Jump to content

laws' legacy


Recommended Posts

Guest northowl

Are you f*cking kidding me?

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

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?

:dry:

DJM

I agree 100% with your thoughts, something did go wrong around that time, if you look where Coventry are now in the league, 3 points off the playoffs v where they where when Wood moved to them (same point as us I think) ?, maybe we have we have missed something. I am sure I heard their manager saying at the weekend how over the last 3-4 months the team spirit has improved so much, and how they are working and fighting for each other, and we have gone backwards big time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that Sheffield Wednesday were a consistent football team under Brian Laws is laughable. Take, for example, our defensive record last season (2008/2009):

No other team in the league that season conceded FEWER goals at home (14) than Sheffield Wednesday. We had the best defence in the league at home

No other team conceded MORE goals than Sheffield Wednesday (44) away from home. We had the worst defence in the league away from home.

Even the teams that were relegated conceded fewer goals than us on the road and of the teams that were promoted none could maintain as sturdy and reliable a defence at home as that of Sheffield Wednesday.

That is as close as you'll get to inconsistency in footballing terms. Those two statements are the exact opposite of each other, they could not contradict each other to any degree further than they already do, they are inconsistent with each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that Sheffield Wednesday were a consistent football team under Brian Laws is laughable. Take, for example, our defensive record last season (2008/2009):

No other team in the league that season conceded FEWER goals at home (14) than Sheffield Wednesday. We had the best defence in the league at home

No other team conceded MORE goals than Sheffield Wednesday (44) away from home. We had the worst defence in the league away from home.

Even the teams that were relegated conceded fewer goals than us on the road and of the teams that were promoted none could maintain as sturdy and reliable a defence at home as that of Sheffield Wednesday.

That is as close as you'll get to inconsistency in footballing terms. Those two statements are the exact opposite of each other, they could not contradict each other to any degree further than they already do, they are inconsistent with each other.

I've finally stopped. Do you really want to get me going again?

:biggrin:

It's a good (and rather bemusing when you think about it) point, but it doesn't address the consistency of point scoring or league position for a very long time, nor the sudden lapse into utter haplessness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that Sheffield Wednesday were a consistent football team under Brian Laws is laughable. Take, for example, our defensive record last season (2008/2009):

No other team in the league that season conceded FEWER goals at home (14) than Sheffield Wednesday. We had the best defence in the league at home

No other team conceded MORE goals than Sheffield Wednesday (44) away from home. We had the worst defence in the league away from home.

Even the teams that were relegated conceded fewer goals than us on the road and of the teams that were promoted none could maintain as sturdy and reliable a defence at home as that of Sheffield Wednesday.

That is as close as you'll get to inconsistency in footballing terms. Those two statements are the exact opposite of each other, they could not contradict each other to any degree further than they already do, they are inconsistent with each other.

Your post seems to fit in with this graph!

Points_per_game.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post seems to fit in with this graph!

Points_per_game.jpg

I think you're all reading far too much into it. We've had average managers with an average team which gives average results. Laws wasn't a good manager but he was steady enough to keep our head above water for a period of time. The reason people disagree with DJ M comments is that DJ M assumes a constant. With the same team you can measure performance but if the manager buys poor players along the way it doesn't matter what he was like over 2 seasons, his legacy can lead to the situation we find ourselves in ,this makes him at fault.

I liked laws as a bloke but we are left with players that for a long time have not been good enough. Saying his stats over 100 games were good are irrelevant if after he goes we are in lumber with the team remaining.

DJ M you're wrong!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're all reading far too much into it. We've had average managers with an average team which gives average results. Laws wasn't a good manager but he was steady enough to keep our head above water for a period of time. The reason people disagree with DJ M comments is that DJ M assumes a constant. With the same team you can measure performance but if the manager buys poor players along the way it doesn't matter what he was like over 2 seasons, his legacy can lead to the situation we find ourselves in ,this makes him at fault.

I liked laws as a bloke but we are left with players that for a long time have not been good enough. Saying his stats over 100 games were good are irrelevant if after he goes we are in lumber with the team remaining.

DJ M you're wrong!!

Maybe your right. I agree that when it comes to football then the stats are immeasurable coz football is not a constant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a good (and rather bemusing when you think about it) point, but it doesn't address the consistency of point scoring or league position for a very long time, nor the sudden lapse into utter haplessness.

