On this weeks podcast Gareth Ainsworth was interviewed. He said the QPR job would be a dream job. I looked up his record at Wycombe he has a 43% win record. If (it's a big if, I still have hope) we go down and Harry goes anyone fancy Wild Thing as our next boss? Could be fun
1st spell 24th Oct - 19th Nov 2008 .... W6 D1 L3 = 33.3% 2nd spell 9th Apr - 3rd May 2009 ...... W1 D1 L3 = 20.0% Overall ... P11 W3 D2 L6 = 27.27%
Much as i like him I think there is a bit diffrence in class and standard between us & them at the moment. Would he have the man management skillls to handle players further up the ladder. I wouldn't discount him but as yet he needs another year or maybe 2 to gain a bit more experience. I did post a while back that we need to get in one of our own ala Holloway, Parker, sir Les etc that has a connection with the club and knows what it means to be a QPR player. Maybe GA could be that person? We are in freefall at the moment and I honestly dont see us doing much in the NPC with this squad. Think those believing we'll come straight back up may need a reality check. So i guess, see what happens next season then if we fail misserably, give him a go. At least we'd know he was doing what he thought best for our club. just my personal opinion.
Its better than I thought it was. 11 points from 11 games. Ever so slightly higher than Harry's at the mo. I don't like Stats though to be honest. They're pretty meaningless as far as I'm concerned. The only reason I asked the question was because his current win % was mentioned in the OP. Gazza is a great lad but he's still a bit raw. We have a Manager and if he leaves we'll have time a plenty to get a new one.
I agree with the stats being meaningless mate. The only evidence to go by, is what your eyes witness on the pitch.
But they do Stamford. In fact they lie time and time again! Take the win percentage for example. Manager (A) could have a win percentage of 50 and Manager (B) could have one of 25. According to those stats Manager (A) is twice as good as (B). However, what if I was to tell you that (A) managed in the Conference north and had the only squad in the division that was full-time professional. I then tell you that (B) took over a Premier League side that was rock-bottom, dead and buried with the cheapest assembled squad in the Prem. All of a sudden those stats don't seem to tell the whole truth do they? Alls I'm saying Stamford is, I don't trust them - never have, never will. AVB said the very same thing about them yesterday. I think the word he used was "useless".
I absolutely hate stats with a passion...Lies, Damn Lies & all that... and PLEASE GOD, dont let Flyer read this !!
I think it would be a very positive step to have a coach who knows exactly what it means to play for Rangers. I don't know if GA is anywhere near ready yet, but I like the premise.
All you're saying, Swords, and quite rightly, is that statistics have to be used advisedly and within context. Awarding three points for a win, one for a draw and the use of goal difference is the practical application of statistics in order to determine the winners, losers and also-rans in a football league season. One might argue - if one was quite insane - that additional points should be awarded for disciplinary performance and the team's entertainment value whilst on the pitch.... we'd still be adrift at the foot of the table. Wibble, wibble, p'tang.
