Home Community General Football The Legacy of Pochettino – Whats The Big Deal?

Viewing 20 posts - 21 through 40 (of 90 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #54113 Score: 0
    MightyMoosMightyMoos
    Participant
    36 pts

    To many similar threads on here why not just use one, more confusing than world War 1.

    #54115 Score: 0
    LuckydestinyLuckydestiny
    Blocked
    110 pts

    You’re correlating multiple data streams and using them as a comparison. Why compare the 157 pre-Kloop games at Liverpool with the 202 pre-Poncho games at Spurs??

    Ah, Im not doing that chucky….

    I am comparing Spurs under poch, which is 202 games, to the 202 spurs games before Poch so the sets are comparable and wholy appropriate considering I am simply looking at the points earned to determine if there was a considerable uplift when Poch came in compared to what they were achieving on average before he came in. 17 points more over 202 games is peanuts, ie not really that considerable.

    Equally, I am comparing Pool with Klopp (157 games) with the same number of games prior to Klopp to see if there is any considerable uplift under him, and there was, 69 points in only 157 games. That isnt peanuts mate, far greater gain in points with 45 games less. This is statistically very significant and you dont need to be a Doctor of mathematics to get it 🙂

    Judging managers on how much they improve things from how things were before they were appointed is pretty much how its done chucky, it shouldnt seem so illogical to you, really.

    Now what I am showing in the attached table is something completely different and is meant to show the differing top 4 landscapes in the 5 and a bit seasons Poch was at spurs to the 5 seasons before. It shows clearly, taking spurs out of the equation, that top 4 was a tougher ask the 5 years before him than it was when he was there.

    #54122 Score: 0
    Chucky McChuckfaceChucky McChuckface
    Participant
    531 pts

    Okay Eddy, let me explain it another way…

    If I’m understanding the “argument” here, Poncho improved Spuds from 1.81 to 1.89, whereas Kloop has improved from 1.68 to 2.12, meaning Poncho as an improvement of 0.08 and Kloop 0.44. Correct?

    This also means Kloop took over a team with a much lower average, a result of having a few bad seasons, which had nothing to do with Spurs or Poncho. It’s an unfair comparison. (It would be interesting to see the “improvement” Pepe made at City and/or Bayern, to use as a comparison too because I reckon Pepe’s average “improvement” would be pretty damn low, and therefore he would be an “average” manager too!)

    Also, why are the averages worked out over 404 games (or over 10.63 seasons) for Poncho and only 314 games (or 8.26 seasons) for Kloop? This means you’re comparing Poncho and Kloops managerial skills by including events that occurred in 2008/2009 season when Harry Redknapp was in charge and apparently Liverpool didn’t exist!! 🙂

    #54137 Score: 0
    Chucky McChuckfaceChucky McChuckface
    Participant
    531 pts

    LD… but by doing what you’re doing (as per your post at 9.19) you’re basically confirming both managers started at very indifferent starting points. You could argue the Kloop simply had more room for improvement by taking over a team that had been averaging far lesser points to begin with. Who’s to say Poncho wouldn’t have had that “average” to improve if he took over a team with a lesser average? It’s an unfair comparison. And as I’ve pointed out above, by using a different number of games for each manager you’ve covered two different era’s, which again skews the data.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not disagreeing with your original summary, just disagreeing with the path you took to get there as the data used is flawed!! 🙂

    I mean, last year was the first year Kloop ever managed to finish above Poncho in the Prem, (and Klopp didn’t have to deal with playing all his games away from home for 18 months either!)

    #54141 Score: 0
    LuckydestinyLuckydestiny
    Blocked
    110 pts

    You are right chucky, Klopp took over a team with a much worse average, because they were a much worse team when he took them over than spurs were when Poch took them over. Under Klopp Pool become a much better team than they were…progression.

    The gain under Poch is far less impressive. Yes it is 0.08 and 0.44 respectively which looks minimal, but in terms of gain in points per season this translates to approx 3 points per season more for Spurs under Poch than before and 16.7 points per season more for Pool under Klopp.

    Pepe’s average “improvement” would be pretty damn low, and therefore he would be an “average” manager too!

    No need to even look in to that chucky, you already know that city didnt get 100 or 98 points under pellegrini or mancini, there has obviously been an uplift and you will see it if you look at the table in my second post!

    Man city with Pep (126 games) 301 points = 2.39 per game
    Man City 3 seasons before Pep (114 games) 231 points = 2.04 per game
    ( if you extend the fixtures back further to get 126 games for period before pep, then Peps gain will only increase as they did even worse)

    Pep Made City considerably better, it is proven by the stats, Klopp made Pool considerably better, it is proven by the stats, Poch did a fraction better but in terms of chances of champs league qualification he was was aided greatly by the collapses of united and arsenal, it is clear in the points totals.

