Have your say on our best manager of all time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RamNut]

Phil brown didnt know what he was doing.

The number of games played / lost / won / drawn is irrelevant.

[AndyinLiverpool]

This is a joke right?

Utterly pointless

[Albert]

Abit lenient there Pete.. The jury was out on Phil Brown after 13 games with shouts of 'You don't know what you're doing' despite him only losing 3 games..

 

Yet Clough goes from losing more games than he's winning every season yet it's not fair to judge him?

 

If his name wasn't Clough he'd have been torn a new one by now..

I actually think the name has the opposite effect. There were people whinging about him being given the job "on his name" since it was only rumoured he was joining. I still remember the good ol' "if he were called Smith (or words to that effect)" thread when he signed, already complaining that he was some non league nobody who should never be allowed near our club, chosen on name alone before a ball had even been kicked.

Here's a fun fact though, of the 92 clubs in the Premier League and Football League, only 37 won more than they lost, which is only 40.2%. In fact, at Championship level you generally have to be basically in the playoff battle (as in, up to the last few weeks of the battle) to make it. In fact, even some simple maths shows why that holds true. Consider the minimal case where W>L, that is, W is always L+1. Considering that only average only about a quarter of games are drawn, this means that you will only get about 11-12 draws, leaving 34-35 matches, which can be slip (for 35) to be 18 wins and 17 losses. 18 wins and 11 draws is 65 points, which is about top 10 or better usually (this season it was 9th).

We can clearly be more general about it though. We can say that for the functions P(W,D,L) (where P is points and D is draws over the season, W is wins over the season and L is losses over the season), then P(D)=3*W+D, where W+D+L=46 and W>L. Forgetting integer values here we can simply make it W=L+1 (that is the minimal case of wins being greater than losses), such that L=W-1 or W=(47-D)/2 making the function:

P(D)=(3/2)*(47-D)+D

For the last few seasons, the number of draws that teams make fall within the range of 18.6

and 05.6 95% of the time. This gives an upper and lower bounds for points of 67.8 and 61.2 points for the minimum points totals of teams that finish with more wins that draws, with an average of 64.5. This is in general about 10 ten. In fact, it overlaps with the averages for the top 10 over the last 16 years quite well, with an average of 64.6 and upper and lower bounds of 70.2 and 59.0. The two sets sit basically on top of eachother. Below is a plot of the approximate probability densities as bell curves:

"xLdCQga" alt="xLdCQga">

So basically, by mentioning "more wins than losses", all you're really taking about is whether we are top ten (and 10 of 24 is 41.7%, which is about the 40.2% observed for the whole football league in this regard). Basically, you're wrapping "we're not making the top 10 ever season yet" in the wrapper of "we're not getting more wins than losses", which adds a bit of emotional energy, but ultimately means little to nothing. It's also interesting to bring such things up as it's clear that clubs have different aims for each season, our in recent times has of course been to stabilise and build slowly without breaking the bank, which we are doing. We're clearly moving in the right direction and this may well be our season to make the top 6, but who knows. What is clear though is that you seem to like to use more emotionally charged terms to incite reactions and strengthen your point where the context and facts don't match your opinions, which whilst this is a common tactic, it doesn't really seem needed at this time of the year.

[Bris Vegas]

No, he wouldn't.

 

For his all round achievements for DCFC since he took over, if Nigel Clough were to step down tomorrow, he would go down as having a very positive effect on the club.

 

The board are intelligent enough to judge him not purely on results.

 

What a shame this cannot be applied to you. 

 

A very positive effect?

 

The only positive effect he has is on the betters bank accounts backing a Derby County loss everygame

[Bris Vegas]

I actually think the name has the opposite effect. There were people whinging about him being given the job "on his name" since it was only rumoured he was joining. I still remember the good ol' "if he were called Smith (or words to that effect)" thread when he signed, already complaining that he was some non league nobody who should never be allowed near our club, chosen on name alone before a ball had even been kicked.

Here's a fun fact though, of the 92 clubs in the Premier League and Football League, only 37 won more than they lost, which is only 40.2%. In fact, at Championship level you generally have to be basically in the playoff battle (as in, up to the last few weeks of the battle) to make it. In fact, even some simple maths shows why that holds true. Consider the minimal case where W>L, that is, W is always L+1. Considering that only average only about a quarter of games are drawn, this means that you will only get about 11-12 draws, leaving 34-35 matches, which can be slip (for 35) to be 18 wins and 17 losses. 18 wins and 11 draws is 65 points, which is about top 10 or better usually (this season it was 9th).

