by NathStPaul » 10 May 2022 12:49
by Stranded » 10 May 2022 13:19
Snowball Like it or lump it. Pauno had a season where RFC finished 7th
This season he was officially in charge for 32 games, altho' I would award him the win v Birmingham
Extrapolating the Pauno points over 33 games you get:
46 49 Points 57-88 -31 GD Pauno (33) 1.07 ppg
If you give the Birmingham win to Ince Pauno would be
46 42 points 56-89 -33 Pauno (32) 0.91 ppg
INCE's record including the Birmingham "gift" is
46 49 points 46-77 -31 INCE (14) 1.07 ppg
But without it, INCE looks very poor
46 42* 46 79 -33 INCE (13) 0.92 ppg
Putting the two managers together, in terms of actual points,
GD etc there is nothing to choose between them
IGNORING the PENALTY
46 49 Points 57-88 -31 Pauno (33) 1.07 ppg
46 49 Points 46-77 -31 INCE (14) 1.07 ppg
46 47 Points 54-87 -33 ACTUAL (Managers Combined)
46 42* 46 79 -33 INCE (13) 0.92 ppg 42.5 points)
46 42 56 89 -33 Pauno (32) 0.91 ppg
Looking at the availability of players, INCE had a far better squad than Pauno could call on.
Pauno had predicted a turn-round in February-March once players like Joao, McIntyre etc would return to fitness.
This is NOT to say that Pauno was good enough.
What I am saying is that AT BEST (if we are charitable) Ince "achieved" 1.07 ppg, the same ppg as Pauno this season
but INCE did it with better players available.
There is no actual evidence that Ince has been GOOD
by YorkshireRoyal99 » 10 May 2022 13:39
by tmesis » 10 May 2022 14:35
Snowball Like it or lump it. Pauno had a season where RFC finished 7th
This season he was officially in charge for 32 games, altho' I would award him the win v Birmingham
YorkshireRoyal99 I think we were always going to see some improvement, regardless of who was in charge. I still think we'd have survived if we kept Pauno, I just don't think it would have been as comfortable, possibly coming down to the last game.
by Nameless » 10 May 2022 14:38
StrandedSnowball Like it or lump it. Pauno had a season where RFC finished 7th
This season he was officially in charge for 32 games, altho' I would award him the win v Birmingham
Extrapolating the Pauno points over 33 games you get:
46 49 Points 57-88 -31 GD Pauno (33) 1.07 ppg
If you give the Birmingham win to Ince Pauno would be
46 42 points 56-89 -33 Pauno (32) 0.91 ppg
INCE's record including the Birmingham "gift" is
46 49 points 46-77 -31 INCE (14) 1.07 ppg
But without it, INCE looks very poor
46 42* 46 79 -33 INCE (13) 0.92 ppg
Putting the two managers together, in terms of actual points,
GD etc there is nothing to choose between them
IGNORING the PENALTY
46 49 Points 57-88 -31 Pauno (33) 1.07 ppg
46 49 Points 46-77 -31 INCE (14) 1.07 ppg
46 47 Points 54-87 -33 ACTUAL (Managers Combined)
46 42* 46 79 -33 INCE (13) 0.92 ppg 42.5 points)
46 42 56 89 -33 Pauno (32) 0.91 ppg
Looking at the availability of players, INCE had a far better squad than Pauno could call on.
Pauno had predicted a turn-round in February-March once players like Joao, McIntyre etc would return to fitness.
This is NOT to say that Pauno was good enough.
What I am saying is that AT BEST (if we are charitable) Ince "achieved" 1.07 ppg, the same ppg as Pauno this season
but INCE did it with better players available.
There is no actual evidence that Ince has been GOOD
Of course the counter to that is he lost 3 of the first four (if you give him Brum) then pushed the squad to achieve some excellent results to get over the line. Once achieved, there was a collective exhale of breath and with a squad of players either still injured or looking at their next move, the season just finished after the final whistle v Swansea.
Not happy we lost the last 3 but given the form that pulled us away before it and the situation at the club currently, I'm a bit meh about it.
by YorkshireRoyal99 » 10 May 2022 14:51
tmesisYorkshireRoyal99 I think we were always going to see some improvement, regardless of who was in charge. I still think we'd have survived if we kept Pauno, I just don't think it would have been as comfortable, possibly coming down to the last game.
I think we'd have gone down easily. The attitude among the players was terrible. They looked exhausted, and played like they expected to lose, and just wanted the season to end.
It felt like the collapse under Bullivant.
by Snowball » 10 May 2022 15:32
by Hound » 10 May 2022 15:42
by Zip » 10 May 2022 16:11
by Nameless » 10 May 2022 16:18
by Snowflake Royal » 10 May 2022 16:36
tmesisSnowball Like it or lump it. Pauno had a season where RFC finished 7th
This season he was officially in charge for 32 games, altho' I would award him the win v Birmingham
Why? .
by Hendo » 10 May 2022 17:22
Snowflake RoyaltmesisSnowball Like it or lump it. Pauno had a season where RFC finished 7th
This season he was officially in charge for 32 games, altho' I would award him the win v Birmingham
Why? .
