Alph Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Also like how you have avoided mention of Brian Clough's win percentage. See, stats are nothing on their own. They need context. Have a guess at Jim Smiths win percentage. The great Klopp at Liverpool? 25%. Brendan Rodgers at Swansea. Good job? 40%. It's interesting what people expect of winning percentages. But as with the Klopp example, you need a good few games and some context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozza Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 super rams comments remind me of this Queen song Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srg Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 32 minutes ago, Alpha said: How is it a fact? Which was the 90 min performance? Burnley, Huddersfield, Wolves or Brentford? At no point were Derby second best in those games. Different levels of dominant. But always in control. Your percentage doesn't work on 14 games. Not enough games. Admittedly I missed the Brentford game, but I too think that we have only really performed for one full game (Wolves). Hopefully we will soon be doing it much more regularly, but at the moment, even without it we are doing enough to look controlled enough and pick up points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 11 minutes ago, super rams said: 1. - 46.6% 2.- Because its a results game, everybody uses it to measure how a footballing coach has performed. [and its 14 games not 13] 3. - Burnley, nope we were unable to break down their back four in 90 mins, another 45 min performance [2nd half] ........... listen to PC http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34203719 Wolves Yep, the one game where we have put in a 90 mins performance. Huddersfield another 2nd half performance [if in doubt please follow link and here PC at 1.25 into his interview] http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34627992 1. Brian Clough and Jim Smith percentages please 2. Yep, and we're getting results 3. Wolves scored twice. Burnley didn't. So how was it a COMPLETE 90min by the standards you've set? Was MK a more complete performance as the results suggests it was? Or maybe there's more to games than results? You can't control results. Only performances 4. I've seen the Huddersfield game. Can you show me where they are on top. At best it was even. At worst it was their keeper keeping them in it. I like how you're linking PC comments. He was happy with performances v Charlton. Another good 90mins imo. Yet you omit that because the result doesn't fit your agenda It seems to me that you aren't happy with the performances unless the result is positive. Then if the result is positive you pick faults in the performance. When both are positive you pick out Clement comments where he says we could play better. Here's a newsflash. Last night PC said that there are things we could have done better against Wolves. It wasn't perfect Is that now 0 good 90min performances from a team that has lost 1 league game in 13 and lost 2 games in 14 overall. Now, back to win percentages. I'll have Klopp at Liverpool, Jim Smith, Brian Clough and Rodgers at Swansea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloughandtaylor Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 12 minutes ago, Alpha said: Also like how you have avoided mention of Brian Clough's win percentage. It's interesting what people expect of winning percentages. ..................You need a good few games to show context...... We are not debating Cloughie! Over a 1/4 of the season has gone - isn't it that enough time to show context? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRBee Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 14 hours ago, eddie said: For people who are totally obsessed by statistics, it's worth pointing out here that Brian Clough's win percentage at Derby was below 47%, and his overall career win percentage was 'barely' 45%. In my opinion, Brian Clough was the greatest manager of all time - yet strangely enough, Nigel's win percentage at Sheffield United was better than his dad's win percentage at Derby. In short, everyone can stick their silly statistics where the sun doesn't shine. Ignorant view unfortunately. To win something or gain promotion you do need to have a decent win rate over a few months. When we were enjoying MacClaren's first season, part of that enjoyment was down to the high win rate and the change from Nigel Clough's stubbornly unchanging 33% win rate.Don't tell me away fans didn't enjoy the fact that we we winning so often! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 23 minutes ago, Srg said: Admittedly I missed the Brentford game, but I too think that we have only really performed for one full game (Wolves). Hopefully we will soon be doing it much more regularly, but at the moment, even without it we are doing enough to look controlled enough and pick up points. See, I agree that Wolves was our best performance but how many games does any team boss for 90mins without having to ride a bit of a fightback. Any team. I don't think we ever looked like losing to Brentford, Charlton, Wolves, Udders or Burnley. I thought we were the best team on the pitch. Wolves was just one of those standout games. They'll be a few more but they can't be the only matches you'd call a complete performance. I can't believe that we have 4th most created chances, 3rd most possession, 1st for passes in opponents half, 1st for successful passes in opponents half, have the midfielder with the most passes and tackles and have only managed one good performance. I mean, the early season was up and down. We'd be scrapping it out and riding our luck and showing glimpses. At MK I thought all the outfield players could consider themselves lucky to be level when Jeff came on. Birmingham was good but the first half was patchy. Even the elite teams have lows during most matches. It's just what happens during those lows for me. And Brentford, Huddersfield and Co never really did much. I mean Huddersfield pounced on an individual error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srg Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 3 minutes ago, Alpha said: See, I agree that Wolves was our best performance but how many games does any team boss for 90mins without having to ride a bit of a fightback. Any team. I don't think we ever looked like losing to Brentford, Charlton, Wolves, Udders or Burnley. I thought we were the best team on the pitch. Wolves was just one of those standout games. They'll be a few more but they can't be the only matches you'd call a complete performance. I can't believe that we have 4th most created chances, 3rd most