Jump to content

Why the Mac versus Pearson Argument is Daft as Fook


86 Hair Islands
 Share

Recommended Posts

There is a current school of thought as a result of the recent poor run of form mostly, that McClaren is not up to the job. Everyone has their own opinion but in what is fast becoming a war of words, there's one particular argument that is just plain daft. The premise is this:

"We were 12 points behind the top two when Mac took over, now we're 23 points behind them.

Mac is no better than Pearson and he therefore has to go"  

First off, let’s look at the numbers being used: Pearson was suspended before we beat Cardiff, so in actual fact, he only managed the team for 9 games. After 9 games we had 6 points which means we were in actual fact, 13 points off second place and 22nd in the league. Only Wigan with 5 points had a worse record (Rotheram had 6 points but were below us by virtue of an inferior GD). Worse still, the Red Dogs had nearly double our points tally and were 7 places above us in the table and wringing their webbed, 6-fingered hands in joy and anticipation of the prospect of us slipping quietly into League One. And c**** though many of them are, they had every right to. Here's why.....

  • Under Pearson we gave up 13 points to the top two in 9 games, which means the gap to 2nd place widened on average by a smidge over 1.44 points every time we played
  • Ignoring the gap to the top two and looking at our performance in isolation, we took 6 points from the same period which corresponds to just under 0.67 points per game
  • Using the first stat, as we've now played 34 games had that trend continued we'd be 48.96 points off second place (34 x 1.44) on 22 points and we'd sit 23rd in the table, 8 points behind Wigan and 11 points behind Blackburn and we'd be relegation certainties.
  • Applying the second stat - points won per game - we'd currently have just shy of 23 points and using the current table, we'd be proper fooked. That’s why Pearson had to go, amongst a litany of other compelling factors!

Bearing in mind that I'm not suggesting this is a scientific means to analyse relative performance but it is the means many McClaren doubters are using, lets analyse Mac's tenure in exactly the same fashion. Mac's first game was the Leeds game - at that point Chris Powell had overseen the previous two games and had secured 4 points from 2 versus Pearson's 6 points from 9. Derby sat 20th on 10 points but remained 13 points off Norwich in second. He's now had 23 league games in charge and in that time the points gap to 2nd place has grown to 23 points. Allowing for the 13 point gap when he took over, the gap has therefore widened by 10 points since he arrived at an average of 0.44 points per game (10 point increase divided by number of games played) . In that same period we have secured 38 points at an average of 1.65 points per game played.

So using exactly the formula as we've applied to Blockhead's tenure (as the Mac detractors who 'inspired' this post would have us do) had Mac been in charge all season we'd have the following scenario today:

Points gap to 2nd would be: (34 x 0.44) = 14.96 points back

Points secured would be: (34 x 1.65 ) = 56.1 points

League position would be: 7th

Given the rotten luck we've had recently, the recent slump in form and the fact that the single most critical player for the system he wants to play, Chris Martin (sorry haters!) has been unavailable, how the holy fook can some of you demean him as 'clueless, useless, worse than Pearson' and 'needing to be fired', especially those of you who have chosen to take the worst run of his tenure and used only those few games to measure his season to date?

If nothing else, perhaps a few of his detractors having read this will stop assuming that everyone suggesting he should keep the job is not doing it out of some blind Stevie Mac walks on water obsession, we're not 'in love' with him, we don't think he's the 'messiah'. For what it's worth I've no massive conviction that he can get us promoted I just think he's done enough to be given the chance to prove me wrong and is the best man available from a limited pool right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, HantsRam said:

Mmmmm. ....statistics......:)

Quite!  We all know what Disraeli said about statistics (often wrongly attributed to Twain) but my favourite is Henry Clay's "Statistics are no substitute for judgement"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 86 points said:

Given the rotten luck we've had recently, the recent slump in form and the fact that the single most critical player for the system he wants to play, Chris Martin (sorry haters!) has been unavailable, how the holy fook can some of you demean him as 'clueless, useless, worse than Pearson' and 'needing to be fired', especially those of you who have chosen to take the worst run of his tenure and used only those few games to measure his season to date?

You've tried to conduct a scientific analysis with data to prove a theory then you've used the word "luck" in the same thesis which does rather spoil the point of your whole post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't like the revisionist history that somehow our current slump makes Pearson's time here less destructive, miserable, damaging or harrowing.

They are two separate issues, of which it can be argued that the first affected the second.

The current argument about McClaren turning around a slump, which he isn't noted for ever being successful at, and the overall squad strength.

Which is quite different from having a whole preseason to turn a footballing top six side into an anti-football bottom 3 side.

McClaren you can argue is awful, I was lukewarm myself about bringing him back, but the two situations don't really compare directly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I just don't like the revisionist history that somehow our current slump makes Pearson's time here less destructive, miserable, damaging or harrowing.

They are two separate issues, of which it can be argued that the first affected the second.

The current argument about McClaren turning around a slump, which he isn't noted for ever being successful at, and the overall squad strength.

Which is quite different from having a whole preseason to turn a footballing top six side into an anti-football bottom 3 side.

McClaren you can argue is awful, I was lukewarm myself about bringing him back, but the two situations don't really compare directly.

