Folklore and Myths (1 Viewer)

[Grendel]

Over the recent weeks there have been many comments regarding the unsuitability of the squad and that the reasons for the current predicament should lie 100% at the owners door for lack of investment in the squad. There is no doubt that the plight the club faces is of course in a large part down to this and that it would be impossible to ignore the lack of investment. However, some of us have questioned other factors as well and that management change may have yielded an improvement.

Certain factions shout this down and say nothing could and would change due to numerous factors. Let's explore some of these factors in a bit of detail;

1 "The team lacks experience"

The club is accused of having a frail and inexperienced squad which have not played enough games to threaten opposition.

I have looked at the teams some of the teams around us to see if this is true.

The average games played by team of the selected bunch is as follows (i.e league apperances divided by 11)

- Coventry - 184
- Forest - 177
- Palace 212
- Peteborough 194
- Doncaster - 233
- Derby - 227

So Coventry are in the lower of the selection but difference between many is marginal. Forest is the least on this data. Remember though Coventry did not even have Bell or Eastwood in the squad and Clingan on the bench. If Clingan and Bell had played instead of Nimley and Norwood the average age would have been 230 only bettered by Doncaster. So this appears a myth in fact Eastwood and Bell were not in the squad and have played over 500 games between them.

The other way experience can be interpreted is by age. Average age of the players on show are as follows;

Coventry - 25
Doncaster - 28
Forest - 25
Derby - 27
Palace - 26
Peterborough - 25

Other than Doncaster who have 5 over 30's no significant difference. Coventry if rounded have higher than Posh and Forest. Again Clingan and Bell would raise the age to 27.

2. "The team is Full of Kids"

We had 4 players of 23 and under. This is the most but Derby had 3 so did Forest Palace and Peterborough while the rest had 2. Clingan, McDonald, Bell though were not played. Also the age thing is subjective anyway Forest had no player over 27.

3. "Our bench is weak"

Again on age questionable;

We had 2 under 23
Doncaster - 2
Forest - 3
Derby - 2
Palace - 2
Peterborough - 3

4. "An experienced manager makes no difference"

Difficult to say but the bottom 3 clubs appear to have the 3 most inexperienced managers in division.

 

---

[Otis]

You've been a busy little bee haven't you!

 

[Grendel]

You've been a busy little bee haven't you!

Quite day in the office...!

 

[torchomatic]

I always think the experienced manager thing is used to muddy the waters.

Phil Neal - inexperienced, poor.
Big Ron - experienced, didn't set the world alight
WGS - inexperienced, poor
Gary MacAllister - inexperienced, piss poor
Roland - inexperienced but pretty good
Eric Black - inexperienced, pretty good in his short time here
Peter Reid - experienced, poor
Cky Adams - experienced, not bad
Dowie - experienced, poor
Coleman - had experience in the Premiership, poor
Boothroyd - experienced, poor

people go on about stats too. Thorns win rate is better than Coleman's and equal to Adams, who is looked on with affection by many fans. Sillett was also lacking experience and he didn't do too bad!

Thorn, like all manager has made mistakes, but his are being scrutinized like no other manager we've had for years. Its easy to beat him with the ''inexperienced'' stick, but for me it comes down to lack of resources from our owners. How many times has Thorn said ''I've just got to get on with it''? He has, and fair play to him.

 

[Grendel]

I always think the experienced manager thing is used to muddy the waters.

Phil Neal - inexperienced, poor.
Big Ron - experienced, didn't set the world alight
WGS - inexperienced, poor
Gary MacAllister - inexperienced, piss poor
Roland - inexperienced but pretty good
Eric Black - inexperienced, pretty good in his short time here
Peter Reid - experienced, poor
Cky Adams - experienced, not bad
Dowie - experienced, poor
Coleman - had experience in the Premiership, poor
Boothroyd - experienced, poor

people go on about stats too. Thorns win rate is better than Coleman's and equal to Adams, who is looked on with affection by many fans. Sillett was also lacking experience and he didn't do too bad!

