Championship Form Table - Tony Pulis time at SWFC so far

[mcmigo]

10 minutes ago, matthefish2002 said:

I don't think our form has collapsed under Pulis as we didn't have any form before really.

2 wins in 11 before Monk was sacked. 

I also don't think Pulis has made that much of a difference yet, 3 points from 5 games is a fair reflection of those games.
Think it says more about what a weak squad we have got rather than about Monk or Pulis, although Monk must take some blame for that.
Pulis has to get the January transfer window right otherwise I cant see us getting enough goals to stop up.

3 wins out of 11.

We were 30 secs away from it being 4 vs QPR.

We also had creditable draw v Watford, and dominated v Millwall.

 

I accept the poor performances in that one week though v Rotherham, Luton, Wycombe (red cards impacted 2 of course but that is no excuse).

 

12 points from 11 games this season, to 3 points in 5 is a collapse.  Add in the lack of shots, lack of possession, lack of clean sheets that has gone with it then there is lots to be concerned about.

 

I am personally confident the experienced Tony Pulis has a plan to arrest this collapse.  It would have been interesting to read peoples thoughts if Phil Neville or Sol Campbell had got the job and overseen this collapse in form.  

 

 

[Themagiccap]

And to think lots wanted Houghton...

[mcmigo]

7 minutes ago, Jamie_W said:

Well regarding Rotherham and Luton we have a massive pool of other matches Monk had managed us in to compare to. His record was dreadful with 11 men as well and he’d been at the club a relatively long time. Pulis has just walked in the door, he doesn’t know the players, they don’t know him. Having to switch to ten man systems in your first few games does not help you get things settled in and have everyone understand what you want on a match day . There’s a world of difference.

 

And every managerial sacking ever has the disadvantage that they don’t have their players. It’s not a reason to not do it when you’re spinning hopelessly out of control as we were, but it is still a disadvantage to the manager coming in until they can get a window.

All sensible points and I am not worried about Garry Monk, and can see why the Chairman took the decision he did.

 

I am much more worried about Tony Pulis.  As you say , each managerial change comes with those challenges you set out.  What worries me is that we have changed managers 34 times in our history, and Tony is joint 33rd out of 34  (with Peter Eustace and above only poor Chris Turner) on the start he has made so far.  It is going exceptionally badly so far. 

 

You say we were spinning hopelessly out of control and we were dreadful,  - the scary thing is we have got much worse in the last 5 games with much less points per match, much less shots, much less possession and much less clean sheets.

 

 

[@owlstalk]

1 minute ago, mcmigo said:

 What worries me is that we have changed managers 34 times in our history, and Tony is joint 33rd out of 34  (with Peter Eustace and above only poor Chris Turner) on the start he has made so far.   

 

 

Yes but please remember that you're not allowed to apply stats to Tony Pulis in the same way we've always applied stats to every other manager (including - ironically - the last manager who everyone kept posting stats about to show he was as bad as Eustace/Jos etc)

[matthefish2002]

14 minutes ago, Jamie_W said:

Well regarding Rotherham and Luton we have a massive pool of other matches Monk had managed us in to compare to. His record was dreadful with 11 men as well and he’d been at the club a relatively long time. Pulis has just walked in the door, he doesn’t know the players, they don’t know him. Having to switch to ten man systems in your first few games does not help you get things settled in and have everyone understand what you want on a match day . There’s a world of difference.

 

And every managerial sacking ever has the disadvantage that they don’t have their players. It’s not a reason to not do it when you’re spinning hopelessly out of control as we were, but it is still a disadvantage to the manager coming in until they can get a window.

 

You can say a new manager has a disadvantage of not having their own players but 80% of time we change manager we normally play like World beaters for a month. It is a bit concerning we have not see a reaction in therms of results since Pulis took over, although think the fault lies more with the weak squad of players then with Pulis.
I have seen people say the difference in performances is like night and day from Monks times, sorry I disagree with this think 3 points from 5 games in a fair reflection.

