Indy_Bones 441 Posted October 6, 2007 I''ve noticed a few posts recently referring to the ''glory days'' during the reign of Mike Walker, yet oddly enough when you look at the figures on paper from Dave Stringer up to Peter Grant, he''s only the 4th highest performing manager in regards to win ratio:Manager GP GW GD GL Win RatioMartin O''Neill 26 12 9 5 46.2Worthy 280 114 104 62 40.7Dave Stringer 229 89 58 82 38.9Mike Walker 179 69 46 64 38.5Peter Grant 47 17 11 19 36.2Bruce Rioch 93 30 31 32 32.3Bryan Hamilton 35 10 10 15 28.6Dixie 58 13 22 23 22.4Megson 32 5 10 17 15.6Hunter 1 0 1 0 0.0Purely based on these figures we can see that the difference in ratio between Grant and Walker is actually minimal, and in fact if we won the next 2 games, his win ratio would be virtually the same as Walker''s. The difference between the two however is the style of play being used, and importantly, the squad inherited from the previous manager.Walker inherited a good squad thanks to the work of Brown and then Stringer.Grant on the flipside inherited a failing squad caused by the demise of Worthington, and has spent all his time so far trying to sort it out. I agree that he has brought his own players in and that our current performances have been dire, but look at what he''s had to work with.Don''t get me wrong, I''m not saying that Grant is the right man for the job, nor that I''m happy at the current situation, but on the face of it, he''s performing no worse from a results perspective than Walker did during his tenure here (including both spells), a manager held in high regard by most fans (myself included). It makes you wonder where or not it''s considerations like this that cause hesistancy for the board. On paper Worthy was the best manager we''ve had (bar O''Neill) in the last 20 years, which was probably why he was given longer than he should have been.Thoughts? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fattyowls 0 Posted October 7, 2007 i dissagree that worthy is the best manager on paper in the last 20 years when the majority of his tenure included 2nd tier results and only a mediocre showing in the premierleague. mike walkers reign was remembered mainly with results in the top flight and competing strongly as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
InLambertWeTrust! 0 Posted October 7, 2007 Until Grant has had the same number of games we cannot make any comparison imo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ron obvious 0 Posted October 7, 2007 [quote user="Indy_Bones"]I''ve noticed a few posts recently referring to the ''glory days'' during the reign of Mike Walker, yet oddly enough when you look at the figures on paper from Dave Stringer up to Peter Grant, he''s only the 4th highest performing manager in regards to win ratio:Manager GP GW GD GL Win RatioMartin O''Neill 26 12 9 5 46.2Worthy 280 114 104 62 40.7Dave Stringer 229 89 58 82 38.9Mike Walker 179 69 46 64 38.5Peter Grant 47 17 11 19 36.2Bruce Rioch 93 30 31 32 32.3Bryan Hamilton 35 10 10 15 28.6Dixie 58 13 22 23 22.4Megson 32 5 10 17 15.6Hunter 1 0 1 0 0.0Purely based on these figures we can see that the difference in ratio between Grant and Walker is actually minimal, and in fact if we won the next 2 games, his win ratio would be virtually the same as Walker''s. The difference between the two however is the style of play being used, and importantly, the squad inherited from the previous manager.Walker inherited a good squad thanks to the work of Brown and then Stringer.Grant on the flipside inherited a failing squad caused by the demise of Worthington, and has spent all his time so far trying to sort it out. I agree that he has brought his own players in and that our current performances have been dire, but look at what he''s had to work with.Don''t get me wrong, I''m not saying that Grant is the right man for the job, nor that I''m happy at the current situation, but on the face of it, he''s performing no worse from a results perspective than Walker did during his tenure here (including both spells), a manager held in high regard by most fans (myself included). It makes you wonder where or not it''s considerations like this that cause hesistancy for the board. On paper Worthy was the best manager we''ve had (bar O''Neill) in the last 20 years, which was probably why he was given longer than he should have been.Thoughts?[/quote] My thoughts are that this is an interesting post that has been studiously ignored by those who wish to canonise some managers & demonise others, so I''m bumping it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
First Wizard 0 Posted October 7, 2007 Yeah here''s a thought for you Boney:I see as per norm with you, you''re pis*ing on a legends memory to try and support your arguements. Remind us again of Worthy''s record in the highest league in the country.............or indeed, the exploits of his great European Cup victories??.As I suspected...........all pi*s and worthlesss, twisted paper facts.............your usual trademark in fact!.[:@] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king of latvia 0 Posted October 7, 2007 it seems to me wiz boney was trying to bring a point across just like you do,i feel your sharp tongue is gone to far again.and how many of theses managers took us up to the prem ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0 Posted October 7, 2007 [quote user="Indy_Bones"]I''ve noticed a few posts recently referring to the ''glory days'' during the reign of Mike Walker, yet oddly enough when you look at the figures on paper from Dave Stringer up to Peter Grant, he''s only the 4th highest performing manager in regards to win ratio:Manager GP GW GD GL Win RatioMartin O''Neill 26 12 9 5 46.2Worthy 280 114 104 62 40.7Dave Stringer 229 89 58 82 38.9Mike Walker 179 69 46 64 38.5Peter Grant 47 17 11 19 36.2Bruce Rioch 93 30 31 32 32.3Bryan Hamilton 35 10 10 15 28.6Dixie 58 13 22 23 22.4Megson 32 5 10 17 15.6Hunter 1 0 1 0 0.0Purely