Most liked posts in thread: City Managers Records and achievements

I have to disagree with you on this point. Here's the records (League matches only) of our managers from Stuart's first spell onwards:



And here's the bottom, and thus the good end, of the losing % list: (again, League matches only). Games played - WDL - and % WDL



Kamara's losing % was 39.39%, and Jewell's, 39.05%.

Granted, Staurt's not-as-impressive first-spell numbers are more than compensated for by the impressive second-spell numbers; it remains to be seen what effect the third spell will have. But even so, Stuart's first-spell losing % was still better than that of K. and J. So I don't think this particular stat can be used against Stuart.

RCB

 

I'm now only concerned about 1 manager.

Stuart McCall. Stint 3.

Whats happened in the past whether McCall or whomever is irrelevant.

Forward thinking.

 

Have to disagree.

It speaks to a mindset at the club.

If they are lazy in this area, arguably one of the most important the club, then it is not a stretch to project that they are lazy in other areas, scouting, player retention, player recruitment, revenue work, commercial etc etc

So no it' not irrelevant.

 

I appreciate all of your work on this in response to what Dennis said but my personal objection to a focus on win/loss rates when trying to judge a manager is more simple.......they don't take into account objectives.

You could have a 50% win rate and fail or you could have a 30% win rate and massively overachieve.

In every season here McCalls objective has been promotion, he's been expected to be towards the top of the league. You would therefore expect a good win rate.

Kamara, Jewell and Parkinson actually achieved something.....promotion....and therefore had seasons where their primary objective was just to stay up in the new league. All of which they actually achieved. Your win rate will obviously suffer when you're trying to consolidate at a new level.

Weirdly, focusing purely on win/loss rate is actually praising Stuart for never actually getting promotion. He's never had to adjust to a new level and had his win rate suffer as a result.

That's why win/loss rate is a meaningless stat in isolation.

 

Mate, I was against the appointment of McCall, strangely saying it was a lazy appointment myself. I was looking at Evatt or Wild but hey ho.

I'm not concerned as I said above about the past. It's about now. The manager we have is whom I will judge. Not his first two stints.

I've already said, I feel like we are a club in regression.

Take a look at the National League final right now. One club on the up, one on the slide. One with a novice manager, a bloody hard working ethic, with a real press. I look at the Notts team whom look slow, looking at old guard I see more of our team (as it stands) in Notts.

 

I deliberately avoided any comment on the "value" of the numbers, apart from the observation that Stuart's second-spell numbers are impressive whilst his first-spell numbers are less so. There are valid criticisms to be made of Stuart, but these particular numbers do not suggest that this is the approach to take. What the numbers do is give one particular view of the question; each of you have added other views that complement mine.

As RT has posted above, we were close to promotion. Who knows how the match would have played out if Clarke had scored. A win, and Stuart would have had that achievement on his record and, I suppose, the objectives of both owners and supporters would have been met.

And that brings me to something that I have thought deserves its own thread -- what do we think of as "success" for a manager?

Objectives met? But what we the supporters see as the objective(s) might be dramatically different from what ownership wants. Promotion, or simply avoid relegation? Win, or win entertainingly? Win a cup, or get to the latter rounds of a cup? Develop youth? Build up the infrastructure at the expense of a promotion challenge? Go for promotion but leave the infrastructure lagging? Sell a player for immediate cash gains as opposed to keeping that player for his value to the side? Increase crowds? And so on...

Achievements? This one is probably easier to define: Championships (whatever the division), promotions, and Cup wins certainly. Beyond that, I suppose winning and winning in style could be added. But what about going through a season undefeated at home? What about setting a new club record, in a good way, for a season? And again, as posted above, what about Dolan and good football but just falling short, and not necessarily through failings of his own?

Methinks we will all define "success" a little differently.

RCB

 

100% ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

just shows the value for scratching round for a point when not playing well

 

Im sorry fella but you are getting confused here buddy.

Hes managed many clubs. Hes only got the the triple at one club once. Doing this once does not disprove my point about pep needing time at multiple clubs. You saying it took him one year to achive his record breaking season only proves my point!

I honestly don't know how your day has been but you have been salty and frankly toxic for no reason. Hope your day is going well!

 

Figures of which manager got this percentage or that percentage are interesting but totally beyond the point,
The only measurement of any value is what did they actually achieve,