| McClaren incoming on 14:26 - May 8 with 5052 views | Gloucs_R |
Has Ollie worked miracles or was the change of formation from 532 to 4231 forced upon him?
Same question with the younger players. When he a defensive crisis for the first 4 months, I dont seem to remember Kakay or Furlong playing too many games. |  |
|  |
| McClaren incoming on 14:50 - May 8 with 4959 views | isawqpratwcity |
| McClaren incoming on 13:39 - May 8 by Antti_Heinola |
Teams having less than a point per game could also be indicative of a togher league with stronger sides in it, rather than just one or two good sides and the rest being much of a muchness, though. |
A point a game or worse is relegation form. Only three clubs have got a point or less and not been relegated from the Championship; two if you don't count Rotherham for having points deducted.
This year three clubs did a point or less and survived. That's a quarter of the division on relegation form. |  |
| |
| McClaren incoming on 15:00 - May 8 with 4915 views | cyprusmel |
| McClaren incoming on 22:00 - May 7 by Hunterhoop |
I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. I don't think Holloway has got anything like the best from our existing squad this season. The huge inconsistency in our performances indicates they could be playing at higher level, because, on occasion they have, but too often have not
Equally, in terms of the deficiencies you mention. We were not weak at centre half this season. That's precisely why we're losing our two centre halves; better teams with more money will offer them better deals than we can. We lack width, but not because we don't have the players, but because of how Holloway has set them up and trained them to play. Pawel has played right wing for Poland and shown himself to be effective there. Smyth looks excellent when played as a wide forward/winger, routinely roasting his full back and getting to ththe byline. But he's in one week, out the next. Shodipo looked Pete fly at home at this level 18 months as a winger. He's nowhere near the squad. And then we have Samuel, and Wheeler, and earlier in the season, Lua Lua. We've had the ability to play with width throughout the season, but predominantly we deliberately set up without it in these 5-3-2 shapes to accommodate Washington. 433, with two quick wide forwards either side of Smith or Sylla suits us the best. And they allow us to play Scowen, Luongo and Freeman. Our results have been significantly better since he shifted to this.
Our lack of width was down to Holloway, not a deficiency he had to deal with.
Like I say, love the man. Club legend. Done what was asked of him. But I fancy we might be a bit better than that now. And I'd be surprised if McClaren wouldn't improve us. I think the players have shown they're capable, especially that midfield 3, of being quite good in this league, better than 16th, certainly.
Losing the two main centre halves, and possibly Smithies or one of those midfielders, will be a huge hit. But that's more reason why we need to regularly be maximising the team's performance, getting 100% or near week in week out. That is not happening under Holloway. His selections are erratic, and our performances are too. |
Up voted this post not down. |  | | |
| McClaren incoming on 15:55 - May 8 with 4807 views | FDC |
I see the poster on that WATRB thread is still insisting that McClaren is coming in for Holloway. |  | | |
| McClaren incoming on 15:57 - May 8 with 4800 views | Antti_Heinola |
| McClaren incoming on 14:50 - May 8 by isawqpratwcity |
A point a game or worse is relegation form. Only three clubs have got a point or less and not been relegated from the Championship; two if you don't count Rotherham for having points deducted.
This year three clubs did a point or less and survived. That's a quarter of the division on relegation form. |
this is just pedantry, of course, and I'm only messing about, but that's not really responding to what I said. What I said was that this could be a *strong* league, because teams who would normally be taking 50-60 points in a season are only getting 40-45 because there are more stronger teams than usual, therefore they are dropping more points. How many points a team gets is not really comparable season to season when six teams change every year. You could be right - the mean of the league could be weak, meaning more teams are getting fewer points. But you could equally be wrong - meaning the mean of the league is actually strong, meaning more teams getting fewer points. Another comparison is the year we won the league with 84 points. 84 points this season would have got us 4th place. Three teams got more this season than we did that season, which could mean there are simply more stronger sides meaning they are naturally picking up more points, or equally that there are more poorer sides., meaning it's easier for them to pick up points.
Either may be true, you may be right, but points totals comparisons between seasons don't prove either hypothesis, I'm afraid! |  |
| |
| McClaren incoming on 16:42 - May 8 with 4664 views | daveB |
| McClaren incoming on 14:26 - May 8 by Gloucs_R |
Has Ollie worked miracles or was the change of formation from 532 to 4231 forced upon him?
