Redknapp Vs AVB vs Jol

[Armenia Spur]

Jol deffo got the good times rolling, twas the berba man love. I forget, was he in charge during lasagne gate ?

Indeed he was, as it was 2 weeks before that he was ready to knock the f*ck out of Wenger on the touchline at the old Library

 

[sebse]

Indeed he was, as it was 2 weeks before that he was ready to knock the f*ck out of Wenger on the touchline at the old Library

Another proud memory was when Gattuso squared up to Joe Jordan in the San Siro - I never found out the reason why he did this, but Jordan just gave him the stare of death.

I also cherish how riled up we made 'pretigious' opponents - because we outplayed them Redknapp style - Gattuso went mad at crouch like a pitbull, Flamini two foot tackled Corluka; Balotelli nearly stamped the life out of Parker, and Komapny/Lescott threw a harsh elbow in the same game and ofcourse none of the above got sent off. Teams could not cope with our speed. Lennon & Walker - the fastest wing in Europe!

 

[El Guepardo]

now that's evidence!

Re the three win ratios...

Sorry but no, it isn't. Well, it's only evidence that AVB has a higher win rate, not that he's been the best manager that we've had.

Jol's tenure and Redknapp's tenure at the club saw us improve as a force in English football. Our squad has been improved, as has the mentality of the players. We are moving upwards, thanks to all three.

When Jol managed us, we were a club who barely had ambitions past mid table. Our season would have been over by March and so for Jol to transform that side to a side that very nearly qualified for the Champions League was top work.

Redknapp likewise started with it tough, a low league position but one which didn't reflect the higher quality in playing staff than during Jol's time at the club. Redknapp turned it around and had the side playing wonderful football.

Now AVB has taken over with the best of the three squads, even if yes we could do with a player in the mould of Modric here. And he achieved our highest points total.

I think they've all been solid. I think it's tight between them but I favour AVB as I like what I've seen so far and I get goose bumps over the potential of this side, feels like a very exciting future lays ahead.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

Re the three win ratios...

Sorry but no, it isn't. Well, it's only evidence that AVB has a higher win rate, not that he's been the best manager that we've had.

Jol's tenure and Redknapp's tenure at the club saw us improve as a force in English football. Our squad has been improved, as has the mentality of the players. We are moving upwards, thanks to all three.

When Jol managed us, we were a club who barely had ambitions past mid table. Our season would have been over by March and so for Jol to transform that side to a side that very nearly qualified for the Champions League was top work.

Redknapp likewise started with it tough, a low league position but one which didn't reflect the higher quality in playing staff than during Jol's time at the club. Redknapp turned it around and had the side playing wonderful football.

Now AVB has taken over with the best of the three squads, even if yes we could do with a player in the mould of Modric here. And he achieved our highest points total.

I think they've all been solid. I think it's tight between them but I favour AVB as I like what I've seen so far and I get goose bumps over the potential of this side, feels like a very exciting future lays ahead.

I agree with this post. The problem with ratios is sample size. No worthwhile statistician or mathematician in "proper" industry would ever compare uneven sets of sample size to reach a conclusion and they'd want a significant minimum sample size to compare. Then you have the caveats to consider (as you have done in your post) with regards to external factors on the statistics, such as the level of proficiency from the starting point for each comparison.

Trying to compare these Managers stats against each other is like trying to compare two racing car driver lap times, on a fast sweeping circuit, when one is driving a Mini Cooper and one is driving a Aston Martin DB9. Unless they both have ago in each others car in the same conditions, then the stats are meaningless.

 

[metalgear]

I agree with this post. The problem with ratios is sample size. No worthwhile statistician or mathematician in "proper" industry would ever compare uneven sets of sample size to reach a conclusion and they'd want a significant minimum sample size to compare. Then you have the caveats to consider (as you have done in your post) with regards to external factors on the statistics, such as the level of proficiency from the starting point for each comparison.

Trying to compare these Managers stats against each other is like trying to compare two racing car driver lap times, on a fast sweeping circuit, when one is driving a Mini Cooper and one is driving a Aston Martin DB9. Unless they both have ago in each others car in the same conditions, then the stats are meaningless.

so true so that if we apply this principle to the game and player discussions on this site, they would also be meaningless! guys lets get practical. stats are stats. facts are facts. evidence is evidence. your opinion or your verdict is entirely yours.

 

[thfcsteff]

Too many fans judge Redknapp on his unfortunate public persona. I couldn't give a monkeys about what he was like, it was how we performed on the pitch that mattered.

We played wonderful attacking football under BMJ and mainly thanks to Bale some great stuff last season also, but it was under Rednapp that we produced the most glorious football seen at WHL in the last five decades.

Come on!!!!

1981/82 was some of the finest football we ever played, and 87 was pretty damn great too. Harry did get us playing some great stuff but to say it was 'the most glorious' is over-cooking the egg!

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

Come on!!!!

1981/82 was some of the finest football we ever played, and 87 was pretty damn great too. Harry did get us playing some great stuff but to say it was 'the most glorious' is over-cooking the egg!

Thought our performances in 87 were over rated myself. The last whole season where we played some truly magical stuff as a team was 84/85. For a third of the 01/02 season we were superb too. 11/12 was a great season for entertainment though. Even when we hit a rough patch of results we were still playing well and playing some lovely football, but it wasn't fast flowing one touch football that we as a club used to be associated with. Last time we played that was for that brief period of 01/02.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

so true so that if we apply this principle to the game and player discussions on this site, they would also be meaningless! guys lets get practical. stats are stats. facts are facts. evidence is evidence. your opinion or your verdict is entirely yours.

