torchomatic
Well-Known Member
No surprise who the bottom two are.
L1 Manager Win Percentages (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter torchomatic
- Start date
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Venus is higher than you'd think, isn't he.
Not that far from Robins...
Not that far from Robins...
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Yeah Venus's position surprised me too.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
When you consider he fell away later on, you could quite reasonably say we were right to keep him on as long as we did really...
Earlsdon-Loyal-Blue
Well-Known Member
@Earlsdon_Skyblue1 :emoji_bell::emoji_bell::emoji_bell:
oucho
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Throw in a few Checkatrade wins and he was flavour of the month for a while. It was only after the MK Dons, Cambridge and Southend defeats that the penny started to drop that all was not well.
Anyway, the Mowbray stat is wrong I think. Technically 0 is not a percentage.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Robins would have had this squad finish 16th then based on that form had he been here all season. The squad wasn't that bad of a reflection on the budget then. Just Mowbray lost interest, enthusiasm and direction, Venus didn't have a clue and his form flatters to decieve , Slade was just a major fuck up and perfect example of a square peg trying to fit in a round hole with a complete waste of a transfer window to boot.
I don't understand why Venus was left in the position so long, why Slade was appointed at all and why Robins wasn't pursued in the first place. It's not the squad that got us relegated, it was the decisions made of field.
I don't understand why Venus was left in the position so long, why Slade was appointed at all and why Robins wasn't pursued in the first place. It's not the squad that got us relegated, it was the decisions made of field.
hill83
Well-Known Member
Bit of both really though.
Last edited:
Sky Blue Harry H
Well-Known Member
1 away win all season in a League of that quality suggests that something was badly amiss with the squad. If the players/squad had been better quality, even a poor manager should have been able to fluke more away wins than that
st john
Well-Known Member
I'm sure I'm getting 0% interest on my savings.
Earlsdon-Loyal-Blue
Well-Known Member
Totally agree. About time ridiculous posters like @Earlsdon_Skyblue1 wake up and smell the coffee. The managerial appointments have been rotten to the core, time and time again.
Fans were left leaving the Ricoh contemplating driving into a ditch when Slade was in charge
oucho
Well-Known Member
Well you're not getting any interest - but there's no such thing as zero percent, technically (I may be wrong).
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
You again! There are so many cunts from Earlsdon on here.
How does it feel to know your boyfriend's very own apprentice Venus actially somehow managed to make him look even shitter?
st john
Well-Known Member
You could well be right, but in this case it's number of wins expressed as a percentage of total games managed. So in the case of MR its 4/11x100 = 36.36, and in the case of TM its 0/10x100 = 0 on the calculator.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
st john
Well-Known Member
Depends on the context. You can't give 110% effort despite of what many sports people say, but you can increase something by 110%
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The stats speak for themselves really. Why was Venus allowed to be in charge so long? Who appointed Slade? Who let Slade stay for so long? Who decided to go for Robins when it was too late? It wasn't the squad, it was those making the decisions of field.
mark82
Super Moderator
Actually, the stats support Venus being in charge for so long. By your argument Robins is 1 game off being sacked. You could argue that, by the stats, had Venus stayed in charge longer we would have stayed up. I thought getting rid of Venus was the right decision at the time but the stats don't bear that out, particularly as he was replaced with someone who ended second bottom of that table with a similar amount of games.
Venus' problem was that he was dislikeable and rubbed the fans up the wrong way. We will never know whether he would have maintained the same ratio, which at the time of Slade taking over was trending down.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Because his win percentage ain't that far off the current incumbent, that's why...
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
He was only one win off what Robins has currently done.
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
Unless that '110%' is in the same sentence as 'Coventry City players' and 'effort' then that 110% doesn't really fit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nick
Administrator
Venus problem was that he was a director. If he was just Mowbray's assistant then caretaker he wouldn't have as much stick.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
So if Venus was shit, what does that make Mowbray?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
This is always the problem with statistics especially over a relatively short time period.
Venus stats show a short term blip at the beginning of his tenure. By the end he'd lost 7 successive league games.
If Slades team had hung on for a couple more minutes he'd have won 3 more games in his tenure fairly early on as well.
Robins has won home games but at the end of the season against uninterested opposition mostly. Few games where the opposition had something to play for we won. Even under that clueless buffoon Mowbray we won several meaningless games at the end of last season as well.
The common denominator is the squad was appalling uncompetitive in big games and never good enough.
Venus stats show a short term blip at the beginning of his tenure. By the end he'd lost 7 successive league games.
If Slades team had hung on for a couple more minutes he'd have won 3 more games in his tenure fairly early on as well.
Robins has won home games but at the end of the season against uninterested opposition mostly. Few games where the opposition had something to play for we won. Even under that clueless buffoon Mowbray we won several meaningless games at the end of last season as well.
The common denominator is the squad was appalling uncompetitive in big games and never good enough.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Football's often about momentum too, so if we'd got going early with Slade, who knows what difference it'd have made.
Of course, football's also all about the 'what ifs'...
st john
Well-Known Member
I seem to remember Venus was desperate to get out and get a replacement manager in. Also didn't he say in an interview that the team weren't good enough to stay up?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
If he did, he was dead right!
st john
Well-Known Member
That's not right. Yes we lost the first 3 games under Robins when the team were disorganised and despondent, he would have needed time to sort that out. Then we beat Port Vale in a relegation 6 pointer, and also beat Bristol Rovers & Peterborough who both had realistic top 6 ambitions when we played them. We played 7 games in April and lost 3. Two of them against Sheff U and Scunthorpe away. (1st & 3rd in the league)
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Peterborough didn't have realistic ambitions - they were mid table. Also dismissing the first three games makes no sense. Venus started winning as soon as he became manager and Slades best performance was the first home game.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Like I said. The Venus stats flatter to deceive. Aside from those two lucky wins we were shit, didn't really look any better than we did under Slade. In fact I'd say Slade picked up where Venus left of. The only thing Venus managed that Slade and Robins didn't was new manager bounce. Once that wore off we saw his true capabilities. If Venus had have stayed on as manager the only thing he might have achieved was relegation confirmed sooner.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
...and this must be remembered in the context of anybody being misty eyed about any player who has been released