I realise that average points per game would be the best measure after a fashion but it also hides some possible truths. I know you are indicating that we can expect a 1.1 pt per game return when stretched over a season or more, but I was trying to take more of a look at more the general performances and what we have come to expect. Perhaps talking about the median performances rather than the mean. I think NCFC record under CH stands at W13 D16 L21 so the median is drawing with loses more likely. But again and as VC states we are using stats and generally picking and choosing what suits us. But His record prior to working with us was why I thought we had a decent manager and was happy when his appointment was made. But it is his record with us that I'm less impressed with. I highlighted previously the whole of his tenure talking about how I felt the genearal performances and results were poor and that we had had 1 purple patch that skews the results and as I called it a blip again at the end of the season with 2 wins. I don't subscribe to us being lucky to finish where we did, we earnt those points so we finished where we did. My concern is still that we will see a lot more of what I see as CH team median performance level but this season we will not achieve such an exceptional run and this will result in pi*s poor football and near relegation or relegation. If you wish to talk about statistics further, how about a process out of control or in control. This is again what I was trying to highlight. over the 50 games the great run was out of statistical control i.e. a sustained period > 7 points above the line Indicating an anomaly in the overall trend. Then also the back to back wins at the end of the season would probably represent consecutive points outside of 2 std deviations and also out of control. All other results from the frequent defeats, common draws and very rare wins would be in control. Another indicator could also be to look at form or a rolling 10, 20 or even 30 match sequence. In the instance of 10 we started with poor form when he started, that then improved culminating in the peak of 2.2 pts/game this has subsequently dropped of again to an adequet 1.0 for the last 10. 10 gives greater fluctuation but maybe the best guide of current form irrespective of opponents. Looking at 20 smooths out local phenomenon like oposition by virtue of having to play a more representative spread of the teams. this looks a little different. The 10 game unbeaten run is incorperated in the opening 20 fixtures and yields an average of 1.25pts/game this has continually slid since that period. culminating in a low of 0.8pts/game following the 10 game unbeaten run. this has picked up in the last 20 fixtures to 1.05pts/game, well stone me that was a little unexpected Hughton in! I guess it does come down to whether you believe that things are getting better and inspite of the above and other statistics I'm not convinced. I still see back to back wins and 10 game runs as an anomoly that are highly unlikely to be repeated and even if the 1.05pts/game rate would be sufficient for safety it is still a big drop from the first 20 games that yielded 1.25pts/game. so may indicate that we are not really improving. Still not the man for me. Bah!
@Longsightcanary My reference to regression to the mean was purely in the context of discussing "new manager bounce", which someone claimed was a "real" phenomenon. Research done on this shows that, in the classic situation of a run of poor results such as frequently leads to a manager being replaced, the subsequent results sequence of clubs which sack their manager is not significantly different from that of clubs which don't replace the manager. The best explanation of the "bounce" which both sets of clubs tend to experience, is regression to the mean. At no time did I apply the concept of RTM to our likely performance over the season. General Melchett asked how you would measure a club's mean performance level, to which I replied that the best measure is average points per game. I see no objection to using that as one factor in forming a judgement about our likely placing at the end of the season, but that has nothing to do with RTM. Since "new manager bounce" was mentioned in the context of our up-coming game against Palace (by someone who feared Palace would benefit from having changed managers), I also pointed out that you could expect them to "bounce" only if their sequence of results leading up to Pulis being appointed was significantly worse than their mean performance level. Their average points per game this season would not tell you anything useful about that. My point was that, if looking at the Palace squad you were to conclude that they have done pretty much exactly what informed observers would expect of them this season, you would have no reason to expect any so-called "new manager bounce".
It makes me more nervous that they have suddenly discovered how to defend! 2 clean sheets and 4 points from the last 2 games suggests that we may be in trouble! Bah!
@General Melchett Surprise noted. A few more "Stone me"s and we'll be in business. My position is actually very simple: it is simply too early to form any firm conclusion about how good a Premier League manager Chris Hughton will turn out to be, or what given time he is likely to achieve with NCFC. Suspend judgement; support the team, the management and the club. That's all.