Things can still be discussed, but comparisons are flawed. It goes back to the age old arguments of golden eras, which are in reality impossible to define from a skill level. It's all about perception.

 

[uksb]

Jol was probably the most likeable of the three, has the job of making us best of the rest (gap was still too wide to say he made us truly CL contenders)
Harry's team was the most exciting to watch, he (generalization) played fairly simply and relied on individual brilliance from certain key players (Harry could have improved, but only by spending)
AVB is the guy I respect the most, intelligent/articulate/promising, he more than the other two is obviously trying to create a system/style that potentially can make the sum greater than the parts.

People need to look around, the days of managers being at clubs for even 5+ seasons is pretty much gone.

This.

 

[thfcsteff]

Thought our performances in 87 were over rated myself. The last whole season where we played some truly magical stuff as a team was 84/85. For a third of the 01/02 season we were superb too. 11/12 was a great season for entertainment though. Even when we hit a rough patch of results we were still playing well and playing some lovely football, but it wasn't fast flowing one touch football that we as a club used to be associated with. Last time we played that was for that brief period of 01/02.

If I'm honest, 81/82 has always been my favorite...87 was exciting...but yes, really hard to disagree on how thrilling 11/12 was. I have avoided this thread for fear of opening old wounds, but I will briefly step up to say that aside from the many things I felt about Harry, perhaps the biggest was HURT. Because for me, he really really had a chance to be 'the statue outside the ground', our 'special one'...but for reasons we will probably never agree on, it just didn't happen that way.

Regardless, let's agree on 11/12...there was some fantastic entertainment during that season for sure.

 

[metalgear]

Things can still be discussed, but comparisons are flawed. It goes back to the age old arguments of golden eras, which are in reality impossible to define from a skill level. It's all about perception.

so are stats. interpret it all you like. its still about perception.

 

[scaramanga]

I agree with this post. The problem with ratios is sample size. No worthwhile statistician or mathematician in "proper" industry would ever compare uneven sets of sample size to reach a conclusion and they'd want a significant minimum sample size to compare. Then you have the caveats to consider (as you have done in your post) with regards to external factors on the statistics, such as the level of proficiency from the starting point for each comparison.

Trying to compare these Managers stats against each other is like trying to compare two racing car driver lap times, on a fast sweeping circuit, when one is driving a Mini Cooper and one is driving a Aston Martin DB9. Unless they both have ago in each others car in the same conditions, then the stats are meaningless.

They would if only uneven sample sizes were available. Maybe in lab conditions you can create a scenario where all samples are of the same size but if you're retrospectively applying analysis to real world events you often don't have a choice.

Do those stats tell us that AVB is the best manager of the three? No. They do tell us that AVB on current form is on course to have the best results of the three of them though.

 

[onlyme]

They would if only uneven sample sizes were available. Maybe in lab conditions you can create a scenario where all samples are of the same size but if you're retrospectively applying analysis to real world events you often don't have a choice.

Do those stats tell us that AVB is the best manager of the three? No. They do tell us that AVB on current form is on course to have the best results of the three of them though.

Jumpers does not believe in form, either.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

so are stats. interpret it all you like. its still about perception.

Stats are correct, but the interpretation of stats is perception and/or bias agenda. Stats on their own rarely tell the whole story, or even half the story.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

Jumpers does not believe in form, either.

I believe in form. But for me form is how well a team or player is playing, and whilst how well a team or player plays usually has a positive consequence on the outcome of a result, it is not always the case.

Form is how well a team plays comparative to its OWN relevant maximum potential, not necessarily how the results are reflected against the opposition.

Simplistic view is a team can have a run of games against significantly weaker opposition and win all the games despite not playing anywhere near their full ability. This team is not in form but is winning games. Likewise a team can be playing to the best of their ability and this team is in great form, but because they have a run of games against significantly stronger opponents they accrue very few points.

Basically, form and results are related but do not go hand in hand and therefore results shouldn't be regarded as form.

 

[scaramanga]

I believe in form. But for me form is how well a team or player is playing, and whilst how well a team or player plays usually has a positive consequence on the outcome of a result, it is not always the case.

Form is how well a team plays comparative to its OWN relevant maximum potential, not necessarily how the results are reflected against the opposition.

Simplistic view is a team can have a run of games against significantly weaker opposition and win all the games despite not playing anywhere near their full ability. This team is not in form but is winning games. Likewise a team can be playing to the best of their ability and this team is in great form, but because they have a run of games against significantly stronger opponents they accrue very few points.

Basically, form and results are related but do not go hand in hand and therefore results shouldn't be regarded as form.

So did we play weaker or stronger PL opponents last year than the year before?

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

So did we play weaker or stronger PL opponents last year than the year before?

My personal opinion is that the Premiership was weaker last year than it has been for many a year. I think this year it will be even weaker. I wouldn't be shocked if we break our points total again this season and finish 6th!

 

[THFC6061]

A decent start to the season and I can see a new club record Premier League points total.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

A decent start to the season and I can see a new club record Premier League points total.

Me too. Outside of the standard top four, ourselves and Liverpool I can't even call the other teams to be relegated. Everton & Saudi Sportswashing Machine should be safe, but a bad start and even they could be in trouble. 7th place and below in the Premiership is so weak at the moment, there will be plenty of points to pick up.

 

[Rossi22]

Had Bale not tacoted in a ridiculous amount of long distance winners then AVB's win % would be lower than Jol's.