laws' legacy

[RichSheffWeds]

I think it's fair to say that Laws did a good job in difficult circumstances until the summer.

It went badly wrong from there. For me, he signed the wrong players in the summer (I said this at the time) and the Wood situation could have been handled with more tact.

Bottom line though, whatever the reasons, he lost the dressing room and left us with a team getting thumped every time they played a game.

Hope he does well at Burnley but think they'll go down. Be interesting to see how they perform for him in CCC next season.

[mark77]

I think it's fair to say that Laws did a good job in difficult circumstances until the summer.

It went badly wrong from there. For me, he signed the wrong players in the summer (I said this at the time) and the Wood situation could have been handled with more tact.

Bottom line though, whatever the reasons, he lost the dressing room and left us with a team getting thumped every time they played a game.

Hope he does well at Burnley but think they'll go down. Be interesting to see how they perform for him in CCC next season.

He wont be there, mark my words, he'll be gone before that

[DJMortimer]

Erm... Did I not mention a gradual decline with a partial upturn? The bigger picture was a decline, but there was a small upturn in part of the bigger picture. How are you not grasping that?

There is only a decline from that first season. Your own analysis proves it every bit as much (if rather more sweepingly) than mine does.

But the next two years plus are consistent whether you do points per game in each season or do it in ten game spells right up until the period I've mentioned when the train hits the buffers. I've even shown that our points per game prior to that point in 2009/10 were exactly the same as 2008/9 and better than 2007/8.

So what I've been saying all along (ie. long period of relentlessly average form followed by unprecedented nosedive) is absolutely correct. This is now 6 different analyses that all show the exact same thing, with precisely none showing this cumulative regression brought about by the manager's incompetence.

[DJMortimer]

As I said - I AM RIGHT; CAN'T HEAR YOU; I AM RIGHT; CAN'T HEAR YOU; I AM RIGHT; CAN'T HEAR YOU; I AM RIGHT; CAN'T HEAR YOU; I AM RIGHT...

...WIBBLE.

[M Royds]

There is only a decline from that first season. Your own analysis proves it every bit as much (if rather more sweepingly) than mine does.

I do sense that you are begining to see some sense!

[i used to be sc_owl]

There is only a decline from that first season. Your own analysis proves it every bit as much (if rather more sweepingly) than mine does.

But the next two years plus are consistent whether you do points per game in each season or do it in ten game spells right up until the period I've mentioned when the train hits the buffers. I've even shown that our points per game prior to that point in 2009/10 were exactly the same as 2008/9 and better than 2007/8.

So what I've been saying all along (ie. long period of relentlessly average form followed by unprecedented nosedive) is absolutely correct. This is now 6 different analyses that all show the exact same thing, with precisely none showing this cumulative regression brought about by the manager's incompetence.

So BL started off well, then did a bit worse, but then did a little bit better - although not as good as at the start, and then did a bit worse again to reach the point where he was doing worse than at any other time at the club... and all this is over a few years and yet you can't see that it was a gradual decline....?

EDIT - DJM... are you familiar with the difference between additive effects and interaction effects?

Edited March 1, 2010 by i used to be sc_owl

[Starling35]

Laws paid a fee for Leon Clarke. Nuff said!

[M Royds]

edit

Edited March 1, 2010 by M Royds

[M Royds]

Laws paid a fee for Leon Clarke. Nuff said!

A reputed £200,000-£300,000, not forgeting Potter.

Truly astonishing amount for a poor player.

Mick McCarthy must have been gutted, in between the laughter, when R Brian was sacked.

[DJMortimer]

I do sense that you are begining to see some sense!

At what point did I deny there was a drop off from the first season? That is even more starkly obvious than your lack of a sound argument in this thread. Quite how we managed a run at the play-offs that year is anyone's guess, but largely irrelevant in the context of this debate.

