Football 2021/2022

[charlierc]

Just now, thetime said:

Your next manager

He turned Newcastle down in his pre-game conference for this game. There's been better auditions to take a job.

[WS_Jack_III]

4 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

The thing is you are not going to get a premiership manager disect the pros and cons of sacking him in a press conference, what would be in it for them?

However this isn't some kind of media conspiracy, it's just the way managers have always acted in press conferences. If you get asked the question what you think about Bruce being sacked you are just going to give the blandest, least controversial answer.

My view is these press conferences can be ignored and I would never watch one. You dont have a clue if answer reflects the managers true opinion or not. Most only do them because they are contractually obliged. Listening to the radio on the way back they were asking OGS and klopp today who they think is the best Ronaldo or Salah, I mean what is the point.

It's not just the managers press conferences, its the talk shows and social media. Just take a look, we're evil Geordies for wanting a poor manager to be sacked.

 

One of the fan podcasts had a good point, is Bruce living off his days as Man United captain? I'm not old enough to know but by all accounts he was a good player.

[thetime]

1 hour ago, WS_Jack_III said:

 

 

One of the fan podcasts had a good point, is Bruce living off his days as Man United captain? I'm not old enough to know but by all accounts he was a good player.

He's managed for 1000 games, you don't do that living off his days as a united player. If so why hasn't keane done the same. 

Wether you like it or not, he's had a good career as a manager.

Edited October 22, 2021 by thetime

[WS_Jack_III]

19 minutes ago, thetime said:

He's managed for 1000 games, you don't do that living off his days as a united player. If so why hasn't keane done the same. 

Wether you like it or not, he's had a good career as a manager.

Statistically one of the worst managers ever.

[thetime]

2 hours ago, WS_Jack_III said:

Statistically one of the worst managers ever.

Wether he is or not(I'm sure he isnt), your point said he got 1000 games because he used to play for united 25 years ago. 

[pink_triangle]

7 hours ago, WS_Jack_III said:

Statistically one of the worst managers ever.

What statistics are you using to make that judgement?

[WS_Jack_III]

6 hours ago, thetime said:

Wether he is or not(I'm sure he isnt), your point said he got 1000 games because he used to play for united 25 years ago. 

Wasn't at all what I said, I asked if the media love in is due to his time as Man United captain.

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

What statistics are you using to make that judgement?

https://www.themag.co.uk/2021/10/steve-bruce-record-compared-to-the-other-1000-game-top-flight-managers-newcastle-united/

second worst of the 1000 club.

[pink_triangle]

7 minutes ago, WS_Jack_III said:

Wasn't at all what I said, I asked if the media love in is due to his time as Man United captain.

https://www.themag.co.uk/2021/10/steve-bruce-record-compared-to-the-other-1000-game-top-flight-managers-newcastle-united/

second worst of the 1000 club.

Above you said statistically one of the worst ever. Those statistics do not show what you have stated. The exclusion criteria is managers who have managed 999 games are less ,which no statistician trying to rank managers would ever consider using.

All the statistics that you link show is that Bruce has the second lowest win percentage of managers who have done 1000 games, it is not any ranking of managerial ability. If you look at the list what it basically shows is a trend that the managers with the most money win the most games, who would have thought it! The record of Bruce is in line with the others who have managed similar club.

Any statistic like win percentage that compares OGS and Sean Dyche in the same way is clearly massively flawed, that's before you use the ridiculous exclusion criteria that those statistics do. What the statistics you link are basically just Newcastle fans looking for statistics to fit in with a predetermined view. They in no way judge managerial capability.

[charlierc]

11 hours ago, thetime said:

He's managed for 1000 games, you don't do that living off his days as a united player. If so why hasn't keane done the same. 

Wether you like it or not, he's had a good career as a manager.

Sure. I can accept there's a difference between simply not having a good spell with one club and being a terrible manager overall. I mean, I don't think Bruce was a bad at Newcastle as Steve McClaren, who looked pretty hopeless throughout his Newcastle spell, but equally, Bruce was kinda lucky to have made it to now given there were some pretty unimpressive underlying stats from Newcastle's games, particularly in the middle third of last season.

Looking at the resume, I'd say he did more right than wrong at Birmingham City and Hull, and I'm aware Crystal Palace and Sheffield Wednesday wanted him to stay after he left at the first opportunity following a few wins. At the same time, he didn't really do as well at Newcastle, Sunderland and Aston Villa, who all wanted more. It's why I wondered if the best time for Bruce to take the Newcastle job was 2004, given both he and club had better reputations at the time, instead of 2019, when he'd spent as much time in the Championship or in relegation battles and Newcastle had been exiled from the top 6 positions they'd occupied in 2001-04.