Thorn, like all manager has made mistakes, but his are being scrutinized like no other manager we've had for years. Its easy to beat him with the ''inexperienced'' stick, but for me it comes down to lack of resources from our owners. How many times has Thorn said ''I've just got to get on with it''? He has, and fair play to him.

His win ratio is 22% versus Coleman's 29%. My experience comment is a remark that he Saunders and Appleton are the managers who have managed the fewest games in the division. People can make their own conclusions from the data.

 

[Sick Boy]

people go on about stats too. Thorns win rate is better than Coleman's and equal to Adams, who is looked on with affection by many fans. Sillett was also lacking experience and he didn't do too bad!

Why are you lying?

Adams- 33%
Coleman- 29%
Thorn- 22%

 

[Grendel]

Why are you lying?

Adams- 33%
Coleman- 29%
Thorn- 22%

Lying is a harsh word it's more myth and folklore.

 

[torchomatic]

Not lies, myths or folklore. Just Wikipedia.

Lying is a harsh word it's more myth and folklore.

 

[torchomatic]

If I was going to lie i'd make it a big one. Dolt.

Why are you lying?

Adams- 33%
Coleman- 29%
Thorn- 22%

 

[Grendel]

Not lies, myths or folklore. Just Wikipedia.

Sick boys stats are correct and wickipedia says 22%.

 

[torchomatic]

Well, not the page im looking at. List of Coventry city managers. Just realised that Thorn stats go up to only 9 games.

 

[torchomatic]

en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coventry_City_F.C._managers

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Your research is clearly flawed. You've chosen an arbitrary age of 23 because it suits the purpose of your debate. A player aged 23 isn't a kid. Gunnarsson had 25 international caps by that age. Choose a proper age to define a 'kid' such as 20 and the reality of the figures begins to strike home.

With the latter, dare I say more sensible, criteria we have played more 'kids' more often that any other team in the league.

Inexperienced players headed by an inexperienced coach is a perfect storm.

But never shy away from the fact that Thorn is disadvantaged even against our peers at the bottom of the league

 

[stupot07]

To use the playing squad that played on Tuesday is misleading in terms of the whole season and shows how stats can be skewed to serve purpose. For example, if you were to take a snapshot of earlier in the season, let's say the 1-2 loss to burnley at home we had Thomas, bigi (both 17, 18 at the time), Christie (was 18), Hussey (22 but very few championship starts) and Juke (22). There was also no platt to increase the average age and appearances. The average age of that team was 23.4 years. I haven't got time to do appearances but we know that bigi, Thomas, hussey hadn't played that many games at that point in the season.

That makes the side far more inexperienced as our peers - just showing how stats can be skewed as I bet you could find a couple of games where our peers (except Portsmouth) have had to play kids in one off games. The truth is that in the first and middle sections of the season in particular our kids, who are essentially first year professional ( Thomas 1 start and 1 sub last season) had to play a considerable role.

 

[torchomatic]

OK, so my stats were copied wrongly. What about to the meat of the issue. Looking back at our managers, we've had a mixed bag of experience and non. Experience or lack of it has made little difference in the past.

Sick boys stats are correct and wickipedia says 22%.

 

[Sick Boy]

OK, so my stats were copied wrongly. What about to the meat of the issue. Looking back at our managers, we've had a mixed bag of experience and non. Experience or lack of it has made little difference in the past.

The biggest mistake of recent times was of course employing Chris Coleman. He had significantly more to invest in the squad in comparison to the others, and ultimately failed to move the club forward. I would have liked to have seen what Adams or Dowie could have done with a bit of money.

 

[Grendel]

Interesting please can you tell me why 19 or 20. The palace player who is considered a massive threat is 19. Gunnarsons most effective season for us was his first. How was he I can't recall.