Now let's return to what I was arguing. For two whole years or 100 games our results were remarkably consistent, both in the long term and short term views, based on points per game, league position, percentages or any other method of your choice. If your drivel about a gradual decline driven by managerial incompetence had any basis in reality it would be demonstrated in the cold hard facts... and it isn't... anywhere. If my suggestion of a sudden turn in the spirit of the squad caused by some major off-field issues were true we would expect to see a sudden and prolonged collapse. And guess what? There it is, however you spin it. Not only that, but if the ex-manager's tactics and selections were really the root cause there would be no reason for us not to return to how we were in the previous two years. But after a handful of games, we are back in the crapper, playing even worse it could be argued.

You are coming across like the manager of one of the many teams we steamrollered in the early years of Howard Wilkinson's tenure. Despite being outfought, outthought and outscored you claim a moral victory because you play a prettier game. At least 'i used to be sc owl' is trying to offer something logical. All you are doing is pouting, insisting that your argument is right simply because you say so and manically clutching at any and every straw possible, no matter how tenuous or fanciful. Are you related to Earl Warren by any chance?

I can't wait for your next flippant dozen pithy words of fey whimsy.

So BL started off well, then did a bit worse, but then did a little bit better - although not as good as at the start, and then did a bit worse again to reach the point where he was doing worse than at any other time at the club... and all this is over a few years and yet you can't see that it was a gradual decline....?

EDIT - DJM... are you familiar with the difference between additive effects and interaction effects?

No. He did remarkably well for the first few months, slumped considerably the next season, then recovered significantly in his third. The fourth started in exactly the same way (even to two decimal places). The 'point when he was doing worse than at any other time' is the crux of the matter. I am arguing that this is because of something in the background that abruptly changed and was the root cause (we've even had a player allegedly saying precisely that and the chairman himself alluding to some mysterious factors that doesn't seem to imply the likes of bad substitutions or ineffective tactics). You have to keep dragging it kicking and screaming into the analysis because otherwise your whole case collapses around you. And repeated contortions of the statistics keep proving it, again and again.

For many of the squad, they have been here throughout the period in question, so why has Laws' supposed rank incompetence taken two whole years to manifest itself and has done so so abruptly? Surely there would have been some sign, any sign, somewhere? But despite your own highly-touted 'authoritative' account (and I'm still laughing at that), all you did was reinforce what I was saying as the points per game after 12 games in 2009/10 was exactly the same as it had been the previous term and actually slightly better than the one before. Yet this somehow demonstrates an ongoing decline!? Even the ten games immediately before the slump showed us averaging 1.4 points per outing; that's up on the general trend. And then presumably, one or two or three games later, suddenly the players realise that Laws has been a buffoon all these years and we're no longer going to even score, never mind win every now and then. And as I asked M Royds - where are the signs that the cause(s) of this have now gone? It will take a bit more than a couple of glib terms from the glossary of your textbooks lazily dropped in to impress me.

Anyway, we're going round in circles (ie. coming back to the same self-evident truth repeatedly) and I'm sure most posters were thoroughly fed up of this several pages ago.

[DJMortimer]

A reputed £200,000-£300,000, not forgeting Potter.

Truly astonishing amount for a poor player.

Mick McCarthy must have been gutted, in between the laughter, when R Brian was sacked.

Wow.

Football manager makes below average signing with below average funds.

Who'd have expected that?

[i used to be sc_owl]

At what point did I deny there was a drop off from the first season? That is even more starkly obvious than your lack of a sound argument in this thread. Quite how we managed a run at the play-offs that year is anyone's guess, but largely irrelevant in the context of this debate.

Now let's return to what I was arguing. For two whole years or 100 games our results were remarkably consistent, both in the long term and short term views, based on points per game, league position, percentages or any other method of your choice. If your drivel about a gradual decline driven by managerial incompetence had any basis in reality it would be demonstrated in the cold hard facts... and it isn't... anywhere. If my suggestion of a sudden turn in the spirit of the squad caused by some major off-field issues were true we would expect to see a sudden and prolonged collapse. And guess what? There it is, however you spin it. Not only that, but if the ex-manager's tactics and selections were really the root cause there would be no reason for us not to return to how we were in the previous two years. But after a handful of games, we are back in the crapper, playing even worse it could be argued.

