JHT SACKED

[Robbie BB]

And ex Liverpool assistant Ljinders has appeared at the top of the betting. Having interview in the next few days.

Lijnders has had two managerial appointments (NEC and Salzburg), neither of which lasted more than half a season. The general opinion seems to be that he is a born second-in-command, not suited to be the top man. More than a bit like Pelach from the sound of it. He was in charge of RB Salzburg when Amankwah Forson was sold to us.

 

[Hairy Mary Quite Canary]

If Knapper still doesn't know who the next head coach is going to be, what was the point of sacking Thorup with 2 games to go, given there was nothing to play for? Especially if there was no plan to give Wilshere the role FT?

Presumably the plan for next season (25-26) is promotion; either automatically or play-offs. Therefore should the club be outside the top 6, or >3 points away from, there should be no quarms in calling for the sacking of the next manager, say after 15 matches (33% of the season)?

I'm not expecting miracles. The only stat that will matter next season is keeping the unbeaten run against 1p5wich going

 

[SuffolkCanary]

Lijnders has had two managerial appointments (NEC and Salzburg), neither of which lasted more than half a season. The general opinion seems to be that he is a born second-in-command, not suited to be the top man. More than a bit like Pelach from the sound of it. He was in charge of RB Salzburg when Amankwah Forson was sold to us.

I believe his time in charge of NEC was some time ago, over 5 years ago.
He took charge of a Salzburg side that had sold several of their stars such as Sesko, that being said they are one of the top sides in the league and he should have done better.

 

[SuffolkCanary]

Sounds very familiar…

https://youtube.com/shorts/Xmjir5Svdaw?si=X4Es1KUbEQmRDrM4

 

[Robbie BB]

You can want to play any style you like, but you rely on your SD to supply you with players capable of effectively implementing it. And if he doesn't, and you fail, you will carry the can.

 

[SuffolkCanary]

I know this doesn't take into account the nuances of the teams that we faced in each month or the injuries that we were carrying each month but I put together the below as I was interested to see what the month by month breakdown looked like...not too pretty

You must log in or register to see images

 

[RiverEndRick]

Thanks for that Suffolk.

 

[Canary Rob]

I know this doesn't take into account the nuances of the teams that we faced in each month or the injuries that we were carrying each month but I put together the below as I was interested to see what the month by month breakdown looked like...not too pretty

You must log in or register to see images

If you had the ability to add a column like “number of players missing per match”, and then the average for that month, you could somewhat adjust for that.

For instance, I’d be willing to bet that the bad November and December points percentages aligned with long injury lists on average. Where as the bad points percentages in March and April didn’t, as JHT’s performance teetered.

Interestingly, if you take JHT’s points haul up to February and average the percentage (46%) and assume he didn’t have the bad run, then points haul for the season would have been 64 - so still not enough for playoffs

 

[SuffolkCanary]

If you had the ability to add a column like “number of players missing per match”, and then the average for that month, you could somewhat adjust for that.

For instance, I’d be willing to bet that the bad November and December points percentages aligned with long injury lists on average. Where as the bad points percentages in March and April didn’t, as JHT’s performance teetered.

Interestingly, if you take JHT’s points haul up to February and average the percentage (46%) and assume he didn’t have the bad run, then points haul for the season would have been 64 - so still not enough for playoffs

Yeah I was thinking about ways of doing that but then there is missing context of the importance of those players missing.

I know it wasn’t really spoken about but we were still carrying a lot of injuries in April. Throughout April for example we were missing Chrisene, Mahovo, Doyle - all of our left back options. Gunn missed a few games, Fisher was out for a few, Forsyth, Jurasek, Crnac were all out and Gibbs only made his come back towards the end. That’s 9 players missing for most of the month.

 

[Robbie BB]

.............. there is missing context of the importance of those players missing ...........

Indeed. Not just individually, but in combination. Chrisene being unavailable is one thing, but if both Chrisene and Mahovo are unavailable, that's a whole different matter, because it likely means moving a (first choice) player from elsewhere (e.g. Fisher from RB, McLean from DM, or Doyle from CB). And that individual being moved has its own knock on effect, e.g. if Doyle is preferred at LB in the absence of Chrisene and Mahovo, Córdoba is the obvious replacement .............. Here are some illustrative numbers from a post by Baker on the Pink 'Un forum:

Starting XI with either Chrisene or Mahovo at LB
P18 W8 D6 L4 GA per game 1.06 (season average 1.48) Points per game 1.67 (season average 1.24)

As Baker points out, if you extrapolate that 1.67 ppg over 46 games, the total is 77 points, enough to have pipped Sunderland to 4th place. He also points out that Chrisene's season-ending injury was suffered in the away match against Blackburn (game 35), after which results took a significant turn for the worse.

 

[Canary Rob]

“JHT got fired because Chrisene got injured”



Yeah, no I don’t buy it.

Correlation? Coincidence…

 

[RiverEndRick]

I don't buy it either.

