Exactly. Throw in a few Checkatrade wins and he was flavour of the month for a while. It was only after the MK Dons, Cambridge and Southend defeats that the penny started to drop that all was not well.When you consider he fell away later on, you could quite reasonably say we were right to keep him on as long as we did really...
It's not the squad that got us relegated, it was the decisions made of field.
I'm sure I'm getting 0% interest on my savings.Exactly. Throw in a few Checkatrade wins and he was flavour of the month for a while. It was only after the MK Dons, Cambridge and Southend defeats that the penny started to drop that all was not well.
Anyway, the Mowbray stat is wrong I think. Technically 0 is not a percentage.
Robins would have had this squad finish 16th then based on that form had he been here all season. The squad wasn't that bad of a reflection on the budget then. Just Mowbray lost interest, enthusiasm and direction, Venus didn't have a clue and his form flatters to decieve , Slade was just a major fuck up and perfect example of a square peg trying to fit in a round hole with a complete waste of a transfer window to boot.
I don't understand why Venus was left in the position so long, why Slade was appointed at all and why Robins wasn't pursued in the first place. It's not the squad that got us relegated, it was the decisions made of field.
Well you're not getting any interest - but there's no such thing as zero percent, technically (I may be wrong).I'm sure I'm getting 0% interest on my savings.
Totally agree. About time ridiculous posters like @Earlsdon_Skyblue1 wake up and smell the coffee. The managerial appointments have been rotten to the core, time and time again.
Fans were left leaving the Ricoh contemplating driving into a ditch when Slade was in charge
You could well be right, but in this case it's number of wins expressed as a percentage of total games managed. So in the case of MR its 4/11x100 = 36.36, and in the case of TM its 0/10x100 = 0 on the calculator.Well you're not getting any interest - but there's no such thing as zero percent, technically (I may be wrong).
You could well be right, but in this case it's number of wins expressed as a percentage of total games managed. So in the case of MR its 4/11x100 = 36.36, and in the case of TM its 0/10x100 = 0 on the calculator.
Depends on the context. You can't give 110% effort despite of what many sports people say, but you can increase something by 110%It's fact you can have 110% though.
Bit of both really though.
The stats speak for themselves really. Why was Venus allowed to be in charge so long? Who appointed Slade? Who let Slade stay for so long? Who decided to go for Robins when it was too late? It wasn't the squad, it was those making the decisions of field.
Because his win percentage ain't that far off the current incumbent, that's why...I don't understand why Venus was left in the position so long,
The stats speak for themselves really. Why was Venus allowed to be in charge so long? .
It's fact you can have 110% though.
Actually, the stats support Venus being in charge for so long. By your argument Robins is 1 game off being sacked. You could argue that, by the stats, had Venus stayed in charge longer we would have stayed up. I thought getting rid of Venus was the right decision at the time but the stats don't bear that out, particularly as he was replaced with someone who ended second bottom of that table with a similar amount of games.
Venus' problem was that he was dislikeable and rubbed the fans up the wrong way. We will never know whether he would have maintained the same ratio, which at the time of Slade taking over was trending down.
The stats speak for themselves really. Why was Venus allowed to be in charge so long? Who appointed Slade? Who let Slade stay for so long? Who decided to go for Robins when it was too late? It wasn't the squad, it was those making the decisions of field.
Football's often about momentum too, so if we'd got going early with Slade, who knows what difference it'd have made.If Slades team had hung on for a couple more minutes he'd have won 3 more games in his tenure fairly early on as well.
I seem to remember Venus was desperate to get out and get a replacement manager in. Also didn't he say in an interview that the team weren't good enough to stay up?He was only one win off what Robins has currently done.
If he did, he was dead right!Also didn't he say in an interview that the team weren't good enough to stay up?
That's not right. Yes we lost the first 3 games under Robins when the team were disorganised and despondent, he would have needed time to sort that out. Then we beat Port Vale in a relegation 6 pointer, and also beat Bristol Rovers & Peterborough who both had realistic top 6 ambitions when we played them. We played 7 games in April and lost 3. Two of them against Sheff U and Scunthorpe away. (1st & 3rd in the league)This is always the problem with statistics especially over a relatively short time period.
Venus stats show a short term blip at the beginning of his tenure. By the end he'd lost 7 successive league games.
If Slades team had hung on for a couple more minutes he'd have won 3 more games in his tenure fairly early on as well.
Robins has won home games but at the end of the season against uninterested opposition mostly. Few games where the opposition had something to play for we won. Even under that clueless buffoon Mowbray we won several meaningless games at the end of last season as well.
The common denominator is the squad was appalling uncompetitive in big games and never good enough.
That's not right. Yes we lost the first 3 games under Robins when the team were disorganised and despondent, he would have needed time to sort that out. Then we beat Port Vale in a relegation 6 pointer, and also beat Bristol Rovers & Peterborough who both had realistic top 6 ambitions when we played them. We played 7 games in April and lost 3. Two of them against Sheff U and Scunthorpe away. (1st & 3rd in the league)
Actually, the stats support Venus being in charge for so long. By your argument Robins is 1 game off being sacked. You could argue that, by the stats, had Venus stayed in charge longer we would have stayed up. I thought getting rid of Venus was the right decision at the time but the stats don't bear that out, particularly as he was replaced with someone who ended second bottom of that table with a similar amount of games.
Venus' problem was that he was dislikeable and rubbed the fans up the wrong way. We will never know whether he would have maintained the same ratio, which at the time of Slade taking over was trending down.
The common denominator is the squad was appalling uncompetitive in big games and never good enough.
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?