That, and I think a lot of Newcastle fan dissatisfaction goes back to the feeling of a missed opportunity. I think by it's nature, going from Benitez saying he wanted to build a team that could do more than simply fight to stay up to Bruce openly saying his remit was just to stay up until the takeover was going to lead to just feeling underwhelmed by it all, even if that was achieved. Certainly I found that moving of the goalposts as underwhelming, but I don't see it as personal and more just the fickle nature of football fandom. 

I'm aware that now tbf we really have to get results fucking sharpish regardless of who's in charge or we're going to be in for more of a kicking.

Edited October 23, 2021 by charlierc

[pink_triangle]

8 minutes ago, charlierc said:

Sure. I can accept there's a difference between simply not having a good spell with one club and being a terrible manager overall. 

I would also argue a club having a bad spell is not always down to the manager. I have no doubt the manager makes a difference, but finances is a far greater factor. It's not as easy as looking through a manager (Bruce or anyone) and looking at their w-d-l record. There are loads of factors involved.

[lost]

14 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I would also argue a club having a bad spell is not always down to the manager. I have no doubt the manager makes a difference, but finances is a far greater factor. It's not as easy as looking through a manager (Bruce or anyone) and looking at their w-d-l record. There are loads of factors involved.

When you watch Sunderland till I die though the relegation happened the previous season under Moyes you get the feeling even Alex Ferguson couldn't have kept them up.

[WS_Jack_III]

Can't be arsed quoting massive chunks of text, you lot are hilarious defending Bruce though. In response to "the managers with the most money win the most games"

 

So why hasn't Bruce had one of those jobs then? Since he's such an amazing manager.

[pink_triangle]

6 minutes ago, WS_Jack_III said:

Can't be arsed quoting massive chunks of text, you lot are hilarious defending Bruce though. In response to "the managers with the most money win the most games"

Come on you stated you had some statistics that showed Bruce was statistically the worst manager. The statistics you linked did not show that. Now someone has called out your stats rather than countering you just say you can't be arsed discussing. That's the reply of someone who doesn't have an answer. If you believe those stats support Bruce being statistically the worst manager explain why. The key questions are why do you need to manage 1000 games to qualify to be the worst manager and why is win percentage the correct marker to judge a manager. I am willing to be persuaded to your argument if you can justify either point. 

In terms of your point about the managers with the most money winning the most points, just look at the final table every season and look at the trend. Even look at those 1000 games stats and who is in the top and bottom half. Do you think it's pure coincidence that the managers who have had the biggest spending power are generally at the top 

[pink_triangle]

14 minutes ago, WS_Jack_III said:

 

 

So why hasn't Bruce had one of those jobs then? Since he's such an amazing manager.

I honestly can't remember a single person saying he was an amazing manager. Neither is he one of the worst managers the premier League has seen. However having a top job does not mean you are an amazing manager. I use Lampard, Avram Grant, OGS, Roy Evans as evidence.

[WS_Jack_III]

23 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Come on you stated you had some statistics that showed Bruce was statistically the worst manager.

You've misquoted me multiple times now. 

That's the sign of someone who isn't willing to listen 😉

Edited October 23, 2021 by WS_Jack_III

[efcfanwirral]

1 hour ago, charlierc said:

That, and I think a lot of Newcastle fan dissatisfaction goes back to the feeling of a missed opportunity. I think by it's nature, going from Benitez saying he wanted to build a team that could do more than simply fight to stay up to Bruce openly saying his remit was just to stay up until the takeover was going to lead to just feeling underwhelmed by it all, even if that was achieved.

Benitez has just said the same at Everton - demanding more. He'd be perfect for you guys now, money to spend but a practical head to make sure it gets spent right. Shame for Newcastle that the PL messed you around so much or you could've had him in the summer. 

We had our "rebirth" opportunity and wasted it - we spent loads of money on absolute shite, so FFP has ruined us. You've got to make sure this doesn't happen - you have a 3 year window to get it right or you're fucked.

Here's an idea of how badly it can go wrong:

Our 2017 spending is haunting us now- 45m on he who must not be named (regardless of anything else, underwhelming on the pitch most of the time)  25m on klassen, 20m tosun and 20m Walcott. Two are still there and don't contribute, while two left on a massive loss. There was also 20m spent on three younger players who've also left. We spent £182m that year, and only £50m on Keane and Pickford has remotely paid off.

It got better in 2018 - mina, digne and richarlison for 89m.

Then in 2019 we spent a combined 108m mainly on Kean (gone), gbamin and Delph (always injured), iwobi (laughably shit, especially compared to townsend), Gomes (sometimes good, fringe player). 

