McLaren within 24hrs

[acricketer]

tenor.gif?itemid=9737909.gif

[James1979]

Stick this in your pipe and smoke it........................................


QPR results when Steve McClaren was coaching with us in 2013.
Won 2-1 v Sheff Wed (H)
Drew 1-1 v Huddersfield (A)
Won 1-0 v Ipswich (H)
Won 1-0 v Bolton (A)
Won 1-0 v Leeds (A)
Won 1-0 v Birmingham (H)
Drew 0-0 v Brighton (H)
Won 1-0 v Yeovil Town (A)
Won 2-0 v Boro (H)#QPR

And not a hill of hell in sight

[qprjeff1882]

I'd take that all day long again

[Hitman34]

Why don't we look at some facts to drive our opinions?

http://www.managerstats.co.uk/managers/steve-mcclaren/

Not pretty reading I'm afraid. Unless I am mistaken, the graph looks fairly depressing and poses the question as to why The Board would actually want to appoint a man with that record? With every successive managerial post, without exception, his win rate has got worse.

Do you think we should print this off and post it snail mail to The Board as part of their 'due diligence'?

We've seen this so many times with managers and players. Either they or The Board believe it will be better this time at QPR. In this instance, history suggests it will probably not be so.

First post on here, btw, but posted plenty on Not606.

Stick this in your pipe and smoke it........................................


QPR results when Steve McClaren was coaching with us in 2013.
Won 2-1 v Sheff Wed (H)
Drew 1-1 v Huddersfield (A)
Won 1-0 v Ipswich (H)
Won 1-0 v Bolton (A)
Won 1-0 v Leeds (A)
Won 1-0 v Birmingham (H)
Drew 0-0 v Brighton (H)
Won 1-0 v Yeovil Town (A)
Won 2-0 v Boro (H)#QPR

[James1979]

I'm afraid you're the one who needs to look at the facts. Fitsly, you have misinterpreted the data. Secondly, the data is also out of date.

You need to apply some due diligence yourself.

It might also be worth reading the OP before launching in, as this thread was more about the consortium aspect of the SMac deal.

It reminded me of this

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1BxFlmb6S6E

[hal9thou]

Why don't we look at some facts to drive our opinions?
.

I'm afraid you're the one who needs to look at the facts. Firstly, you have misinterpreted the data. Secondly, the data is also out of date.

You need to apply some due diligence yourself.

It might also be worth reading the OP before launching in, as this thread was more about the consortium aspect of the SMac deal.

[gator]

Because you liked Ollie and wanted him to stay? Therefore you’re angry and disappointed so clouds your thinking?

To be clear, I like the McClaren appointment if it happens, I thought Ollie did what he had to do with the clear out and restructuring, perhaps things will be different next season with a new manager! There has been no official appointment that I know of anyway and if we are under the same fiscal restraints and don't have a proper goal scorer or two I can't see a real huge improvement that's all!

[acricketer]

Why do I have a feeling the board are going to get this all wrong and whoever is appointed it will end in tears?

No guarantees in football. Clearly a decision to replace Ollie has been taken because he's done his job and the club is looking to push on and thinks we need more of a tactically astute coach. Could also indicate that FFP is being resolved soon and we end up in a stronger situation. Whatever the reasons, our squad should have performed consistently better this season.

[erikmata]

Why do I have a feeling the board are going to get this all wrong and whoever is appointed it will end in tears?

I don't think so. I think they are comfortable that SM will lift us from bottom half to top half, but still outside top 6. But he will be a better coach for our younger players, be stable within the team he picks and not play too many players out of position. SM was very appreciated by the club (players and board) under HR and they know what they get. His name rates is at least one notch higher than IH, ie more players interested in joining.
I would not be surprised if SM signed a three year deal, or maybe even a four year deal.

[James1979]

Why do I have a feeling the board are going to get this all wrong and whoever is appointed it will end in tears?

Because you liked Ollie and wanted him to stay? Therefore you’re angry and disappointed so clouds your thinking?

[gator]

Why do I have a feeling the board are going to get this all wrong and whoever is appointed it will end in tears?

[QPRDave]

Why don't we look at some facts to drive our opinions?

http://www.managerstats.co.uk/managers/steve-mcclaren/

Not pretty reading I'm afraid. Unless I am mistaken, the graph looks fairly depressing and poses the question as to why The Board would actually want to appoint a man with that record? With every successive managerial post, without exception, his win rate has got worse.

Do you think we should print this off and post it snail mail to The Board as part of their 'due diligence'?

We've seen this so many times with managers and players. Either they or The Board believe it will be better this time at QPR. In this instance, history suggests it will probably not be so.

First post on here, btw, but posted plenty on Not606.

And what did holloway's graph look like when we hired him?
Or alternatively JFH's?.....
How many times do we sign a player who on paper is Messi,...but turns into a mess with us, or we sign a player
who nobody wants, (hill was a good eg) and he turned out to be a legend

[West Acton]

And it’s also ranked in order of his win rate from top to bottom. So, that’s why your other statement does not make sense and of course his if ranked in order of win rate.....the next one down will be lower win rate %.

So someone registers to defend ollie and ends up drowning him

[James1979]

And it’s also ranked in order of his win rate from top to bottom. So, that’s why your other statement does not make sense and of course his if ranked in order of win rate.....the next one down will be lower win rate %.

[James1979]

Why don't we look at some facts to drive our opinions?

http://www.managerstats.co.uk/managers/steve-mcclaren/

Not pretty reading I'm afraid. Unless I am mistaken, the graph looks fairly depressing and poses the question as to why The Board would actually want to appoint a man with that record? With every successive managerial post, without exception, his win rate has got worse.

Do you think we should print this off and post it snail mail to The Board as part of their 'due diligence'?

We've seen this so many times with managers and players. Either they or The Board believe it will be better this time at QPR. In this instance, history suggests it will probably not be so.

First post on here, btw, but posted plenty on Not606.

Exactly stats should be used but you’re missing the next crucial step.....engage brain.

of the bottom 3 win %s, he managed an average of 23 games. 1 of those is managing a premiership struggle of a club at that time. We want a manger who can do a job for us in the championship. The most relevant is derby with a win rate of 54%. Holloway’s winnrate is 32.5%.