 

Pearson had 9 games when he gave his squad a fair crack of the whip. After this he identified who wanted clearing out, and boy do we need a clear out, only for Morris to become involved and seal his fate. Shame he wasn't given the opportunity to see what he could have done.

McClaren on the other hand has had 121 games over two spells and delivered what exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Inglorius said:

You've tried to conduct a scientific analysis with data to prove a theory then you've used the word "luck" in the same thesis which does rather spoil the point of your whole post.

It's anything but a scientific analysis my good man, but if I ever feel the urge to offer such a thing I'll try to refrain form using potty-mouthed terminology for fear of offending those of a sensitive disposition. :thumbsup:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pearson said:

Pearson had 9 games when he gave his squad a fair crack of the whip. After this he identified who wanted clearing out, and boy do we need a clear out, only for Morris to become involved and seal his fate. Shame he wasn't given the opportunity to see what he could have done. -

Did any single thing in those nine games plus league cup give an indication that the result would be positive? Although its also true he was sacked for falling.out with Mel (effectively, without knowing what was behind the disciplinary stuff)

McClaren on the other hand has had 121 games over two spells and delivered what exactly? Hope. Twice. Occasionally good football, inevitably dissapointing slumps.

Good counter point. Discussion is healthy. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick explanation to some of the responses.....

The point of the post was to illustrate how the flawed use of any information flow can lead to a flawed argument - the big clue was in the phrase the following extract:

"Bearing in mind that I'm not suggesting this is a scientific means to analyse relative performance but it is the means many McClaren doubters are using, lets analyse Mac's tenure in exactly the same fashion".

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Pearson said:

Pearson had 9 games when he gave his squad a fair crack of the whip. After this he identified who wanted clearing out, and boy do we need a clear out, only for Morris to become involved and seal his fate. Shame he wasn't given the opportunity to see what he could have done.

McClaren on the other hand has had 121 games over two spells and delivered what exactly?

Pearson had pre season to get his squad sorted. Instead he waited until a month into the season  to offload our top scorer on loan. The most ridiculous piece of management I have ever seen from a Derby manager.

McClaren has delivered some excellent attacking football and a Wembley appearance, something we have managed a handful of times during our 133 year existence.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Pearson said:

Pearson had 9 games when he gave his squad a fair crack of the whip. After this he identified who wanted clearing out, and boy do we need a clear out, only for Morris to become involved and seal his fate. Shame he wasn't given the opportunity to see what he could have done.

McClaren on the other hand has had 121 games over two spells and delivered what exactly?

In some ways, this is exactly the 'revisionist' way of looking at things that @RadioactiveWaste referred to, despite him politely giving you a 'like' for posting it. That said, 'debate is indeed healthy'.

As to your question, McClaren has delivered to the play-offs twice including a final which we played more than well enough to win. Many would argue that given 3 seasons in charge, that's not an unhealthy return. Clearly you're not of that school of thought.

This aside, you appear to have wholly missed the entire point of the post which some will understand does not entirely surprise me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, G STAR RAM said:

Pearson had pre season to get his squad sorted. Instead he waited until a month into the season  to offload our top scorer on loan. The most ridiculous piece of management I have ever seen from a Derby manager.

McClaren has delivered some excellent attacking football and a Wembley appearance, something we have managed a handful of times during our 133 year existence.

 

Don't forget though that Wembley has only been open for what, 96 years of our history? :thumbsup:

Accept that I am laying myself completely open to accusations of gratuitous pedantry. ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Angry Ram said:

Not another Mac thread... Lovely post and well put together but I am am getting suicidal over the whole thing now...

We need an amnesty, it's all guess work, I will worry about actual things not speculation.

Apologies good sir, but there was a clue in the title for those fed up with the entire debate. Ironically, I'm one of them, so I should probably have simply kept my gob shut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pearson would have had more time if he had shown one single positive. A couple of good games, a signing, a settled team, some idea of a system or a hint at how he wants to play.

Or if he hadn't have crumbled inside the first 2 minutes and turned into Bruce Lee. 

"You'll know when I'm angry"

Yeah you'll tell people to go and die, call someone an ostrich and kidnapp Crystal Palace players. Ferocious!! 

He couldn't even sell our top scorer. Forget the idea that selling your top scorer might be stupid. Let's say it's a good idea. Pearson couldn't even sell him. 

We didn't even score goals! Lowest scorers in England! 

No positives. Useless waste of space and time. If you start saying we'd be better off with him then I'm claiming if we'd kept Paul Jewell we'd be in the Champions League by now. He's had more promotions to the PL than Pearson. More seasons keeping teams up. And this was Bradford and Wigan!! 

"He needed to rebuild"

#time travel initiated. Destination March 2015#

"Nigel Pearson would have this team promoted. He wouldn't take any of this spineless bottling"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Angry Ram said:

Not another Mac thread... Lovely post and well put together but I am am getting suicidal over the whole thing now...

We need an amnesty, it's all guess work, I will worry about actual things not speculation.

Never mind an amnesty........we need to get slaughtered!.......who's round is it?......I'll have a barrel of Devil's Backbone and a packet of crisps please!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.