Alan Irvine

[Owlsfan]

We aren't a shitload better off. But the difference between relegation and midtable is very small. Especially over half a season. One or two wins into losses and Irvine's record is on a par with Laws. One or two more wins instead of losses and he looks like a genius. Anyone expecting a noticably big turnaround with the same squad in 6 months was deluded.

[DJMortimer]

And if you compare the last 2 games that Laws was in charge we got 0 points, just like the last two of Irvine. Why choose 13, why not 10, or 15?

Because that was the closest correlation between our current run of form and the spell which cost Laws his job. Your analysis is every bit as selective as mine is. The only exception is that I'm not pretending otherwise.

What a manager achieved four months ago is hardly relevant in the here and now is it? The trend is clear yet you are fiddling while Rome burns on the basis that Irvine did what most new managers do - oversaw a brief turnaround in a club's fortunes before the situation settled back down.

[Mick]

looks like me and Lee are wrong then

Alan Irvine is an appalling manager

You got that right.

[Beholder]

Brian Laws was too gung ho.

Alan Irvine probably the opposite.

But we couldn't score goals with either approach.

It's not the managers but the fact that the wretched midfield has been kept consistant throughout and we didn't invest in a decent loan striker who could get us goals.

[scram]

We aren't a shitload better off. But the difference between relegation and midtable is very small. Especially over half a season. One or two wins into losses and Irvine's record is on a par with Laws. One or two more wins instead of losses and he looks like a genius. Anyone expecting a noticably big turnaround with the same squad in 6 months was deluded.

Absolutely - agree 100%

My main point is the ridiculous notion that it would take a miracle to keep us up from the inherited position - and the equally erroneous idea that we are performing significantly better (points wise) than we were

The margins are fine - if Mr Laws had turned a couple of draws into wins - if a couple of Mr Irvines draws had been losses etc etc etc - there is so very little in it as to be negligible

And that's why i challenge people who try to make it otherwise.

There is only one stat that now matters this season - and that is the final position of the team - points per game - honeymoon periods - bad luck etc etc don't come into it then.

Bottom line is that we had ample opportunity to stay in this division and the odds weren't stacked against us any more than any other team who found themselves down at that end of the table.

If we go down it will be a poor show all round - if we don't go down it's no miracle achievement

[Guest becauseofboxingday]

Because that was the closest correlation between our current run of form and the spell which cost Laws his job. Your analysis is every bit as selective as mine is. The only exception is that I'm not pretending otherwise.

What a manager achieved four months ago is hardly relevant in the here and now is it? The trend is clear yet you are fiddling while Rome burns on the basis that Irvine did what most new managers do - oversaw a brief turnaround in a club's fortunes before the situation settled back down.

I bet you got bullied at school didn't you? (Waits for usual reply of losing credibility)

All managers and teams have spells like that. Earlier this season Blackpool won ony one in 10 games and currently Man United have not won in 4 games (a worrying downward trend?). You have to judge a teams fortunes over the entire course of a season because that is how the rules of football work. If we get relegated it will be because of 46 games not 13. Alan Irvine took over the club knowing that he needed at least 31 points (historically speaking) from 23 games to keep this club up. If he achieves this with his hands tied in the transfer market and with the shambles that he inherited he will have done a bloody marvellous job in my opinion.

[RobHowe]

We aren't a shitload better off. But the difference between relegation and midtable is very small. Especially over half a season. One or two wins into losses and Irvine's record is on a par with Laws. One or two more wins instead of losses and he looks like a genius. Anyone expecting a noticably big turnaround with the same squad in 6 months was deluded.

Excellent post.

[DuncOwl]

Laws' last 13 games :

W2 D3 L8 F9 A23 PTS9

Irvine's last 13 games :

W2 D5 L6 F8 A16 PTS11

Not really an enormous difference is there?

Selective stats there DJM. And still AI's are better than BL's. To make the stats less selective, lets take off the first and last of those stats

Laws' 11 from 13 selection

W0 D3 L8 F3 A21 Pts3

Irvine's 11 from 13 selection

W2 D5 L4 F8 A13 Pts11

An enormous difference really.

My point being that stats mean nothing in the context of this season. the only stat that matters is that we have 3 games left to stay in this division.

Lets not get on people's backs. Lets get behind them. Regardless of whether we "like" the players / manager or not, "we" can have a massive effect on whether we stay up. We heckle and moan (as I know 99% of people on here do when they're at the games) and we're down... we support them (as we did Vs Norwich 2 years ago) and we will stay up - simple.

[Owlsfan]

Absolutely - agree 100%

My main point is the ridiculous notion that it would take a miracle to keep us up from the inherited position - and the equally erroneous idea that we are performing significantly better (points wise) than we were

Without getting insanely nerdy (largely because I've got roger all chance of remembering how to do them ) in terms of significance testing, I'd guess you're right. Would've been very hard for him to do that though imo.

