Jones must stay!

[Past Member]

Who do you suggest Milan appoints next?

Ian Holloway, Martin Allen, Paulo Sousa, ? All successful appointments by Milan.

Who's next on the merry go round?

Suggestions?

Not sure, I think DJ is the best manager we can have at the moment and therefore I hope he is given time to turn it around. Although I think MM may start switching at say 7 defeats in a row.

[Past Member]

My point still stands.

A huge decision for the future of the club would be made on the basis of nothing but dumb luck.

and I thought you were a stats man.

If 6 is your number, then after 5 defeats the manager is already 83.3% there. The dodgy decison in the 6th would only affect the last 16.7%.

[DJMortimer]

and I thought you were a stats man.

If 6 is your number, then after 5 defeats the manager is already 83.3% there. The dodgy decison in the 6th would only affect the last 16.7%.

And my point still stands.

As I've said many times, statistics are nothing without context and can be used to bolster almost anything.

[Past Member]

And my point still stands.

As I've said many times, statistics are nothing without context and can be used to bolster almost anything.

No it doesn't, if you number is 1000000 matches and you lose 999999, then how important is that dodgy penalty decision in the last.

I agree for a smallish number of loses, other factors come into play. As the loss number increases those factors become less important. Therefore important now, but less important after say 8 games IMO.

Edited September 26, 2012 by zzmdu

[SiJ]

This streak goes on much longer (8,9,10 games) and he'll probably be on his bike, unfortunately.

I think he is probably the best manager we've had in god knows how long, but I would be lying if I didn't say that our recent slump has not got me concerned.

Hopefully it is a case of gelling the squad together and once again establishing a team.

Jones has a proven track record at this level, so it is only fair that fans try and stick behind him, though I think they are fully justified to vent their frustrations (on here, not booing players at games) if this current trend of results continues.

So...yeah, stick behind Jones and he should stay.

[ReadingOwl]

No it doesn't, if you number is 1000000 matches and you lose 999999, then how important is that dodgy penalty decision in the last.

I agree for a smallish number of loses, other factors come into play. As the loss number increases those factors become less important. Therefore important now, but less important after say 8 games IMO.

I don't think that is his point?

His point is that you shouldn't adopt an arbitrary number.

There is 'wrong/right' number of losses - which you keep asking for.

Things have to be looked at 'in the round'.

Both background and foreground issues.

[Guest Bedders]

Sacking DJ would be madness in my opinion.....but on the flip (he has been responsible for) too many players having being introduced at once & IMPO that is a big part of the problem.......

I don't think playing (new) players out of position is helping matters either.........by the time Mattock does get a game at left back his confidence could be gone......

[Past Member]

I don't think that is his point?

His point is that you shouldn't adopt an arbitrary number.

There is 'wrong/right' number of losses - which you keep asking for.

Things have to be looked at 'in the round'.

Both background and foreground issues.

I presume you meant 'there in no wrong/right number'

I heard many managers disagree with you, they tell us its a 'results' business.

[ReadingOwl]

I presume you meant 'there in no wrong/right number'

I heard many managers disagree with you, they tell us its a 'results' business.

Of course it is a 'results' business.

But, you are asking for a definitive number viz a viz consecutive losses.

As though there is some metaphorical guillotine.

[DJMortimer]

No it doesn't, if you number is 1000000 matches and you lose 999999, then how important is that dodgy penalty decision in the last.

I agree for a smallish number of loses, other factors come into play. As the loss number increases those factors become less important. Therefore important now, but less important after say 8 games IMO.

No matter how many games you randomly choose, your scenario still relies on chance for the last one that ultimately determines the manager's fate. And no amount of spinning can alter that stark fact. This alone makes it lunacy.

On the face of it, a large number of defeats leading up to it should make it's own case, but that being the case the last game is irrelevant anyway. You are the one determining that there is a finite point at which the decision is out of your hands. But I don't want to play tennis with the semantics of that any further.

