Bring back Stuart! (Now with Poll)

Yes. If you have no progress up the league, no big wins and also a low win rate that would indicate that you're a poor manager.

Stats are important but they also need context. As I said I find win rate in isolation to be the weakest way to judge managers because it lacks this context as I mentioned before. You can have a 40% win rate and do a poor job or have a 30% rate and do a great job.

By the way I found this which seems to indicate that the Aberdeen game got them an extra £240k. Not sure if that still counts as crucial to you. It still doesn't to me.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/13160027.aberdeen-0-motherwell-1-runners-up-position-sealed-against-the-run-of-play/

 

I believe your fishing with me, so not going any more with this other than you get guaranteed income from different rounds of europa from 2nd to 3rd league positions. Resulting in guaranteed income from SPL euro pool. This is not counting Europa funds for games played. Based solely on round entering. SPFL also gets co efficent club pools / rights etc from tv ghat is generated. The money you listed is basic SPFL finishing which was down 5% from season with Rangers,

https://www.football-coefficient.eu/team/437-motherwell-fc/

As i said its boring now, It was a pressure game. Hence the crowd and team reaction on video above

 

I have no idea what that website even shows.

They were going to be in the Europa league whether they won or not. What extra gate receipts can they have got?

So 4 pages later. No proof of it being a £1m game, no proof that Aberdeen's budget was 5 times Stuart's. It's okay. I'm bored too.

 

One word answers might do in a black&white world, but I live in shades of grey.

League matches only.

Your original post gives no limits other than the 3-points-for-a-win era. McFarland has the best winning % in this era; Cherry and Dolan also have better winning %s than Stuart. All three have a better points-per-match ratio than Stuart.

Your second post above introduces further limits. Now you're right; Stuart *in his second spell* has the best winning % and points-per-match ratio *since* McFarland.

But why should it be valid to ignore Stuart's earlier spells as manager and interim manager?

RCB

 

Agreed on McFarland hence why I said since him.

Are you using Stuarts stats and diluting them by combining with his first spell to get cherry and dolan higher?

I said Stuart has the highest win% and highest points per game since Roy McFarlaind.

I was basing this on his time under Rahic. I was not looking back and adding his ist spell.

You dont do that hence why wiki and everywhere else base it on the spell as manager not overalll?? I

McFarland 54.7%
McCall 45.8%
Dolan 45.5%
Cherry 41.3%

https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/15920845.bradford-city-stuart-mccall-leaves-as-bantams-boss-with-best-winning-record-since-roy-mcfarland/

 

Peter Taylor 40%
Paul Jewell 39.3%
Frank Stapleton 36.4%
Chris Kamara 35.7%
Phil Parkinson 34.69%

Stats eh?

 

Whats wrong with them? Lets be honest Parkinson lost as many as he won thats why his are low, but he progressed year in year and that makes his stats better. He had a long run of winless games too If I recall rightly which will affect them.

Here's another stat unbeaten at home 1 season, Surely you can give that credit? maybe not

https://www.bradfordcityfc.co.uk/news/2017/april/report--bantams-go-unbeaten-at-home-to-confirm-play-off-place/

anyway need to go home now, night night

 

Nothing wrong with them. I prefer the achievements of Parkinson, Jewell and Kamara over those of Taylor and Stapleton though despite what he win rates say. I wouldn't say that the rates give any indications of the abilities of those 5 managers.

Yep. Of course he gets credit for that.

 

but you dont rate Stuarts, ok I get it

need to clock out already 20 mins unpaid.

 

1) Your post that started all this made no mention of McFarland, only of the 3-points-for-a-win era. The McFarland aspect came later.

2) That would be dishonest, wouldn't it? I am giving his career stats with us, undiluted, unaltered. Focussing only on his second spell is skewing those stats to make his record look better than it is. Should someone who doesn't care for Stuart focus on his spell as interim manager and use his 100% losing record as a stick with which to beat him? Of course not.

3) And that statement is wrong unless and until you add the stipulation that you are only looking at Stuart's second spell as permanent manager.

4) Wherever that list of percentages has come from, the numbers are a bit off. Not badly so, but still somewhat.

RCB

 

mcfarland was the manager when 3 points a win was introduced????

you also told porkies saying cherry dolan had better ratios, they dont

 

He was renouned for it on C&B his nick name was "Rottweiler" never let the bone go some classics went on for days .

 

We have this win ratio stats before it’s winning games when it counts that matters. Stuart’s 2nd season in charge probably the best budget in the league sailing along nicely until we came to a three away games on the trot spell we did poorly and started to slide he couldn’t turn it around.
Stuart is great at empathising with players and I think he would be great as a assistant manager but he can’t crack the whip when things go wrong

 

since Stuart left have any of the managers being able to change it? It could also be said that anyone that gets sacked, cant change it.

Anyway this thread is pointless, he aint coming back. And some think his last spell was successful and his achievements at Motherwell were worthy, others dont and no debate will change that.

lets concentrate on trying to get an increase on the 1 shot on target per game we see today. I certainly miss the football on show under mccall others clearly dont.

 

Parky did after the cup run to the final we were behind on games played and we lost one or two I remember after a game in London I think it was they had a team meeting after which they went on a run in which we reached the play offs and promotion

 

I believe the confrontation came after Exeter had beaten us 4-1 at their place ?.

 

sorry you lost me? parky was before stuart. Or am I reading the reply wrong? out of interest are you being entertained with football on offer today at VP compared to McCalls football?

read it too many times, grayson was a real manager (before appointment) et al and stuart was not worthy etc. Since McCall I personally have not enjoyed the football on offer, But thats just me others have their own views why to dislike or like what they pay for.

 

Mostly with you on that, although there was a period of a few weeks around last December/early January when we actually played very well and got some decent results. Thinking back, I think the Tuesday night game in late January against Shrewsbury with the last minute winner from Ball was the last time I've genuinely felt excited at a game, just hasn't been there this season at all.

 

here's the thing, people who want McCall back think that those that don't are anti-McCall, but it's not that - it's the fact that they don't want to go back to something that hasn't worked twice before.

you also can't talk about his record at Motherwell without taking in to consideration of his record as interim manager with us, his first spell in charge or indeed his record when in charge of Scunthorpe or Rangers.

we have to look at his career as a whole and not just at his record but his history of signings too, where there have been plenty of failures and players who haven't lived up to the billing that he brought them in under. he is in undoubtedly a good coach and seems to do better when inheriting a decent squad rather than trying to build one of his own.

also, his career loss percentage as manager is almost equal to his win percentage 38% vs. 39%.

 

who was our last manager who had a significant win to loss percentage in career stats? If we are now looking at stats for the period in which he was a manager overall?

Seems mccall is judged like no other by some, dont know why.