On WhoScored, Doyle had a 7.01 rating when starting at RB (6.73 @ CB), whereas Mahovo's was 6.72 and Crisene 6.51. Both Mahovo and Crisene would have had lower ratings during those final 10 games that earned only 6 points. That was down to tactics and deteriorating team performances.

 

[SuffolkCanary]

I personally thought we were a weaker side with Doyle at left back, despite his higher rating which could be attributed more to his attacking output - assists. Defensively I felt that he left us exposed, Chrisene and Mahovo gave us a better shape and balance

 

[Robbie BB]

More numbers from the poster Baker on the Pink'Un forum:

Doyle at LB

P16 W3 D5 L8 GA per game 1.69 0.21 above the season average

7 of Doyle’s 16 starts at LB were games in which Long played in goal. Taking only the other 9 games in which Doyle played at LB:

P9 W3 D2 L4 GA per game 1.44 0.38 above the figure for Chrisene/Mahovo

To which we can add the points per game figures, which Baker doesn't mention:

Doyle at LB including 7 games with Long in goal 0.88 ppg
Doyle at LB excluding the 7 games with Long in goal 1.22 ppg*

So, discounting the games with Long in goal, when Doyle was at LB, ppg were marginally below the season average of 1.24, but 0.45 below the ppg with either Chrisene or Mahovo at LB.

*Though Baker doesn't mention it, one of Doyle's 9 games at LB in which Long didn't play in goal was Sheffield Wednesday (H), which we lost 2:3. For that game, Reyes was in goal. Though Reyes, as I recall, wasn't deemed personally responsible for any of the goals conceded, excluding that game too naturally alters the GA and ppg figures. In the case of ppg"

P8 W3 D2 L3 Points per game 1.37, i.e. 0.13 above the season average, but still 0.3 ppg below the figure when Chrisene or Mahovo played.

 

[Canary Rob]

There are some errors in the numbers there as it doesn’t make sense

Not least because Mahovo’s ppg in the Championship was 1.38 and Chrisene’s was 1.46, so nowhere near 0.45 above Doyle (with or without the arbitrary exclusions)

And I’m not sure what the point being made is, but I’m pretty sceptical of taking stats and then excluding a host of things irrationally

Eg if we take Doyle’s matches and then exclude the ones we lost or drew, he’s got 3ppg

 

[Robbie BB]

There are some errors in the numbers there as it doesn’t make sense
Not least because Mahovo’s ppg in the Championship was 1.38 and Chrisene’s was 1.46, so nowhere near 0.45 above Doyle (with or without the arbitrary exclusions)

Baker's figures for matches in which either Chrisene or Mahovo started are P18 W8 D6 L4 = 30 points from 18 matches = 1.66 ppg. 18 starts between them is correct; where is the error? Where do the figures 1.38 and 1.46 ppg for Mahovo and Chrisene come from?

 

[Golden Eadie 2]

Baker's figures for matches in which either Chrisene or Mahovo started are P18 W8 D6 L4 = 30 points from 18 matches = 1.66 ppg. 18 starts between them is correct; where is the error? Where do the figures 1.38 and 1.46 ppg for Mahovo and Chrisene come from?

Who believes that the Pink Uns Baker is actually RobbieBBaker?

 

[Jedi-Canary]

Looks like JHT is set to become Manager of Championship side QPR

Thorup set for new Championship role - reports
https://www.pinkun.com/sport/norwic...ff-thorup-set-new-championship-job---reports/

 

[Canary Rob]

Baker's figures for matches in which either Chrisene or Mahovo started are P18 W8 D6 L4 = 30 points from 18 matches = 1.66 ppg. 18 starts between them is correct; where is the error? Where do the figures 1.38 and 1.46 ppg for Mahovo and Chrisene come from?

From here:
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/ben...ils/spieler/670846/wettbewerb/GB2/saison/2024
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/lucien-mahovo/leistungsdaten/spieler/1052890

Also your posts didn’t specify “starts”, which arbitrarily excludes where they came on as subs.

And it’s difficult to work out, but the stats from where either one or the other played the majority look more like 1.58 ppg to me, as I make it 30 points from 19 games - but you must be excluding the game at QPR where Chrisene played half the match (the half we conceded 2/3 goals in)

But it’s a very arbitrary choice of figures and so as I said I’m not sure what the point is

 

[Robbie BB]

Also your posts didn’t specify “starts”...........

[HASHTAG]#130[/HASHTAG] above. Quote "Starting XI with either Chrisene or Mahovo at LB"

....... but you must be excluding the game at QPR ...........

I'm not excluding anything. [HASHTAG]#130[/HASHTAG] above: quote: "Here are some illustrative numbers from a post by Baker on the Pink 'Un forum".

As for "the point", I can't answer for Baker. My posts [HASHTAG]#130[/HASHTAG] and [HASHTAG]#134[/HASHTAG] are in response to Suffolk's posts [HASHTAG]#126[/HASHTAG] and [HASHTAG]#129[/HASHTAG]. IMO "nuance" seriously underplays the determinant role of the availability burden on performances throughout the season. Also the extent to which the composition of the squad exacerbated the burden.