Ollie's Record at Leicester vs. Record at Plymouth

[Leicester's 12th Man]

I'll post the answer in 3 hours but for now I'll leave you to have a good old discussion.

The question is this?

What do you think of his win rate at Plymouth vs. his win rate at City and why did Plymouth fans think he did such a good job when you compare the two and find they are very very similar?

Answers on a post card

[Benji]

i don't understand

[Thracian]

I'll post the answer in 3 hours but for now I'll leave you to have a good old discussion.

The question is this?

What do you think of his win rate at Plymouth vs. his win rate at Plymouth and why did Plymouth fans think he did such a good job when you compare the two?

Answers on a post card

His mediocrity was fairly consistent:

A win ratio of 29.43% at Plymouth and 29.03% at Leicester.

Bloody good work if you can get it.

As for the penalties for failure ....

[Matt]

I don't understand the question either but i've just had a look at Wikipedia and think I may have worked out what he means.

At Plymouth Holloway's win rate was 29.43%

At Leicester Holloway's win rate was 29.03%

Almost the same, Why do Plymouth fans think Holloway was so good when he managed there. I think that is the point and question he is asking, but not sure.

If the is the question, Holloway had almost double the amount of games there and his Plymouth record does look a hell of alot better;

Plymouth:

Played: 71

Won: 28

Lost: 20

Drew: 23

Leicester:

Played: 32

Won: 9

Lost: 15

Drew: 8

It's all statistics, all bullshit, Just move on.

[Webbo]

If the is the question, Holloway had almost double the amount of games there and his Plymouth record does look a hell of alot better;

Plymouth:

Played: 71

Leicester:

Played: 32

Almost?

[Matt]

Almost?

I'd only just woke up when I posted that.

[Jordan]

What kind of math did you use to calculate "win rate"?

At Plymouth, Ollie won 39.43% of the games. He took 50.23% of the points available. (edit: That's a pace of 69 points per season, which should finish outside--but not far outside--the playoffs).

At Leicester, Ollie won 28.13% of the games. He took 36.46% of the points available. (edit: That's a pace for 50 points per season, which is often poor enough for relegation).

Every statistic imaginable shows just how much worse Leicester were under Ollie than Plymouth were.

[Matt]

What kind of math did you use to calculate "win rate"?

At Plymouth, Ollie won 39.43% of the games. He took 50.23% of the points available.

At Leicester, Ollie won 28.13% of the games. He took 36.46% of the points available.

Every statistic imaginable shows just how much worse Leicester were under Ollie than Plymouth were.

I looked at Wiki...Fair enough not the most relieable source, anyone can put anything but it's the only place I knew with the statistics (Right or wrong) and I couldn't be bothered to work it out myself.

[davieG]

Who cares?

[filbertway]

I don't understand the question either but i've just had a look at Wikipedia and think I may have worked out what he means.

At Plymouth Holloway's win rate was 39.43%

At Leicester Holloway's win rate was 29.03%

Almost the same, Why do Plymouth fans think Holloway was so good when he managed there. I think that is the point and question he is asking, but not sure.

If the is the question, Holloway had almost double the amount of games there and his Plymouth record does look a hell of alot better;

Plymouth:

Played: 71

Won: 28

Lost: 20

Drew: 23

Leicester:

Played: 32

Won: 9

Lost: 15

Drew: 8

It's all statistics, all bullshit, Just move on.

[Father Ted]

I don't understand the question either but i've just had a look at Wikipedia and think I may have worked out what he means.

At Plymouth Holloway's win rate was 29.43%

At Leicester Holloway's win rate was 29.03%

Almost the same, Why do Plymouth fans think Holloway was so good when he managed there. I think that is the point and question he is asking, but not sure.

If the is the question, Holloway had almost double the amount of games there and his Plymouth record does look a hell of alot better;

Plymouth:

Played: 71

Won: 28

Lost: 20

Drew: 23

Leicester:

Played: 32

Won: 9

Lost: 15

Drew: 8

It's all statistics, all bullshit, Just move on.

As if he 'meant' to get us relegated

[Lillehamring]

i think it is the percentage of losing games that is the real difference.

[Leicester's 12th Man]

It's a shame he never put two wins together in a row with the club because his

winning percentage was nearly the same as when he was at Plymouth - answer

If he could have got a few more draws then we would have been safe.

IMO his signings let him down but at the end of the day its immaterial as Milan has spoken and Ollie has gone.

[Jordan]

It's a shame he never put two wins together in a row with the club because his

winning percentage was nearly the same as when he was at Plymouth - answer

I thought I had explained clearly that his winning percentage was much worse in Leicester.

If he could have got a few more draws then we would have been safe.

Just one would have done the trick.