[mcmigo]

6 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

Yes but please remember that you're not allowed to apply stats to Tony Pulis in the same way we've always applied stats to every other manager (including - ironically - the last manager who everyone kept posting stats about to show he was as bad as Eustace/Jos etc)

On flip side of the coin , I do also appreciate that a manager never relegated in over 1000 matches will have a bullet proof plan to turn around this collapse in form and nightmare start to his tenure. You won’t hear any dissent at all from me re TP , even if it takes 10, 20 games to address this collapse I will back the manager. 

[Owls-Fan]

10 minutes ago, mcmigo said:

All sensible points and I am not worried about Garry Monk, and can see why the Chairman took the decision he did.

 

I am much more worried about Tony Pulis.  As you say , each managerial change comes with those challenges you set out.  What worries me is that we have changed managers 34 times in our history, and Tony is joint 33rd out of 34  (with Peter Eustace and above only poor Chris Turner) on the start he has made so far.  It is going exceptionally badly so far. 

 

You say we were spinning hopelessly out of control and we were dreadful,  - the scary thing is we have got much worse in the last 5 games with much less points per match, much less shots, much less possession and much less clean sheets.

 

 

Im sorry but this is simply not true, I’m all for people having different opinions but this is just bizarre. 
 

Press conference today.. 

 

”Tony you have managed to get 3 points from your first 5 games in charge,  Monk managed to get 12 points in his previous 11 games,  how do you explain that lose in form?”  
 

Tony “hahahahahahahah, ok serious questions now lads yeah?” 

[mcmigo]

2 minutes ago, Owls-Fan said:

Im sorry but this is simply not true, I’m all for people having different opinions but this is just bizarre. 
 

Press conference today.. 

 

”Tony you have managed to get 3 points from your first 5 games in charge,  Monk managed to get 12 points in his previous 11 games,  how do you explain that lose in form?”  
 

Tony “hahahahahahahah, ok serious questions now lads yeah?” 

We have gone from 1.09 points per match under Monk ( which was so bad it got him sacked ) to 0.6 points per match under Pulis. 
 

that is a collapse.

 

1.09 points per match over a season gets you 50 points and safety.

0.6 points per match over a season gets you 27 points and relegation by Easter.

 

the difference is night and say I am afraid. 

[matthefish2002]

5 minutes ago, mcmigo said:

On flip side of the coin , I do also appreciate that a manager never relegated in over 1000 matches will have a bullet proof plan to turn around this collapse in form and nightmare start to his tenure. You won’t hear any dissent at all from me re TP , even if it takes 10, 20 games to address this collapse I will back the manager. 

 

I disagree with that Pulis has never been relegated was in charge of West Brom for first few months of their relegation season in 2017/18.

[@owlstalk]

Just now, matthefish2002 said:

 

I disagree with that Pulis has never been relegated was in charge of West Brom for first few months of their relegation season in 2017/18.

 

 

Why didn't he just stay and simply keep them up?

 

 

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

4 minutes ago, mcmigo said:

We have gone from 1.09 points per match under Monk ( which was so bad it got him sacked ) to 0.6 points per match under Pulis. 
 

that is a collapse.

 

1.09 points per match over a season gets you 50 points and safety.

0.6 points per match over a season gets you 27 points and relegation by Easter.

 

the difference is night and say I am afraid. 

 

Our points per game in the five games against Preston, Swansea, Stoke, Reading and Norwich under Pulis is back to what it was under Monk in the run of five games against Birmingham, Brentford, Luton, Rotherham and Wycombe.

 

As you say, Monk managed to counteract this 'collapse' in the other six games he was in charge for this season. Let's hope Pulis can do the same or better.

[Bottler Owl]

So many thinly veiled agendas going on on both sides of the argument here. I wasn't a fan of the appointment of Pulis but can see why it was done, obviously 3 points from 5 is very disappointing and we need wins fast but... I do think there has been an upturn in our quality against some tough sides (admittedly this started vs Bournemouth) and I'm not going to judge a new manager on 5 games against generally pretty tough opposition. Come 10 games in I think we'll have a better picture with the following to come;

 

Huddersfield (A)

Barnsley (H)

Forest (A)

Coventry (H)

Blackburn (A)

 

Definitely some winnable games there and if we say win 3 of them I don't think things will look so bleak.