You are coming across like the manager of one of the many teams we steamrollered in the early years of Howard Wilkinson's tenure. Despite being outfought, outthought and outscored you claim a moral victory because you play a prettier game. At least 'i used to be sc owl' is trying to offer something logical. All you are doing is pouting, insisting that your argument is right simply because you say so and manically clutching at any and every straw possible, no matter how tenuous or fanciful. Are you related to Earl Warren by any chance?

I can't wait for your next flippant dozen pithy words of fey whimsy.

No. He did remarkably well for the first few months, slumped considerably the next season, then recovered significantly in his third. The fourth started in exactly the same way (even to two decimal places). The 'point when he was doing worse than at any other time' is the crux of the matter. I am arguing that this is because of something in the background that abruptly changed and was the root cause (we've even had a player allegedly saying precisely that and the chairman himself alluding to some mysterious factors that doesn't seem to imply the likes of bad substitutions or ineffective tactics). You have to keep dragging it kicking and screaming into the analysis because otherwise your whole case collapses around you. And repeated contortions of the statistics keep proving it, again and again.

For many of the squad, they have been here throughout the period in question, so why has Laws' supposed rank incompetence taken two whole years to manifest itself and has done so so abruptly? Surely there would have been some sign, any sign, somewhere? But despite your own highly-touted 'authoritative' account (and I'm still laughing at that), all you did was reinforce what I was saying as the points per game after 12 games in 2009/10 was exactly the same as it had been the previous term and actually slightly better than the one before. Yet this somehow demonstrates an ongoing decline!? Even the ten games immediately before the slump showed us averaging 1.4 points per outing; that's up on the general trend. And then presumably, one or two or three games later, suddenly the players realise that Laws has been a buffoon all these years and we're no longer going to even score, never mind win every now and then. And as I asked M Royds - where are the signs that the cause(s) of this have now gone? It will take a bit more than a couple of glib terms from the glossary of your textbooks lazily dropped in to impress me.

Anyway, we're going round in circles (ie. coming back to the same self-evident truth repeatedly) and I'm sure most posters were thoroughly fed up of this several pages ago.

So what explains the sudden drop off between season one and season two? I will not use the word significant because where stats are concerned it has a very different meaning than someone just saying "it's significant".

Laugh all you want DJM as you clearly haven't got a bloody clue. All your arguments are based on your own opinion, manipulating and cherry picking data so that it loses any real life validity just to support your case.

[chirpyowl]

Are you f*cking kidding me?

My statistics aren't detailed or specific enough and that's your all-encompassing response to them?

I've suggested that something sudden occurred around the end of October. This coincides with the Richard Wood row and possibly the first hints that players in the final year of their contract would be released en masse at the end of the season. Maybe there were some other factors we are currently unaware of that affected squad harmony too? If we draw a line after the win over Coventry (ie. right before the bad run that got Laws the sack) let me amend one of your statistics :

2009/10 - 1.33.

Well I bloody never. How about that? Your elusive gradual decline disappears in a puff of embarrassment and relentless logic.

Good luck with that dissertation. But what are you doing for the rest of the day?

But our three most consistently disappointing performers - Spurr, Potter and Tudgay - have nice long contracts. So how does your analysis account for that/

[DJMortimer]

So what explains the sudden drop off between season one and season two? I will not use the word significant because where stats are concerned it has a very different meaning than someone just saying "it's significant".

The loss of three of our best players at the time (Brunt, Whelan and Bougherra) and not investing much of the proceeds back into the squad?

What's it matter anyway? You are bringing it into the debate because you have to. We WERE incredibly consistent for 100 games and several different ways of looking at the statistics PROVE it.

Laugh all you want DJM as you clearly haven't got a bloody clue. All your arguments are based on your own opinion, manipulating and cherry picking data so that it loses any real life validity just to support your case.