Same question with the younger players. When he a defensive crisis for the first 4 months, I dont seem to remember Kakay or Furlong playing too many games. |
I don't think Holloway has worked any miracles, he's done a steady 6/10 job all season., also doubt anything was forced upon him. Not sure he's switched to 4-2-3-1 either, been more of a 4-3-3 with the 2 wide players tucked in. Attacking wise not hugely different to how we played with a back 3.
Furlong struggled at the start of the season and then was injured and given a break due to some family issues which I think held him back. He did get back in the side in January then made the shirt his own from March onwards. |  | | |
| McClaren incoming on 16:48 - May 8 with 4646 views | isawqpratwcity |
| McClaren incoming on 15:57 - May 8 by Antti_Heinola |
this is just pedantry, of course, and I'm only messing about, but that's not really responding to what I said. What I said was that this could be a *strong* league, because teams who would normally be taking 50-60 points in a season are only getting 40-45 because there are more stronger teams than usual, therefore they are dropping more points. How many points a team gets is not really comparable season to season when six teams change every year. You could be right - the mean of the league could be weak, meaning more teams are getting fewer points. But you could equally be wrong - meaning the mean of the league is actually strong, meaning more teams getting fewer points. Another comparison is the year we won the league with 84 points. 84 points this season would have got us 4th place. Three teams got more this season than we did that season, which could mean there are simply more stronger sides meaning they are naturally picking up more points, or equally that there are more poorer sides., meaning it's easier for them to pick up points.
Either may be true, you may be right, but points totals comparisons between seasons don't prove either hypothesis, I'm afraid! |
When we won the Championship we had 88 points, which would have made us third this season.
This particular rat's nest at the bottom of the table has been festering away for most of the season. Have a look at the league table attached to this Beeb match report from October. The exact same six clubs on a point or less as in the end of season table (though not in the same order).
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/41703329
This is clearly not the work of a few strong clubs, otherwise the clubs would have periods of better fortune when their fixtures were less malignant. The imbalance is between these six clubs (occasionally a seventh would join them temporarily then improve away) and the rest of the division. Decide for yourself on the basis of how much continuity of teams there is between seasons and which is the more likely: a small number of clubs get worse or a large majority get better?
Anyway, my point about these weak clubs (if you accept the argument) is that they flatter the rest of the division with extra points and higher places, including us. | |
| |
| McClaren incoming on 20:27 - May 8 with 4445 views | davman |
| McClaren incoming on 14:26 - May 8 by Gloucs_R |
Has Ollie worked miracles or was the change of formation from 532 to 4231 forced upon him?
Same question with the younger players. When he a defensive crisis for the first 4 months, I dont seem to remember Kakay or Furlong playing too many games. |
Maybe the management worked out that bloodied youngsters before we were safe was insanity?
By luck or judgement, they've been introduced brilliantly... |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| McClaren incoming on 20:55 - May 8 with 4367 views | GloryHunter |
| McClaren incoming on 15:57 - May 8 by Antti_Heinola |
this is just pedantry, of course, and I'm only messing about, but that's not really responding to what I said. What I said was that this could be a *strong* league, because teams who would normally be taking 50-60 points in a season are only getting 40-45 because there are more stronger teams than usual, therefore they are dropping more points. How many points a team gets is not really comparable season to season when six teams change every year. You could be right - the mean of the league could be weak, meaning more teams are getting fewer points. But you could equally be wrong - meaning the mean of the league is actually strong, meaning more teams getting fewer points. Another comparison is the year we won the league with 84 points. 84 points this season would have got us 4th place. Three teams got more this season than we did that season, which could mean there are simply more stronger sides meaning they are naturally picking up more points, or equally that there are more poorer sides., meaning it's easier for them to pick up points.