We can clearly be more general about it though. We can say that for the functions P(W,D,L) (where P is points and D is draws over the season, W is wins over the season and L is losses over the season), then P(D)=3*W+D, where W+D+L=46 and W>L. Forgetting integer values here we can simply make it W=L+1 (that is the minimal case of wins being greater than losses), such that L=W-1 or W=(47-D)/2 making the function:

P(D)=(3/2)*(47-D)+D

For the last few seasons, the number of draws that teams make fall within the range of 18.6

and 05.6 95% of the time. This gives an upper and lower bounds for points of 67.8 and 61.2 points for the minimum points totals of teams that finish with more wins that draws, with an average of 64.5. This is in general about 10 ten. In fact, it overlaps with the averages for the top 10 over the last 16 years quite well, with an average of 64.6 and upper and lower bounds of 70.2 and 59.0. The two sets sit basically on top of eachother. Below is a plot of the approximate probability densities as bell curves:

"xLdCQga" alt="xLdCQga">

So basically, by mentioning "more wins than losses", all you're really taking about is whether we are top ten (and 10 of 24 is 41.7%, which is about the 40.2% observed for the whole football league in this regard). Basically, you're wrapping "we're not making the top 10 ever season yet" in the wrapper of "we're not getting more wins than losses", which adds a bit of emotional energy, but ultimately means little to nothing. It's also interesting to bring such things up as it's clear that clubs have different aims for each season, our in recent times has of course been to stabilise and build slowly without breaking the bank, which we are doing. We're clearly moving in the right direction and this may well be our season to make the top 6, but who knows. What is clear though is that you seem to like to use more emotionally charged terms to incite reactions and strengthen your point where the context and facts don't match your opinions, which whilst this is a common tactic, it doesn't really seem needed at this time of the year.

 

So what your saying is you agree that NC is an average manager who loses more than he wins.. You could have just put 'I agree' instead of writing that buddy..

[mcsilks]

A very positive effect?

 

The only positive effect he has is on the betters bank accounts backing a Derby County loss everygame

 

 

Yes, a very positive effect on the club.

 

The board are intelligent enough to judge him not purely on results.

 

What a shame this cannot be applied to you. 

 

You judge football merely on short term success. 

 

How short sighted. 

 

How sad.

 

How pathetic. 

 

How ignorant.

 

What a relief you have seriously minority views.

[Bris Vegas]

 

Yes, a very positive effect on the club.

 

The board are intelligent enough to judge him not purely on results.

 

What a shame this cannot be applied to you. 

 

You judge football merely on short term success. 

 

How short sighted. 

 

How sad.

 

How pathetic. 

 

How ignorant.

 

What a relief you have seriously minority views.

 

 

I don't judge football on short term success.. Not at all..

 

I always see the bigger picture.. But I've seen NC resort back to negative survival hoofball far too many times to know he's simply not cut out for the job..

 

The fact that he continues to lose football matches also doesn't help his cause

 

But owners are short sighted.. And no owner in their right mind wants a loser.. Do you honestly think our owners are happy with us being losers? Us losing games means they lose money.. Their intelligent enough to not judge him solely on results? More like their not intelligent enough to realise NC is a massive reason why their pissing their money away

 

NC will never get us promoted.. And the longer the board don't judge him on the most important aspect of football (results) the more money they'll piss down the drain..

[Albert]

So what your saying is you agree that NC is an average manager who loses more than he wins.. You could have just put 'I agree' instead of writing that buddy..

So what you're saying is that your knowledge of football is so rudimentary that you don't realise that different clubs have different goals and targets, and it's the achievement of them and improvement against a baseline that should be the determining factor of success, rather than raw league results and placings.

[Albert]

I don't judge football on short term success.. Not at all..

 

I always see the bigger picture.. But I've seen NC resort back to negative survival hoofball far too many times to know he's simply not cut out for the job..

 

The fact that he continues to lose football matches also doesn't help his cause

 

But owners are short sighted.. And no owner in their right mind wants a loser.. Do you honestly think our owners are happy with us being losers? Us losing games means they lose money.. Their intelligent enough to not judge him solely on results? More like their not intelligent enough to realise NC is a massive reason why their pissing their money away

 

NC will never get us promoted.. And the longer the board don't judge him on the most important aspect of football (results) the more money they'll piss down the drain..

The funny part about what you're saying here is that Nigel would seem ideal to the current board. Our home form is outstanding, one of the best in the league, and ultimately the home form is what makes the majority of supporters happy as it's only a minority who are going to watch us away. We're anything but losers at home.

Our steady improvements on a tight budget also would suggest that Nigel is more than capable of getting us promoted in a sustainable, patient way. Ultimately though that requires more patience than you seem to have.

