Slav vs Parker Surprising Stat

[ByTheRiver]

I'm sure Statto will be on hand to tell me I'm wrong or why it's not relevant but it seems pretty clear to me. 

I've already put you in your place, pretty firmly I believe, so have nothing else to add. But thank you for the mention.

You made yourself look a little silly and incorrect, dear. But if it makes you feel better to chalk that up as a win, you knock yourself out pal *smiles*

What was incorrect?

Not disregarding (or trying to use) as a season in which we had four different managers and a transfer embargo, the quality of the league (and top six specifically) in comparison to sane in 17/18. There's probably more but I can't be bothered to look back at his post. Most of it, essentially. Which most with eyes will see and agree with.

But, you know, if you want to be sycophantic, be my guest :)

[AnOldBrownie]

I'm sure Statto will be on hand to tell me I'm wrong or why it's not relevant but it seems pretty clear to me. 

I've already put you in your place, pretty firmly I believe, so have nothing else to add. But thank you for the mention.

You made yourself look a little silly and incorrect, dear. But if it makes you feel better to chalk that up as a win, you knock yourself out pal *smiles*

What was incorrect?

Not disregarding (or trying to use) as a season in which we had four different managers and a transfer embargo, the quality of the league (and top six specifically) in comparison to sane in 17/18. There%u2019s probably more but I can%u2019t be bothered to look back at his post. Most of it, essentially. Which most with eyes will see and agree with.

But, you know, if you want to be sycophantic, be my guest :)

Thanks.

So, he shouldn't have included Slav's first season. Gotcha.

Question.  Based on what we spent for players this season you would say our talent is substantially better than the talent we had on the 17/18 squad?

[ByTheRiver]

I'm sure Statto will be on hand to tell me I'm wrong or why it's not relevant but it seems pretty clear to me. 

I've already put you in your place, pretty firmly I believe, so have nothing else to add. But thank you for the mention.

You made yourself look a little silly and incorrect, dear. But if it makes you feel better to chalk that up as a win, you knock yourself out pal *smiles*

What was incorrect?

Not disregarding (or trying to use) as a season in which we had four different managers and a transfer embargo, the quality of the league (and top six specifically) in comparison to sane in 17/18. There%u2019s probably more but I can%u2019t be bothered to look back at his post. Most of it, essentially. Which most with eyes will see and agree with.

But, you know, if you want to be sycophantic, be my guest :)

Thanks.

So, he shouldn't have included Slav's first season. Gotcha.

Question.  Based on what we spent for players this season you would say our talent is substantially better than the talent we had on the 17/18 squad?

We're not including Parker's last year, are we? Surely the closest comparison is the two most recent play off seasons, where the squad is the most similar (rather than going back further or bringing in half seasons or whatever). This seems logical to me. Maybe not. What's the point, someone will always argue black is white on here if it fits their narrative, so whatever. I bid you good evening.

[ByTheRiver]

Question.  Based on what we spent for players this season you would say our talent is substantially better than the talent we had on the 17/18 squad?

It's not as clear cut as that. There are arguments the full backs were better then (but again, debatable and dependent on system. I mean Christie is a fully fledged ROI international, not sure Fredericks has ever had a sniff of senior international action. Not saying one is better than the other, if I was, I'd go Ryan based on how he performed with us, just that it's very difficult to look at it in those terms. It's easier to look at wage bill/budgets against expectations. With that, in 17/18 we'd been in the championship some years, had no parachute payments left, and budget/wage table wise were probably just about in the play offs. Now, bear in mind mega money wolves with premiership players, Villa on parachute payments with premiership players still, Middlesbrough just came down and still had a strong squad and spent loads, Norwich were freshly down and retained most of their premiership squad. So strong competition of which, before a ball was kicked, we had no right to finish higher than maybe sixth based on wage table and player costs.

This season, we are that wolves team. We had the premiership players. We had 5 players on more money than anyone else in the league. We had the depth (over stocked and maybe not balanced but look at CM compared to other clubs!). We were top of the wage and budget bill by almost double second place.

To say we haven't underperformed is crazy talk. 

[Statto]

Not disregarding (or trying to use) as a season in which we had four different managers and a transfer embargo

Right...
Any argument with me "trying to use" 16/17 then?

:hook:

[ByTheRiver]

Not disregarding (or trying to use) as a season in which we had four different managers and a transfer embargo

Right...
Any argument with me "trying to use" 16/17 then?