That's not what I remember. Brian's teams went on long barren stretches which then came to end and we would start to pick up points again.

Take a look at the start of the 2007-2008 season. We started with two wins in ten (6 points from 30). That's sure fire relegation form, but one of the two wins was against Hull City who were eventually promoted (finished 3rd, won the play-off final).

The next ten games were much better. Five wins in ten (18 points from 30) and once again we had beaten a team on its way to promotion (Stoke city, away 4-2).

Those two wins against promoted teams came in a season when we finished only 3 points above leicester who were relegated.

The end of the 2006-2007 season had provided us with seven wins from ten games (23 points from 30) so the first ten games of the season were not consistent with previous ten matches, or the subsequent ten games. Nor were our perfomances against high calibre teams consistent with our performances against teams of a lower calibre. After our poor start we hit form and should've pulled away. But we lost it. We were inconsistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Royds and DJ - give it up!

The point is that something went seriously wrong late October, it de-stabilised the whole team and the problem remains with us under AI.

The imperative is to stay up and sorting this major problem out is the key. We all know the current players can and have played better and can play real football with passion. But we cannot do it, only AI, LS and NP are in a position to do that.

So PLEASE, get to it and get it done.

Get that sorted and we stay up Dude.

Simples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Royds and DJ - give it up!

The point is that something went seriously wrong late October, it de-stabilised the whole team and the problem remains with us under AI.

The imperative is to stay up and sorting this major problem out is the key. We all know the current players can and have played better and can play real football with passion. But we cannot do it, only AI, LS and NP are in a position to do that.

So PLEASE, get to it and get it done.

Get that sorted and we stay up Dude.

Simples.

Just partaking in a healthy debate! :happy:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're all reading far too much into it. We've had average managers with an average team which gives average results. Laws wasn't a good manager but he was steady enough to keep our head above water for a period of time. The reason people disagree with DJ M comments is that DJ M assumes a constant. With the same team you can measure performance but if the manager buys poor players along the way it doesn't matter what he was like over 2 seasons, his legacy can lead to the situation we find ourselves in ,this makes him at fault.

I liked laws as a bloke but we are left with players that for a long time have not been good enough. Saying his stats over 100 games were good are irrelevant if after he goes we are in lumber with the team remaining.

DJ M you're wrong!!

I'm not suggesting there is a metronomic constant of players, funds, shots on target, corners, temperature at kickoff time, hot dogs sold, virgins in the crowd or any other random stuff.

But surely the only semi-reliable measure of the job a manager is doing is monitoring his team's results? If not, then how do we measure it? And what was it that got Laws the sack? A few poor substitutions or losing too many games in a short period? And as shown repeatedly, by definition, we were consistently average for an extended period. Has Alex Ferguson been consistently good or is it impossible to say because nothing has been constant enough?

So, what's your suggestion then? Just one of those things? Or do you subscribe to the theory that the players suddenly realised that Laws was crap and lost all ability and faith in themselves practically overnight? And why have we returned to that form even though Laws was dispensed with? These are largely the same players (does that count as a constant?) that were mid-table for virtually every game last season.

And what were the unresolved 'issues' Mr Strafford referred to a few weeks ago? The disparity between goals conceded at home and away in 2008/9? The poor start to the season 18 months ago? Playing Michael Gray on the opposite wing to normal? Hardly. No one has offered anything to suggest what he might have meant by that. If Laws was the cause of them, then fair enough, he got what he deserved. But what if he wasn't?

Until someone can authoritatively demonstrate that such off field issues aren't the root cause of the trapdoor opening (and no amount of rationalising poor signings and tactics can do that) it remains a strong possibility, especially given the two scenarios that could fit in with the timeframe and provide a logical mechanism for the results we have seen.

Edited by DJMortimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not suggesting there is a metronomic constant of players, funds, shots on target, corners, temperature at kickoff time, hot dogs sold, virgins in the crowd or any other random stuff.

But surely the only semi-reliable measure of the job a manager is doing is monitoring his team's results? If not, then how do we measure it? And what was it that got Laws the sack? A few poor substitutions or losing too many games in a short period? And as shown repeatedly, by definition, we were consistently average for an extended period. Has Alex Ferguson been consistently good or is it impossible to say because nothing has been constant enough?

