calscot 0 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) How many realise that we had a win rate of 74% this season under Ally but only 37.5% since he left? I'm not saying Ally was any good but it does say our team became a lot more "garbage" after he left - a fact many will find too hard to acknowledge. In fact we had an 85% win rate for the first 20 games, while Hibs were at 45%. BTW If you discount managers of less than 5 games, Ally has the top win rate in our history, while McDowall has the worst. So unless you think Ally was any good, it's surprising if you can't see a correlation of results with the machinations of the board. Like I say, with all the slagging off for those that didn't see the board as "bad", there are a lot of people who are strangely still totally oblivious to the damage influenced by the board to the results and form of the team. Edited March 6, 2015 by calscot 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Kenny was second in charge for a reason.v 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) How many realise that we had a win rate of 74% this season under Ally but only 37.5% since he left? I'm not saying Ally was any good but it does say our team became a lot more "garbage" after he left - a fact many will find too hard to acknowledge. In fact we had an 85% win rate for the first 20 games, while Hibs were at 45%. BTW If you discount managers of less than 5 games, Ally has the top win rate in our history, while McDowall has the worst. So unless you think Ally was any good, it's surprising if you can't see a correlation of results with the machinations of the board. Like I say, with all the slagging off for those that didn't see the board as "bad", there are a lot of people who are strangely still totally oblivious to the damage influenced by the board to the results and form of the team. Who can't see a correlation between the board and management of the team? 98% of Gersnet have been able to see how awful both are for the last few years. There is no doubt that the board are ultimately responsible for our on the pitch performance because a competent one would have fired both of these clowns years ago. Edited March 6, 2015 by Ser Barristan Selmy 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhunter 0 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) How many realise that we had a win rate of 74% this season under Ally but only 37.5% since he left? I'm not saying Ally was any good but it does say our team became a lot more "garbage" after he left - a fact many will find too hard to acknowledge. In fact we had an 85% win rate for the first 20 games, while Hibs were at 45%. BTW If you discount managers of less than 5 games, Ally has the top win rate in our history, while McDowall has the worst. So unless you think Ally was any good, it's surprising if you can't see a correlation of results with the machinations of the board. Like I say, with all the slagging off for those that didn't see the board as "bad", there are a lot of people who are strangely still totally oblivious to the damage influenced by the board to the results and form of the team. You would expect mccoist to have the highest win rate as he had the highest resources to opposition ratio in the history of the club - its meaningless. Your assertion was we were comfortable in second place, we were far from comfortable. You are correct though where mccoist and mcdowel's records are concerned. Were were poor under mccoist and atrocious under mcdowell. Edited March 6, 2015 by jhunter 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) You would expect mccoist to have the highest win rate as he had the highest resources to opposition ratio in the history of the club - its meaningless. Your assertion was we were comfortable in second place, we were far from comfortable. You are correct though where mccoist and mcdowel's records are concerned. Were were poor under mccoist and atrocious under mcdowell. The strange thing is that you seem to be arguing against yourself. He may have had the highest relative resources (although I'm not so sure) but if he's the worst manager ever, it wouldn't matter. The paradox you are presenting is that McDowall has the same resources plus some Newcastle guys and he has the worst record ever. There is a massive difference between having the highest win ratio at seventy something percent and having the lowest at 33% with similar resources. How do you explain it? Is it that McCoist is NOT the worst manager ever and indeed is considerably better than an experienced coach who has worked for the two biggest clubs in Scotland? Your answer seems to be no. So is it that the off field stuff affects the players so much that the results reflect al the turmoil with the most recent crescendo leading to the massive downturn? Your answer seems to be no. So come on, how do you explain it? For me, it's either/or or a mixture of both of those above. I think you could highly correlate the results with the off-field shenanigans. If that's true, and you look at the win rate before Llambias came on board on October 28th. 18 days later, our win rate of 85% in all competitions, started to fall with a draw and loss against Alloa, and losses against Hearts and QotS. A month later Ally resigns amid a lot of off-field stuff at the club and our form goes into freefall, with Kenny McDowall acheivng 3 wins in 9 games. All this is also against a background of fan revolt and a hostile take-over. Is this really just coincidence? I'm surprised certain people are arguing against it, as doing so really doesn't fit with their opinion of Ally being the shittiest manager ever... Edited March 9, 2015 by calscot 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Here's a simple graph of our rolling 10 game percentage win rate starting with the 10th game: 90 ..........A................ 80 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA......... 70 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKKKKK.... 