Well done Harry...

[sloth]

No I don't think so without Modric and VdV. Modric and VdV more more responsible for our free flowing football then harry. Also we were not playing great football for most of the second half of last season. We all know it was not AVB's choice to sell our top two players so try not to forget that.

Can you imagine the kinds of interviews Harry would have been giving after West Brom and Norwich. All pointed references to the chairman, nothing to do with me guv, how if he'd been allowed to bring in Michael Owen, Phil Neville and Joe Cole we'd have been good etc

 

[Bill_Oddie]

Here's the form that Harry passed on to AVB. People shouldn't be jumping on AVB's back now after 3 games. He's had an incomplete squad, has lost 2 of our best players, and is trying to implement a new system. Yet still I doubt he'll lead us on a run of form THIS bad.

Thanks for this. I stand by my rating of "Informative".

However, in the interests of fairness, I want to point out that the dates here are not strictly doing what you claim. They run from after the Newcastle game - fully obvious why that's a benchmark, rightly so - but ONLY until April 22. We still had 4 games left then. And we did okay in those.

The table that runs from the same date until the END of the season - when Harry technically "handed over" the team - actually has Spurs in 11th place. Feel free to check for yourselves. http://www.statto.com/football/stats/england/premier-league/2011-2012/custom-table

Still well lower than the 4th place we finished and shows exactly why we threw away the Champions League this season, for which Harry imo was rightly removed. But, the above table is more than a little disingenuous.

 

[ItsBoris]

Thanks for this. I stand by my rating of "Informative".

However, in the interests of fairness, I want to point out that the dates here are not strictly doing what you claim. They run from after the Newcastle game - fully obvious why that's a benchmark, rightly so - but ONLY until April 22. We still had 4 games left then. And we did okay in those.

The table that runs from the same date until the END of the season - when Harry technically "handed over" the team - actually has Spurs in 11th place. Feel free to check for yourselves. http://www.statto.com/football/stats/england/premier-league/2011-2012/custom-table

Still well lower than the 4th place we finished and shows exactly why we threw away the Champions League this season, for which Harry imo was rightly removed. But, the above table is more than a little disingenuous.

You're right in some ways, but let's take a closer look at those last 4 games. The first three were against Blackburn, Bolton, and Aston Villa. 2 of those teams got relegated, and Villa were real close to relegation (and we lost that game). I also remember a HORRIBLE performance against Bolton until we suddenly scored 3 goals in quick succession in the second half. These games certainly weren't an example of us getting out of the slump we had been in imo. The performance at Aston Villa against a really weak McLeish side was absolutely horrendous as well. Then we played Fulham at home on the last day of the season and they didn't really have anything to play for and we did, and Dempsey didn't play either.

But I mainly picked that table because it was exactly 2 months and it showed the worst of our slump from last season. That IS the form Harry passed on. A few results toward the end of the season didn't really paper over that.

 

[Coyboy]

So you just took out the games which didn't support your argument. OK.

 

[ItsBoris]

So you just took out the games which didn't support your argument. OK.

I just included those games as part of my argument in the post above. Did you read it?

 

[ItsBoris]

The argument was that the two games we won against relegation teams were not indicative of a resurgence of our form at the end of last season - "These games certainly weren't an example of us getting out of the slump we had been in imo." - so the form Harry passed on to AVB was as poor as the table suggests.

 

[Bill_Oddie]

You're right in some ways, but let's take a closer look at those last 4 games. The first three were against Blackburn, Bolton, and Aston Villa. 2 of those teams got relegated, and Villa were real close to relegation (and we lost that game). I also remember a HORRIBLE performance against Bolton until we suddenly scored 3 goals in quick succession in the second half. These games certainly weren't an example of us getting out of the slump we had been in imo. The performance at Aston Villa against a really weak McLeish side was absolutely horrendous as well. Then we played Fulham at home on the last day of the season and they didn't really have anything to play for and we did, and Dempsey didn't play either.

But I mainly picked that table because it was exactly 2 months and it showed the worst of our slump from last season. That IS the form Harry passed on. A few results toward the end of the season didn't really paper over that.

The thing about the league table, though, is that other teams also had to play these rotten lot. Take them out and you're manipulating the truth. Of course they were fodder and I also remember us being poor in the games. But you can't claim it was the form Harry passed on. You could have said, "here was our form for two months under Harry, which was barely improved by a couple of cheap wins against some shite." No one could argue with that.

 

[ItsBoris]

The thing about the league table, though, is that other teams also had to play these rotten lot. Take them out and you're manipulating the truth. Of course they were fodder and I also remember us being poor in the games. But you can't claim it was the form Harry passed on. You could have said, "here was our form for two months under Harry, which was barely improved by a couple of cheap wins against some shite." No one could argue with that.