Where's the cherry picking? Where's the manipulation? We've looked at league position, points per game, comments by the chairman (and alleged remarks by a player), the opinions of several respected posters on this site, a span of 100 games, 78 games, 10 game spells at a time, the 10 games immediately prior to the slump beginning, whole seasons and the return to this lousy form under the new manager. And they ALL show the same thing. What statistics am I studiously avoiding? Where have I falsely amended anything? Yet in your only serious attempt at coming up with any figures you were forced to shoehorn in the very spell I had repeatedly said was at issue because you knew you had no case without doing so.

Our self-proclaimed expert had the chance to show me the error of my ways with the fruits of his hard studies. You had free reign to demonstrate how silly I was being. And after criticising me for being too simplistic you did nothing but show the average points per game in each season. Wow, I was so impressed with that sixty seconds of hard graft. And as if that wasn't enough, all I had to do was to reiterate that if I was right and the slump started with our visit to Preston, your whole 'case' vanished in a pathetic whimper of your own arrogance and 'do you know what this term means... hmmm?'.

You have now reduced yourself to M Royds' position - closing your eyes, putting your hands over your ears and repeatedly shouting 'I am right' lest any logic might somehow squirm in and force you to confront your own prejudice and embarrassment.

Edited March 1, 2010 by DJMortimer

[DJMortimer]

But our three most consistently disappointing performers - Spurr, Potter and Tudgay - have nice long contracts. So how does your analysis account for that/

Comfort zone? Dragged down by the atmosphere in the rest of the camp? One of the natural troughs that occurs in a player's career?

Who knows? And in the context of this argument, who cares?

The statistics, no matter how they are shuffled show an unprecedented decline. How do you account for that?

[i used to be sc_owl]

The loss of three of our best players at the time (Brunt, Whelan and Bougherra) and not investing much of the proceeds back into the squad?

What's it matter anyway? You are bringing it into the debate because you have to. We WERE incredibly consistent for 100 games and several different ways of looking at the statistics PROVE it.

Where's the cherry picking? Where's the manipulation? We've looked at league position, points per game, comments by the chairman (and alleged remarks by a player), the opinions of several respected posters on this site, a span of 100 games, 78 games, 10 game spells at a time, the 10 games immediately prior to the slump beginning, whole seasons and the return to this lousy form under the new manager. And they ALL show the same thing. What statistics am I studiously avoiding? Where have I falsely amended anything? Yet in your only serious attempt at coming up with any figures you were forced to shoehorn in the very spell I had repeatedly said was at issue because you knew you had no case without doing so.

Our self-proclaimed expert had the chance to show me the error of my ways with the fruits of his hard studies. You had free reign to demonstrate how silly I was being. And after criticising me for being too simplistic you did nothing but show the average points per game in each season. Wow, I was so impressed with that sixty seconds of hard graft. And as if that wasn't enough, all I had to do was to reiterate that if I was right and the slump started with our visit to Preston, your whole 'case' vanished in a pathetic whimper of your own arrogance and 'do you know what this term means... hmmm?'.

You have now reduced yourself to M Royds' position - closing your eyes, putting your hands over your ears and repeatedly shouting 'I am right' lest any logic might somehow squirm in and force you to confront your own prejudice and embarrassment.

Wow....

Maybe I didn't spend a lot of time coming up with that stats here for one simple reason - I have a life outside Owlstalk.

I don't have to demonstrate how stupid you are being, because you are doing a good job yourself.

As for cherry picking data - isn't this debate about the legacy of BL? If so, how can you ignore the last set of games where we picked up almost no points? How can you ignore that the overall trend is gradually down, despite a little resurgence here and there? Ever heard the phrase "one step forward, and two steps backward?" For me, that phrase sums up the whole of BL's reign at Hillsborough - a few ups, but many more downs.

[DJMortimer]

Wow....

Maybe I didn't spend a lot of time coming up with that stats here for one simple reason - I have a life outside Owlstalk.

Ooooh, so now it's 'I'm less of a loser geek than you'? I'll let my employer, wife and kids know that they don't qualify as much of 'a life'.

