Did you know, Dean Saunders joined Doncaster on September 23rd, 2011. Doncaster - at that point - had 1 point, and City had 5. They went on to get relegated with 36 points, and we managed 40. Therefore, from September 23rd to the end of the season, Thorn and Saunders managed exactly the same points haul.
As such, mathematically: Thorn = Saunders
Doncaster stuck with Saunders into the new season, and when he left on 7th January of this year, the were equal top of the league. With a points per game and win ratio in this league better than Robins had with us.
As such, mathematically: Saunders > Robins
Therefore: (Thorn = Saunders) > Robins.
The truth is in the maths
totally agree, we should bring back richard shaw too
Get Ian Dowie to do the dressing room talk before the Bury game! if you can't get him I'm sure Nasal Nigel will do it!
Did you know, Dean Saunders joined Doncaster on September 23rd, 2011. Doncaster - at that point - had 1 point, and City had 5. They went on to get relegated with 36 points, and we managed 40. Therefore, from September 23rd to the end of the season, Thorn and Saunders managed exactly the same points haul.
As such, mathematically: Thorn = Saunders
Doncaster stuck with Saunders into the new season, and when he left on 7th January of this year, the were equal top of the league. With a points per game and win ratio in this league better than Robins had with us.
As such, mathematically: Saunders > Robins
Therefore: (Thorn = Saunders) > Robins.
The truth is in the maths
Assume Thorn is better than Robins.
Therefore Thorn has on average a greater win percentage.
Thorn's average over two seasons is 21.67%
Robins' average is 40.16%
So 21.67 > 40.16
Contradiction. Hence the original assumption must be incorrect. So Robins is Better than Thorn.
The secret is indeed in the maths.
Assume Thorn is better than Robins.
Therefore Thorn has on average a greater win percentage.
Thorn's average over two seasons is 21.67%
Robins' average is 40.16%
So 21.67 > 40.16
Contradiction. Hence the original assumption must be incorrect. So Robins is Better than Thorn.
The secret is indeed in the maths.
MMM is secretary of the Andy Thorn fan club. Don is chairman and CJ is entertainment officer. It's a small club. NLHWC is a member but now he is no longer here is suing him as his username can now never be achieved.
MMM has an interest mathematical theory. The fan club have tasked him with explaining the formula to the great man. I wish him all the best....
The stats you elude to are from different divisions. It's like comparing sherry trifles with monkey wrenches.
My figures were tongue-in-cheek. However; it's undeniable. Thorn and Saunders were identical in performance last year. In the same division this year, Saunders was superior to Robins.
Which is why Saunders got the Wolves job; and Robins the Huddesfield role.
The stats you allude to are from different divisions. It's like comparing sherry trifles with monkey wrenches.
My figures were tongue-in-cheek. However; it's undeniable. Thorn and Saunders were identical in performance last year. In the same division this year, Saunders was superior to Robins.
Which is why Saunders got the Wolves job; and Robins the Huddesfield role.
The strange thing is of course Saunders and robins have elevated themselves. Thorn is well still shall we say in limbo. Why is that? The fan club needs to improve its marketing.
The stats you elude to are from different divisions. It's like comparing sherry trifles with monkey wrenches.
My figures were tongue-in-cheek. However; it's undeniable. Thorn and Saunders were identical in performance last year. In the same division this year, Saunders was superior to Robins.
Which is why Saunders got the Wolves job; and Robins the Huddesfield role.
The strange thing is of course Saunders and robins have elevated themselves. Thorn is well still shall we say in limbo. Why is that? The fan club needs to improve its marketing.
Robins was without a club for over a year before joining us, which Thorn hasn't yet surpassed. Kinda makes your point seem futile and aimless. Can you have another go with a point worthy if debate please? Thanks
In the same division this season Robins and Saunders were identical in performance, 1.96 pts a game.
In the same division this season both managers were superior to Thorn by .96 points per game(even you shouldn't need a calculator to work out Thorn's pts average this season).
MMM is secretary of the Andy Thorn fan club. Don is chairman and CJ is entertainment officer. It's a small club. NLHWC is a member but now he is no longer here is suing him as his username can now never be achieved.
MMM has an interest mathematical theory. The fan club have tasked him with explaining the formula to the great man. I wish him all the best....
This sweepstake idea could be quite profitable.
Grenduffy wouldn't pay up, claiming that the average bet was above the divisional average wager; and that he wasn't compelled to do so on moral grounds just as long as it was in the best interests if SISU
To use three games with a gelling side a silly basis to extrapolate data from. Doncaster stuck with Saunders. He took repayed them by taking them to joint-top before finding a genuinely better club
Okay then 3 games with a gelling side with 2 managers who had been stuck with from the previous season:
Saunders 2 points a game, Thorn 1 point a game
Thorn falls another 0.04 points behind.
Not that gelling is an excuse, but because the squad was so poor when Robins took over he then had to bring in several additional players which also had to gel.
And did better.
I am very happy to make the wager with you myself MMM. 6 of your finest croissants up against the foulest, most toxic chemical concoctions I can find in the chemistry department.
I am happy to stand you a beer-based wager dear chap; which I am happy to stand or receive in the casino
So what are the terms-Thorn being appointed within a year of his sacking?
Robins was without a club for over a year before joining us, which Thorn hasn't yet surpassed. Kinda makes your point seem futile and aimless. Can you have another go with a point worthy if debate please? Thanks
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?