60 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKKKKKKK.. 50 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKKKKKKKK. 40 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKKKKKKKKK Games with Ally in charge have an A and games with Kenny in charge have a K. Now it seems to me that there is a major difference in form immediately after Ally resigned. Whether it was the manager change or the moral at the club or something else is up to interpretation. Coincidence looks very unlikely. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhunter 0 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Here's a simple graph of our rolling 10 game percentage win rate starting with the 10th game: 90 ..........A................ 80 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA......... 70 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKKKKK.... 60 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKKKKKKK.. 50 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKKKKKKKK. 40 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKKKKKKKKK Games with Ally in charge have an A and games with Kenny in charge have a K. Now it seems to me that there is a major difference in form immediately after Ally resigned. Whether it was the manager change or the moral at the club or something else is up to interpretation. Coincidence looks very unlikely. I'm not sure i understand what the argument is here. Have things gotten worse under mcdowell? - yes i agree they have. But my point is simply that things were woeful under mccoist - even when we were winning games - i'd said so all through last season - we went unbeaten but were abject most of the time. He couldn't win the Ramsden's Cup in 3 attempts NOTHING more need be said about it. That is why IMO the new Board should have had someone ready to go immediately until the end of the season - mccall, WS, Magath whoever. there should have been IMMEDIATE change - as it stands we won't be going up anyway so there is nothing to lose by making even a temporary change immediately. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I'm not sure i understand what the argument is here. Have things gotten worse under mcdowell? - yes i agree they have. But my point is simply that things were woeful under mccoist - even when we were winning games - i'd said so all through last season - we went unbeaten but were abject most of the time. He couldn't win the Ramsden's Cup in 3 attempts NOTHING more need be said about it. That is why IMO the new Board should have had someone ready to go immediately until the end of the season - mccall, WS, Magath whoever. there should have been IMMEDIATE change - as it stands we won't be going up anyway so there is nothing to lose by making even a temporary change immediately. Again, you seem to be meandering in your points. I'm not even arguing that McCoist is any good. I'm arguing that whatever the merits of the manager, I think the off-field issues dramatically affect the team form. You seem to be arguing against that which looking at the facts, suggests that McCoist was doing some kind of job as it's hard to get dramatically worse than woeful when you remove what you think is the cause. I think you have to make up your mind which it is or what the alternative is. If McCoist is the worst manager ever, then how can anyone be fantastically worse if the team are immune to other influences? My whole point which you seem to be struggling with is that McCoist consistently was winning 8 out of 10 games - no matter how bad he was, this was the case. This is despite him being the "worst manager in Scotland" to some and despite all the off-field problems. The point is that if even with that, the team has an 80% win rate, then surely they have the potential to be at least that level again, and probably better, given a decent manager, the off-field problems sorted and a big and happier crowd cheering them on? In fact, the worse you think McCoist is, it suggests the more potential the team has. You seem to have three completely incompatible opinions unless you have some alternative way of tying it all in, in which case, you seem to be trying your hardest to keep it from us. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) This is the 10 game rolling win percentage rate for Rangers, Hearts and Hibs this season from the 10th game. There are lots of influencing factors like which teams were played, especially in the cups but it's a quick 10 minute graph. But as can be seen, the most consistent side in our league for wins, has been Rangers under McCoist. Some people will hate this and try to twist it to fit their agenda. The point is again that even under McCoist and with a background of horrendous off-field problems and a boycott by the fans, the Rangers team, under McCoist was consistently winning the most games, often equal with Hearts. IF McCoist is a terrible manager, and IF the off-field problems are causing the team to play poorly (evidenced by the form since McCoist left) then surely the team has a potential, given the right circumstances to be the most consistent team in the league? This does not suggest they will win (or lose) individual games against the likes of Hearts and Hibs, but form often counts for something. The graph suggests we have better players than our play-off rivals, including Hibs, but they need motivation, leadership and a damn good game-plan for the play-off matches. We should not fear that we don't have the talent, we should fear that we have the misery and apathy and lack of character, that could put us back in this league for another season. Edited March 9, 2015 by calscot 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) Seeing as the data is in my quickie spreadsheet, here's the graph for the percentage win rate for all games this season starting at the 10th game. Edited March 9, 2015 by calscot 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.