    As for the rationale behind the number of games considered, well Poch had 202 games with Spurs and it is right to consider all his games, when I looked in to it I needed a measure of what spurs were doing before Poch to compare his results too, now doesnt it seem logical to choose the previous 202 games so the data sets are the same size? These are the data sets I was comparing at the time so seems fair they are the same size.

    Same rationale then with Klopp, he had 157 games with Pool so I compared it with the 157 games previous.

    When it came to comparing the increases of both managers the totals were divided by the respective games to get an average per game and so the different sizes of the sets are not problematic.

    Besides all I was doing was getting a measure of the base level of each club before so can compare to after, averages over 3-5 seasons are a decent way of doing that. Any longer and the data gets less relevant, but ideally you would want the largest useful samples possible and in each case it seemed appropriate to use all the games each manager had over seen.

    Like with Pep above, if you increase the games we use for the pre klopp liverpool average to 202 games to match the number of games we measure spurs on prior to poch, then Klopps relative gain will actually go up further, as the season we would be going into is the 11/12 season when pool got only 52 points!

    #54142 Score: 2
    nine nine nine
    Moderator
    946 pts

    Jose has a legacy at Chelsea having won 3 PL titles, 3 League Cups and an FA Cup I won’t include the Community Shield.

    He also laid the foundations for what was won at Stamford Bridge over a number of the following years.

    Some Chelsea fans have washed their hands of Jose completely and apart from all his controversies joining United and now particularly Spurs has put that legacy into jeopardy with many yChelsea fans.

    Ultimately at some stage when Jose is perhaps managing Portugal Chelsea fans might forgive him all his misdemeanours including managing United and Spurs and recognise his Chelsea legacy once more.

    Luckydestiny
    #54144 Score: 0
    LuckydestinyLuckydestiny
    Blocked
    110 pts

    Yes Chucky, the teams started in different positions and Klopp had a lower bar to raise, but he didnt just raise it to match Poch, he went much higher, and they were facing the same competition mate.

    #54157 Score: 0
    nine nine nine
    Moderator
    946 pts

    I think Poch is a good Coach who was badly let down by Levy and because of that his time had come at Spurs and he should have trusted his instincts and not signed the new contract and gone a season earlier.

    He inherited a decent squad of players and a CL side from Harry and the squad he leaves is better than the one he inherited but they face a challenge to stay as a CL side this season, and whilst the run to the CL Final was memorable as much for how they got there than anything else Spurs didn’t turn up for the Final.

    Personally I think to leave a legacy it has to be more than what Poch left at Spurs it might have been a real legacy had he been better supported by Levy but you can’t spend what you haven’t got and the new Stadium didn’t help him, but it’s all about opinions.

    #54167 Score: 2
    sean the sailor
    Participant
    464 pts

    I’ve always agreed with Ed about Poch. I never got why he was linked with big jobs but he did a great job at spurs

    For once people really started to take spurs seriously. They consistently qualified for the champions league. They got to two finals.

    Should we expect more from spurs that what he achieved? I’m not so sure

    As nine says, his hands were tied with levy. He had spurs were they should be.

    steveosnakeeye
    #54169 Score: 0
    steveosnakeeyesteveosnakeeye
    Participant
    266 pts

    am i really going to dot his?

    oh god damn it yes, i have to say im more with Nancy on this one. Luckys post as with manby of his is a great post and does offer many good things but to me it is not comparing apples with apples, there is so much more to concider.

    The relative quality of the squads when the manager took over, their league positions, the money they spent leading up to and beyond that point etc….

    i think that waht Poch did at Spuds on a very low budget form a very unambitious CEO was more than decent and up there with the likes of Wilder at Sheffield etc who people are raving over. He got the best of us on less money and really turned there fortunes around, had he had even half decent funds available over those 3 windows they spent nothing, its more than likely that the staleness and CL hangoiver wouldnt have been so bad.

    i must admit i dont see the “research” as being p[articularly useful, no doubt took a while and it was a bit of a thesis and qudos to luck for the time and effort…but i somewhat with it sticking in my throat see the point Nancy is making based on thte evidence or lack there of in this instance to make “a” point….

    #54172 Score: 0
    steveosnakeeyesteveosnakeeye
    Participant
    266 pts

    lets be honest, would Klopp have raised this bar and the “average” as far as he has if he didnt spend ANY money in 3 consecutive windows? and wuld they have reached a CL final during this hgiatus form spending?
    Klopp is a brilliant mnaager i would love at my club and more than Poch, its not about who is better, thats clear as day! but the argument and “facts” presented just dont sit right….i think had Klopp not bought VVD and a few other players he was able to he would have stayed where he was playing great football but ultimatly conceeding to many goals over a whole season to really challenge

    #54178 Score: 0
    Chucky McChuckfaceChucky McChuckface
    Participant
    531 pts

    Bloody hell, Buffy is agreeing with me… 8th Wonder of the World!! 🙂

    As this would certainly appear to be a “agree to disagree” situation between LD and myself (and I also agree with Buffy, it was a great “debating” point!), I will leave this as my final comment on this.

