February 18, 2019, 11:06:59 PM


Which would you prefer, if they were the only choices?

Author Topic: 7th and more Allardyce or 10th and a new manager?  (Read 9170 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

February 16, 2018, 03:57:55 PM
Read 9170 times


I think the reality is that most managers could achieve better results.

But another manager and 7th or Allardyce and 13th wouldn't be much of a choice.

February 16, 2018, 04:07:38 PM
Reply #1


Earlier in the season, with good managers still in comps and our team failing in cups and league. And no window for months.

Now with our wallet, we could get nearly all except top 10-20 managers

February 19, 2018, 07:33:04 PM
Reply #2


When you qualify for europe, there is a gap in terms of required squad size. Outside of europe you can get by with a good first 11 for the season, in europe, you've got half a dozen games impacting a third of that seasons PL games.

So when you're in europe, you'll probably be short of options, and when out of europe, you have a wealth of resources.

February 19, 2018, 08:27:08 PM
Reply #3


Since Allardyce was appointed, we've had the least shots, least shots on target of anyone in league. Only West Ham have conceded more shots, and only Brighton, Newcastle and Stoke have conceded more shots on target in that time.

I'd be interested to see the x90 stats for shots. Interestingly West Ham have conceded 9 more shots, but 9 less on target, they are 20th for shots conceded, but 7th for number of shots on target conceded, but they've had 33% more shots on target in that time and convert a higher percentage of shots on target into goals.

Stats are from here. We were 9th for shots and 12th for shots on target before Allardyce arrival, we concede on average 2 more shots per game under Allardyce, 16 more in 1 less game. Shots on target per game, we conceded 5.07 before and 4.92 after.