Is this the same Steve Bruce you advocated as a replacement for Mick in november 2009? Or a different one? If it helps jog you memory it was the same email that you nominated gianfranco Zola as an alternative.
Steve Bruce had Sunderland sixth in the league at the end of 2009 but they finished the season in tenth place. Perhaps that wad when he turned bad or perhaps that was when they sold Darren bent. Was it players or the manager? So how many places improvement can Martin oneill give Sunderland above the expectation based on wages? Maybe mon is a great manager. All I ask is that we judge over a couple of full seasons On 04/01/2012, at 10:05 PM, Marcus Chantry <chant...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > I don't see how there is any risk from your point of view. Sunderland have > never been and are unlikely to ever be a top 5 side in the premier league. > But perhaps you can explain something: When Steve Bruce was in charge, > Sunderland had the 8th highest wage bill in the league yet they were playing > shit. Since MON took over they still have the same players and the same wage > bill (8th highest in the league) and have picked up 16 points from their last > 8 games. Are you suggesting that even if they had kept Steve Bruce in charge > they would have had the same upturn in fortune? I don't think so. Over the > past 10 years, Steve Bruce's managerial record has been in steady decline. > The proof of this is that over the most recent 10 years his win % at the 3 > clubs he has managed have reduced at each club from 37% to 33% to 29% at > Sunderland. There is nothing there to suggest that he would have taken > Sunderland to 8th in the league to match their 8th highest wage bill. Yet by > some strange coincidence or anomaly, the appointment of MON has changed their > fortunes dramatically. Why is that? > > > > On 04/01/2012, at 20:43 , Steven Millward wrote: > >> I think I have made it perfectly clear that I believe that league position >> is almost entirely decided by players, with wages being the best way of >> measuring player quality. The more you spend on wages, the better the >> players you get and the better your position in the league. >> >> Based on the spreadsheet I shared on here a couple of weeks ago, Sunderland >> have the 8th highest wages in the league and I would therefore expect them >> to come 8th in the league. >> >> If you believe that Martin O'Neill can make a big difference as a manager >> then you would surely expect him to take Sunderland at least say three >> places higher than that wouldn't you? >> >> I know you like quoting anecdotes as evidence, such as a six game stretch, >> and you know that I prefer something like 25,000 games to make my case. >> >> However I propose something in between as the basis for another public bet >> with you Marcus. I bet you that the average league position of Sunderland >> over next season and the season after won't be higher than 5th. The risk >> is all with me as you have someone at the helm of Sunderland that you really >> rate and an owner that could throw even more money behind them. Their wage >> bill after their summer signings probably now suggests that they should >> finish even higher. >> >> As this is a long-term bet, I propose higher stakes. The loser will wear a >> t-shirt at every Wolves meeting for the rest of their lives that says "I'm >> thick and I know nothing about football". >> >> Are we on? >> >> On 4 January 2012 11:10, Chantrys <chant...@iinet.net.au> wrote: >> Yes very strange. Since being appointed as manager, Sunderland have won 5, >> drawn 1 and lost only once away to Spurs. I'm guessing that when they >> sacked Bruce they gave all the players a pay rise and that's why they have >> turned in to world beaters (nothing to do wit MON). >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On 04/01/2012, at 9:57, "Rog & Reet" <rognr...@exemail.com.au> wrote: >> >>> Another statistical anomaly this morning. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >> >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >> >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