And make your mind up, either my analyses are way too simplistic or they are so onerous that they take up my every waking moment.

I don't have to demonstrate how stupid you are being, because you are doing a good job yourself.

You keep telling yourself that. But you're the only one directly addressing the statistics so critically. Others have questioned more peripheral issues such as signings, tactics and substitutions that I was never arguing about in the first place or simply just agreed with me.

As for cherry picking data - isn't this debate about the legacy of BL? If so, how can you ignore the last set of games where we picked up almost no points?

Because my point from the outset is that something off the pitch changed at that time to the point where team morale was suddenly lost. Aren't my lengthy and repeated explanations of that getting through? You are forced to keep dragging that spell back in because your whole premise is absolutely reliant on it. And even if we do include it, it is still a precipitous plummet, not the gradual decline you keep referring to. And one that has not gone away, even though the supposed root cause has.

How can you ignore that the overall trend is gradually down, despite a little resurgence here and there? Ever heard the phrase "one step forward, and two steps backward?" For me, that phrase sums up the whole of BL's reign at Hillsborough - a few ups, but many more downs.

Your own statistics (once the spell in question is removed) don't show that. Instead we see a significant fall from year one followed by a consistent and prolonged spell as the very definition of average (ie. an equal spread of wins, draws and defeats). In fact, from year two there is actually a slight improvement generally (not to mention the last ten games before this slump actually having a higher points per game than the average). And that is all I was arguing all along. Not that Laws was a genius, not that he never made bad signings, not that his tactics and selections couldn't be questionable, not that we didn't have short runs of poor results, not that he didn't sometimes make excuses, just that he was not the bumbling idiot some represent him as and that something major, perhaps out of his direct control may have undermined his efforts at the very end of his time here. One or two perfectly plausible suggestions have been made for what these issues might have been that make far more sense than the squad suddenly and collectively realising that the manager had been a moron all along despite the evidence of two years worth of consistently decent results.

Edited March 1, 2010 by DJMortimer

[M Royds]

At what point did I deny there was a drop off from the first season? That is even more starkly obvious than your lack of a sound argument in this thread. Quite how we managed a run at the play-offs that year is anyone's guess, but largely irrelevant in the context of this debate.

Now let's return to what I was arguing. For two whole years or 100 games our results were remarkably consistent, both in the long term and short term views, based on points per game, league position, percentages or any other method of your choice. If your drivel about a gradual decline driven by managerial incompetence had any basis in reality it would be demonstrated in the cold hard facts... and it isn't... anywhere. If my suggestion of a sudden turn in the spirit of the squad caused by some major off-field issues were true we would expect to see a sudden and prolonged collapse. And guess what? There it is, however you spin it. Not only that, but if the ex-manager's tactics and selections were really the root cause there would be no reason for us not to return to how we were in the previous two years. But after a handful of games, we are back in the crapper, playing even worse it could be argued.

You are coming across like the manager of one of the many teams we steamrollered in the early years of Howard Wilkinson's tenure. Despite being outfought, outthought and outscored you claim a moral victory because you play a prettier game. At least 'i used to be sc owl' is trying to offer something logical. All you are doing is pouting, insisting that your argument is right simply because you say so and manically clutching at any and every straw possible, no matter how tenuous or fanciful. Are you related to Earl Warren by any chance?

I can't wait for your next flippant dozen pithy words of fey whimsy.

You really are something. This unbridled loyalty is something else.

I could spend hours researching, putting together graphs, stats and data to point to the argument that this man should not have been anywhere near our. I could use the DJM style of cherry picking the facts to sum up an argument while omitting other stats.

I tell you what DJM, I am going to use anecdotal evidence. For a good percentage of Laws's tenure I felt the quality of product on display was poor. Now I would be OK with that if the end would have resulted in the team progressing, understanding the finances, but the reality is we went backwards to the point where he left us in a worse position than when he came and saddled with an awful team.