based on these figures we can see that the difference in ratio between Grant and Walker is actually minimal, and in fact if we won the next 2 games, his win ratio would be virtually the same as Walker''s. The difference between the two however is the style of play being used, and importantly, the squad inherited from the previous manager.Walker inherited a good squad thanks to the work of Brown and then Stringer.Grant on the flipside inherited a failing squad caused by the demise of Worthington, and has spent all his time so far trying to sort it out. I agree that he has brought his own players in and that our current performances have been dire, but look at what he''s had to work with.Don''t get me wrong, I''m not saying that Grant is the right man for the job, nor that I''m happy at the current situation, but on the face of it, he''s performing no worse from a results perspective than Walker did during his tenure here (including both spells), a manager held in high regard by most fans (myself included). It makes you wonder where or not it''s considerations like this that cause hesistancy for the board. On paper Worthy was the best manager we''ve had (bar O''Neill) in the last 20 years, which was probably why he was given longer than he should have been.Thoughts?[/quote]what a load of twaddle. First Indy could we have a Points ratio post, win ratio means F.. all in a league based system that I beleive we operate here in the UK. Secondly Walker was performing in the top tier for the majority of his canary career, not the 2nd tier that worthy and Grant have been managing in. When Grant took over he had Hucks, Etuhu, Safri and Erny... he failed to improve that squads league position even with a few of his own signings.I disagree about Walker recieving a great squad, they did pretty poorly the season before so he must have done something right, as did the squad Worthy took over. Grant has been given decent funds for this division to improve things.Lastly Grant just seems in everything he does from critisizing players performing well to downright idiotic team selections and tactics a crap manager. IMO he has signed well considering the funds available, maybe his real calling is as a scout?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
7rew 0 Posted October 7, 2007 CJF - points and win ratios are the same thing, execpt that a win ratio has more information than a simple points ratio.(point ratio) = [3*(#wins) + (#draws)] / matches = 3*(win ratio)+(draw ratio).I would post the details but I can''t be faffed to take out the cup matches from each managers record. As a starter:Grants is: Cup: 4(tanworth, blackpool, barnet, rotherham):1(blackpool):3(port vale, chelsea, man city). So league is 13:10:16 = 1.26 points per game.Unless that table was league only. Was it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Graham Humphrey 13 Posted October 7, 2007 [quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]Secondly Walker was performing in the top tier for the majority of his canary career, not the 2nd tier that worthy and Grant have been managing in.[/quote]I''m not sure about that. I''m pretty sure he had (slightly) more games with us in Division 1 then the Premiership? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
A Load of Squit 5,128 Posted October 7, 2007 [quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="Indy_Bones"] I''ve noticed a few posts recently referring to the ''glory days'' during the reign of Mike Walker, yet oddly enough when you look at the figures on paper from Dave Stringer up to Peter Grant, he''s only the 4th highest performing manager in regards to win ratio:Manager GP GW GD GL Win RatioMartin O''Neill 26 12 9 5 46.2Worthy 280 114 104 62 40.7Dave Stringer 229 89 58 82 38.9Mike Walker 179 69 46 64 38.5Peter Grant 47 17 11 19 36.2Bruce Rioch 93 30 31 32 32.3Bryan Hamilton 35 10 10 15 28.6Dixie 58 13 22 23 22.4Megson 32 5 10 17 15.6Hunter 1 0 1 0 0.0Purely based on these figures we can see that the difference in ratio between Grant and Walker is actually minimal, and in fact if we won the next 2 games, his win ratio would be virtually the same as Walker''s. The difference between the two however is the style of play being used, and importantly, the squad inherited from the previous manager.Walker inherited a good squad thanks to the work of Brown and then Stringer.Grant on the flipside inherited a failing squad caused by the demise of Worthington, and has spent all his time so far trying to sort it out. I agree that he has brought his own players in and that our current performances have been dire, but look at what he''s had to work with.Don''t get me wrong, I''m not saying that Grant is the right man for the job, nor that I''m happy at the current situation, but on the face of it, he''s performing no worse from a results perspective than Walker did during his tenure here (including both spells), a manager held in high regard by most fans (myself included). It makes you wonder where or not it''s considerations like this that cause hesistancy for the board. On paper Worthy was the best manager we''ve had (bar O''Neill) in the last 20 years, which was probably why he was given longer than he should have been.Thoughts?[/quote]what a load of twaddle. First Indy could we have a Points ratio post, win ratio means F.. all in a league based system that I beleive we operate here in the UK. Secondly Walker was performing in the top tier for the majority of his canary career, not the 2nd tier that worthy and Grant have been managing in. When Grant took over he had Hucks, Etuhu, Safri and Erny... he failed to improve that squads league position even with a few of his own signings.I disagree about Walker recieving a great squad, they did pretty poorly the season before so he must have done something right, as did the squad Worthy took over. Grant has been given decent funds for this division to improve things.Lastly Grant just seems in everything he does from critisizing players performing well to downright idiotic team selections and tactics a crap manager. IMO he has signed well considering the funds available, maybe his real calling is as a scout??