    Comparing Poncho’s career based on 10 seasons with the Spuds with Kloop’s still ongoing career based on 8 seasons with Liberoool is a flawed theory and does not do complete justice for either manager, especially the part when events that happened with either club when neither manager was involved.

    #54184 Score: 0
    nine nine nine
    Moderator
    946 pts

    The most interesting thing now about Poch is what happens next for him.

    #54186 Score: 1
    Chucky McChuckfaceChucky McChuckface
    Participant
    531 pts

    I think he’ll take the rest of the season off and then go abroad.

    #54198 Score: 0
    Mikus
    Participant
    218 pts

    In some ways the Poch legacy reminds me of the Benitez legacy at Liverpool. They were both very good organisers of a team, made them both very effective, but both teams just lacked a bit of personality for me and both teams were a little too restrained, and that is ultimately what cost them the opportunity to take the next step up. It doesn’t look like man management was a particular strength with either of them. I think Benitez would have done a pretty similar job under the same circumstances at Spurs.

    Would Klopp have done better? There’s no doubt Klopp was helped with some investment, but I do think he would have given Spurs that bit more of a personality that would have bought them some silverware. Remember Klopp did take a very mediocre side to a domestic and European final in his first part season at Liverpool.

    #54284 Score: 0
    LuckydestinyLuckydestiny
    Blocked
    110 pts

    Chucky, It doesnt really matter that the total games used for each manager in that comparison are not exact, but if you really believe they should be equal, then count the extra 45 pool games pre Klopp as well, and guess what? His achievements are even more impressive than Poch’s. Besides like I said, the averages before are only useful to get a rough measure of where the clubs average performances where before the managers came in to compare with after, the differences in gains are significant whether you accept it or not. All I deduce from it is that Klopp clearly had a positive impact on pool, but Poch overall didnt really have any significant impact on the PL points spurs were achieving overall. I am not saying poch increased points per game by 0.08 and Klopp by 0.44, so klopp is 8 times better or anything ridiculous like that.

    The main point of my post however was how the challenge for top 4 was easier for spurs under Poch than before, not because of Poch, but because Utd and Arsenal went to shit and chelsea were also shit every other season. This is what the table I posted shows, this is what I am arguing, and this you can not argue against. Without any significant improvement in results, Poch got spurs into CL regularly, and this was because the teams above him regressed more than it is about the fractional gains made by Poch, that is the reality mate, the stats show it…and you know it! 🙂

    #54285 Score: 1
    LuckydestinyLuckydestiny
    Blocked
    110 pts

    Steveo

    there is so much more to concider.

    The relative quality of the squads when the manager took over, their league positions, the money they spent leading up to and beyond that point etc….

    Look at the performances of spurs the 5 years before Poch took over relative to Pools performances. Spurs were doing better, had a better squad and needed less investment than pool to compete for the top 4. Look at the top 4 picture before Poch, then after, it was easier for him than it was for Harry and Villas Boas mate, your lot and utd have more to do with spurs getting in champs league regularly than poch does, except for the 86 point season they were just achieving what spurs always did.

    And as for the Money argument, come on steveo, pool only went mental on a kepper and a centre back, why should this make all the difference? Poch had Lloris, Toby and Jan, he didnt need half the investment Pool did, and lets not pretend pools squad is miles away from spurs even now mate.

    #54286 Score: 0
    LuckydestinyLuckydestiny
    Blocked
    110 pts

    Stevio and Nancy boy,

    I have made my argument and you have had fun picking it apart.

    Now why dont you let me know how you rate Poch and why, and I can pick your opinions apart instead 🙂

    #54287 Score: 0
    LuckydestinyLuckydestiny
    Blocked
    110 pts

    P.s steveo

    it aint all about money spent either mate, you were criticising pool for not spending last summer and look where they are despite not signing Pepe mate 🙂 Its about the players at the disposal of the managers, if you truly believe spurs were in a worse place and needed more investment when Poch took over than Pool when Klopp took over, then why does the points totals achieved by these teams in the years before each manager took over show the exact opposite. I am submitting to the stats because MOTD highlights and media narratives dont lead to balanced opinions!

    #54288 Score: 0
    Chucky McChuckfaceChucky McChuckface
    Participant
    531 pts

    I’m tempted… soooo tempted… but I’ll shall let this pass… 🙂

Viewing 20 posts - 21 through 40 (of 90 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.