Also during that tenure we had runs of poor form, far too frequent. Hillsborough was breached on many, many occasions by the opposing side to the point where the team feared playing at home. Also the worst start in the 150 year history of our Club was again under Laws's tenure and I feel that if the club's boardroom was not in such disarray he would have been made to walk the plank on that record alone. I would like to think that if the club had not been rudderless for such a long time he would have been shown the door.

Other recent managers have made bad signings but also many good signings. Laws's (now remember he's been here for three years) has not made a single good signing (some people are starting to doubt Grant).

Another anecdotal observation is the tactical ineptitude he regularly offered. Not only in his final season but through out his tenure. Again, anecdotal, how many capitulations occurred under our Bri?

As mention he was lucky, charming but was found out. As a consequence we are struggling with a Brian laws manufactured disaster. Something he did not inherit from Paul Sturrock.

However, I understand you don't want to admit in being wrong. That's OK with me and I accept it.

[DJMortimer]

I could spend hours researching, putting together graphs, stats and data to point to the argument that this man should not have been anywhere near our.

Be my guest. You have absolutely free reign. If it's really so obvious, why don't you spend a few minutes on it and really show me up?

I could use the DJM style of cherry picking the facts to sum up an argument while omitting other stats.

Be more specific. Where is the cherry picking? The figures have been presented in all sorts of ways for all sorts of periods and yet they keep coming back unerringly to the same conclusion. Your only substantial supporter even came up with his own numbers that ultimately backed me up.

I tell you what DJM, I am going to use anecdotal evidence. For a good percentage of Laws's tenure I felt the quality of product on display was poor. Now I would be OK with that if the end would have resulted in the team progressing, understanding the finances, but the reality is we went backwards to the point where he left us in a worse position than when he came and saddled with an awful team.

Also during that tenure we had runs of poor form, far too frequent. Hillsborough was breached on many, many occasions by the opposing side to the point where the team feared playing at home. Also the worst start in the 150 year history of our Club was again under Laws's tenure and I feel that if the club's boardroom was not in such disarray he would have been made to walk the plank on that record alone. I would like to think that if the club had not been rudderless for such a long time he would have been shown the door.

Other recent managers have made bad signings but also many good signings. Laws's (now remember he's been here for three years) has not made a single good signing (some people are starting to doubt Grant).

Another anecdotal observation is the tactical ineptitude he regularly offered. Not only in his final season but through out his tenure. Again, anecdotal, how many capitulations occurred under our Bri?

As mention he was lucky, charming but was found out. As a consequence we are struggling with a Brian laws manufactured disaster. Something he did not inherit from Paul Sturrock.

It's remarkable that despite being criticised for being too relentless, too detailed and too analytical that the basics are still completely missed. Some of the issues above I'd agree with and at no point have I denied them. There have been countless average and below average signings, none more so than this season's laughable Warren Feeney f*ck up. Clearly there were numerous bad results and sequences of them (although the equal split between wins, draws and losses suggests there have been similar ones of positive results). Tactics and performances have sometimes been questionable. Post-match comments often reeked of excuses and meekness. Very obviously we had the worst start ever to a league campaign.

Yet again - I am not suggesting Laws was anything other than someone who did a decent job with what he had for a longer period than anyone has managed at this club since the days of Trevor Francis or in shorter more recent spells, David Pleat and Ron Atkinson (granted, at a higher level).

Taking the main thrust of my argument again, the FACTS (and that is what they are whether you like it or not) show our results were broadly consistent for a whole two years before a huge and sudden slump. How is that selective? It seems to me highly likely that there were much more direct cause(s) for this than the sudden dawning that the manager was the total pillock you portray him as. Even the chairman referred to undisclosed 'issues' that had not been sorted out. Do you really think he meant reservations about playing McAllister on the wing or leaving Hinds on the bench or something?

However, I understand you don't want to admit in being wrong. That's OK with me and I accept it.

That's more like your usual style - I'm right because I said so. Ho hum.

[M Royds]

That's more like your usual style - I'm right because I said so. Ho hum.

What was it Thatcher said?

"This Owlstalker is not for turning"