I don't think it's manipulating the truth because as you pointed out, I didn't pluck the wins out of the middle of the other games, it is a simple fact that we accumulated 6 points in 9 games toward the end of the season.

Your last sentence is basically the correct way to put it, although I would argue that our form was not "barely improved," because you have to take the results in context. Even though we won some of them, they weren't convincing performances and it was essentially the same form as the 6 points in 9 games run. If we played those 9 games again, we would not have seen an improvement in results if we went into them playing the way we did in the games again Blackburn, Bolton, and Aston Villa. That is semantics but I think it is an important point that AVB inherited a team which had not recovered from the slump in which we got 6 points in 9 games. That's my point.

 

[kendoddsdadsdogsdead]

No I don't think so without Modric and VdV. Modric and VdV more more responsible for our free flowing football then harry. Also we were not playing great football for most of the second half of last season. We all know it was not AVB's choice to sell our top two players so try not to forget that.

so what about the first season we finished fourth? Modric out for over half the season and no VDV at all yet still played very good football. You could argue we had a weaker squad then than this current one. I thought the reason AVB was brought in was because it wasn't about individuals, more about tactics and systems.

 

[Spurs_Bear]

I don't think it's manipulating the truth because as you pointed out, I didn't pluck the wins out of the middle of the other games, it is a simple fact that we accumulated 6 points in 9 games toward the end of the season.

Your last sentence is basically the correct way to put it, although I would argue that our form was not "barely improved," because you have to take the results in context. Even though we won some of them, they weren't convincing performances and it was essentially the same form as the 6 points in 9 games run. If we played those 9 games again, we would not have seen an improvement in results if we went into them playing the way we did in the games again Blackburn, Bolton, and Aston Villa. That is semantics but I think it is an important point that AVB inherited a team which had not recovered from the slump in which we got 6 points in 9 games. That's my point.

Whichever way you look at it, you've manipulated the truth to try and show your point. We didn't lose against Villa just FYI, and you know you're clutching at straws when you try to belittle a 4-1 victory away from home.

It's quite frankly, bollocks to say that that you've showed the form that was passed on from the previous regime.

Any criticism of AVB is completely ridiculous at this stage. Levy has made a decision, AVB needs to be supported. Anything else is absurd.

Although twisting the stats to say what you want them to say in this instance is equally absurd.

 

[kendoddsdadsdogsdead]

You're right in some ways, but let's take a closer look at those last 4 games. The first three were against Blackburn, Bolton, and Aston Villa. 2 of those teams got relegated, and Villa were real close to relegation (and we lost that game). I also remember a HORRIBLE performance against Bolton until we suddenly scored 3 goals in quick succession in the second half. These games certainly weren't an example of us getting out of the slump we had been in imo. The performance at Aston Villa against a really weak McLeish side was absolutely horrendous as well. Then we played Fulham at home on the last day of the season and they didn't really have anything to play for and we did, and Dempsey didn't play either.

But I mainly picked that table because it was exactly 2 months and it showed the worst of our slump from last season. That IS the form Harry
passed on. A few results toward the end of the season didn't really paper over that.

Harry passed us on as being a top four side, simple as that. That's were we finished. One point off third. Teams have bad spells in the
season we had a bad spell towards the end the season before last but we started like a train last season after the first two games so that form didn't carry on.

Bolton was far from a horrible performance and they were fighting relegation as well. played decent first half and played some lovely football second. Villa we drew and we were camped in there half for the entire second half. why not talk about some of the games in the bad run where we were unlucky, like utd at home. You seem to have written off those games as just losses.

 

[ItsBoris]

Whichever way you look at it, you've manipulated the truth to try and show your point. We didn't lose against Villa just FYI, and you know you're clutching at straws when you try to belittle a 4-1 victory away from home.

It's quite frankly, bollocks to say that that you've showed the form that was passed on from the previous regime.

Any criticism of AVB is completely ridiculous at this stage. Levy has made a decision, AVB needs to be supported. Anything else is absurd.

Although twisting the stats to say what you want them to say in this instance is equally absurd.

Show me where I've manipulated the truth then? Earlier someone said I took out the games that didn't support my argument, which is an omission not a manipulation. The only factual thing I've got wrong is that we drew at Villa, we didn't lose. I had to check that because I remembered it as a loss but that was probably because it was a very disappointing result.

The stats actually say that Harry blew a 3rd place position from a 13 point advantage. I'm sure that Levy's decision to let Harry go was quite likely heavily influenced by these stats. So I'm not manipulating them to say what I want. They simply say what is the truth and that is all there is to it, and that's why Harry was fired.