I'm afraid I completely disagree Robbie. There has been plenty of time to form a firm conclusion on how good Hughton as a manager is and is likely to be. There is plenty of evidence too. The real problem lies in the fact that neither side is really arguing like with like as both are assessing Hughton on their own terms, selectively. You'd be better off arguing whether a dog is a sort of wolf or a sort of pet. The real point is that there is still plenty of time for Hughton to change that opinion. The only people I have no time for are those who steadfastly refuse to revise their opinion in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.
My position is relatively simple too. I want the same things you do, in so much as I would like a good manager here for a number of years to guide us to mid-table or at least safety each season, with year on year progress in personel, play and league position, though that in reality has a ceiling. I like you would have a preference that that be done with a modicum of style, though can also acknowledge that results come first. Where we deviate is the assumption that CH hasn't had sufficient time to prove himself a capable premier league manager, I don't believe that sufficient steps are being made, I think he may be taking us backwards, only time will tell, that is my feeling from seeing most of our games under CH. I just don't believe he is either tactically astute or able to motivate and get the best from players, not ours anyway. I could be wrong, he certaintly did well in the championship but so far the PL he has not got me convinced. You often quote his record with newcastle in the prem, but he was still fired from that position and whilst neither of us know the ins and outs of why MA sacked him it's unlikely that it was completely trivial. Bah!
If there is "still plenty of time for Hughton to change [your] opinion", your opinion is not what I meant by "firm"; it is no more than provisional and subject to revision. It implies that, while holding a provisional opinion (negative in your case), you nevertheless retain an open mind on the issue. By "firm" I meant irrevocable. I have no quarrel with provisional opinions subject to revision. Anyone calling for Hughton to be sacked now has irrevocably made up their mind. Some have already made up their minds that we will be relegated this season unless Hughton is replaced. These are not provisional opinions subject to revision (though events may show them to have been misguided or false). On the other hand, I know of nobody on here who has said Hughton will undoubtedly prove to be a brilliant manager and will definitely bring us success. The most I or anyone else who speaks up for him have said is that he deserves to be given time to prove himself and show what he can do. All the closed minds are in the anti-Hughton camp.
And please note, saying "all the closed minds are in the anti-Hughton camp" does not imply that everyone in the anti-Hughton camp has closed his mind. As GM has just posted, while currently in the anti-Hughton camp, he "could be wrong", i.e. he is open to having to revise his opinion.
Only fools and dead men don't change their mind. Fools won't dead men can't. Well now we are debating pointlessly. Your narrow definition of firm basically means no-one can have a firm view. That's ridiculous. My views are pretty strong. They're firm. I'm happy with them. I don't think I see them changing any time soon, ergo they're firm. But of course they're liable to change. Doesn't make them any less firm right now.
It would be ridiculous if that is what it meant. But it isn't. Plenty of people clearly have closed minds regarding Hughton, but neither you nor GM are among them (however "firm" in your sense your opinions are). And the distinction isn't pointless; discussion is fruitless with closed minds.
As someone who is quite firmly in neither camp I think that I can confidently say in relation to how good a manager we have that I have not got the foggiest.
An unassailable position. In thick fog the optimum strategy is definitely to stay on the fence since you cannot see which field the bull is in.
Allow me to expand on that.What we are engaged in is an experiment with no control.Who can possibly say what position we would be in were Lambert,Malky,Holloway or,(Allah forbid)Roeder were in charge of the team.The other consideration is that if we had actually done any better than our finishing place last season he would almost certainly have been poached a la Lambert.
I tend to agree with CT. Hughton did what he was supposed to do last season with the squad available. With a much strengthened squad, people have expected much better results. The integration of the new players has been disrupted by injuries to Rvw and Hooper who otherwise would be having a much greater impact now. The three new players who have been consistently available are Fer, Redmond and Olsson, all of whom have achieved that integration and improvement over the first 12 games. It's interesting to hear what Fer says about this: http://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/...er_can_understand_fans_frustrations_1_3047910