Either may be true, you may be right, but points totals comparisons between seasons don't prove either hypothesis, I'm afraid! |
That's an interesting analysis. This might be an unexpected (or perhaps expected) consequence of the switch to 3 points for a win. In the old days, when it was 2 points for a win, if you won the bulk of your home games, and drew the bulk of your away games, then you'd win the league, or come close to it. Now you can afford to lose 2 games on the spin and make up for it with one win - equivalent points tally to having drawn all three. Under the old system there wasn't so much yo-yoing in league positions. As I remember it, the main point of introducing 3 points for a win (engineered and driven through by Jimmy Hill) was to encourage teams not to settle for an away draw, but to be more attacking away from home. The same principle applied to to the away-goals-count-double in Euro matches. Has either measure resulted in more attractive attacking football overall? I'm not sure. |  | | |
| McClaren incoming on 21:05 - May 8 with 4339 views | GloryHunter |
On reflection, what I should have said is that under the old system, there were 2 points up for grabs in every game. Either one team got both points, or they were shared one-each. That meant there were an exact and finite number of points available in every league, to be shared out between all the competing teams, giving you a clear target for winning or losing the league. The 3-point system has changed that completely. Nobody knows how many points will be needed for victory or safety. That's why some years 84 points will win you the league, and some years 88 won't be enough. | | | |
| McClaren incoming on 22:34 - May 8 with 4185 views | PunteR |
| McClaren incoming on 21:05 - May 8 by GloryHunter |
On reflection, what I should have said is that under the old system, there were 2 points up for grabs in every game. Either one team got both points, or they were shared one-each. That meant there were an exact and finite number of points available in every league, to be shared out between all the competing teams, giving you a clear target for winning or losing the league. The 3-point system has changed that completely. Nobody knows how many points will be needed for victory or safety. That's why some years 84 points will win you the league, and some years 88 won't be enough. |
How about doing away with the current points system and just have a point per goal plus the winner wins an extra point? |  |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| McClaren incoming on 22:48 - May 8 with 4150 views | isawqpratwcity |
| McClaren incoming on 21:05 - May 8 by GloryHunter |
On reflection, what I should have said is that under the old system, there were 2 points up for grabs in every game. Either one team got both points, or they were shared one-each. That meant there were an exact and finite number of points available in every league, to be shared out between all the competing teams, giving you a clear target for winning or losing the league. The 3-point system has changed that completely. Nobody knows how many points will be needed for victory or safety. That's why some years 84 points will win you the league, and some years 88 won't be enough. |
It is no longer a zero-sum game. | |
| |
| McClaren incoming on 00:07 - May 9 with 4051 views | enfieldargh |
at tonight's podcast the question was asked to Clint and Dezza who both worked under Steve Maclaren; is he a good coach and rumour has it he might be our new manager. Earlier both Clint and Derry said how vital Maclaren was to our promotion that season and how we lost impetus when he left(Dont we know it)
So Kevin Gallen seemed to be elected to answer re Schteeve
His opening gambit was 'when the new manager comes in....................'
I'm not one to jump to conclusions and can only think that Kev has his ear close to the ground but it certainly sounded to me like a change is imminent.
The pod is well worth a listen when it comes out even though its a bit of a Joey Barton love fest |  |
| |
| McClaren incoming on 08:04 - May 9 with 3815 views | Hunterhoop |
| McClaren incoming on 00:07 - May 9 by enfieldargh |
at tonight's podcast the question was asked to Clint and Dezza who both worked under Steve Maclaren; is he a good coach and rumour has it he might be our new manager. Earlier both Clint and Derry said how vital Maclaren was to our promotion that season and how we lost impetus when he left(Dont we know it)
So Kevin Gallen seemed to be elected to answer re Schteeve
His opening gambit was 'when the new manager comes in....................'
I'm not one to jump to conclusions and can only think that Kev has his ear close to the ground but it certainly sounded to me like a change is imminent.
The pod is well worth a listen when it comes out even though its a bit of a Joey Barton love fest |
Oh, Jesus! Why was it a Joey Barton love fest?! I was interested in listening. Now though... |  | | |
| McClaren incoming on 09:48 - May 9 with 3650 views | simmo |
| McClaren incoming on 08:04 - May 9 by Hunterhoop |
Oh, Jesus! Why was it a Joey Barton love fest?! I was interested in listening. Now though... |
I'd imagine becasue him and Clint are friendly, at least they appear so on social media etc. As you say I was keen to listen but I'm not having positive spin about Barton, even from heroes like Clint and Derry. |  |
| ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead |
| |
| McClaren incoming on 09:52 - May 9 with 3630 views | philc |
Isn’t Clint going to be Joey’s assistant at Fleetwood? | | | |
| McClaren incoming on 10:00 - May 9 with 3591 views | Antti_Heinola |
| McClaren incoming on 16:48 - May 8 by isawqpratwcity |
When we won the Championship we had 88 points, which would have made us third this season.