Another stat would be that in the first half of the season, we got 42 points. In the second half, we got 27, against the exact same teams. That's a 15 point consistency gap. EVERY other top team in the league was MUCH more consistent, maybe a gap of 1 or 2 points on average (I've cited these stats for every team before so I know what they are).

So sorry, but to DENY that Harry passed on a team that was in very poor form is actually what is absurd.

Harry passed us on as being a top four side, simple as that. That's were we finished. One point off third. Teams have bad spells in the
season we had a bad spell towards the end the season before last but we started like a train last season after the first two games so that form didn't carry on.

Bolton was far from a horrible performance and they were fighting relegation as well. played decent first half and played some lovely football second. Villa we drew and we were camped in there half for the entire second half. why not talk about some of the games in the bad run where we were unlucky, like utd at home. You seem to have written off those games as just losses.

Well when you look at our form in the last 13 games, Harry passed on a team in the top 11, not the top 4.

When you look at the entire 2nd half of the season which is 1 game against every team in the league, he passed on a team in 9th place.

As for being 'unlucky,' I would refer to a Nietzsche quote I like which is "No victor believes in chance." That means if you have to rely on luck then you weren't good enough. And that people's tendency to overlook the good fortune they get when they win makes them think they are more unlucky than not. You cannot ascribe losses to "luck" imo.

 

[kendoddsdadsdogsdead]

Show me where I've manipulated the truth then? Earlier someone said I took out the games that didn't support my argument, which is an omission not a manipulation. The only factual thing I've got wrong is that we drew at Villa, we didn't lose. I had to check that because I remembered it as a loss but that was probably because it was a very disappointing result.

The stats actually say that Harry blew a 3rd place position from a 13 point advantage. I'm sure that Levy's decision to let Harry go was quite likely heavily influenced by these stats. So I'm not manipulating them to say what I want. They simply say what is the truth and that is all there
is to it, and that's why Harry was fired.

Another stat would be that in the first half of the season, we got 42 points. In the second half, we got 27, against the exact same teams. That's a 15 point consistency gap. EVERY other top team in
the league was MUCH more consistent, maybe a gap of 1 or 2 points on average (I've cited these stats for every team before so I know what they are).

So sorry, but to DENY that Harry passed on a team that was in very poor form is actually what
is absurd.



Well when you look at our form in the last 13 games, Harry passed on a team in the top 11, not
the top 4.

When you look at the entire 2nd half of the season which is 1 game against every team in the league, he passed on a team in 9th place.

As for being 'unlucky,' I would refer to a Nietzsche quote I like which is "No victor believes in chance." That means if you have to rely on luck then you weren't good enough.

Form Is not a scientific thing. It can change at the drop of a hat. we were a very good team last year, that went on poor run. Bottom line is you're judged after a whole season. Not from a certain period you chose within a season. Why should that poor run be used as an excuse for anything that might happen next. As I said, we started the first half of last season brilliantly and on great form after a poor run of form at the end the season before so where's you theory there. why not look at the last for four games and say we should be in great form now.

You were the one who started bringing performance into it and started discrediting results in the last four games, so why not look at the games we lost where we played well.

Quite frankly you're talking bollocks tbh.

 

[eddiebailey]

As for being 'unlucky,' I would refer to a Nietzsche quote I like which is "No victor believes in chance." That means if you have to rely on luck then you weren't good enough. And that people's tendency to overlook the good fortune they get when they win makes them think they are more unlucky than not. You cannot ascribe losses to "luck" imo.

I have read this several times and it still makes no sense. Are you saying that there is no such thing as bad luck when you are losing, but wins can be ascribed to good luck?

The best team does not always win in football, there are too many variables, but luck more or less evens out over the season. When we were on a winning streak we had games where the luck went with us, when we were on a losing run we had games where the luck went against us.

 

[Spurs_Bear]

Show me where I've manipulated the truth then? Earlier someone said I took out the games that didn't support my argument, which is an omission not a manipulation. The only factual thing I've got wrong is that we drew at Villa, we didn't lose. I had to check that because I remembered it as a loss but that was probably because it was a very disappointing result.

The stats actually say that Harry blew a 3rd place position from a 13 point advantage. I'm sure that Levy's decision to let Harry go was quite likely heavily influenced by these stats. So I'm not manipulating them to say what I want. They simply say what is the truth and that is all there is to it, and that's why Harry was fired.

Another stat would be that in the first half of the season, we got 42 points. In the second half, we got 27, against the exact same teams. That's a 15 point consistency gap. EVERY other top team in the league was MUCH more consistent, maybe a gap of 1 or 2 points on average (I've cited these stats for every team before so I know what they are).

So sorry, but to DENY that Harry passed on a team that was in very poor form is actually what is absurd.