We had 4 of that age by choice 2 or 3 could easily have been replaced.

In your somewhat juvenile rant the other night when you asked me to no longer take part in the forum you mentioned experience. My interpretation of that analysis shows this to be a myth.

What was your definition that led you to conclude this or was no research done and it was a guess ?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Most academies run to aged 18 and under. Under most normal circumstances only exceptional players would join with the first team squad ahead of his time. As such, a player aged 19 should be in his first year post-academy. Aged at 20 perhaps their second. These are truly kids. Your choosing of players up to 23 includes players who could have 5 seasons of post-academy experience. That's the difference.

My criteria truly identifies kids. Yours includes players half way to their testimonial

 

[Grendel]

Stu I knew that you woul raise that point regarding youth earlier in the season. However Christie is thorns choice over keogh and youth players have played when bell Mcpake wood and o Donavan have been available,

There are always games when the club is forced to have youth but so will others.

Peteborough and forest especial have young squads.

The stats are not distorted by a 35 year old all teams other than forest had similar on the night and Doncaster had 3.

 

[Grendel]

Most academies run to aged 18 and under. Under most normal circumstances only exceptional players would join with the first team squad
ahead of his time. As such, a player aged 19 should be in
first year post-academy. Aged at 20 perhaps their
. These are truly kids. Your choosing of players up to 23 includes players who could have 5 seasons of post-academy experience. That's the difference.

My criteria truly identifies kids. Yours includes players half way to their testimonial

How many kids were in each squad then? You know the answer I assume as I do?

Still no answer about the experienced players then?

 

[Grendel]

Oh and are you saying gunnarson was not ready to play at the age he was?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

And mine was far from a rant the other evening dear chap. I represented the warm waters of reason lapping at your toes. You are obviously getting exasperated at our owners reluctance to fund a standard of football that you are able to come to terms with.

Your excitable tone and lack of reason was giving rise to a standard of debate I'm sure you're latterly embarrassed by. I merely suggested you may be best served by taking a sabbatical

 

[Sumo the Micky Quinn]

Experience or lack of it has made little difference in the past.

Agreed

I posted this last week on another post.

Jimmy Hill.

Before: Player & chairman of the Professional Footballers Association
After: TV Pundit.

John Sillett.

Before: Manager Hereford Utd 1974–1978 promotion to Div 2 (1976) relegated back to div. 3 (1977), Sillett resigned (Feb 1978). Came to City as coach in 1983-4 then returned 1985, made head coach in 1986 along side Curtis.

After: Manager Hereford Utd.

George Curtis.

Before: Commercial Manager at Coventry City in July 1974 and then Managing Director in September 1983.

After: Back in his Managing Director role.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Oh and are you saying gunnarson was not ready to play at the age he was?

Nope. If you read I did cite 'exceptional players'. Read back. There's a difference between giving the occasional player who's ready his head; and being reliant on more kids, more often than any other team in the league

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

The biggest mistake of recent times was of course employing Chris Coleman. He had significantly more to invest in the squad in comparison to the others, and ultimately failed to move the club forward. I would have liked to have seen what Adams or Dowie could have done with a bit of money.

Not strictly correct-MA was given quite a generous (by CCFC standards) transfer allowance through the funds raised by Paul Fletcher. £600k on KK, £1m on McKenzie, £300k for Birchall etc-he made good and bad signings, but to say he had his hands tied is inaccurate.

 

[torchomatic]

Dowie did not spend his budget particularly wisely.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Dowie as far as I remember spent tribunal fees, which were not footed by the club, on Borrowdale and Best. The rest of the signings were frees-in real terms, he probably spent little more than Thorn; though I don't remember him getting the same loyal support.

 

[Grendel]

And mine was far from a rant the other evening dear chap. I represented the warm waters of reason lapping at your toes. You are
obviously getting exasperated at our owners reluctance to fund a standard of football that you are able to come to terms with.