This particular rat's nest at the bottom of the table has been festering away for most of the season. Have a look at the league table attached to this Beeb match report from October. The exact same six clubs on a point or less as in the end of season table (though not in the same order).
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/41703329
This is clearly not the work of a few strong clubs, otherwise the clubs would have periods of better fortune when their fixtures were less malignant. The imbalance is between these six clubs (occasionally a seventh would join them temporarily then improve away) and the rest of the division. Decide for yourself on the basis of how much continuity of teams there is between seasons and which is the more likely: a small number of clubs get worse or a large majority get better?
Anyway, my point about these weak clubs (if you accept the argument) is that they flatter the rest of the division with extra points and higher places, including us. |
You're wrong. As any fan knows, and as both Sky and the BBC told us, it was Norwich who won the league in 2011 and they had 84 points. I just checked.
;)
(could've sworn it was 84! Anyway, point still stands). | |
| |
| McClaren incoming on 10:03 - May 9 with 3577 views | TheChef |
| McClaren incoming on 09:48 - May 9 by simmo |
I'd imagine becasue him and Clint are friendly, at least they appear so on social media etc. As you say I was keen to listen but I'm not having positive spin about Barton, even from heroes like Clint and Derry. |
Essentially it came down to Barton 'being honest' which they thought was a good character trait, and wanting everyone in a squad to be as professional as they can be (funnily enough he and Adel didn't get on) - but they both did admit he can be a divisive character and you either love him or hate him.
Clear that both Hill and Derry get on well with him and weren't going to slag him off, but neither suggested he was a saint.
Interesting point about Hughes at QPR that he failed to front up to players and hid behind his coaching staff, and that the players decided to do things their own way in that final third of the 11-12 season which helped us stay up (ex Fulham player said something similar the other day). I get the impression that has not changed much with him when you look at Stoke and Southampton. |  |
| |
| McClaren incoming on 10:09 - May 9 with 3555 views | philc |
This story probably been picked up from this thread. I wouldn’t read anything more into the story | | | |
| McClaren incoming on 10:32 - May 9 with 3476 views | isawqpratwcity |
| McClaren incoming on 10:00 - May 9 by Antti_Heinola |
You're wrong. As any fan knows, and as both Sky and the BBC told us, it was Norwich who won the league in 2011 and they had 84 points. I just checked.
;)
(could've sworn it was 84! Anyway, point still stands). |
What point still stands? Did you read anything after the first sentence? [Post edited 9 May 2018 11:05]
| |
| |
| McClaren incoming on 11:39 - May 9 with 3335 views | Juzzie |
Probably as a result of sifting through the internet and finding rumours then making a 'story' of it. Exactly as alluded to in an earlier post on this thread.
Will be interesting to see what, if anything, comes of this. |  | | |
| McClaren incoming on 11:43 - May 9 with 3320 views | cyprusmel |
| McClaren incoming on 09:52 - May 9 by philc |
Isn’t Clint going to be Joey’s assistant at Fleetwood? |
He might well be joining up with Joe Barton but he has been offered a new contract by Carlisle. | | | |
| McClaren incoming on 11:47 - May 9 with 3292 views | Antti_Heinola |
| McClaren incoming on 10:32 - May 9 by isawqpratwcity |
What point still stands? Did you read anything after the first sentence? [Post edited 9 May 2018 11:05]
|
Oh. You're serious. Sorry, I thought we were just messing about over some ephemeral concept neither of us could possibly prove, just for larks. OK mate, yep, you nailed it. I read it all and it was spot on. | |
| |
| McClaren incoming on 12:14 - May 9 with 3197 views | isawqpratwcity |
| McClaren incoming on 11:47 - May 9 by Antti_Heinola |
Oh. You're serious. Sorry, I thought we were just messing about over some ephemeral concept neither of us could possibly prove, just for larks. OK mate, yep, you nailed it. I read it all and it was spot on. |
Yeah, I was being serious. Did you look at the Beeb match report from October and see the same six clubs on a point a game or less as in May? Doesn't that say that there was an underclass in the league this season? Doesn't that affect the rest of the teams in the division by making them look better?
Doesn't that make Holloway look even worse? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
