Alan Irvine

[Plonk]

The two ain't connected. That's just the stock stuff any chairman should come out with ahead of any derby of this magnitude, you're reading way too much into that.

Who specifically is it right now that isn't? Some players are clearly underperforming, but I can't see what LS and anyone at that level can do right now to affect this season, and Irvine has a mid table record with a side that Laws had a bottom 3 record with.

Some players? Only Grant and Purse (for the last few months) have done their jobs. And what of the board of directors. We all know and appreciate what LS and NP are doing, but what of the other faceless non entities? I dont even know who else is on the board tbh. What have they done? Have they put any money or thought or actions or efforts into reversing this trend?

What about our so called investors? Why havent Sclub 7 (if they flippingexist) done something? Why no extra effort to get the deal done in time for Irvine to bring in a couple of players? Why not a down payment as a goodwill gesture?

[i used to be sc_owl]

On my working out Irvines form over a whole season would get 60 points, and Laws form would get 40 points (based on 18 points from 21 games I think it was?).

A 50% increase with largely the same squad...

However, let's see what it's like come the end of the season. The remaining 3 games could alter that considerably.

[Owlsfan]

Oooh there's nothing like statistics to "prove" a point are there?

Here's another clue - after a few games under Mr Irvine we were showing "play-off" form - after a few more games it was "mid table form - and now after several more games it's getting perilously close to you know what....

When the point I made was "he's got a mid table record" I'd say points is a pretty good judge of that.

[Sonny]

Sing to your hearts content on Sunday and do not get on the players backs if a misplaced pass goes astray, or someone does not close down a player as quickly as you liked

It's amazing how players react to a crowds response....................

The points from those games that you actually wanted us to lose would come in handy right now.

Edited April 12, 2010 by Sonny

[Glaser]

Oooh there's nothing like statistics to "prove" a point are there?

Here's another clue - after a few games under Mr Irvine we were showing "play-off" form - after a few more games it was "mid table form - and now after several more games it's getting perilously close to you know what....

no

Especially when we are comparing the merits of 2 managers, over a stretch of 20 matches

It is not as though I have compared the points average of Irvine in his first 3 matches and Laws over the time he has been here

I thought you would come out with the old "stats can be manipulating" rather than admitting you were wrong

Very fitting IMO

[Glaser]

The points from those games that you actually wanted us to lose would come in very handy right now.

What like the points we may have got if Laws was sacked when I was asking.... after the West Brom or Reading debacles, after going 9 matches without a win and only 2 points.............

Yeah I see how my one match where I wanted us to lose has more important than the previous 8

[Sonny]

What like the points we may have got if Laws was sacked when I was asking.... after the West Brom or Reading debacles, after going 9 matches without a win and only 2 points.............

Yeah I see how my one match where I wanted us to lose has more important than the previous 8

It was more than one match.

'It's amazing how the players react to a crowds response'

[Owlsfan]

no

Especially when we are comparing the merits of 2 managers, over a stretch of 20 matches

20 matches is not much to comnpare their relative merits as managers, obviously circumstances can change, just shows the very fine line between mediocrity and failure. But can't be doubted that we've got a mid table record since AI has been at the club.

[Glaser]

It was more than one match.

'It's amazing how the players react to a crowds response'

There was me thinking it was just the Leicester match*

But still............. you know me better than me, so who am I to argue

*note: and I started a thread afterwards at the irony of my request, as this turned out to be Brian's last for the club (still, don't let this cloud your judgment hey)

[DJMortimer]

20 matches is not much to comnpare their relative merits as managers, obviously circumstances can change, just shows the very fine line between mediocrity and failure. But can't be doubted that we've got a mid table record since AI has been at the club.

Nor can it be doubted that Laws' last 13 games garnered 9 points, whereas Irvine's last 13 have got us only 11.

The 'over the course of the season' argument is weakening with each passing game as we slip inexorably down any such pseudo table.

[scram]

no

Especially when we are comparing the merits of 2 managers, over a stretch of 20 matches

It is not as though I have compared the points average of Irvine in his first 3 matches and Laws over the time he has been here

I thought you would come out with the old "stats can be manipulating" rather than admitting you were wrong

Very fitting IMO

I'm not admitting i am wrong because i am not wrong

You're taking a fluid stats position as an absolute and not the continuum it actually is - otherwise we can play sill tw@ts with stats all day

Stats are manipulative - nearly half of the points we have accumulated under Mr Irvine came in his first 5 games - that means in the following 15 games we have accumlated just a couple more points than the first 5 games yielded

So we can probably with justification state that the opening 12 points in 5 games is not representative of Mr Irvine's tenure here - the last 15 games projected over the season would see us end up on 43 points

You can rant all you like but the trend is worringly downwards - take away the points gained in the "new manager honeymoon period" (which every manager for years has enjoyed here apart from Clueless) and equalise them to a more realistic norm for the tenure - and it's not worrying - it's full on bowel-emptying, pant-filling horror

Edited April 12, 2010 by scram

[Freshfish]

AI has made us harder to beat....now that's fine over a short number of games, if...and it's a big if, the rest of the game plan is to increase the number of goal scoring opportunites and actually turn them into goals. Being hard to beat can only get you so far and if time and again we fail to put away chances, we will be punished...again and again and again.