[maydrakin]

We're not in for any of Barcelona's or Madrid's players again. Higuain still hasn't gone anywhere and we still haven't gone in for him.

Boo Clough and Board out...!

[Pearl Ram]

Have your say on our best manager of all time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Alternatively

 

Just turn it into another NC slagfest.   

[AndyinLiverpool]

Well there's not much debate to be had on the original topic, is there?

[Pearl Ram]

Well you've got a point I suppose but I'm just in from work, road closures have made it a difficult night and I thought I'd unwind with a nice mug of tea and a look at what's been posted overnight and surprise surprise, another thread (however trite) turned into a "he only got the job because of his name and he loses more than he wins" situation that bears little reference to the thread title.

 

I mean, it's not like we haven't read it before is it ? Same old, same old.

[mcsilks]

 

 

NC will never get us promoted.. And the longer the board don't judge him on the most important aspect of football (results) the more money they'll piss down the drain..

 

I beg to differ.

 

The remit for Clough when he started at the club was stability. He achieved that.

 

The next is sustainable growth. He is achieving that.

 

It is so disrespectful and downright wrong to call him a 'loser'. We finished 6 points off a play off spot last season with a team made mainly up of bargain buys and academy products. 

 

We are improving on the pitch and that is reflected in the league table. 

 

We have a good board who gladly are unwilling to throw money in the managers direction preferring a more sustainable business model of not spending beyond our means. 

 

You fail to see this.

 

In Nigel I trust. 

 

I believe we will finish just outside of the play off positions next season and will continue to grow. Little by little, bit by bit.

 

Patience is key.

[G STAR RAM]

Abit lenient there Pete.. The jury was out on Phil Brown after 13 games with shouts of 'You don't know what you're doing' despite him only losing 3 games..

Yet Clough goes from losing more games than he's winning every season yet it's not fair to judge him?

If his name wasn't Clough he'd have been torn a new one by now..

He's lost more than he has won?...why didn't you say so before?

I notice you did not respond to the post that said that this stat could be applied to well over half of the English football leagues.

Anyway do you really expect anyone to take your opinion seriously when you omit Docherty from the worst managers list and say that Billy Davies was up there with the best?!

Here is a nice stat for you, when Billy Davies was sacked 3 or 4 months into the season he had won one game. I'm guessing that he had lost more than he had won that season.

[eranio20]

Don't rate Nigel, but comparing him to Brown, Todd, Gregory and Jewell is OTT.

George Burley worked on a tighter budget than the lot under the three amigos, yet still managed a better win ratio than all the above....and Nigel Clough.

Also bringing good attacking football to the club, whilst signing freebies such as Idiakez and Rasiak.

Best manager of all time obviously Brian. The worst in my opinion is Phil Brown, solely for signing Holdsworth/Thrilwell, getting murdered by Coventry 6-1, losing to Colchester, critising the supporters, and a mere win ratio of 15%..

[ronnieronalde]

I don't judge football on short term success.. Not at all..

 

I always see the bigger picture.. But I've seen NC resort back to negative survival hoofball far too many times to know he's simply not cut out for the job..

 

The fact that he continues to lose football matches also doesn't help his cause

 

But owners are short sighted.. And no owner in their right mind wants a loser.. Do you honestly think our owners are happy with us being losers? Us losing games means they lose money.. Their intelligent enough to not judge him solely on results? More like their not intelligent enough to realise NC is a massive reason why their pissing their money away

 

NC will never get us promoted.. And the longer the board don't judge him on the most important aspect of football (results) the more money they'll piss down the drain..

 

Thank christ I've not got kids going to your english teaching classes. Their'd probable come out a lot more stupidder than what their was when their went in.

[ladyram]

Wow, feelin the luuuuurve here guys, really ;-)

[Albert]

He's lost more than he has won?...why didn't you say so before?

I notice you did not respond to the post that said that this stat could be applied to well over half of the English football leagues.

Anyway do you really expect anyone to take your opinion seriously when you omit Docherty from the worst managers list and say that Billy Davies was up there with the best?!

Here is a nice stat for you, when Billy Davies was sacked 3 or 4 months into the season he had won one game. I'm guessing that he had lost more than he had won that season.

In 2006-07 Billy Davies lost 10 games before leaving the club, having only recorded 1 win and 3 draws in 14 games. This stood as an abysmal 0.42 points per game. This was after a full off season to prepare and spending more money than has been spent in total by Nigel. Billy was clearly a magnificent manager.

[Duracell]

I honestly do not understand how  or why this thread has turned into another Nigel Clough thread.

 

For goodness sake, please find something else to do with your time!!! Everyone's had four years to form an opinion on him, you're not going to change someone else's opinion on this thread.