Albrighton Going to Leicester

[paul_e]

Erm where were we when GED went ill. The last 9 or so games when we got good were down to GMac not GED.
GED don't get the credit for those games.

GED missed the last 5 games, not 9.

That was 2 wins, 2 draws and 1 defeat.  so 8 points in 5 games, so 1.6 points per game.

From the start of Janaury until the west ham game on 16/4 (a few days before he was hospitalised) we won 5, drew 5 and lost 4, so 1.43 points per game.

As that was his first window and we've already covered the fact that he had half the first team squad missing for 4 weeks in the autumn, and that the argument is that we were improving under him, that's a fair period to judge on.

Following the West Ham game we were 10th in the league.

We finished 9th.

Who was rewriting history again?

[silhillvilla]

Erm where were we when GED went ill. The last 9 or so games when we got good were down to GMac not GED.
GED don't get the credit for those games.

Wasn't he still picking the team?

What from ICU, highly unlikely

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/aston-villa/8495333/Aston-Villa-manager-Gerard-Houllier-still-involved-in-team-affairs-says-caretaker-Gary-McAllister.html

Well he had to say that.

[Monty]

Erm where were we when GED went ill. The last 9 or so games when we got good were down to GMac not GED.
GED don't get the credit for those games.

Wasn't he still picking the team?

What from ICU, highly unlikely

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/aston-villa/8495333/Aston-Villa-manager-Gerard-Houllier-still-involved-in-team-affairs-says-caretaker-Gary-McAllister.html

Well he had to say that.

No, he didn't. In any case, I'd take some time to answer Paul_E's points, seeing as they've totally thrashed you on issues of fact.

[silhillvilla]

Paul e , thanks for that. Confirms my point. Post GED we saw a +10% swing in fortunes just by getting this outdated manager out of the day to day operational side.

[Monty]

I think we can say that 10% difference over a 5 game period is well within the margin for error.

You think Houllier was outdated, yet say McLeish was better. If you really think that, you should change your calendar, since your idea of dates seems miles off.

[silhillvilla]

I think we can say that 10% difference over a 5 game period is well within the margin for error.

You think Houllier was outdated, yet say McLeish was better. If you really think that, you should change your calendar.

Better in the sense of grinding out results .
Also the best performance of the GED era was the 3-0 home win v west ham. A game that was under the guidance of KMac

[Monty]

I think we can say that 10% difference over a 5 game period is well within the margin for error.

You think Houllier was outdated, yet say McLeish was better. If you really think that, you should change your calendar.

Better in the sense of grinding out results .
Also the best performance of the GED era was the 3-0 home win v west ham. A game that was under the guidance of KMac

Eck was worse at 'grinding out results', and the evidence for this is that he got worse results. I honestly can't fathom where you're getting this bizarre view of history from. Certainly not facts.

[Toronto Villa]

in the space of couple of months we've had McLeish vs Mourinho and McLeish vs Houllier. Fuck me.

Just say no to drugs, kids.

[paul_e]

I think we can say that 10% difference over a 5 game period is well within the margin for error.

You think Houllier was outdated, yet say McLeish was better. If you really think that, you should change your calendar, since your idea of dates seems miles off.

10% is clearly perfectly in the expected margin for error.

The other thing is, 1 defeat and 1 draw were on 2/1/11 and 5/1/11 before we actually did any transfers, so both played with effectively MONs team (and Pires).  Then we had the draw with blues on the 16th before buying Bent on the 18th.

1 of th ecomments above (from Paulie I think) pointed out that 1 of the big issues in the first half of that season was that we didn't have a goalscorer.  After we bought one Houllier has a record of 5/3/4 so 1.5 points per game.

Prior to buying Bent we were poor, no one disputes that, our record (under Houllier) was 3/6/8.  So effectively in one window he turned us from a team that would've been relegated into a team that would've qualified for europe.

In contrast Mcleish took a side that had been playing well and made us progressively worse.  The last 2months of that season were even worse than the one we've just been through (TSM got 5 points from the last 10games, Lambert got 7 last year).

There are a number of factors outside all this but it is irrefutable that Houllier had us going in the right direction.

[Ger Regan]

What is tsm's points per game?

[Ger Regan]

Never mind, just checked it. Silhill, you're talking bollocks and have admirable nerve to be claiming others are rewriting history. It's highly entertaining though!

[silhillvilla]

What is tsm's points per game?

If my math is correct 1.0789 points per game
GED harder to calc as missed start and end of that season

[Ger Regan]

It's 1 point per game.

Even if you take west ham as the last game of his reign (which is nonsense in my opinion), he was in charge for 28 games, garnering 33 points, which is 1.18 points per game.

[paul_e]

It's very easy - there's a website

Aside from that your math is awful, 38 points from 38 games should be incredibly simple.

GED started on 22/9 and his last game in charge was 16/4.  That means 28 games at 1.18 points per game, so exactly 18% up on TSM.  When you add to that the fact that TSM had a whole summer to work with the players and make signings and GED didn't and that TSM lost a couple of important players it's all about even.

[kippaxvilla2]

Let's not worry that Brian should have said Bradford. The statement is valid.

This is a club that got relegated to the third division in living memory for many of us, that were regularly humiliated by Small Heath a few years ago, suffered a record defeat at Chelsea etc.

There have always been bad results, and there always will be, and they are always met with 'lowest point ever' type comments. 

I remember saying it about the 0-5 Simod Cup defeat at home to Bradford.