I'm sorry guys, but this type of comparison is just horrendous. It's simplistic, cannot stand up to any sort of scrutiny, and is basically a pathetic excuse for journalism. They might as well have combined the league tables... And what does that prove? Nothing, because the strength of competition, budgets and team quality isn't taken into account. Truly awful, as the comments beneath it have attested. I mean, most of the "maths" in it is wrong anyway! If you really think this is any sort of comparison of managers, then why not just look at the league table? Seriously, me and you guys could probably brainstorm in ten minutes and come up with a better system for assessing managers!