:hook:

The bit where I replied to AOB?

"Surely the closest comparison is the two most recent play off seasons, where the squad is the most similar (rather than going back further or bringing in half seasons or whatever). This seems logical to me. Maybe not. What's the point, someone will always argue black is white on here if it fits their narrative, so whatever. I bid you good evening"


Shall we add in Slavisa in Saudi? Parker's youth team coaching at Spurs? Their kids results at school sports day? Probably most logical to just compare the two most recent play off seasons?

[ScalleysDad]

Question.  Based on what we spent for players this season you would say our talent is substantially better than the talent we had on the 17/18 squad?

It's not as clear cut as that. There are arguments the full backs were better then (but again, debatable and dependent on system. I mean Christie is a fully fledged ROI international, not sure Fredericks has ever had a sniff of senior international action. Not saying one is better than the other, if I was, I'd go Ryan based on how he performed with us, just that it's very difficult to look at it in those terms. It's easier to look at wage bill/budgets against expectations. With that, in 17/18 we'd been in the championship some years, had no parachute payments left, and budget/wage table wise were probably just about in the play offs. Now, bear in mind mega money wolves with premiership players, Villa on parachute payments with premiership players still, Middlesbrough just came down and still had a strong squad and spent loads, Norwich were freshly down and retained most of their premiership squad. So strong competition of which, before a ball was kicked, we had no right to finish higher than maybe sixth based on wage table and player costs.

This season, we are that wolves team. We had the premiership players. We had 5 players on more money than anyone else in the league. We had the depth (over stocked and maybe not balanced but look at CM compared to other clubs!). We were top of the wage and budget bill by almost double second place.

To say we haven't underperformed is crazy talk.

I have to say that I have never understood the stance that our expenditure should equate to points on the board. The money we spent on Seri and Anguissa has been debated to death and latterly the salaries and expenditure on Cav, Knockhaert, BDR and Mawson has been questioned as the best team on paper debate goes on. I suspect if the lesser known Harrison Reed had been available last season he would have been for a lot less money but would have ultimately been worth ten times the amount. A big name with a big salary, as Villa have found out, does not necessarily make you the dream team. If, and it's a huge unfounded question in my circle of one, we have a clear out and the four I have named are on the list I wonder what sort of figures would be banded around? Certainly not the figures we paid out I bet.

[Statto]

Not disregarding (or trying to use) as a season in which we had four different managers and a transfer embargo

Right...
Any argument with me "trying to use" 16/17 then?

:hook:

The bit where I replied to AOB?

"Surely the closest comparison is the two most recent play off seasons, where the squad is the most similar (rather than going back further or bringing in half seasons or whatever). This seems logical to me. Maybe not. What's the point, someone will always argue black is white on here if it fits their narrative, so whatever. I bid you good evening"


Shall we add in Slavisa in Saudi? Parker's youth team coaching at Spurs? Their kids results at school sports day? Probably most logical to just compare the two most recent play off seasons?

Sorry, I lost the thread where you posted two replies to the same post from AOB.

So the explanation is just that "the squad is most similar". With the implied caveat, I assume, that the "similarity" is only about four players out of the best XI from each year. So not a very compelling argument IMO for cherry-picking that out of a tenure spanning four seasons. But I detect severe frustration in your last few posts so I'll say no more...

[SuffolkWhite]

I have a simple stat, Slav got us to the Play offs twice with a promotion and Parker has got us to one and the future is unwritten.
Anything else is a matter of opinion.

[ByTheRiver]

Not disregarding (or trying to use) as a season in which we had four different managers and a transfer embargo

Right...
Any argument with me "trying to use" 16/17 then?

:hook:

The bit where I replied to AOB?

"Surely the closest comparison is the two most recent play off seasons, where the squad is the most similar (rather than going back further or bringing in half seasons or whatever). This seems logical to me. Maybe not. What's the point, someone will always argue black is white on here if it fits their narrative, so whatever. I bid you good evening"


Shall we add in Slavisa in Saudi? Parker's youth team coaching at Spurs? Their kids results at school sports day? Probably most logical to just compare the two most recent play off seasons?

Sorry, I lost the thread where you posted two replies to the same post from AOB.