With logic like that, the chairman might as well stay at home and only make a judgement based on what the results show in the Sunday papers. The reality is that a sensible decision could only be made using parameters that can't be measured quite so easily. Unfortunately, many chairman treat the whole business as if it's no more complicated than replacing a pair of old shoes.

[Past Member]

No matter how many games you randomly choose, your scenario still relies on chance for the last one that ultimately determines the manager's fate. And no amount of spinning can alter that stark fact. This alone makes it lunacy.

On the face of it, a large number of defeats leading up to it should make it's own case, but that being the case the last game is irrelevant anyway. You are the one determining that there is a finite point at which the decision is out of your hands. But I don't want to play tennis with the semantics of that any further.

With logic like that, the chairman might as well stay at home and only make a judgement based on what the results show in the Sunday papers. The reality is that a sensible decision could only be made using parameters that can't be measured quite so easily. Unfortunately, many chairman treat the whole business as if it's no more complicated than replacing a pair of old shoes.

Great you agree with me then, losing the last game becomes less relevant, the longer the losing streak. I glad you've corrected yourself.

I disagree with you I think the managers fate does depends on the results in the Sunday Papers, I think this because I have heard dozens of managers say it.

[ReadingOwl]

I disagree with you I think the managers fate does depends on the results in the Sunday Papers, I think this because I have heard dozens of managers say it.

Would one of those be Ron Atkinson?

[Guest insideowl]

Why does Jones have to stay?

He got us promoted with megsons side. A side which was organised, fit and had a tremendous will to win. I still believe if we would have signed antonio earlier we wouldn't have lost them three games under megson before the united match and megson would still be in charge. We may or may not gone on to get promotion, we will never find out and will never be able to prove that arguement right or wrong.

Moving on.... Jones has now had his first pre season to make his stamp and sign his own players. So far this season we look to have gone backwards and the signings jones has made look to have made no to little improvement on last seasons squad. Even worse than that we now look unfit, unorganised and often seem to have a lack of effort.

Don't get me wrong, i'd rather see jones improve than replaced but i don't buy into all this 'we can't get rid of him' & 'he's the best manager we've had in years'. Can people not see the transition between last years squad & this years?

It's all a matter of opinions and mine isn't less important than the next mans but now dave jones has in effect had chance to mark his own influence on this squad we look worse.

[Past Member]

Would one of those be Ron Atkinson?

Managers who have said it's a results business. Take your pick, I would guess all 92 managers have said it at some point.

[Blue and white]

How many loses on the bounce would it take for YOU to consider DJ departure? Obviously not 5, so whats your number?

It's not what we as fans consider but what Milan considers.With his track record of sacking managers you'd have to be thinking 5 defeats on the bounce and the manner we have lost them won't have gone unnoticed.

[ReadingOwl]

Why does Jones have to stay?

He doesn't.

Who do you suggest, why, and what would he bring to the table?

[ReadingOwl]

Managers who have said it's a results business. Take your pick, I would guess all 92 managers have said it at some point.

You do understand my point?

Atkinson actually managed us when we got relegated.

It was in the Sunday papers and everything.

[DJMortimer]

Managers who have said it's a results business. Take your pick, I would guess all 92 managers have said it at some point.

It's ridiculous in the extreme that you are so insecure as to keep ploughing this furrow. There is a big difference between agreeing that results generally should determine a manager's position (that no one would argue with) to suggesting that there's some sort of specific number that determines such a point, and one that does not take into consideration any other factors.

[Guest SW1992]

Jones has to stay. He is a very intelligent man and lets face it non of us know what our best 11 is!

although we can all see that O'Grady needs to be played and Pecnic needs to be dropped (or get some bottle) and a true winger played, the business he has done is very clever for me anyway.

were getting on the back of players like Bothroyd (desirvedley so) but is COG really going to set the world alight?

we need to get behind the whole team.

UP THE OWLS

[rustyowl]

Some great points made in this thread

But ultimately it will be down to what Milan sees as the proper number and the right time

Water under the bridge now but wasn't megson sacked in milans mind after the chesterfield defeat ?

Bearing in mind we then beat the pigs