What was Woodgate's points per game as our manager ?

Heine_Otto said:
Points per game is one measure of success.

But don't forget to factor in the squad each manager inherited.

Without even looking at the stats I'd expect Pulis to come out on top in points per game given the players he had at his disposal.
Click to expand...

...and the excuses start.

Why doesn't the league table reflect these other measures of success ?
 
Heine_Otto said:
Points per game is one measure of success.

But don't forget to factor in the squad each manager inherited.

Without even looking at the stats I'd expect Pulis to come out on top in points per game given the players he had at his disposal.
Click to expand...
Yeah fair point and Woodgate to come out worse
 
The_Lizards_Jumpers said:
Thanks, so worse than Pulis and slightly better than Woodgate - interesting.
Click to expand...
Interesting phrase "slightly better than Woodgate" when the points per game for Warnock in right in the middle of both Pulis and Woodgate, i.e he is 0.31 points per game worse than Pulis and 0.31 points per game better the Woodgate.

BTW that was just an observation, I am indifferent to whether he stays or go's as I can't see anything changing this season regardless of who is in charge.
 
Pak_Doo_Ik said:
Interesting phrase "slightly better than Woodgate" when the points per game for Warnock in right in the middle of both Pulis and Woodgate, i.e he is 0.31 points per game worse than Pulis and 0.31 points per game better the Woodgate.

BTW that was just an observation, I am indifferent to whether he stays or go's as I can't see anything changing this season regardless of who is in charge.
Click to expand...
Also if you use percentages he's closer to Pulis than he is to Woodgate.

But also agree that I'm not bothered if Warnock leaves.
 
The_Lizards_Jumpers said:
...and the excuses start.

Why doesn't the league table reflect these other measures of success ?
Click to expand...
If it's league tables you like as a measure, Pulis finished 7th in his last season, Warnock 10th in his full season, Woodgate sacked in 21st.

So, yes, worse than Pulis (quality of players available notwithstanding) and 'slightly' better than Woodgate.
 
Pulis had the bigger recorces and more expensive squad. Oh and Bamford and Traore. He should be miles ahead (despite moaning about funds bought Mcnair /Sav and Flint for a small fortune). Also 2mil loan fee for Hugill.

I think Warnock has done 'well' up until this season with the squad he had. These are now his players (or are they?).

Woodgate was god awful. I have absolutely no doubt we would have been relegated had Warnock not come in. We had 1 win in 11 and picked up 1 point from the 3 relegation six pointers against Wigan/Luton and Barnsley 😕
 
Anyone got the latest figures, or a link to find them out ?

Seems he may be getting level with Woodgate pretty soon, who the collective wisdom of the board told us was a terrible manager who was taking us down, whereas "Neil" was a genius who was a "guarantee of promotion".
 
Woodgate - W9 D14 L16, 1.08 ppg.

Warnock - W24 D13 L26, 1.35 ppg

Nowhere near Woodgate yet, but that's admittedly heavily bouyed by 2020.

We're at 1 ppg for this season, and 1.14 ppg for 2021.
 
TeaCider said:
Woodgate - W9 D14 L16, 1.08 ppg.

Warnock - W24 D13 L26, 1.35 ppg

Nowhere near Woodgate yet, but that's admittedly heavily bouyed by 2020.

We're at 1 ppg for this season, and 1.14 ppg for 2021.
Click to expand...

Not doubting your maths, but Warnock's ratio has gone up since the first post a couple of weeks ago (see second post down)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top