So the explanation is just that "the squad is most similar". With the implied caveat, I assume, that the "similarity" is only about four players out of the best XI from each year. So not a very compelling argument IMO for cherry-picking that out of a tenure spanning four seasons. But I detect severe frustration in your last few posts so I'll say no more...

Two posts as I hadn't answered AOB question which was an edit on his initial post, if you care to look. I hadn't noticed when initially replying to the unedited version.

Re. the rest. Confusion more than frustration. It's not a case of cherry picking, are they not the two closest seasons? With a single season in the premiership between. To me, it only makes season to compare the two either side. But hey, it matters little at this point. We all have our own opinions, which is good, and very seldom do people change their opinions so arguing about such minor details seems silly.

[ByTheRiver]

Question.  Based on what we spent for players this season you would say our talent is substantially better than the talent we had on the 17/18 squad?

It's not as clear cut as that. There are arguments the full backs were better then (but again, debatable and dependent on system. I mean Christie is a fully fledged ROI international, not sure Fredericks has ever had a sniff of senior international action. Not saying one is better than the other, if I was, I'd go Ryan based on how he performed with us, just that it's very difficult to look at it in those terms. It's easier to look at wage bill/budgets against expectations. With that, in 17/18 we'd been in the championship some years, had no parachute payments left, and budget/wage table wise were probably just about in the play offs. Now, bear in mind mega money wolves with premiership players, Villa on parachute payments with premiership players still, Middlesbrough just came down and still had a strong squad and spent loads, Norwich were freshly down and retained most of their premiership squad. So strong competition of which, before a ball was kicked, we had no right to finish higher than maybe sixth based on wage table and player costs.

This season, we are that wolves team. We had the premiership players. We had 5 players on more money than anyone else in the league. We had the depth (over stocked and maybe not balanced but look at CM compared to other clubs!). We were top of the wage and budget bill by almost double second place.

To say we haven't underperformed is crazy talk.

I have to say that I have never understood the stance that our expenditure should equate to points on the board. The money we spent on Seri and Anguissa has been debated to death and latterly the salaries and expenditure on Cav, Knockhaert, BDR and Mawson has been questioned as the best team on paper debate goes on. I suspect if the lesser known Harrison Reed had been available last season he would have been for a lot less money but would have ultimately been worth ten times the amount. A big name with a big salary, as Villa have found out, does not necessarily make you the dream team. If, and it's a huge unfounded question in my circle of one, we have a clear out and the four I have named are on the list I wonder what sort of figures would be banded around? Certainly not the figures we paid out I bet.

I think the reason it is brought up and looked at is that in football, 9 times out of 10, the budget and wage table mirrors the final table. It's sad but true. There is, of course, some room for deviation (being under and over performance against resources - see Leicester winning the league for example, or Man Utd struggling).

Our expenditure and wages were so far ahead of our next competitor that the closest comparison is PSG in Ligue Un. Would they have been happy with 4th this season? If not, why?

Whether or not the expenditure was correctly made, if the players are crap, of the players are great but performing badly, these are things that you look at to see what might be the cause of the underperformance. Not to determine if there has been underperformance.

Our level of expenditure this year bordered on financial doping. To creep into 4th, playing dour football and still conceding more goals than we did the last season we were here (when we were seen as gung-ho and having to attack as we couldn't defend), is underperformance which ever way you carve it up.

[ByTheRiver]

I have a simple stat, Slav got us to the Play offs twice with a promotion and Parker has got us to one and the future is unwritten.
Anything else is a matter of opinion.

I think Parker will take us up as we will win the play offs comfortably. That isn't at all what this thread is about.

[ScalleysDad]

Question.  Based on what we spent for players this season you would say our talent is substantially better than the talent we had on the 17/18 squad?

It's not as clear cut as that. There are arguments the full backs were better then (but again, debatable and dependent on system. I mean Christie is a fully fledged ROI international, not sure Fredericks has ever had a sniff of senior international action. Not saying one is better than the other, if I was, I'd go Ryan based on how he performed with us, just that it's very difficult to look at it in those terms. It's easier to look at wage bill/budgets against expectations. With that, in 17/18 we'd been in the championship some years, had no parachute payments left, and budget/wage table wise were probably just about in the play offs. Now, bear in mind mega money wolves with premiership players, Villa on parachute payments with premiership players still, Middlesbrough just came down and still had a strong squad and spent loads, Norwich were freshly down and retained most of their premiership squad. So strong competition of which, before a ball was kicked, we had no right to finish higher than maybe sixth based on wage table and player costs.