 

I will add that the lack of a quality striker is alarming but that I don't think can be pinned on Pulis or Monk.

[mcmigo]

11 minutes ago, Bottler Owl said:

So many thinly veiled agendas going on on both sides of the argument here. I wasn't a fan of the appointment of Pulis but can see why it was done, obviously 3 points from 5 is very disappointing and we need wins fast but... I do think there has been an upturn in our quality against some tough sides (admittedly this started vs Bournemouth) and I'm not going to judge a new manager on 5 games against generally pretty tough opposition. Come 10 games in I think we'll have a better picture with the following to come;

 

Huddersfield (A)

Barnsley (H)

Forest (A)

Coventry (H)

Blackburn (A)

 

Definitely some winnable games there and if we say win 3 of them I don't think things will look so bleak.

 

I will add that the lack of a quality striker is alarming but that I don't think can be pinned on Pulis or Monk.

I agree.

 

The key here -the manager has never been relegated, hence why he was hired.  We must trust that he has the ability to address the collapse in form in this run of easy fixtures.  

 

 

 

 

[@owlstalk]

1 minute ago, mcmigo said:

I agree.

 

The key here -the manager has never been relegated, hence why he was hired.  We must trust that he has the ability to address the collapse in form in this run of easy fixtures.  

 

 

 

I think these upcoming fixtures are almost TOO easy for Pulis

We should basically be winning every single one of them they're that easy

 

 

[Dick_Turpin]

19 minutes ago, Bottler Owl said:

So many thinly veiled agendas 

What on earth are they? 

[sherlyegg]

Think we seem to perform better against 'good sides' as they tend to play in a more controlled and patient way, giving our players more time to think.

 

'Crap sides' tend to be more up and at em..bang it forad, chase and pester..

 

Then we go to ratshyte, cos most of our players are slow thinkers..

 

If I were the manager of wycombe or roverham I could beat us..

[SallyCinnamon]

Monk would have taken us to the third division.

 

Monk has left Pulis with a big mess to sort out. 

 

Monk has left us in real real trouble. 
 

Chansiri should have acted a lot quicker when it came to removing Monk from his position. 
 

We have seen a fantastic response in performance and organisation since Pulis has arrived. We will be absolutely fine with him in charge. Sadly we left it late to make the appointment but better late than never. 

[NorthernOwl]

1 hour ago, Bottler Owl said:

So many thinly veiled agendas going on on both sides of the argument here. I wasn't a fan of the appointment of Pulis but can see why it was done, obviously 3 points from 5 is very disappointing and we need wins fast but... I do think there has been an upturn in our quality against some tough sides (admittedly this started vs Bournemouth) and I'm not going to judge a new manager on 5 games against generally pretty tough opposition. Come 10 games in I think we'll have a better picture with the following to come;

 

Huddersfield (A)

Barnsley (H)

Forest (A)

Coventry (H)

Blackburn (A)

 

Definitely some winnable games there and if we say win 3 of them I don't think things will look so bleak.

 

I will add that the lack of a quality striker is alarming but that I don't think can be pinned on Pulis or Monk.

 

Massive 5 games coming up. If we want to have a chance of catching Coventry and Barnsley then we need to beat them.

 

Fail to do so and we are in danger of getting into a situation where we are cut off in a mini league of 5 with 2 safe spots. That 5 includes Forest and Derby who both have better squads than us.

[NorthernOwl]

1 minute ago, NorthernOwl said:

 

Massive 5 games coming up. If we want to have a chance of catching Coventry and Barnsley then we need to beat them.

 

Fail to do so and we are in danger of getting into a situation where we are cut off in a mini league of 5 with 2 safe spots. That 5 includes Forest and Derby who both have better squads than us.

 

And of course we cant really lose to Forest either.

[Hack-Abusi]

Did Monk have 11 games? Best to wait till Pulis has had 11 and compare

 

I doubt they'd be much different given the results but performance wise might be ... somewhat better .. who knows