TeamTalk - Ian McParland

[forwardmagpie]

His fans keep banging on about how good he was with the Munto team, but the facts tell a different story. His win ratio in that season was indeed 50%, but his loss ratio was 25%. That doesn't sound bad on the face of it, but it showed that a squad of such ability was definitely underperforming with McParland in charge. Here is the proof:

Munto team under McParland - win ratio 50%, defeat ratio 25%, points per game average 1.75

Munto team under the other managers - win ratio 58.7%, defeat ratio 11.8%, points per game average 2.06

As cher says, McParlands performance over the season would have seen us make the playoffs. Once we got rid of him, that squad won the title by 10 clear points. Is that factual enough for you forward and MiG? Surely even you two can see that.

Munto after Ian and before Cotterill - win ratio 37.5%

All you have told us is that Cotterill was exceptional that end of season - yes he was

[McCullochisGod]

I wouldn't have him back even as bog cleaner. So let's dicuss this supremely talented bloke's managerial career after we gave him the boot.

Oops, I forgot. He didn't have one.

What a sad sad bell end you are. The more you rant the more you show you actually know nothing about the game but I guess morons are entitled to their opinion.

[McCullochisGod]

I haven't worked that one out, but his points per game wouldn't have been enough to get us automatic promotion that season, which is astonishing really.

Overall his managerial stats are poor with a win ratio (as above) of 27.18%. Aside from the stats though, the football was just so desperate during most of his tenure, grindingly dull. A decent coach undoubtedly, but a poor manager.

Didn't get much help off the trust board with a laughable budget did he? Judge him on his last seasons stats 6 wins, 3 draws, 3 losses, 21 points and in the playoffs after 12 games, sacking him was ludicrous with only a quarter of the season gone. Look at his win rate when in charge of Forest when he took over from Megson. Cher you are talking out of your .....

[McCullochisGod]

Didn't get much help off the trust board with a laughable budget did he? Judge him on his last seasons stats 6 wins, 3 draws, 3 losses, 21 points and in the playoffs after 12 games, sacking him was ludicrous with only a quarter of the season gone. Look at his win rate when in charge of Forest when he took over from Megson. Cher you are talking out of your .....

And the football dull? Now you are having a larf...!!!!

[Elite_Pie]

What a sad sad bell end you are. The more you rant.

Hehee! Which one of us is ranting?

you actually know nothing about the game but I guess morons are entitled to their opinion.

So explain to us all how the facts and figures about the Munto season with and without him in charge show anything other than that McParland was a poor manager. Over to you.

[McCullochisGod]

And the football dull? Now you are having a larf...!!!!

You and Elite are a marriage made in heaven ....

[Elite_Pie]

And the football dull? Now you are having a larf...!!!!

Did you miss the bit where she said "overall"? The football in the season before Munto was dull beyond belief. Six square passes across the back four followed by an aimless hoof forward. We would regularly go an entire half without a single attempt on goal.

[cher1]

And the football dull? Now you are having a larf...!!!!

Yes, the football was incredibly dull.

You seem to be quoting yourself and arguing with your own quotes. And there was me thinking it was Elite who was the only person on here falling out with himself

Most of the rest of us can debate without resorting to name calling, the clue is in the word debate.

[cher1]

Didn't get much help off the trust board with a laughable budget did he? Judge him on his last seasons stats 6 wins, 3 draws, 3 losses, 21 points and in the playoffs after 12 games, sacking him was ludicrous with only a quarter of the season gone. Look at his win rate when in charge of Forest when he took over from Megson. Cher you are talking out of your .....

See the thing is, to get the best sense of what sort of a manager someone was, you'd arguably be best looking at the longest period of stats available whilst at the club. Even with the budget busting Munto team stats included, his win percentage was just 27.18% If you want to just look at his Munto stats, again, they show that if results carried on in a similar vein, we would not have gone up automatically.

Steve Thompson, who didnt have the Munto team to improve his stats, and worked under similar budgetary constraints had a 32.3% win ratio. Billy Dearden who managed under chaotic circumstances and again had no Munto team, had a win percentage of 29.13% Rico's win ratio was also better, at 32.35%

[forwardmagpie]

See the thing is, to get the best sense of what sort of a manager someone was, you'd arguably be best looking at the longest period of stats available whilst at the club. Even with the budget busting Munto team stats included, his win percentage was just 27.18% If you want to just look at his Munto stats, again, they show that if results carried on in a similar vein, we would not have gone up automatically.

Steve Thompson, who didnt have the Munto team to improve his stats, and worked under similar budgetary constraints had a 32.3% win ratio. Billy Dearden who managed under chaotic circumstances and again had no Munto team, had a win percentage of 29.13% Rico's win ratio was also better, at 32.35%

True that’s the best way of looking at it Cher, I agree both Jocky Scott and Colin Murphy we’re better managers than Sam Allardyce