Same as always. To manipulate the data to tell the story he wants.
by NathStPaul » 10 May 2022 17:22
Snowflake RoyaltmesisSnowball Like it or lump it. Pauno had a season where RFC finished 7th
This season he was officially in charge for 32 games, altho' I would award him the win v Birmingham
Why? .
Same as always. To manipulate the data to tell the story he wants.
by Snowflake Royal » 11 May 2022 08:25
HendoSnowflake Royaltmesis Why? .
Same as always. To manipulate the data to tell the story he wants.
Wasn't it you, Ian, who was removing Pauno's first 7 games in charge when providing win% stats? Or was that someone else.
by YorkshireRoyal99 » 11 May 2022 08:51
Snowflake RoyalHendoSnowflake Royal Same as always. To manipulate the data to tell the story he wants.
Wasn't it you, Ian, who was removing Pauno's first 7 games in charge when providing win% stats? Or was that someone else.
Dunno, probably a few people, and wasn't it 8?
There's a difference between breaking runs of games up to compare and remove anomalous runs to get an unskewed picture of a later series, or caveating where certain games may need to be considered more cautiously. And just reattributing a result to fit your story.
For example, I think we won Clowno’s last game because he was leaving and no other reason. I don't remove it from his record or attribute it to Ince because it makes him look worse though.
by Snowflake Royal » 11 May 2022 09:33
YorkshireRoyal99Snowflake RoyalHendo
Wasn't it you, Ian, who was removing Pauno's first 7 games in charge when providing win% stats? Or was that someone else.
Dunno, probably a few people, and wasn't it 8?
There's a difference between breaking runs of games up to compare and remove anomalous runs to get an unskewed picture of a later series, or caveating where certain games may need to be considered more cautiously. And just reattributing a result to fit your story.
For example, I think we won Clowno’s last game because he was leaving and no other reason. I don't remove it from his record or attribute it to Ince because it makes him look worse though.
So that's your excuse for saying Pauno's first 8 games were a testament to Bowen's work and nothing else.
by YorkshireRoyal99 » 11 May 2022 09:37
Snowflake RoyalYorkshireRoyal99Snowflake Royal Dunno, probably a few people, and wasn't it 8?
There's a difference between breaking runs of games up to compare and remove anomalous runs to get an unskewed picture of a later series, or caveating where certain games may need to be considered more cautiously. And just reattributing a result to fit your story.
For example, I think we won Clowno’s last game because he was leaving and no other reason. I don't remove it from his record or attribute it to Ince because it makes him look worse though.
So that's your excuse for saying Pauno's first 8 games were a testament to Bowen's work and nothing else.
It's not especially data driven, or even particularly certain.
But when you have a manager with a record over a large number of games that's starts very well and deteriorates very badly the further into his reign it gets, it's not rocket science to attribute the early that occurred with little lead time to change anything to the predecessor.
by Snowflake Royal » 11 May 2022 10:44
YorkshireRoyal99Snowflake RoyalYorkshireRoyal99
So that's your excuse for saying Pauno's first 8 games were a testament to Bowen's work and nothing else.
It's not especially data driven, or even particularly certain.
But when you have a manager with a record over a large number of games that's starts very well and deteriorates very badly the further into his reign it gets, it's not rocket science to attribute the early that occurred with little lead time to change anything to the predecessor.
If that's the case we'd attribute the cliche "new manager bounce" to the previous manager as well then?
In terms of the fitness element, Bowen and his team take credit for getting players up to a certain level, but you're talking about two different managers, with different play styles and likely different philosophies as well, I'm not sure you can say Bowen had that much influence on the run at the start of last season.
by YorkshireRoyal99 » 11 May 2022 10:51
Snowflake RoyalYorkshireRoyal99Snowflake Royal It's not especially data driven, or even particularly certain.
But when you have a manager with a record over a large number of games that's starts very well and deteriorates very badly the further into his reign it gets, it's not rocket science to attribute the early that occurred with little lead time to change anything to the predecessor.
If that's the case we'd attribute the cliche "new manager bounce" to the previous manager as well then?
In terms of the fitness element, Bowen and his team take credit for getting players up to a certain level, but you're talking about two different managers, with different play styles and likely different philosophies as well, I'm not sure you can say Bowen had that much influence on the run at the start of last season.
No, you obviously wouldn't, because that's a change in fortunes mid-season occurring when a change is made. Typically you have a long run of poor results followed by q short term increase.
by Millsy » 11 May 2022 11:38
Users browsing this forum: Fluff, Google [Bot], WestYorksRoyal and 590 guests