Your excitable tone and lack of reason was giving rise to a standard of debate I'm sure you're latterly embarrassed by. I merely suggested you may be best served by taking a sabbatical

Interesting post no data and no answers.
I will ask again. How many players of 20 or under were in each squad above. You must know to make the observation you did.
Also you clearly stated our away form is down to lack of experience. What was the statistics you drew from to reach
the conclusion? I am concerned my data source is not accurate.

 

[Grendel]

OK, so my stats were copied wrongly. What about to the meat of the issue. Looking back at our managers, we've had a mixed bag of experience and non. Experience or lack of it has made little difference in the past.

I am merely pointing out that the 3 most inexperienced managers are at the bottom of the division, never mentioned the past or drew any conclusions from it,

 

[Sick Boy]

Not strictly correct-MA was given quite a generous (by CCFC standards) transfer allowance through the funds raised by Paul Fletcher. £600k on KK, £1m on McKenzie, £300k for Birchall etc-he made good and bad signings, but to say he had his hands tied is inaccurate.

I am not saying he had his hand's tied but he had less freedom than Coleman, wasn't that money raised through selling Mcsheffrey?

 

[stupot07]

Dowie as far as I remember spent tribunal fees, which were not footed by the club, on Borrowdale and Best. The rest of the signings were frees-in real terms, he probably spent little more than Thorn; though I don't remember him getting the same loyal support.

Dowie inherited a better squad of players than thorn, in particular in attacking areas - Adebola, Miffy, Mckenzie, Tabb, ward, Doyle as his peak, Marcus hall was still decent.

He then brought in 9 players in the summer including borrowdale (£400k) and best (£650k) and a number of high earners -De Zeuw, Michael Hughes, Cairo and Gray. Free signings still cost money for signing on fees and agents fees.

He also didn't have to sell his top scorer and best centre back (regardless of whether he played under him or not).

Whereas AT has a wage bill that is probably a third of what dowie had, has only been able to bring in 3 perms, 1 was free, 1 free but tribunal (prob ~£80-100k) and 1 for £400k (prob about £100k up front), and 3 loan players a one of which we paid nothing for and was only here for month.

This isn't meant as a pro-AT post.

 

[torchomatic]

It certainly highlights the contraints he's working under though.

This isn't meant as a pro-AT post.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Statistics can be bent to prove anything,, as Mark Twain said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.".

I think the team do less well when the benchg is weak, as it often has been. It is not so bad at the moment so I'm more hopeful, though I rather think it will look a bit feeble compared to the bench Birmingham will have on Saturday.

 

[Grendel]

It certainly highlights the contraints he's working under though.

Agreed but no different to 4 or 5 other clubs either.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Dowie inherited a better squad of players than thorn, in particular in attacking areas - Adebola, Miffy, Mckenzie, Tabb, ward, Doyle as his peak, Marcus hall was still decent.

He then brought in 9 players in the summer including borrowdale (£400k) and best (£650k) and a number of high earners -De Zeuw, Michael Hughes, Cairo and Gray. Free signings still cost money for signing on fees and agents fees.

He also didn't have to sell his top scorer and best centre back (regardless of whether he played under him or not).

Whereas AT has a wage bill that is probably a third of what dowie had, has only been able to bring in 3 perms, 1 was free, 1 free but tribunal (prob ~£80-100k) and 1 for £400k (prob about £100k up front), and 3 loan players a one of which we paid nothing for and was only here for month.

This isn't meant as a pro-AT post.

That's fair, but his team was definitely one of transition from MA's squad. I'd see Dowie's squad as quantity over quality-he signed players simply to make the numbers up in certain positions, not dissimilar to AB's signings of Platt and ROD. As I recall, the club didn't have the money to cover the Best deal so the Cassidy brothers stumped up the cash; we found ourselves under transfer embargo for not meeting payments later on that season.
In an unrelated question-are we still paying Hreidarsson?