Manager's League Table
- Thread starter nickyb
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Just seen it myself Nick, that's 75 more successful managers this season than that man Tony Pulis, even Micky Adams at the Fail is better than him (No 10)
Then shouldn't he be managing Northampton in league 2 or the 4th division in old money, that sounds just about right to me!!
Nero out!!
Nero out!!
And THEY all think Stoke fans are thick! WELL.... Read that table and WEEP.Not one bit surprised to see where CLUELESS is on that list.
Has Ric seen it yet?
Not one bit surprised to see where CLUELESS is on that list.
Has Ric seen it yet?
Yes mate he was last seen buying a shotgun in Hanley!!
there you go, theres the proof, all we need Coates to do now is print that table off on A3 paper roll it up and shove it up Pulis arse and tell him to fook off!
It's not a good measure of a manager's quality. I think that has to be done heuristically based on the league table scores. I think Pulis would be higher on a table decided by experts because I think the premier league has the biggest difference in the quality of its teams.
However, Stoke have spent a lot of money with Pulis in charge: First couple of seasons, the same points tally would have given him more merit than now.
Besides, we all know Pulis is ****, we knew it all along. We knew it in the championship, we may have overlooked this fact for a little while but the truth inevitably became obvious once more.
However, Stoke have spent a lot of money with Pulis in charge: First couple of seasons, the same points tally would have given him more merit than now.
Besides, we all know Pulis is ****, we knew it all along. We knew it in the championship, we may have overlooked this fact for a little while but the truth inevitably became obvious once more.
Sorry to disagree Ryan, I think that your usage of the word hueristic is in this instance, incorrect.
I am not going to enter into the semantics of the definition if the word, because there are more than one. In the context if a league table hueristics do not apply in the sensw that you are not approaching a problem from different angles but applying a specifird method of reaching an impirical standard of comparability - or, er a league table.
I am not going to enter into the semantics of the definition if the word, because there are more than one. In the context if a league table hueristics do not apply in the sensw that you are not approaching a problem from different angles but applying a specifird method of reaching an impirical standard of comparability - or, er a league table.
I don't think I did use it wrong. I think I meant are a non-algorithmic but formal method of calculating a manger's score.
I don't mean Robbie Savage when I say experts, I mean bookmakers. The league table scores should be multiplied by some value independently defined for each manager based on the team's position in the league, funding and so on. I was suggesting a better comparison be built upon the existing league table. Not by me though.
I don't mean Robbie Savage when I say experts, I mean bookmakers. The league table scores should be multiplied by some value independently defined for each manager based on the team's position in the league, funding and so on. I was suggesting a better comparison be built upon the existing league table. Not by me though.
Well proof is in the pudding - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21372441
proves Pulis is ****e!
proves Pulis is ****e!
Ha ha nicky and ryan use big words and then u look at mine and waddos posts