The only thing as ridiculous as doing what you are doing with your cherry picked stats, is the constant "AVB has now only won one of his last 9 Premier League games" or whatever the media keep peddling out. It's completely irrelevant in the context, just as your point is. How anyone can even try to prove a team was in 'bad form' when they won 3 and drew 1 of their final 4 games is beyond belief. Chelsea fans aren't crying into their beers that they got outplayed in 2 out of the 3 games that led to them winning the biggest prize in club football.

Stats are incredibly dangerous when used in the wrong context, as you continue to prove.

You're a very good poster 'ItsBoris', and I have enjoyed your wide scope of posting for a while, but you are completely barking up the wrong tree here.

 

[ItsBoris]

I have read this several times and it still makes no sense. Are you saying that there is no such thing as bad luck when you are losing, but wins can be ascribed to good luck?

The best team does not always win in football, there are too many variables, but luck more or less evens out over the season. When we were on a winning streak we had games where the luck went with us, when we were on a losing run we had games where the luck went against us.

No I'm saying
1.) The team that wins rarely ascribes luck to their victories, they usually focus on more objective factors. When a team loses, bad luck is often cited. So the perception a lot of people get is, "we always get all the bad luck." It's more like they just don't recognize the good luck. Everyone gets both.

2.) You can be unlucky and still win. If you are good enough, it doesn't matter if luck goes against you.

So it's not an excuse, and we shouldn't be saying 'look at all the games we've lost because of bad luck,' without counterbalancing that with 'look at all the games we've won because of good luck.' When analyzing these things, it is better just to leave luck out completely.

 

[ItsBoris]

The only thing as ridiculous as doing what you are doing with your cherry picked stats, is the constant "AVB has now only won one of his last 9 Premier League games" or whatever the media keep peddling out. It's completely irrelevant in the context, just as your point is. How anyone can even try to prove a team was in 'bad form' when they won 3 and drew 1 of their final 4 games is beyond belief. Chelsea fans aren't crying into their beers that they got outplayed in 2 out of the 3 games that led to them winning the biggest prize in club football.

Stats are incredibly dangerous when used in the wrong context, as you continue to prove.

You're a very good poster 'ItsBoris', and I have enjoyed your wide scope of posting for a while, but you are completely barking up the wrong tree here.

I would say that point is ridiculous yes, saying that a man carries the form of his other team over to his current team, is pretty ridiculous.

But I'm saying I observe some of the same issues we experienced toward the end of last season in our current performances. That's perfectly reasonable - it is largely the same team and been stripped of two of our best players. The point is that it is not going to be an overnight transition. We weren't in great shape at the end of last season, I don't believe that things magically just change and so AVB needs time to get it right. My original post was to illustrate that we were not better off at the end of last season, there appeared to be revisionism going on with posters ridiculously even saying that we should bring Harry back. Some people are claiming our performances were better before, and I'm trying to show people with a short memory that it isn't the case.

I don't think that's unreasonable or barking up the wrong tree, it's completely relevant.

 

[eddiebailey]

No I'm saying
So it's not an excuse, and we shouldn't be saying 'look at all the games we've lost because of bad luck,' without counterbalancing that with 'look at all the games we've won because of good luck.' When analyzing these things, it is better just to leave luck out completely.

If you are going to rely exclusively on stats to prove your point you cannot go looking for mitigating factors when the stats do not support your argument, like you have done with regard the last four games of the season.

 

[eddiebailey]

No I'm saying
2.) You can be unlucky and still win. If you are good enough, it doesn't matter if luck goes against you.

Conversely if you are unlucky enough it does not matter how good you are.

 

[ItsBoris]

Form Is not a scientific thing. It can change at the drop of a hat. we were a very good team last year, that went on poor run. Bottom line is you're judged after a whole season. Not from a certain period you chose within a season. Why should that poor run be used as an excuse for anything that might happen next. As I said, we started the first half of last season brilliantly and on great form after a poor run of form at the end the season before so where's you theory there. why not look at the last for four games and say we should be in great form now.

You were the one who started bringing performance into it and started discrediting results in the last four games, so why not look at the games we lost where we played well.

Quite frankly you're talking bollocks tbh.

Well couple points about this post. First, nearly half a season of poor results is not an average poor run. Usually a typical run of bad form doesn't last that many games. It's a 15 point difference from the first half of the season to the 2nd, from 3rd place in the first half, to 9th place in the second. That sort of qualifies as more than a poor run imo. Imagine if we started last season like that, and half way through we were in 9th place. That would be a disaster for a squad of our talent.

But the more important point is that AVB inherited a team that wasn't exactly playing as well as it should have been. He's trying to change the system but also has to help bring confidence back into the team from what I see, and that will take time and fans should be patient.