Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. [quote user="Jimmy Smith"]Probably needs a more robust approach, one too much for a message board post but here is a slightly more robust approach. Here''s the points as you state: AVB 92 Rodgers 85 Clarke 64 Laudrup 61 Allardyce 56 (goal difference -13) Lambert 56 (goal difference -23) Hughton 55 You would also need to take into account what each manager started with and how many points you would expect of them. This part is subjective in that i will have to guess what points were expected when the new boss came in but here goes: Clarke: WBA looked a bit ropey, i''d go 50 points Hughton: 55 Laudrup: 60 Allardyce: 55 Lambert: 65 Rodgers: 80 AVB: 80 Now a simple sum shows these net gains/ losses: AVB 92 - 80 = 12 Rodgers 85 - 80 = 5 Clarke 64 - 50 = 14 Laudrup 61 - 60 = 1 Allardyce 56 - 55 = 1 Lambert 56 - 60 = -4 Hughton 55 - 55 = 0 Spending wise, you would perhaps have to say that £10 million was the least amount spent in the league and £200 million the most, surely you have to go on net spend though, as you have to factor in losing Gareth Bale this season, it''s not as if Spurs have a team £161m better than when AVB joined. If we keep things simple and only consider the main players of each team that have left for significant fees, also, most of this money was spent this summer and so only 12 of them games have the ''improved'' teams. Therefore you can probably only factor that in for about a quarter of the 50 game performance. The rest of the money was spent in January or the summer before. Maybe call it 33.3% in each window. We haven''t even considered wages and contract/ agent fees. Free players aren''t literally free you know. Let''s keep things simple though and only consider net spend regardless of when it was spent as i''m not here all night! It''s also a ''bad'' thing to have to spend money, so this will be what we divide the points stat by. Here''s the net spend of the last 50 games: AVB = -8m Rodgers = £37m Lambert = £31m Allardyce = £38m Laudrup = £15m Hughton = £29m Clarke = £10m So the variables are the net spend and the points earned more than expected. Obviously, the net spend needs standardising so they are all positive values, so add £10m to all the values, call that agent fees etc. AVB = 2m Rodgers = £47m Lambert = £41m Allardyce = £48m Laudrup = £25m Hughton = £39m Clarke = £20m Now do the sums: AVB = 2m/12 = £133,333 per point over expectation Rodgers = £47m/5 = £9,400,000 pp+EXP Lambert = £41m/-4 = £10,250,000 per point lost than expected. Allardyce = £48m/1 = £48m for 1 extra point than expected Laudrup = £25m/1 = £25m pp+EXP Hughton = £39m/0 = £39m to deliver as expected. Clarke = £20m/14 = about £1.4m pp+EXP From this, it suggests AVB did a fabulous job, kind of true based on points and over 50 games, but we all know how recent form has been... Not taken into account is how much it takes to stay still in this league. To me, Clarke has done the best of the lot and arguably over the 50 games, Lambert has done the worst. There is more to it than that though. Maybe at the end of the season, i''ll do a proper analysis but it''s impossible on one post.[/quote] never seen a post so one sided , all your focus is on to show avb as a hero. while in actual he is the biggest looser .1) for eg., when you talk abt ** where each manager started and what position or points thwy were expected to finish , avb started with a team finishing 4th , while rodgers started a team finishing 7th .  , so how come both are expected to get 80 points ? expectation of fans that both team finish in top 4 ie champions league is dreamy part , i.e every fan an every board wants the team to finish highest , but in reality while one team is already in top 4 position other team is around 17-20 points behind in 7-8th. on what ground , the expected points for spurs n liverpool i.e. avb n rodgers are same? in 2012-13 season while spurs had 69 points , liverpool had 52 , thats 17 points difference , and by your calculation , as next year both avb n rodgers took charge of the respective team , avb is expected to improve the points from 69 to 80 , thats 11 points more , while in same period rodgers is expected to get from 52 to 80 points ? i.e. 26 points more ? what logic are you using , while also taking in the consideration that for any n any whether its your calculated 80 points or any unrealistic target , spurs , avb''s team were in better condition to achieve it , simply becoz they have the best team of the lot.you cant be so one sided mate ,2) another example abt the net spend .,,why consider net spend ? the fact is bale is no more part of tottenham , but the other fact is all the bale money has been invested , for 7 players. n these are not some cheep bargains , a 25miln+ striker , a 30miln midfielder , plus 50miln for test of the 5 players . , 1. if you really want to count point to money ratio , you have to consider all this values coz simple fact they are now playing for avb''s team , bale is history this 110miln signings are present .and 1st of all, the word *net spend*  is more related to the financial profit or loss i.e, for bank accounts of levy this word might fit perfectly , coz at the end of the day total money withdrawn is some 20miln only. but for avb''s team ,this word doesnt fit any where, as he is rightly or wrongly using those 110miln signings every game , they have more option n bench strength now compare to their rivals , though he cant use them properly is another story .   why tottenham fans talk abt net spend is , coz they are not seeing those 110miln in results , city or other fans dont talk abt the profit lost statement, coz the see their 30 -40 min players banging in goals.3) another example ,though i totally disagree with your net spend logic, even with the figures u stated ,  in total net spend for avb you show 8milns . i dont agree with it but lets just consider of sake of it. ok . then you standardize that value for each manger . i.e. add 10mln to that value, calling them the agent fees n all.so avbs standardized net spend should be 8miln + 10minl = 18miln. dont know how you show the 2minl fig. , even here in calculation your avb bias is seen , even the wrong net spend logic , the   per point over expectation for  avb should be 18miln / 12 = £1,500,000. and not £133,333 you stated again how can you comment such bias view . that cant be known instead of thay lets just calculate few simple fact for avb n rodgers , (cant do for all the cllubs) 1.starting position.avb - 4throdgers - 7th2. end position avb -5th (thats one position down , even then your calculations show that avb gained most point/position)  rodgers - 6th (one position up.)as points earned n finish position directly related , in actual , avb lost a place .3. new season - spending avb - 110 milnrodgers - 50miln (here is the link to check the figs,  http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/fc-liverpool/transfers/verein_31.html  )and not to forget that while avb signed players at top valus above 20miln , rodgers is been deeling with cheap bargains , loan players . you can clearly see , avb isnt producing any results .
  • Create New...