Monk Posted 23 January 2007 Author Share Posted 23 January 2007 Factual and thought-provoking. More please. I shall... just not tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 23 January 2007 Share Posted 23 January 2007 It has been noted and I can see no merit in having totally unnecessary in favour of a manager who to me presents no evidence that he would be likely to do a better job. There is no point in change for its own sake. Kelly has got a steady record, knows the club and knows the players. If an exciting alternative emerged and Kelly was showing no signs of making progress then fine, but pointless upheaval could backfire more easily than it might be successful. is it me Thrac or are you going soft? first slagging off hammond, then saying RK's not so bad. next you'll be wanting to scrap the youth team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daggers Posted 23 January 2007 Share Posted 23 January 2007 Rob Kelly February 13, 2006 Present 48 18 13 17 1.40 Jock Wallace May 24, 1978 July 12, 1982 169 62 48 59 1.38 I am amazed, shocked and just a slightly little bit upset at the order of things. Reality is a bitch. Top statwork Monk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynny Posted 23 January 2007 Share Posted 23 January 2007 Kelly actually took over more than a fortnight before the date you gave, and must have won a couple of games in that period? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 23 January 2007 Share Posted 23 January 2007 I am amazed, shocked and just a slightly little bit upset at the order of things. Reality is a bitch. Top statwork Monk As the once great Meatloaf once postulated, "you took the words right out of my mouth".PS. I lied. PPS. Bet you can't guess which bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicfox Posted 23 January 2007 Share Posted 23 January 2007 Surely these stats show nothing more than numbers ? As its based on total games played as managers, Kelly could lose the next 30 and be right down the bottom or get sacked now and stay were he is, that does'nt mean he's a better manager than Craig Levein who managed 72 games as Levein's rating might have been that same as Kellys after 48 games, also it does'nt take into account the quality of football. Nice one though Monk, if you understand the above your a better man than me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daggers Posted 23 January 2007 Share Posted 23 January 2007 Surely these stats show nothing more than numbers ? Post of the Year. Factamundo. End of-io. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez of Mahrez Posted 23 January 2007 Share Posted 23 January 2007 Surely these stats show nothing more than numbers ? As its based on total games played as managers, Kelly could lose the next 30 and be right down the bottom or get sacked now and stay were he is, that does'nt mean he's a better manager than Craig Levein who managed 72 games as Levein's rating might have been that same as Kellys after 48 games, also it does'nt take into account the quality of football. Nice one though Monk, if you understand the above your a better man than me. I don't really see that logic. Kelly won't lose the next 30. He wouldn't get more than about 7 or 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
step Posted 23 January 2007 Share Posted 23 January 2007 I think Harry Bassett took over a very fuqed up squad... I think shithead bassett fuqued up the squad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
step Posted 23 January 2007 Share Posted 23 January 2007 Surely these stats show nothing more than numbers ? As its based on total games played as managers, Kelly could lose the next 30 and be right down the bottom or get sacked now and stay were he is, that does'nt mean he's a better manager than Craig Levein who managed 72 games as Levein's rating might have been that same as Kellys after 48 games, also it does'nt take into account the quality of football. Nice one though Monk, if you understand the above your a better man than me. Good point all the other managers stats include the period prior to their sacking which is inevitably poor. A better comparison can be done after RK screws up and has had the sack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 23 January 2007 Share Posted 23 January 2007 is it me Thrac or are you going soft? first slagging off hammond, then saying RK's not so bad. next you'll be wanting to scrap the youth team. Believe it or not I wanted his managership confirmed slightly earlier than it was and wrote on here a couple of weeks ago about the number of quality managerial candidates diminishing and seeing no sense in changing Kelly for the sake of it. I even sent Kelly an email saying I hoped he kept his job if the new set-up materialises. Because he's done okay overall and there are just a few flickerings of encouragement. Doesn't mean he doesn't frustrate the hell out of me over so many things to do with coaching, tactics, selections, communication and a host of other things. Nor does it mean I wouldn't like us to have a genuinely exciting, innovative and imaginative manager who could lift the club's profile in every way. But where are such people who are willing to work at this level and for the price we're likely to pay? But being critical of Kelly doesn't mean for a minute that I'm against him. It's when criticism is not worth the effort you want to worry. As for Hammond I didn't slag him off. You mistook my believing he was our best option at the time for thinking I wouldn't want better. I would always look to improve every postiion. I don't rest easy on anyone. At least seven-and-a-half good games out of 10 would be my yardstick as a manager - for my captain, my brother, my son, my personal signings or anyone else, including me. It's the level needed for success. Anything less and I'd want to know why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monk Posted 23 January 2007 Author Share Posted 23 January 2007 Surely these stats show nothing more than numbers ? Correct, Stats are just numbers!! All I have done here is added in the points per game stat which I worked out. I am not saying that these stats represent anything, and the criticisms above are correct - If I can get hold of extra info I will try to enrich what I have already done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teblin Posted 23 January 2007 Share Posted 23 January 2007 I wonder if kelly is the one who has brought in the least amount of players??