since Holloway took over, yet it's the same squad of players.

Megson wasn't the most attacking minded person, but we created much more under him.

I like Holloway, and really want him to do well, but Holloway must take some of the responsibility for this. We didn't win week in/week out under Allen & Megson and at times we were not very good, but nothing as bad as we are now, and Holloway is working with exactly the same squad.

I would respect Holloway much more for admitting he's got a few things wrong, like ringing so many changes when we need some stability in the starting 11 and letting them work with each other for a few weeks (And before the smart arses say thats not always possible because of injuries/suspension - I agree, but making 5 odd changes from one game to the next is a bit excessive for me).

Jeff summed it perfectly IMO - 'Holloway has treated the last few games like pre season warm ups'.

 

[Lako42]

I'm not criticising, I'm asking a question.

I'm guessing the answer will provide me with a basis on which to decide whether to criticise or not.

Yes alex, it's getting repetetive, but I like answers to my questions. The fact nobody appears to be able to give me a satisfactory answer, means the topic keeps arising.

.

There is no single answer Melts, people have many varying reasons as to why they act the way they do, and why they like certain individuals more than others.

One thing is for certain though, i am bewildered as to why someone as opinionated as yourself must hear other peoples opinions to forge one for yourself on this perticular topic.

I dont see why the answers other people give for their actions should effect the way you feel yourself on the subject.

Surely the only basis on which to criticise or not is that of performance and whether you feel it down to IH personally. And that is a decision only yourself can make.

 

[1966]

Since Hollway took over (last 7 games) we are second from bottom. He has us relegated.

I would be interested to see where the other Managers were sitting in the table for the duration of their stay with the same group of players.

This is what worries me, especially when other teams who have changed their manager normally improve drammatically.

 

[Bobby Smith]

All I'm asking for is if anybody knows the stats to say who has achieved the best results with this set of players.

I'd then like to to take those stats and balance them off against the way the different Managers were treated.

I don't think it matters anymore who was treated what way or another, and if somebody is willing to do those stats then good luck to them, I'm sure they would make dire reading (and I like my stats!) If people have unfairly taken to Holloway compared to others then it can only be a good thing at the moment.
Each change of manager has only made things worse. I believe that the only way forward at the moment is to back Holloway, but then again I would have said that about any manager that had come in.

 

[Lako42]

Melts, I agree.

I was thinking exactly the same at the weekend. Allen, Megson and Holloway have had practically the same squad to choose from.

Im affraid Notts that no real informed and evident decision can be made on this. Not one of these managers has had what i would be able to call a good enough crack at the whip to comment fully on individual performance.

Im affraid we as city fans have slipped into an unacceptable trap of now judging managers on 10 or less games. Lets get real and see the wider picture (hard i know when nobody has had those 10 games)

Nothing of any real substance can be gained on any of these men with the time they have been given, and comparing their first five games is like judging an atheletes first 100 mteres of a marathon.

 

[Polar Bear]

It's a fair question. Maybe the realisation that if Holloway can't sort it out then, probably, no-one can has dampened criticism. It's also possible that, like Allen, the gimmicky up-and-at-'em stuff has charmed people a lot more than the ridiculously dour Megson. Personally I'm prepared to give him a chance, as I was with Allen and Megson.

 

[Kettering Pete]

I think these are the managers stats for all competitive games:
.......p w d l f a pts
Allen 4 2 1 1 7 4 7
Megs 9 3 3 3 7 8 12
Ollie 7 1 2 4 6 10 5
temps 6 0 4 2 6 8 4

 

[Melton Fox]

I think these are the managers stats for all competitive games:
.......p w d l f a pts
Allen 4 2 1 1 7 4 7
Megs 9 3 3 3 7 8 12
Ollie 7 1 2 4 6 10 5
temps 6 0 4 2 6 8 4

Excellent Pete, thank you

 

[Melton Fox]

Right, I'll try to form an opinion as I break this down bit by bit.

Win rate:

Allen = 50%
Megson = 33%
Holloway = 14%

My initial thought is that MA played the most succesful attacking football, whilst Holloway played the least succesful attacking football.

Or, Allen was the most effective at finishing teams off.

Anybody disagree?

 

[Lako42]

Right, I'll try to form an opinion as I break this down bit by bit.

Win rate:

Allen = 50%
Megson = 33%
Holloway = 14%

My initial thought is that MA played the most attacking football, whilst Holloway played the least attacking football.

Anybody disagree?

You cannot argue with those stats, however the fact that they are besed over the period of a maximum of 9 games is making me think we should not even be having this convosation.

What if we won our next two games, Meggo and Holloway would be pretty much identical stat wise, but it means **** all.

 

[Melton Fox]

Loss rate:

Allen = 25%
Megson = 33%
Holloway = 57%

Holloway is so far the easiest Manager to beat.

Anybody disagree?

 

[Durham Fox]

All that points to is that we have got progressivley worse, nothing more.

 

[Melton Fox]

Goals Difference

Allen = +3
Megson = -1
Holloway = -4

Allen has the best goalscoring/goal conceding ratio, whilst Holloway has the worst.

Anybody disagree?

 

[Melton Fox]

Goals scored per game:

Allen = 1.75
Megson = 0.78
Holloway = 0.86

Allen has the best goals per game ratio, whilst unsurprisingly Megson has the worst.

Anybody disagree?

 

[Melton Fox]

Goals conceeded per game:

Allen = 1
Megson = 0.89
Holloway = 1.43

Megson has the best defensive record, whilst Holloway has the worst.

Anybody disagree?

 

[Durham Fox]

Every table just shows we are getting worse, nothing more.

 

[Melton Fox]

Average points per game

Allen = 1.75
Megson = 1.34
Holloway = 0.71

Allen has the best points per game ratio, whilst Holloway has the worst.

Anybody disagree?

 

[Melton Fox]

Every table just shows we are getting worse, nothing more.

Yep, doesn't it just.

What are the reasons though?