This season, we are that wolves team. We had the premiership players. We had 5 players on more money than anyone else in the league. We had the depth (over stocked and maybe not balanced but look at CM compared to other clubs!). We were top of the wage and budget bill by almost double second place.

To say we haven't underperformed is crazy talk.

I have to say that I have never understood the stance that our expenditure should equate to points on the board. The money we spent on Seri and Anguissa has been debated to death and latterly the salaries and expenditure on Cav, Knockhaert, BDR and Mawson has been questioned as the best team on paper debate goes on. I suspect if the lesser known Harrison Reed had been available last season he would have been for a lot less money but would have ultimately been worth ten times the amount. A big name with a big salary, as Villa have found out, does not necessarily make you the dream team. If, and it's a huge unfounded question in my circle of one, we have a clear out and the four I have named are on the list I wonder what sort of figures would be banded around? Certainly not the figures we paid out I bet.

I think the reason it is brought up and looked at is that in football, 9 times out of 10, the budget and wage table mirrors the final table. It's sad but true. There is, of course, some room for deviation (being under and over performance against resources - see Leicester winning the league for example, or Man Utd struggling).

Our expenditure and wages were so far ahead of our next competitor that the closest comparison is PSG in Ligue Un. Would they have been happy with 4th this season? If not, why?

Whether or not the expenditure was correctly made, if the players are crap, of the players are great but performing badly, these are things that you look at to see what might be the cause of the underperformance. Not to determine if there has been underperformance.

Our level of expenditure this year bordered on financial doping. To creep into 4th, playing dour football and still conceding more goals than we did the last season we were here (when we were seen as gung-ho and having to attack as we couldn't defend), is underperformance which ever way you carve it up.

We have carved up the debate many times over both at home, on the train to games and with other fans in pubs and eateries and there is still no conclusive agreement. For the most part it still comes down to the fairly simple question of 'have we paid hugely over the odds' , thus falsely influencing the figures, stats and equations and have those key players earned it? Yes and No?
Being the gung ho team of a couple of seasons ago has many of the cogs missing now including the natural form of Cairney who is a shadow of that player. Do we put a downturn in form, long term injury to key players, Mawson, and the shell shock of the Prem experience affecting some players, Ream has been noted as such a player, into any calculations?
It's easy to say now but I have proof somewhere but pre season we thought top six would be a good building block after a rollercoaster four or five years.
Yes the produce has been dire at times but then so has much of the Championship this season and the Prem games on free to view have been painful at times.

[Statto]

It's not a case of cherry picking, are they not the two closest seasons? With a single season in the premiership between. To me, it only makes season to compare the two either side.

Well then surely the best comparison is their respective stints in the PL, where they both had almost exactly the same players to choose from, for a similar length of time (10-12 games) only a few months apart.

Parker
Goals conceded per game - 1.8
Points per game - 0.9

Jokanovic
Goals conceded per game - 2.6
Points per game - 0.4

So with Jokanovic we had 50% more goals conceded and 50% less points won

[ByTheRiver]

Question.  Based on what we spent for players this season you would say our talent is substantially better than the talent we had on the 17/18 squad?

It's not as clear cut as that. There are arguments the full backs were better then (but again, debatable and dependent on system. I mean Christie is a fully fledged ROI international, not sure Fredericks has ever had a sniff of senior international action. Not saying one is better than the other, if I was, I'd go Ryan based on how he performed with us, just that it's very difficult to look at it in those terms. It's easier to look at wage bill/budgets against expectations. With that, in 17/18 we'd been in the championship some years, had no parachute payments left, and budget/wage table wise were probably just about in the play offs. Now, bear in mind mega money wolves with premiership players, Villa on parachute payments with premiership players still, Middlesbrough just came down and still had a strong squad and spent loads, Norwich were freshly down and retained most of their premiership squad. So strong competition of which, before a ball was kicked, we had no right to finish higher than maybe sixth based on wage table and player costs.

This season, we are that wolves team. We had the premiership players. We had 5 players on more money than anyone else in the league. We had the depth (over stocked and maybe not balanced but look at CM compared to other clubs!). We were top of the wage and budget bill by almost double second place.

To say we haven't underperformed is crazy talk.

I have to say that I have never understood the stance that our expenditure should equate to points on the board. The money we spent on Seri and Anguissa has been debated to death and latterly the salaries and expenditure on Cav, Knockhaert, BDR and Mawson has been questioned as the best team on paper debate goes on. I suspect if the lesser known Harrison Reed had been available last season he would have been for a lot less money but would have ultimately been worth ten times the amount. A big name with a big salary, as Villa have found out, does not necessarily make you the dream team. If, and it's a huge unfounded question in my circle of one, we have a clear out and the four I have named are on the list I wonder what sort of figures would be banded around? Certainly not the figures we paid out I bet.

I think the reason it is brought up and looked at is that in football, 9 times out of 10, the budget and wage table mirrors the final table. It's sad but true. There is, of course, some room for deviation (being under and over performance against resources - see Leicester winning the league for example, or Man Utd struggling).

Our expenditure and wages were so far ahead of our next competitor that the closest comparison is PSG in Ligue Un. Would they have been happy with 4th this season? If not, why?

Whether or not the expenditure was correctly made, if the players are crap, of the players are great but performing badly, these are things that you look at to see what might be the cause of the underperformance. Not to determine if there has been underperformance.

Our level of expenditure this year bordered on financial doping. To creep into 4th, playing dour football and still conceding more goals than we did the last season we were here (when we were seen as gung-ho and having to attack as we couldn't defend), is underperformance which ever way you carve it up.

We have carved up the debate many times over both at home, on the train to games and with other fans in pubs and eateries and there is still no conclusive agreement. For the most part it still comes down to the fairly simple question of 'have we paid hugely over the odds' , thus falsely influencing the figures, stats and equations and have those key players earned it? Yes and No?
Being the gung ho team of a couple of seasons ago has many of the cogs missing now including the natural form of Cairney who is a shadow of that player. Do we put a downturn in form, long term injury to key players, Mawson, and the shell shock of the Prem experience affecting some players, Ream has been noted as such a player, into any calculations?
It's easy to say now but I have proof somewhere but pre season we thought top six would be a good building block after a rollercoaster four or five years.
Yes the produce has been dire at times but then so has much of the Championship this season and the Prem games on free to view have been painful at times.

This is fair and balanced. I guess for me, the thing this year, is so much has been spent (if you think wages _ Mitro and Cairney on good by premiership standards wages, unheard of in the championship! The loan players all on premiership wages, all way above any player at Leeds, Bremtford etc). It's not a little bit more it's a lot more! Like with PSG I'm france - ridiculous levels of expenditure, meaning it's boring and they walk the league every year. We did similar this year (in championship terms) and struggle.

And you're right, it does come down to those things or a mix of both:

Have we overspent massively on some players? Are the players brought in either not good enough or not suitable? The issue then is recruitment and TK

Was the squad (before a ball was kicked and everyone thought Cav, Knockaert and Arter were the second coming) absolutely adequate and, despite maybe a bit of balance issues, more than good enough to secure promotion? Against other clubs in certain positions (Brentford have used 4 CMs for the three positions pretty much as they don't have any replacements, we have about 7 that would walk into most teams) a bit of an embarrassment of riches? If so, it's down to coaching, system and morale. Parker's fault.

It's a difficult one, but it's one that would have to be looked into should we not go up (suspect it will be left if we do). It probably is a little of both to some extent (as most things in life) but I'd lean towards the second option. I don't think Cav, Knockaert, Reid, Arter, etc, have all become bad players overnight and all at the same time. I think at any other club (Leeds, Brentford) this year they would look a million dollars as they have previously. Which brings it back round to 'why?'...

[ByTheRiver]

It's not a case of cherry picking, are they not the two closest seasons? With a single season in the premiership between. To me, it only makes season to compare the two either side.

Well then surely the best comparison is their respective stints in the PL, where they both had almost exactly the same players to choose from, for a similar length of time (10-12 games) only a few months apart.

Parker
Goals conceded per game - 1.8
Points per game - 0.9

Jokanovic
Goals conceded per game - 2.6
Points per game - 0.4

So with Jokanovic we had 50% more goals conceded and 50% less points won

Of course it isn't and we've done that one a million times. Jokanovic had the first few (12) games, CBs arriving the day before kick off (injuries meant they had to start). 6 players on deadline day, almost everyone completely new to the premiership. A lot not speaking the language On top of that massive pressure to perform. By the time he had had enough time to work with the squad (which should have been pre-season but a combination of most players arriving on deadline day and the fact we were not confirmed until relatively late due to play offs and Vegas...) it looked to be improving, then he was gone. He is a coach coach, so he needs time to work his ideas into players (like the transformation in us in the promotion season where the players started to click with what he was asking).

Scott Parker took over with no pressure with the team as good as down after the disaster that was Ranieri, the whole team settled, trained together for six months and used to the premiership and each other. It's no comparison at all.

I'd say exactly the same if the two were swapped. I have no issue with Parker, I'd love for him to have succeeded (or still succeed, if we go up and he keeps us up or close - amazing work). I really thought it might with the early Millwall game and the performance there. Now, obviously it's not always going to be like that (and Millwall possibly helped by being as awful as we were good) but we should have been closer to that performance than what we served up more weeks than not. That showed that the players have that ability and potential when coached the right way with attacking patterns of play and plans.

[Statto]

It's not a case of cherry picking, are they not the two closest seasons? With a single season in the premiership between. To me, it only makes season to compare the two either side.

Well then surely the best comparison is their respective stints in the PL, where they both had almost exactly the same players to choose from, for a similar length of time (10-12 games) only a few months apart.

Parker
Goals conceded per game - 1.8
Points per game - 0.9

Jokanovic
Goals conceded per game - 2.6
Points per game - 0.4

So with Jokanovic we had 50% more goals conceded and 50% less points won

Of course it isn't and we've done that one a million times. Jokanovic had the first few (12) games, CBs arriving the day before kick off (injuries meant they had to start). 6 players on deadline day, almost everyone completely new to the premiership. A lot not speaking the language On top of that massive pressure to perform. By the time he had had enough time to work with the squad (which should have been pre-season but a combination of most players arriving on deadline day and the fact we were not confirmed until relatively late due to play offs and Vegas...) it looked to be improving, then he was gone. He is a coach coach, so he needs time to work his ideas into players (like the transformation in us in the promotion season where the players started to click with what he was asking).

Scott Parker took over with no pressure with the team as good as down after the disaster that was Ranieri, the whole team settled, trained together for six months and used to the premiership and each other. It's no comparison at all.

I'd say exactly the same if the two were swapped. I have no issue with Parker, I'd love for him to have succeeded (or still succeed, if we go up and he keeps us up or close - amazing work). I really thought it might with the early Millwall game and the performance there. Now, obviously it's not always going to be like that (and Millwall possibly helped by being as awful as we were good) but we should have been closer to that performance than what we served up more weeks than not. That showed that the players have that ability and potential when coached the right way with attacking patterns of play and plans.

Hmmm, so Jokanovic had it hard when he joined in 15/16 because "we had four managers that season" but when Parker became our third manager in 18/19 that was easy for him because he had "no pressure", "the whole team settled" etc.

And it's unfair on Jokanovic to judge him on 18/19 because we'd had "CBs arriving the day before kick off" and "massive pressure to perform" but it's ok to judge Parker on 19/20 when our best CB didn't arrive until after Christmas and we were expected by everyone to finish in the top 2. Oh and Covid-19.

Do you think you're being a bit selective here? 

[ByTheRiver]

It's not a case of cherry picking, are they not the two closest seasons? With a single season in the premiership between. To me, it only makes season to compare the two either side.

Well then surely the best comparison is their respective stints in the PL, where they both had almost exactly the same players to choose from, for a similar length of time (10-12 games) only a few months apart.

Parker
Goals conceded per game - 1.8
Points per game - 0.9

Jokanovic
Goals conceded per game - 2.6
Points per game - 0.4

So with Jokanovic we had 50% more goals conceded and 50% less points won

Of course it isn't and we've done that one a million times. Jokanovic had the first few (12) games, CBs arriving the day before kick off (injuries meant they had to start). 6 players on deadline day, almost everyone completely new to the premiership. A lot not speaking the language On top of that massive pressure to perform. By the time he had had enough time to work with the squad (which should have been pre-season but a combination of most players arriving on deadline day and the fact we were not confirmed until relatively late due to play offs and Vegas...) it looked to be improving, then he was gone. He is a coach coach, so he needs time to work his ideas into players (like the transformation in us in the promotion season where the players started to click with what he was asking).

Scott Parker took over with no pressure with the team as good as down after the disaster that was Ranieri, the whole team settled, trained together for six months and used to the premiership and each other. It's no comparison at all.

I'd say exactly the same if the two were swapped. I have no issue with Parker, I'd love for him to have succeeded (or still succeed, if we go up and he keeps us up or close - amazing work). I really thought it might with the early Millwall game and the performance there. Now, obviously it's not always going to be like that (and Millwall possibly helped by being as awful as we were good) but we should have been closer to that performance than what we served up more weeks than not. That showed that the players have that ability and potential when coached the right way with attacking patterns of play and plans.

Hmmm, so Jokanovic had it hard when he joined in 15/16 because "we had four managers that season" but when Parker became our third manager in 18/19 that was easy for him because he had "no pressure", "the whole team settled" etc.

And it's unfair on Jokanovic to judge him on 18/19 because we'd had "CBs arriving the day before kick off" and "massive pressure to perform" but it's ok to judge Parker on 19/20 when our best CB didn't arrive until after Christmas and we were expected by everyone to finish in the top 2.

Do you think you're being a bit selective here? 

You're wanting to compare Jokanovic arriving midway through a championship season with Parker arriving at the end of a premiership season and you think I'm being selective? The logical thing is back right where I initially was and to say, if they are to be compared, the logical thing is compare the two full seasons they had in the same league, 1 year apart (with the calamity that was the premiership season sitting in the middle).

I can't help think you are just being deliberately difficult/WUM as some of this stuff is nonsensical!

[Statto]

You're wanting to compare Jokanovic arriving midway through a championship season with Parker arriving at the end of a premiership season and you think I'm being selective? The logical thing is back right where I initially was and to say, if they are to be compared, the logical thing is compare the two full seasons they had in the same league, 1 year apart (with the calamity that was the premiership season sitting in the middle).

I can't help think you are just being deliberately difficult/WUM as some of this stuff is nonsensical!

Let's put this to bed for everyone else's sake.

I suggest you open your mind to other opinions and information. You're clearly not stupid but it's equally clear you're painfully blinkered.

For example, the point on page 1 about whether the top teams losing to the bottom teams necessarily implies the standard of the league is poor, isn't even a matter of opinion. It's a matter of simple logic, and you were wrong. I suspect you're clever enough to get your head around it if you try, but instead you just got wound up and dismissed it.

As to this point about Parker vs Jokanovic, in fairness, your rationale for comparing 17/18 vs 19/20 isn't without merit. But it's no more compelling than the arguments (set out above) for instead comparing their entire Championship tenures, or at least their complete seasons in the Championship, or perhaps their respective spells in the PL. You've picked the one comparison that delivers the finding in your OP, but you're very misguided if you think that's significantly more justified than alternate comparisons which completely contradict your OP.

Anyway, in your own words, "I bid you good evening"

[ByTheRiver]

You're wanting to compare Jokanovic arriving midway through a championship season with Parker arriving at the end of a premiership season and you think I'm being selective? The logical thing is back right where I initially was and to say, if they are to be compared, the logical thing is compare the two full seasons they had in the same league, 1 year apart (with the calamity that was the premiership season sitting in the middle).

I can't help think you are just being deliberately difficult/WUM as some of this stuff is nonsensical!

Let's put this to bed for everyone else's sake.

I suggest you open your mind to other opinions and information. You're clearly not stupid but it's equally clear you're painfully blinkered.

For example, the point on page 1 about whether the top teams losing to the bottom teams necessarily implies the standard of the league is poor, isn't even a matter of opinion. It's a matter of simple logic, and you were wrong. I suspect you're clever enough to get your head around it if you try, but instead you just got wound up and dismissed it.

As to this point about Parker vs Jokanovic, in fairness, your rationale for comparing 17/18 vs 19/20 isn't without merit. But it's no more compelling than the arguments (set out above) for instead comparing their entire Championship tenures, or at least their complete seasons in the Championship, or perhaps their respective spells in the PL. You've picked the one comparison that delivers the finding in your OP, but you're very misguided if you think that's significantly more justified than alternate comparisons which completely contradict your OP.

Anyway, in your own words, "I bid you good evening"

Okay, you're right, comparing part-seasons 3 years apart and in different leagues is equally compelling as an argument. I see that now. How foolish and blinkered of me.

You're right we should leave it and agree to disagree though - I'm bored to tears so I dread to think what the rest of the board must be feeling (sorry all!). Have a good weekend and let's enjoy the play off games next week.