And actually looking back at 2016 when the money started - 20m schniederlin and 25m for bolasie was a complete waste too and we got a grand total of 2m back. 

Yes there were some big outgoings but also some huge wages we couldn't get off the books til they went on frees. 

So yeah, don't repeat our mistakes...

Edited October 23, 2021 by efcfanwirral

[pink_triangle]

4 minutes ago, WS_Jack_III said:

You've misquoted me multiple times now. 

That's the sign of someone who isn't willing to listen 😉

Nope your exact wording was statistically one of the worst managers ever. When I asked what statistics you were basing it on, you linked to statistics which did not prove the point you were making.

I am listening and if you are able to explain why managers need to manage 1000 games to be considered amongst the worst ever and why win percentage is a good way to compare managers. I am open to changing my mind about Bruce who I regard as a middling Premiership manager with a mixed track record.

[WS_Jack_III]

18 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Nope your exact wording was statistically one of the worst managers ever. When I asked what statistics you were basing it on, you linked to statistics which did not prove the point you were making.

I am listening and if you are able to explain why managers need to manage 1000 games to be considered amongst the worst ever and why win percentage is a good way to compare managers. I am open to changing my mind about Bruce who I regard as a middling Premiership manager with a mixed track record.

He's the second worst to have managed 1000.

 

Have a look at this too.

*Edit this image is from last season i believe so that number won't be exact but I can guarantee he's still the worst

Edited October 23, 2021 by WS_Jack_III

[lost]

23 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

Benitez has just said the same at Everton - demanding more. He'd be perfect for you guys now, money to spend but a practical head to make sure it gets spent right. Shame for Newcastle that the PL messed you around so much or you could've had him in the summer.

I think I said on here when Everton got Marco Silva that there were two managers I'd of liked to see being given a go in Premiership and they were Bielsa and Fonseca. If he ends up at Newcastle I think they have done really well and I'd gladly swap them for his style of play.

Quote

Then in 2019 we spent a combined 108m mainly on Kean (gone), gbamin and Delph (always injured), iwobi (laughably shit, especially compared to townsend), Gomes (sometimes good, fringe player). 

Kean is one that really grates with me especially as we've just lost both strikers this year typical Everton. With the loan fee though I actually think we've pocketed a profit.

I honestly can't see how Wenger used to rate iwobi but when you look at the cost of pepe even how bad iwobi is you still wonder who got the better deal. Gbamin looks cursed and we do really miss Idrissa Gueye.

Everton's problem is all those 20m - 30m nearly players have no value in a post covid world.

[charlierc]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

I would also argue a club having a bad spell is not always down to the manager. I have no doubt the manager makes a difference, but finances is a far greater factor. It's not as easy as looking through a manager (Bruce or anyone) and looking at their w-d-l record. There are loads of factors involved.

I mean, it can and it can't. Player recruitment is the key driver but can be one of those great unknowns, given sometimes a sure thing turns into an all-round dud.

It's arguably because of access to greater financial resources that made Steve McClaren's Newcastle spell pretty terrible - given £50million in summer 2015 and a further £30million in January 2016. That squad was arguably stronger than Newcastle's current one, even if both had iffy defences, yet McClaren still had to be put out of his misery in March 2016 with Newcastle on course for the Championship, and done too late for Benitez to fully fix things (I think if he'd had 3/4 more games he would've done it). Granted, 2015/16 was a fluke - Aston Villa finished with one of the PL's lowest ever points totals, having spent more in summer 2015 than a Leicester side that ended up champions. But still, with £80million of new talent and a few reasonable international-class options, you'd like to have think McClaren wouldn't have needed to be fired due to being 19th. It's why I can't put Bruce below McClaren as a worst Newcastle boss I've ever seen, even if a lot of individual displays in the last year have been atrocious.

1 hour ago, lost said:

When you watch Sunderland till I die though the relegation happened the previous season under Moyes you get the feeling even Alex Ferguson couldn't have kept them up.

I mean, their transfer policy from promotion in 2007 to relegation in 2017 included some consistently terrible player recruitment decisions, which got worse as they went further on, and this was even moreso after sacking Martin O'Neill in 2013 for di Canio, who has not managed since his spell there. Seemed to carry on through ownerships as well - I know they were in League One by January 2019 but inflating the price for Will Grigg after having 5 bids rejected was a curious one, and captured in pretty extensive detail on the Netflix doc.

[charlierc]

39 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

Benitez has just said the same at Everton - demanding more. He'd be perfect for you guys now, money to spend but a practical head to make sure it gets spent right. Shame for Newcastle that the PL messed you around so much or you could've had him in the summer. 