So, what's your suggestion then? Just one of those things? Or do you subscribe to the theory that the players suddenly realised that Laws was crap and lost all ability and faith in themselves practically overnight? And why have we returned to that form even though Laws was dispensed with? These are largely the same players (does that count as a constant?) that were mid-table for virtually every game last season.

And what were the unresolved 'issues' Mr Strafford referred to a few weeks ago? The disparity between goals conceded at home and away in 2008/9? The poor start to the season 18 months ago? Playing Michael Gray on the opposite wing to normal? Hardly. No one has offered anything to suggest what he might have meant by that. If Laws was the cause of them, then fair enough, he got what he deserved. But what if he wasn't?

Until someone can authoritatively demonstrate that such off field issues aren't the root cause of the trapdoor opening (and no amount of rationalising poor signings and tactics can do that) it remains a strong possibility, especially given the two scenarios that could fit in with the timeframe and provide a logical mechanism for the results we have seen.

Your posts ask so many questions they lose the point. Going back to my point about constants. The same players one season can be poor the next cos while they stand still other teams improve. Its the managers job to see that coming, have that foresight, and adapt the team to suit.

If you apply your argument as long as we kept the same team that finished well a couple of seasons ago with the same manager we'd be ok. Thats not how it works.

We are left with a poor team that can't punch its weight at this level. That is laws fault. Had he had foresight we wouldn't be where we are. I'm not a laws hater (all by no means a fan) but hes made certain decisions that have culminated in where we are today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DJM, i think that you should read about confirmation bias.

You can find out more by visiting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

The usage of that is in itself confirmation bias on your part in a way.

What about the numerous methods used for measuring our performance in variable timeframes? One of these was even put forward by someone disagreeing with me and it still showed the same result. What is being omitted or altered? Not a single worthwhile example yet.

The invitation is still there for someone to come up with a similar analysis of our results that demonstrates a gradual decline rather than the smash into a brick wall that actually played out. Go on. You have absolutely free reign. Or can I expect another 'all conspiracy theorists think they are the king of Neptune' type response?

And still no one has addressed the 'issues' mentioned by the chairman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Distraught!

Your posts ask so many questions they lose the point. Going back to my point about constants. The same players one season can be poor the next cos while they stand still other teams improve. Its the managers job to see that coming, have that foresight, and adapt the team to suit.

If you apply your argument as long as we kept the same team that finished well a couple of seasons ago with the same manager we'd be ok. Thats not how it works.

We are left with a poor team that can't punch its weight at this level. That is laws fault. Had he had foresight we wouldn't be where we are. I'm not a laws hater (all by no means a fan) but hes made certain decisions that have culminated in where we are today.

It could be equally argued that there have been many, many people and many, many decisions in the recent history of the club that have ultimately culminated in where we are today!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same players one season can be poor the next cos while they stand still other teams improve. Its the managers job to see that coming, have that foresight, and adapt the team to suit.

If you apply your argument as long as we kept the same team that finished well a couple of seasons ago with the same manager we'd be ok. Thats not how it works.

That's all very obvious. Had the anomolous form started at the beginning of the season then you might have a point, but in fact they picked up precisely where they had left off the previous May... until the end of October, and then the crash occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Distraught!

That's all very obvious. Had the anomolous form started at the beginning of the season then you might have a point, but in fact they picked up precisely where they had left off the previous May... until the end of October, and then the crash occurred.

This is an unerring fact! There was no clue immediately after the 4-0 Sflaphorpe result and 3-1 Plymouth result of what was soon to transpire! Something certainly must have triggered that nosedive!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an unerring fact! There was no clue immediately after the 4-0 Sflaphorpe result and 3-1 Plymouth result of what was soon to transpire! Something certainly must have triggered that nosedive!

If it can be demonstrated that Laws alone was to blame for these factors then fair enough, he takes the blame, and we all make the best of what is left behind. But the main theories suggested open up the possibility that he might have had a much less prominent role. I'm not stating that either of these absolutely is the cause (as I have no proof for that), only that they are consistent with the consequences we have seen and should not be so glibly dismissed by people with no more proof than I can offer.

The players have come under mounting criticism not so much for being crap (which they may well be too), but playing as if they couldn't care less. Surely that fits in with the theory that they have been demotivated by factors away from the pitch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...