[/quote]Lets club together a buy him a woggle.Dib Dib Dib, Dob Dob Dob! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pete Raven 276 Posted October 7, 2007 There''s also this table...http://www.edp24.co.uk/Content/Sport/CanaryCentenary/Managers.asp Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlyBlyBabes 0 Posted October 7, 2007 [quote user="Web Team - Pete"]There''s also this table...http://www.edp24.co.uk/Content/Sport/CanaryCentenary/Managers.asp[/quote]And Megson''s still getting recycled.OTBC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Boy 0 Posted October 8, 2007 [quote user="Indy_Bones"]I''ve noticed a few posts recently referring to the ''glory days'' during the reign of Mike Walker, yet oddly enough when you look at the figures on paper from Dave Stringer up to Peter Grant, he''s only the 4th highest performing manager in regards to win ratio:Manager GP GW GD GL Win RatioMartin O''Neill 26 12 9 5 46.2Worthy 280 114 104 62 40.7Dave Stringer 229 89 58 82 38.9Mike Walker 179 69 46 64 38.5Peter Grant 47 17 11 19 36.2Bruce Rioch 93 30 31 32 32.3Bryan Hamilton 35 10 10 15 28.6Dixie 58 13 22 23 22.4Megson 32 5 10 17 15.6Hunter 1 0 1 0 0.0[/quote]The facts about Worthy''s contribution - unpleasant medicine for some, to be sure. And of course Worthy was in charge for more games than any of them, had inherited a miserably poor squad and had very little money for several seasons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indy_Bones 441 Posted October 8, 2007 [quote user="1st Wizard"]Yeah here''s a thought for you Boney:I see as per norm with you, you''re pis*ing on a legends memory to try and support your arguements. Remind us again of Worthy''s record in the highest league in the country.............or indeed, the exploits of his great European Cup victories??.As I suspected...........all pi*s and worthlesss, twisted paper facts.............your usual trademark in fact!.[:@][/quote]Bloody hell Wiz, saucer of milk to go?What on earth prompted that sort of response???At no point have I slated Walker in my original post, and do actually point out that I hold him in very high regard.How can the facts which I have posted be classed as twisted? They are what they are, and like most things can be utilised differently depending on your approach.As for Worthington''s record in the top flight, I fail to see how that''s a fair comparison, Walker took over the team whilst in the top flight with a far more established side than Worthy did when he came in, unless you think Hamilton left him with a great team? Worthy managed to take us from 20th in the league to playoff place within a season, then 2 years later had rebuilt the team and got us into the prem. He wanted to sign Ashton at that point and was refused, a player who would likely have made the points difference between us and WBA staying up, not his fault. Then he admittedly started to lose the plot and things just kept getting worse.The point being that Walker took over a team which is regarded by the majority of fans as being the best we had, whereas Worthington and Grant both inherited poor to average sides, it''s a lot easier to succeed when you have quality...The whole point of the initial post was to suggest that things are not as clear cut as many would have us believe, and that if the board were using markers such as this to help with their decision making processes, we can see possible reasons for hesitancy in making changes, it doesn''t mean that we necessarily agree with them.Can I have my head back now??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
First Wizard 0 Posted October 8, 2007 Fair point Indy, but I get real pis*ed off when Worthless is even mentioned in the same sentence as God. When Mike was stabbed in the back, his departure didn''t leave the club in the same mess like the last fool has.Your head is in the mail................oh sod it...............they''re on strike again I see! [:D] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0 Posted October 8, 2007 [quote user="Old Boy"]The facts about Worthy''s contribution - unpleasant medicine for some, to be sure. And of course Worthy was in charge for more games than any of them, had inherited a miserably poor squad and had very little money for several seasons.[/quote]Worthy did a great job here until our premiership season, in a season where we stood a good chance of snatching that 4th bottom slot I feel his errors in selections and signings contributed towards our failure - although the board must take a huge slice of the blame through not releasing the Ashton 3 million at the start of the season.On relegation he lost the plot completely. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZLF 271 Posted October 8, 2007 Pts per game does not amend the table - excluding Hunter because of the low number of games.As far as worthy is concerned he did have a very successful period, but he had to go once he showed he was not able to either sustain that level of success or stop the slide. That Worthy was in Div 2 does provide context but should not undermine that he succeeded in doing what many others have not. The other way to look at it is by loss ratio where Rioch, Grant and Hamilton are the major movers and highlights the issues facing PGManager Loss ratioMartin O''Neill 19%Worthy 22%Bruce Rioch 34%Mike Walker 36%Dave Stringer 36%Dixie 40%Peter Grant 40%Bryan Hamilton 43%Megson 53% Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Smudger 0 Posted October 8, 2007 and where does Ken Brown fit in to this little equation of yours INDY or John Bond even?I feel that much of Stringer and Wlakers success was on the back of much hard work done by Brown and Mel Machin. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites