|
Post by Pugsley on Sept 6, 2018 17:49:57 GMT
He was sacked because we lost a meaningless (in the grand scheme of things) cup tie. Coates pissed his knickers over a cup we were never winning that season. We'd been in the bottom three in February in the past Hughes and other managers and been OK. I think he would have kept us up by the skin of our teeth. Absolute bollocks.He was sacked as people have said on this thread because of 18 months of regression and a total waste of the owners money. I'm 1 million percent correct.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Sept 6, 2018 17:50:51 GMT
Absolute bollocks.He was sacked as people have said on this thread because of 18 months of regression and a total waste of the owners money. I'm 1 million percent correct. Only in your mixed up head😂
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Sept 6, 2018 17:51:49 GMT
I'm 1 million percent correct. Only in your mixed up head😂 Lol, maybe
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Sept 6, 2018 18:55:47 GMT
Not a chance he'd have kept us up, he'd lost the plot completely and was trying to do his version of Pulis ball, we didn't have the players he didn't have the guts, simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by Edward Tattsyrup on Sept 6, 2018 19:14:33 GMT
I'm torn on this. I'm not convinced he would have kept us up, but he would surely have got more points on the board than hapless Lambert.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Sept 6, 2018 19:36:21 GMT
I'm torn on this. I'm not convinced he would have kept us up, but he would surely have got more points on the board than hapless Lambert. Lambert was pretty unlucky tbf, can't really legislate for your keeper throwing the ball into his own net and Adam failing to do the one thing he's good at.
|
|
|
Post by madeleystokie on Sept 7, 2018 11:43:54 GMT
It's that Bournemouth game as someone mentioned and the Newcastle game (I think) where Hughes previously gambled with rotating at Chelsea, only to lose against Newcastle anyway. That built up a head of steam that exploded with the defeat at Coventry.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Sept 7, 2018 12:09:16 GMT
Only in your mixed up head😂 Lol, maybe We're talking here about the reasons WE believe Hughes was sacked. I think it's almost certain that had we not lost at Coventry then he wouldn't have been sacked that night. Had we beaten Coventry and Hughes remained we'll never know what would've happened... Then again we'd have probably lost at Yeovil, Newport or some other godforsaken place in the next round and he have been gone then!
|
|
|
Post by stantheman on Sept 7, 2018 12:18:06 GMT
The abject performance at Coventry showed that even the players he had signed, and stood by, had lost any determination to fight for their manager. We were a shambles, and had been for many months. The question has to be asked - had we beaten Coventry, and had a 'mini-cup run' would Hughes have kept his job and would a bit of cup action have improved our league performances?
|
|
|
Post by eddyclamp on Sept 7, 2018 14:46:43 GMT
Strange how Hughes has not been on the phone during the summer to sign his superstars from Stoke
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 7, 2018 15:19:06 GMT
After 23 games last season,the point at which Hughes was sacked, there were 8 clubs on 24 points or less who were in danger of relegation.
Of those 8 clubs 4 retained their manager and survived.
One club sacked their manager and survived.
Three clubs sacked their manager and were relegated.
It's clear from the above, that in the main, those clubs that stuck with their manager came off much better.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Sept 7, 2018 15:25:55 GMT
After 23 games last season,the point at which Hughes was sacked, there were 8 clubs on 24 points or less who were in danger of relegation. Of those 8 clubs 4 retained their manager and survived. One club sacked their manager and survived. Three clubs sacked their manager and were relegated. It's clear from the above, that in the main, those clubs that stuck with their manager came off much better.
It's clear that they did geoff, but that's completely different from saying there's a direct correlation between keeping your manager and staying up and therefore that is the reason why they survived.
There are many other factors that come into relegation battles (form, quality of playing staff, quality of managing staff whether those managers survived or not, injuries, quality of coaches etc etc etc) which you've completely omitted from your equation.
You've taken 2 facts and then an almighty leap to come to the conclusion you're inferring. Please tell me your job doesn't involve any kind of statistical analysis.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 7, 2018 15:26:00 GMT
After 23 games last season,the point at which Hughes was sacked, there were 8 clubs on 24 points or less who were in danger of relegation. Of those 8 clubs 4 retained their manager and survived. One club sacked their manager and survived. Three clubs sacked their manager and were relegated. It's clear from the above, that in the main, those clubs that stuck with their manager came off much better. Are you suggesting that it was the timing of the sacking or the sacking itself that was the issue Geoff? I ask because plenty of teams were in a poor position earlier in the campaign and sacked their manager and stayed up. And the previous season, three clubs sacked their manager after the 17-game mark in dire straits and stayed up while Sunderland, who stuck with David Moyes, went down.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 7, 2018 15:53:50 GMT
After 23 games last season,the point at which Hughes was sacked, there were 8 clubs on 24 points or less who were in danger of relegation. Of those 8 clubs 4 retained their manager and survived. One club sacked their manager and survived. Three clubs sacked their manager and were relegated. It's clear from the above, that in the main, those clubs that stuck with their manager came off much better.
It's clear that they did geoff, but that's completely different from saying there's a direct correlation between keeping your manager and staying up and therefore that is the reason why they survived.
There are many other factors that come into relegation battles (form, quality of playing staff, quality of managing staff whether those managers survived or not, injuries, quality of coaches etc etc etc) which you've completely omitted from your equation.
You've taken 2 facts and then an almighty leap to come to the conclusion you're inferring. Please tell me your job doesn't involve any kind of statistical analysis.
I think the stats show mick that if you sack the manager when you are already in a relegation battle, and the season is mature, then you come off worse.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 7, 2018 16:01:42 GMT
After 23 games last season,the point at which Hughes was sacked, there were 8 clubs on 24 points or less who were in danger of relegation. Of those 8 clubs 4 retained their manager and survived. One club sacked their manager and survived. Three clubs sacked their manager and were relegated. It's clear from the above, that in the main, those clubs that stuck with their manager came off much better. Are you suggesting that it was the timing of the sacking or the sacking itself that was the issue Geoff? I ask because plenty of teams were in a poor position earlier in the campaign and sacked their manager and stayed up. And the previous season, three clubs sacked their manager after the 17-game mark in dire straits and stayed up while Sunderland, who stuck with David Moyes, went down. The timing was vital rob, some new managers give a club a bounce and others take an extended period before results show an improvement.
On top of that Hughes had extensive experience of dealing with medium sized PL clubs and steering them to safety, Lambert had just the one season of PL experience.
The Board took a massive gamble in sacking Hughes and appointing Lambert, it was a gamble that massively backfired.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 7, 2018 16:02:02 GMT
It's clear that they did geoff, but that's completely different from saying there's a direct correlation between keeping your manager and staying up and therefore that is the reason why they survived. There are many other factors that come into relegation battles (form, quality of playing staff, quality of managing staff whether those managers survived or not, injuries, quality of coaches etc etc etc) which you've completely omitted from your equation.
You've taken 2 facts and then an almighty leap to come to the conclusion you're inferring. Please tell me your job doesn't involve any kind of statistical analysis.
I think the stats show mick that if you sack the manager when you are already in a relegation battle, and the season is mature, then you come off worse. Particularly if you only focus on one season and a few examples that prove your point and ignore the countless other examples in previous seasons that don't...
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Sept 7, 2018 16:04:11 GMT
It's clear that they did geoff, but that's completely different from saying there's a direct correlation between keeping your manager and staying up and therefore that is the reason why they survived.
There are many other factors that come into relegation battles (form, quality of playing staff, quality of managing staff whether those managers survived or not, injuries, quality of coaches etc etc etc) which you've completely omitted from your equation.
You've taken 2 facts and then an almighty leap to come to the conclusion you're inferring. Please tell me your job doesn't involve any kind of statistical analysis.
I think the stats show mick that if you sack the manager when you are already in a relegation battle, and the season is mature, then you come off worse.
That REALLY isn't the way you do statistical analysis geoff......AT ALL!!!
So no, the stats don't show that geoff. As Rob said (just after my post, you may want to take a look), there are plenty of cases where managers remain in jobs but their clubs go down or where manager's are sacked but the club stays up.
You CANNOT look at just one season, just take the facts you've posted and jump to the conclusion of "That therefore proves my point"....as i said, you've completely missed out and ignored countless other factors that contribute to whether or not a team goes down!
The simple fact geoff is that a seeming correlation does not in any way necessarily prove a causation.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 7, 2018 16:05:12 GMT
Are you suggesting that it was the timing of the sacking or the sacking itself that was the issue Geoff? I ask because plenty of teams were in a poor position earlier in the campaign and sacked their manager and stayed up. And the previous season, three clubs sacked their manager after the 17-game mark in dire straits and stayed up while Sunderland, who stuck with David Moyes, went down. The timing was vital rob, some new managers give a club a bounce and others take an extended period before results show an improvement. On top of that Hughes had extensive experience of dealing with medium sized PL clubs and steering them to safety, Lambert had just the one season of PL experience. The Board took a massive gamble in sacking Hughes and appointing Lambert, it was a gamble that massively backfired.
Lambert had three and a bit seasons of Prem experience. He was sacked by Villa in February 2015, 'when the season was mature', and his successor kept them up. In 2016-17 Palace replaced their manager after 17 games, Swansea after 20 and Leicester after 25 and all saw a reversal of fortunes that kept them up. It's almost as it there's no sweeping generalisation that can be made and each situation was different and had its own specific context and set of circumstances...
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 7, 2018 16:13:16 GMT
The timing was vital rob, some new managers give a club a bounce and others take an extended period before results show an improvement. On top of that Hughes had extensive experience of dealing with medium sized PL clubs and steering them to safety, Lambert had just the one season of PL experience. The Board took a massive gamble in sacking Hughes and appointing Lambert, it was a gamble that massively backfired.
Lambert had three and a bit seasons of Prem experience. He was sacked by Villa in February 2015, 'when the season was mature', and his successor kept them up. In 2016-17 Palace replaced their manager after 17 games, Swansea after 20 and Leicester after 25 and all saw a reversal of fortunes that kept them up. It's almost as it there's no sweeping generalisation that can be made and each situation was different and had its own specific context and set of circumstances... Yes you of course are right about Villa, for some reason I forgot that. Nevertheless if you compare the record of Hughes and Lambert simply in terms of PL success, then Hughes comes out on top.
Why sack a manager after 23 games who had an excellent PL record, and replace him with one who hadn't?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 7, 2018 16:16:49 GMT
Lambert had three and a bit seasons of Prem experience. He was sacked by Villa in February 2015, 'when the season was mature', and his successor kept them up. In 2016-17 Palace replaced their manager after 17 games, Swansea after 20 and Leicester after 25 and all saw a reversal of fortunes that kept them up. It's almost as it there's no sweeping generalisation that can be made and each situation was different and had its own specific context and set of circumstances... Yes you of course are right about Villa, for some reason I forgot that. Nevertheless if you compare the record of Hughes and Lambert simply in terms of PL success, then Hughes comes out on top. Why sack a manager after 23 games who had an excellent PL record, and replace him with one who hadn't?
A couple of reasons Geoff. 1) The manager 'with an excellent PL record' was sacked because he'd flung the club into a completely unnecessary relegation battle with a series of dismal decisions, tactical aberrations and miserable performances over a two-year period. 2) The board turned to Lambert because their first three choices rejected them, they lacked the foresight to approach someone like Jokanovic or another outside the box option, and they panicked because they were in the midst of a transfer window having waited 6-18 months too long to sack him.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 7, 2018 16:20:08 GMT
The timing was vital rob, some new managers give a club a bounce and others take an extended period before results show an improvement. On top of that Hughes had extensive experience of dealing with medium sized PL clubs and steering them to safety, Lambert had just the one season of PL experience. The Board took a massive gamble in sacking Hughes and appointing Lambert, it was a gamble that massively backfired.
Lambert had three and a bit seasons of Prem experience. He was sacked by Villa in February 2015, 'when the season was mature', and his successor kept them up. In 2016-17 Palace replaced their manager after 17 games, Swansea after 20 and Leicester after 25 and all saw a reversal of fortunes that kept them up. It's almost as it there's no sweeping generalisation that can be made and each situation was different and had its own specific context and set of circumstances... I'm looking at last season mick because that is when we were relegated and the fact that Hughes has said he would have kept us up. The stats for last season only suggest the clubs that stuck with their manager did better, I happen to think that had Hughes remained manager we would have stayed up and Southampton would have been relegated.
On the general point about stats then you are correct, a look at a number of different seasons might have shown different results.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 7, 2018 16:37:49 GMT
Yes you of course are right about Villa, for some reason I forgot that. Nevertheless if you compare the record of Hughes and Lambert simply in terms of PL success, then Hughes comes out on top. Why sack a manager after 23 games who had an excellent PL record, and replace him with one who hadn't?
A couple of reasons Geoff. 1) The manager 'with an excellent PL record' was sacked because he'd flung the club into a completely unnecessary relegation battle with a series of dismal decisions, tactical aberrations and miserable performances over a two-year period. 2) The board turned to Lambert because their first three choices rejected them, they lacked the foresight to approach someone like Jokanovic or another outside the box option, and they panicked because they were in the midst of a transfer window having waited 6-18 months too long to sack him. We had the same sort of arguments over Pulis, so just for the record:
After 21 games of the 2O16/2O17 season Hughes had Stoke in 9th position, and then performance and results fell away and we finished 13th.
After 23 games of last season we were in the bottom three, so in reality the results under Hughes had fallen away for just over 1 season i.e. 4O games.
The issue in this thread though is the claim by Hughes that he would have kept us up, those posters who were calling for his head are not going to come on here now and agree with him, are they?
The table shows that 17 points from 15 games would have kept us up, I think Hughes and his coaching staff would have got those points.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Sept 7, 2018 16:54:09 GMT
Lambert had three and a bit seasons of Prem experience. He was sacked by Villa in February 2015, 'when the season was mature', and his successor kept them up. In 2016-17 Palace replaced their manager after 17 games, Swansea after 20 and Leicester after 25 and all saw a reversal of fortunes that kept them up. It's almost as it there's no sweeping generalisation that can be made and each situation was different and had its own specific context and set of circumstances... I'm looking at last season mick because that is when we were relegated and the fact that Hughes has said he would have kept us up. The stats for last season only suggest the clubs that stuck with their manager did better, I happen to think that had Hughes remained manager we would have stayed up and Southampton would have been relegated.
On the general point about stats then you are correct, a look at a number of different seasons might have shown different results.
If you accept that geoff, then there is literally no reason whatsoever for you to keep trying to prove your point is there? You've just admitted your OP on this matter actually has no basis in fact whatsoever, you're saying we should have kept him based on nothing other than a coincidence.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Sept 7, 2018 17:00:31 GMT
I'm torn on this. I'm not convinced he would have kept us up, but he would surely have got more points on the board than hapless Lambert. Lambert was pretty unlucky tbf, can't really legislate for your keeper throwing the ball into his own net and Adam failing to do the one thing he's good at. Those 2 incidents cost us 4 points , enough to keep us up. A further 2 points went on Jack choosing to punch not catch an innocuous punt in to our box at the death at West Ham and Andy Carroll equalised on the follow up play. There is 6 points , right there, we'd have finished about 13th with that. Survival hangs on tiny margins.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Sept 7, 2018 17:00:40 GMT
A couple of reasons Geoff. 1) The manager 'with an excellent PL record' was sacked because he'd flung the club into a completely unnecessary relegation battle with a series of dismal decisions, tactical aberrations and miserable performances over a two-year period. 2) The board turned to Lambert because their first three choices rejected them, they lacked the foresight to approach someone like Jokanovic or another outside the box option, and they panicked because they were in the midst of a transfer window having waited 6-18 months too long to sack him. We had the same sort of arguments over Pulis, so just for the record:
After 21 games of the 2O16/2O17 season Hughes had Stoke in 9th position, and then performance and results fell away and we finished 13th.
After 23 games of last season we were in the bottom three, so in reality the results under Hughes had fallen away for just over 1 season i.e. 4O games.
The issue in this thread though is the claim by Hughes that he would have kept us up, those posters who were calling for his head are not going to come on here now and agree with him, are they?
The table shows that 17 points from 15 games would have kept us up, I think Hughes and his coaching staff would have got those points.
I think all anyone is asking geoff, is that what are you basing that on exactly?
You're saying that we were in the bottom 3, we were obviously completely devoid of confidence, had the worst defensive record in the league, had a losing momentum, players that were being ostracised from the squad, players publicly coming out and saying it wouldn't matter if we had Ronaldinho in the side etc. and then from nowhere, out of the blue were suddenly going to re-group, stop shipping goals, all the players would (for the first time in months) suddenly start buying into what Hughes wanted and then magically increase our points per game average? Based on what geoff? It's a simple question that you (or anyone else), can seem to answer.
If he had it in him for the last 15, then why didn't he have it for the first 23 and what was it that he could have done to have suddenly got "it" back?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 7, 2018 17:13:28 GMT
Lambert had three and a bit seasons of Prem experience. He was sacked by Villa in February 2015, 'when the season was mature', and his successor kept them up. In 2016-17 Palace replaced their manager after 17 games, Swansea after 20 and Leicester after 25 and all saw a reversal of fortunes that kept them up. It's almost as it there's no sweeping generalisation that can be made and each situation was different and had its own specific context and set of circumstances... I'm looking at last season mick because that is when we were relegated and the fact that Hughes has said he would have kept us up. The stats for last season only suggest the clubs that stuck with their manager did better, I happen to think that had Hughes remained manager we would have stayed up and Southampton would have been relegated.
On the general point about stats then you are correct, a look at a number of different seasons might have shown different results.
So why was last season so special in terms of clubs sticking with their manager and it being a brilliant idea in comparison with other seasons Geoff? What’s your theory, what made last season stand out for that?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 7, 2018 17:18:29 GMT
A couple of reasons Geoff. 1) The manager 'with an excellent PL record' was sacked because he'd flung the club into a completely unnecessary relegation battle with a series of dismal decisions, tactical aberrations and miserable performances over a two-year period. 2) The board turned to Lambert because their first three choices rejected them, they lacked the foresight to approach someone like Jokanovic or another outside the box option, and they panicked because they were in the midst of a transfer window having waited 6-18 months too long to sack him. We had the same sort of arguments over Pulis, so just for the record:
After 21 games of the 2O16/2O17 season Hughes had Stoke in 9th position, and then performance and results fell away and we finished 13th.
After 23 games of last season we were in the bottom three, so in reality the results under Hughes had fallen away for just over 1 season i.e. 4O games.
The issue in this thread though is the claim by Hughes that he would have kept us up, those posters who were calling for his head are not going to come on here now and agree with him, are they?
The table shows that 17 points from 15 games would have kept us up, I think Hughes and his coaching staff would have got those points.
I don’t understand your point Geoff. Even if you wilfully ignore our dismal end to the season in 2015/16, performances were generally poor throughout 2016/17. You talk about ‘results and performances falling away’ as if it was nothing to do with the manager. Most people saw this coming. We shouldn’t have been within a million miles of a relegation battle in the first place and it was largely Hughes’ fault that we were. It’s like a drunk pilot putting a plane into a nosedive, being locked out of the cockpit and then insisting he would have landed the plane safely. Maybe he would, but his own stupid actions put the plane in a position to crash in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Absolution on Sept 7, 2018 17:26:40 GMT
Hughes had kept us up and finished in decent positions previously, but we'd never looked like the car crash that we were when he left.
The players had never previously looked incapable of doing the basics, they'd never previously looked like they'd given up, and they'd never collectively looked like 65 minutes was all they could physically manage. Their fitness levels were shameful.
When he left, we were at the stage where any game that we didn't leak 4 goals was seen as a cause for celebration. Any manager who'd not lost the plot would have done something about those utterly embarrassing humiliations over the two years that we'd been suffering them.
The team that Hughes left bore no relation whatsoever to the teams that he'd previously guided to 9th place. It was a busted flush and in all honesty, it would have looked like pure insanity not to have got rid on the basis that things might pick up.
And I really liked the guy!
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 7, 2018 17:29:59 GMT
We had the same sort of arguments over Pulis, so just for the record:
After 21 games of the 2O16/2O17 season Hughes had Stoke in 9th position, and then performance and results fell away and we finished 13th.
After 23 games of last season we were in the bottom three, so in reality the results under Hughes had fallen away for just over 1 season i.e. 4O games.
The issue in this thread though is the claim by Hughes that he would have kept us up, those posters who were calling for his head are not going to come on here now and agree with him, are they?
The table shows that 17 points from 15 games would have kept us up, I think Hughes and his coaching staff would have got those points.
I think all anyone is asking geoff, is that what are you basing that on exactly?
You're saying that we were in the bottom 3, we were obviously completely devoid of confidence, had the worst defensive record in the league, had a losing momentum, players that were being ostracised from the squad, players publicly coming out and saying it wouldn't matter if we had Ronaldinho in the side etc. and then from nowhere, out of the blue were suddenly going to re-group, stop shipping goals, all the players would (for the first time in months) suddenly start buying into what Hughes wanted and then magically increase our points per game average? Based on what geoff? It's a simple question that you (or anyone else), can seem to answer.
If he had it in him for the last 15, then why didn't he have it for the first 23 and what was it that he could have done to have suddenly got "it" back?
If I was Peter Coates I would have pulled the C.V. of Mark Hughes out of the file and read it carefully again. He will have seen that Mark Hughes had always achieved over 4O points in a full season with every PL club he had managed, despite some very, very poor starts to seasons.
I don't think mick Hughes had lost the dressing room, I'm not sure that he had even lost the confidence of Peter Coates, but it was the Coventry defeat that sealed his fate.
Hughes knew how to win PL games, he had shown that with Blackburn, Man. City, Fulham and in his first half season with QPR and latterly with Southampton.
It was the case that the club probably needed a change of manager, but not after 23 games and not to a manager who had no record of PL success.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Sept 7, 2018 17:49:18 GMT
I think all anyone is asking geoff, is that what are you basing that on exactly?
You're saying that we were in the bottom 3, we were obviously completely devoid of confidence, had the worst defensive record in the league, had a losing momentum, players that were being ostracised from the squad, players publicly coming out and saying it wouldn't matter if we had Ronaldinho in the side etc. and then from nowhere, out of the blue were suddenly going to re-group, stop shipping goals, all the players would (for the first time in months) suddenly start buying into what Hughes wanted and then magically increase our points per game average? Based on what geoff? It's a simple question that you (or anyone else), can seem to answer.
If he had it in him for the last 15, then why didn't he have it for the first 23 and what was it that he could have done to have suddenly got "it" back?
If I was Peter Coates I would have pulled the C.V. of Mark Hughes out of the file and read it carefully again. He will have seen that Mark Hughes had always achieved over 4O points in a full season with every PL club he had managed, despite some very, very poor starts to seasons.
I don't think mick Hughes had lost the dressing room, I'm not sure that he had even lost the confidence of Peter Coates, but it was the Coventry defeat that sealed his fate.
Hughes knew how to win PL games, he had shown that with Blackburn, Man. City, Fulham and in his first half season with QPR and latterly with Southampton.
It was the case that the club probably needed a change of manager, but not after 23 games and not to a manager who had no record of PL success.
So rather than look at what he'd done so far that season or even what he was doing presently, you'd have dragged out his cv and looked at what he'd done years ago amd based your decision on that? You keep going on about poor/slow starts to a season but 23 games in isn't a start of a season, it's pretty much half way through! How many other clubs that he had success with had as few points halfway though a season as we did and he then kept them up? That would be literally the ONLY fact from his cv that would have had any relevance. Saying "It took him 6 games at Man city, 8 at Fulham.." etc is 100% irrelevant geoff, we were 23 games in!!
|
|