The problem is...I see no real difference in that respect and not scoring goals is the simplest route to relegation.

It's that conundrum that cost BL his job. It's that conundrum that may well take us down. The solution can only be a change of playing staff and some money being spent wisely on the team for next year, in whichever division we may be in..

Now is not the time to judge a manager. Next season is......again....nowt fookin' changes nor ever will until those responsible for our financial state are sent packing, shares taken back and new faces and new finances brought in to support our current chair and ceo.

[mcmigo]

The only stat that matters is the division we are playing in next season.

The Championship - well done Alan

League 1 - once more the stadium will ring to the tune of Alan Out.

[Owlsfan]

Nor can it be doubted that Laws' last 13 games garnered 9 points, whereas Irvine's last 13 have got us only 11.

The 'over the course of the season' argument is weakening with each passing game as we slip inexorably down any such pseudo table.

I don't doubt it's been poor recently, even then AI's had less luck in his poor period imo. I'm not saying he's a far better manager. But we've clearly done better under similar circumstances with AI than BL.

[Glaser]

I'm not admitting i am wrong because i am not wrong

You're taking a fluid stats position as an absolute and not the continuum it actually is - otherwise we can play sill tw@ts with stats all day

Stats are manipulative - nearly half of the points we have accumulated under Mr Irvine came in his first 5 games - that means in the following 15 games we have accumlated just a couple more points than the first 5 games yielded

So we can probably with justification state that the opening 12 points in 5 games is not representative of Mr Irvine's tenure here - the last 15 games projected over the season would see us end up on 43 points

You can rant all you like but the trend is worringly downwards - take away the points gained in the "new manager honeymoon period" (which every manager for years has enjoyed here apart from Clueless) and equalise them to a more realistic norm for the tenure - and it's not worrying - it's full on bowel-emptying, pant-filling horror

looks like me and Lee are wrong then

Alan Irvine is an appalling manager

[Wednesday-Wonderland]

I can see the point of both scram and Glaser, but under Irvine we're hard to beat and we're still somehow creating chances despite having one of the worst CM pairings in the division. Proper creative midfielder (or a fit Miller) + a goalscorer and we'd be flying.

[Owlsfan]

Stats are manipulative - nearly half of the points we have accumulated under Mr Irvine came in his first 5 games - that means in the following 15 games we have accumlated just a couple more points than the first 5 games yielded

So we can probably with justification state that the opening 12 points in 5 games is not representative of Mr Irvine's tenure here - the last 15 games projected over the season would see us end up on 43 points

You can rant all you like but the trend is worringly downwards - take away the points gained in the "new manager honeymoon period" (which every manager for years has enjoyed here apart from Clueless) and equalise them to a more realistic norm for the tenure - and it's not worrying - it's full on bowel-emptying, pant-filling horror

I'd would normally agree about them not being representative, but here it's an unfair position to take imo, simply because of the standard of the opposition, just look who we were playing against. Take some of those away and you massively reduce the opportunity to score points.

[Guest becauseofboxingday]

Nor can it be doubted that Laws' last 13 games garnered 9 points, whereas Irvine's last 13 have got us only 11.

The 'over the course of the season' argument is weakening with each passing game as we slip inexorably down any such pseudo table.

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?

The only meaningful statistic is the amount of games they have been in charge this season. It is after all the record from the entire season that has us in this mess. The facts are that Laws got 18 points from 21 games, Irvine has got 26 points from 20 games. After Sunday they will have both been in charge for 21 games and it is clear where the fault lies.

Furthermore, a major part of a managers job is to choose the right players. Nearly every single player at this club is the choice of Brian Laws, it is simply not fair to judge Irvine until he has been given a chance to bring his own players in.

Yes the football has been dire under Irvine, but anybody who thinks we could have recovered from only 19 points after half of the season by playing free flowing football is quite frankly deluded. Anybody with any sort of football brain can see that we are now a difficult team to breakdown. We let 39 goals in 23 games before AI came, since we have conceded 24 goals in 20 games. Yes there hasn't been free flowing attacking football but don't forget that we went 6 games in a row without scoring before AI was appointed, so he hardly had the necessary tools at his disposal.

[scram]

looks like me and Lee are wrong then

Alan Irvine is an appalling manager

Didn't realise it was a joint appointment between you and the chairman

And nobody has said Mr Irvine is an appalling manager - that's just you chucking the teddies out

Some people are finding it very difficult to take that we aren't actually much better off than we were - and invent things to make it look better.

We weren't virtually relegated when Mr Irvine took over

And we are hardly any better off now

[Glaser]

Didn't realise it was a joint appointment between you and the chairman

brought him into it, seen as he is the most important man at the club and decided the future of Laws and will do so regarding Alan

All that matters to me, is that in the time since his appointment, Irvine has collected more points than Laws did, in the same number of matches before him.

This, with the squad he did not scout, mould in pre season and instill ideologies throughout the first half of the season. They are not the players he would choose to have.

Yes we should have got more points in games where Irvine has been way too negative, but I believe we are in a much better position now, than had we been if we had stuck with Laws.