[RichSheffWeds]

I think there is a significant difference between the Laws and Irvine situations.

It was and to a large degree still is Laws team. When he left that "team" were getting taken apart game after game. It was a total embarassment.

Irvine has come in to a pretty dire situation and has done what he reasonably can do with the players he has inherited.

Is his play negative and defensive? Yes but with a bit of luck we can win games because we now concede very few goals. It is possible for us to scrap 1-0 wins with a bit of good fortune - and that's what we need against United and Palace.

Did Irvine have much choice? For me he had little option to play any other way. We don't have the creativity or players to play attractive, attacking football AND compete defensively - they are just not good enough to play this way - and we would have got hammered.

Edited April 12, 2010 by RichSheffWeds

[bigdan2003]

We can have the Irvine Vs Laws argument all year. The fact is, there are 11blokes on that pitch that have not performed to the best of their ability this season. That's why we're on the knife edge right now.

Let's judge Irvine when he's built his own team, with his own ideas.

[bluemonday]

We aren't a shitload better off. But the difference between relegation and midtable is very small. Especially over half a season. One or two wins into losses and Irvine's record is on a par with Laws. One or two more wins instead of losses and he looks like a genius. Anyone expecting a noticably big turnaround with the same squad in 6 months was deluded.

Good post.

[Guest Stereophonics]

I think there is a significant difference between the Laws and Irvine situations.

It was and to a large degree still is Laws team. When he left that "team" were getting taken apart game after game. It was a total embarassment.

Irvine has come in to a pretty dire situation and has done what he reasonably can do with the players he has inherited.

Is his play negative and defensive? Yes but with a bit of luck we can win games because we now concede very few goals. It is possible for us to scrap 1-0 wins with a bit of good fortune - and that's what we need against United and Palace.

Did Irvine have much choice? For me he had little option to play any other way. We don't have the creativity or players to play attractive, attacking football AND compete defensively - they are just not good enough to play this way - and we would have got hammered.

We proved last season and in the early games this season that we could.

[DuncOwl]

Evryone is quoting stats here and stats there... f*ck stats. I have been to the majority of games this season, and can categorically say that we are a much better team under Irvine than we were under Laws. Can anyone on here seriously say that we are not a better team? If there is, then may I suggest that you are just 1) a WUMmer or 2) haven't seen us play for a long time

Laws' team would get hammered against the pigs, Cardiff and Palace. At least with Irvine's team, we still have some hope - I know having hope is illegal on Owlstalk, but it is undeniable. nmojf

[DJMortimer]

I bet you got bullied at school didn't you? (Waits for usual reply of losing credibility)

Oh dear.

If you say so.

All managers and teams have spells like that. Earlier this season Blackpool won ony one in 10 games and currently Man United have not won in 4 games (a worrying downward trend?). You have to judge a teams fortunes over the entire course of a season because that is how the rules of football work. If we get relegated it will be because of 46 games not 13. Alan Irvine took over the club knowing that he needed at least 31 points (historically speaking) from 23 games to keep this club up. If he achieves this with his hands tied in the transfer market and with the shambles that he inherited he will have done a bloody marvellous job in my opinion.

As I said, of course the statistics quoted were selective. Just as yours were. Even deducting a trend based upon them is a hazardous business as circumstances are constantly in flux. But the trend is all too obvious. Deny it if you like, but the league table makes more bleak reading with each week that passes.

Several times in recent weeks people have used 1, 2 or 3 game spells (you've outdone them by going for 4) to try and ridicule posts about spells of form. One of them was in comparison to a period of two bloody years! Just shows how predictable and facile it is doesn't it?

[DJMortimer]

Selective stats there DJM. And still AI's are better than BL's. To make the stats less selective, lets take off the first and last of those stats

To "make the stats less selective", let's select bits from them that tell the story we want them to tell.

[i used to be sc_owl]

78% of stats are 50% accurate 92% of the time.

My head hurts.

[DJMortimer]

Evryone is quoting stats here and stats there... f*ck stats. I have been to the majority of games this season, and can categorically say that we are a much better team under Irvine than we were under Laws. Can anyone on here seriously say that we are not a better team?

That may be true, but the league table is the only place that matters and it is pragmatically telling us we are not much better off than we were four months ago.

[RichSheffWeds]

[/b]

We proved last season and in the early games this season that we could.

This season? 45 mins against Barnsley and the Scunny game. That's hardly competing - it's one and a half games out of the season.

[DJMortimer]

It's also interesting that Irvine inherited a team with 1 win in it's previous 12 games and so has largely been absolved of blame by some when it continues to struggle.

Yet Laws goes to Burnley who are on precisely the same run of form but many are convinced it's purely his fault that their slump has continued.

And they say referees are inconsistent.