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scow Posted 23 January 2007 Share Posted 23 January 2007 I wonder if kelly is the one who has brought in the least amount of players??? Irrespective of that, he's already made a profit on his worst signing [debatable] Impressive stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geo V Posted 23 January 2007 Share Posted 23 January 2007 How you can gauge the performance of a manager like Kelly who has no money to spend to one like Peter Taylor who had a few quid about is impossible. Fans know exactly what the input is of individuals whether its managers ir even players. i wouldnt need Opta to tell me that Josh Low was shite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BartonFox Posted 24 January 2007 Share Posted 24 January 2007 Big Up the apologists Four points off relegation and playing the worst football for a generation tells me exactly how successful Rob Kelly is. At least he won't be around too much longer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geo V Posted 24 January 2007 Share Posted 24 January 2007 Big Up the apologists Four points off relegation and playing the worst football for a generation tells me exactly how successful Rob Kelly is. At least he won't be around too much longer If MM doesnt come in soon RK will be there for years mate! BTW its a little harsh on a bloke who hasnt got any money to even get a loan player in! His exploits last season were enough to give him a chance as without him we may well have been plying our trade with F**est. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BartonFox Posted 24 January 2007 Share Posted 24 January 2007 If MM doesnt come in soon RK will be there for years mate! BTW its a little harsh on a bloke who hasnt got any money to even get a loan player in! His exploits last season were enough to give him a chance as without him we may well have been plying our trade with F**est. Gordon Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Flair Posted 24 January 2007 Share Posted 24 January 2007 I've not read any of this thread other than Monk's first post. The fact we are 18th in the table shows that Rob Kelly is nothing more than a run of the mill manager. I'm more interested in his points per game ratio this season, which probably isn't much higher than Craig Levein's from this time last season and that got the sweaty the boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 24 January 2007 Share Posted 24 January 2007 I've not read any of this thread other than Monk's first post. The fact we are 18th in the table shows that Rob Kelly is nothing more than a run of the mill manager. I'm more interested in his points per game ratio this season, which probably isn't much higher than Craig Levein's from this time last season and that could the sweaty the boot. My boot has been sweaty or a while, waiting for MM do the deed!! But I have a bad feeling MM will give RK time possibly till the end of the season!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Hero Posted 24 January 2007 Share Posted 24 January 2007 Monk is amazing. Long live Monk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooper Steve's shin Posted 24 January 2007 Share Posted 24 January 2007 Taking into account the leagues that each manager achieved their points in, it's pretty clear that MON (as if we didn't already know) did an amazing job - to get a ratio that high while most of his time was spent in the Premiership (and with relatively no money) is impressive. Little was a good manager for us, but his stats are obviously helped by the seasons spent in the lower division (when we were obviously doing well by getting into the play-offs). As I would expect, it shows Rob Kelly is doing OK but nothing spectacular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynny Posted 24 January 2007 Share Posted 24 January 2007 I even sent Kelly an email saying I hoped he kept his job if the new set-up materialises. Because he's done okay overall and there are just a few flickerings of encouragement. Did you get a reply? Did you mention Dodds? I'm not taking the piss, I'm genuinely interested if you inquired about him/other prospects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smudge Posted 24 January 2007 Share Posted 24 January 2007 2005/6 20 10 4 6 ppg 1.70 2006/7 28 8 9 11 ppg 1.18 (league results only) This is the trend and highlights our frustrations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 24 January 2007 Share Posted 24 January 2007 Did you get a reply? Did you mention Dodds? I'm not taking the piss, I'm genuinely interested if you inquired about him/other prospects. I did get a reply from the club and didn't really expect one from Kelly. It didn't seem like the right time to ask about Dodds or anyone else. Not sure he's likely to say much to say on the subject that would be new to me anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.