We had our "rebirth" opportunity and wasted it - we spent loads of money on absolute shite, so FFP has ruined us. You've got to make sure this doesn't happen - you have a 3 year window to get it right or you're fucked.

Here's an idea of how badly it can go wrong:

Our 2017 spending is haunting us now- 45m on he who must not be named (regardless of anything else, underwhelming on the pitch most of the time)  25m on klassen, 20m tosun and 20m Walcott. Two are still there and don't contribute, while two left on a massive loss. There was also 20m spent on three younger players who've also left. We spent £182m that year, and only £50m on Keane and Pickford has remotely paid off.

It got better in 2018 - mina, digne and richarlison for 89m.

Then in 2019 we spent a combined 108m mainly on Kean (gone), gbamin and Delph (always injured), iwobi (laughably shit, especially compared to townsend), Gomes (sometimes good, fringe player). 

And actually looking back at 2016 when the money started - 20m schniederlin and 25m for bolasie was a complete waste too and we got a grand total of 2m back. 

Yes there were some big outgoings but also some huge wages we couldn't get off the books til they went on frees. 

So yeah, don't repeat our mistakes...

Yeah a few people said in the immediate wake of the Saudi takeover that having big pockets isn't necessarily a guarantee of doing that well, citing Everton's at-best mixed transfer record since they came into money in 2016. If we are to make the most of this, we have to get the player recruitment bang on, though as this list proves, it isn't an exact science. Some of those named signings would've looked good in theory then turned to shit on grass. The fact that Everton spent a trolley load of cash in 2017, mainly on players who all played in the same part of the pitch, then had to turn to Sam Allardyce to dig them out of the bottom 3 is certainly an example of what can go wrong.

Benitez I think was somebody who had been helping with one of Staveley's previous attempts to buy Newcastle, so I think an idea had been to try and rope him in had the takeover gone through in May 2020, which is when the deal was first attempted. But I really don't expect him to walk out on Everton now.

I believe Paulo Fonseca is the early favourite, while a few talked up Lucien Favre. Either could be worth a shot. Frankly a part of me is tempted to say I don't care who it is so long as we get the wins to take us to January and can stop the defence falling apart whenever a striker comes vaguely close to our penalty area.

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, WS_Jack_III said:

He's the second worst to have managed 1000.

 

Have a look at this too.

*Edit this image is from last season i believe so that number won't be exact but I can guarantee he's still the worst

I will take them one at a time. The 1000 game one is a massively flawed use of statistics. The statistics are a rank of a managers win percentage which is not the same as a managers ability. As I have said before my belief is wage budget as a far bigger factor regarding win percentage than perceived managerial ability. Also by setting the criteria at 1000 you automatically eliminate the vast majority of managers who have managed in the league. I think most would also accept it's unlikely that the worst Premiership managers would have got to 1000 games. My view is everyone on that list has solid accomplishments just for getting to 1000 games.

As for the second list it again uses win percentage which again I do not accept as a useful way of comparing managers. Compare the win percentage of Lampard and Dyche, the former is much greater and you can draw no conclusion. Also by setting the criteria at 300 games you are again massively reducing your sample size, as only a tiny proportion of premiership managers (all British) reach that amount. Again Newcastle fans are not using these stats to form a balanced view of Bruce, they are using them to support pre determined views, without any analysis of what the statistics really reflect.

If I want to use statistics to judge Bruce in comparison with other managers. I am definitely not setting the threshold as high as 300 premiership games. I would also use a metric which somehow compares points to finances which would be far more meaningful than the meaningless (but simple)points per game.

[WS_Jack_III]

What's the point of football then? You seem to think winning doesn't matter. 

 

Basically any of the evidence of how poor he is you'll twist to your predetermined opinion. If that's how you think, then it has to work both ways.

Edited October 23, 2021 by WS_Jack_III

[pink_triangle]

22 minutes ago, WS_Jack_III said:

What's the point of football then? You seem to think winning doesn't matter. 

While the point is winning it's clearly easier for some managers to win than others. If we compare win percentage in absolute terms then we are suggesting that it is just as easy for Farke or Dyche to win a premiership match as Pep or Tuchel. Nobody with any knowledge of football believes that to be true.

[WS_Jack_III]

3 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

While the point is winning it's clearly easier for some managers to win than others. If we compare win percentage in absolute terms then we are suggesting that it is just as easy for Farke or Dyche to win a premiership match as Pep or Tuchel. Nobody with any knowledge of football believes that to be true.

Of course, so we go back to my point, why has no money bags club given Bruce a go? Cause he's sh*t.