possession, 1st for passes in opponents half, 1st for successful passes in opponents half, have the midfielder with the most passes and tackles and have only managed one good performance. I mean, the early season was up and down. We'd be scrapping it out and riding our luck and showing glimpses. At MK I thought all the outfield players could consider themselves lucky to be level when Jeff came on. Birmingham was good but the first half was patchy. Even the elite teams have lows during most matches. It's just what happens during those lows for me. And Brentford, Huddersfield and Co never really did much. I mean Huddersfield pounced on an individual error. See, that isn't what I said. I said it was a performance for 90 minutes, not that it was our only good performance. I'm also not talking about riding a fight back, for a number of games in the first month of the season in particular, we only played well (i.e. creating chances, passes going where they should, higher tempo) for portions of a half, maybe 20 minutes total. You mention MK Dons, that is a prime example of where 20 minutes of a good performance was enough, other times it wasn't and we drew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamLad1884 Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Does it actually matter about performances as long as we get the three points? Promotion is the aim this season, not humilation of every opponent. 1 loss all season, 4 wins 2 draws of late. That's promotion form, not much more derby can do. You find me a team who consistently gives teams a good thrashing every week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 13 minutes ago, Srg said: See, that isn't what I said. I said it was a performance for 90 minutes, not that it was our only good performance. I'm also not talking about riding a fight back, for a number of games in the first month of the season in particular, we only played well (i.e. creating chances, passes going where they should, higher tempo) for portions of a half, maybe 20 minutes total. You mention MK Dons, that is a prime example of where 20 minutes of a good performance was enough, other times it wasn't and we drew. I don't understand the difference between Wolves and Huddersfield though. I do agree that Wolves was the best 90mins. Super Rams was saying it's our only 90min performance. I don't understand why when Wolves did have a little period where they were getting even in the first half. Huddersfield had a spell at the end of the first half where they basically just managed to get some possession and win the ball back more often. Their goal was their best play during the whole 90 by some distance. Where Wolves had a few little glimpses in that good period. But both games were fairly comfortable for Derby. I thought it was as solid as the Wolves performance but with less lethal finishing. Martin x2, Christie and Shackell having really good close range chances. I dunno. What I do know is that super rams seems dead set against Clement. Which would make more sense if we hadn't won 6 out of 8. Lost 1 in 13. And all stats considered one of the best attacking sides in the league. His arguments had some valid points at 6 games in. Now they seem like an entrenched view because we're starting to tick now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 I'm trying to think of a club that put in great 90 minute performances every game and struggling. I'm also struggling to get my head around that not being able to break down a decent Burnley defence is an issue, and not scoring v Blackburn or Bolton isn't mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomsdubs Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 What the **** is a 90 mins performance anyway? Surely scoring goals and seeing a game out is a 90 mins performance in which case we've had many this season. What team at any level attacks for the full 90 mins?! Unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloughandtaylor Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 11 minutes ago, Daveo said: I'm trying to think of a club that put in great 90 minute performances every game and struggling. I'm also struggling to get my head around that not being able to break down a decent Burnley defence is an issue, and not scoring v Blackburn or Bolton isn't mentioned. I did mention it........ On 10/22/2015 12:47:01, super rams said: To go to a very average side like Blackburn and set out a negative approach to the game and aim for a point......And yet again a very poor performance from a side full of attacking ability. We are not going to play the same as the Wolves game every week, but we should be aiming to win every game and not settle for a point- the performance was a complete let down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Just now, super rams said: I did mention it........ Did I mention I'm still half asleep? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloughandtaylor Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 1 minute ago, tomsdubs said: What the **** is a 90 mins performance anyway? Surely scoring goals and seeing a game out is a 90 mins performance in which case we've had many this season. What team at any level attacks for the full 90 mins?! Unbelievable. Nobody has said 90 min performance means we attack for a full 90 mins- ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Clement spoke about Blackburn Said the Wolves game took a lot out the players. The Champ is more physically demanding than the PL, La Liga etc. Blackburn are good at home and we played the best we could. It was a neccesary performance and we got a point. We then came up against Huddersfield feeling fresher. And performed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 3 minutes ago, super rams said: Nobody has said 90 min performance means we attack for a full 90 mins- ???? What is it to you then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEL Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Jesus wept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomsdubs Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 4 minutes ago, super rams said: Nobody has said 90 min performance means we attack for a full 90 mins- ???? So if we have a game where we have a complete 90 mins performance, what do we do with the ball if we control the game for 90 mins? Aimless passes across the back line non stop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffordshrieRam Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 9 minutes ago, super rams said: Nobody has said 90 min performance means we attack for a full 90 mins- ???? Reading your posts hurts my head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.