TeamTalk - Ian McParland

[cher1]

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

You must have missed the 'sense of' bit...

I cant think of anyone I know who was watching during that time who would want him back. On a positive note, we did get some great in-match sweepstakes going to pass the time. And we covered a lot of topics in conversation. So it wasn't all bad.

[McCullochisGod]

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%

Your stats mean nothing. His stats THAT season was a 50% win rate. He had assembled the best squad of players in years so who's to say he wouldn't have won promotion, he may well have gone on a 20 game unbeaten run. You or Elite will never know will you. If we appointed managers on recent stats Ardley would be no where near Meadow Lane with his recent record at Wimbledon?

[forwardmagpie]

You must have missed the 'sense of' bit...

I cant think of anyone I know who was watching during that time who would want him back. On a positive note, we did get some great in-match sweepstakes going to pass the time. And we covered a lot of topics in conversation. So it wasn't all bad.

Edited it to agree with above.

True that’s the best way of looking at it Cher, if you do you would get a sense that both Jocky Scott and Colin Murphy we’re better managers than Sam Allardyce

[DelroyFacey22]

but most of the squad was assembled before the takeover and that showed that McP did have some qualities to become a good manager as far as recruitment was concerned.

Kasper
Hawley
Hughes
Lee
Davies
Jackson
Moloney
Ritchie

Were all signed with the promises of Munto money.

Westcarr, Bishop and Ravenhill probably weren't but the latter two were both club captains at their previous clubs so I doubt they would have come here based on our financial troubles before the impending takeover.

And a win rate of 50% in the Munto season IS abject failure the same way it would be if Pep had that at Man City at the moment. Cotterill made that squad perform how it should have done yet often people say all he did was inherit McParland's squad?

[Elite_Pie]

Your stats mean nothing. His stats THAT season was a 50% win rate.

But that 50% win rate was below average for the season. His stats THAT season was also a 25% defeat rate.

McParland managed to lose 3 of his 12 games. The other managers between them only lost 4 times in 34 games!

[cher1]

Your stats mean nothing. His stats THAT season was a 50% win rate. He had assembled the best squad of players in years so who's to say he wouldn't have won promotion, he may well have gone on a 20 game unbeaten run. You or Elite will never know will you. If we appointed managers on recent stats Ardley would be no where near Meadow Lane with his recent record at Wimbledon?

Your stats mean nothing. His stats THAT season was a 50% win rate

So my stats mean nothing, but your stat that he had a 50% win rate means something. Right oh. As I keep saying, if you extrapolate that out (which is all you can do in the absence of facts to the contrary) it wouldnt have got us promoted.

He had assembled the best squad of players in years

True he did a good job with signing players with a supposed stratospheric budget. Kasper - who was pivotal to our success - was signed in the Sven era, so who knows whether he would have come otherwise. As this season shows, it isn't about signing players though, it's about the results.

who's to say he wouldn't have won promotion, he may well have gone on a 20 game unbeaten run. You or Elite will never know will you.

He may have done, he may well not have done. Neither Elite, you, nor I will ever know.

If we appointed managers on recent stats Ardley would be no where near Meadow Lane with his recent record at Wimbledon

And judging by results, that might have been a good thing Any road up, it's been lovely talking to you as always but I think I'm done with going over old ground again and again. There are way more pressing issues to worry about.

[forwardmagpie]

But that 50% win rate was below average for the season. His stats THAT season was also a 25% defeat rate.

McParland managed to lose 3 of his 12 games. The other managers between them only lost 4 times in 34 games!

Managers between Ian and Cotterill 37.5% win

Cotterill had an exceptional end of season and I wish he had stayed but to say Ian with 50% with a new team is abject failure is funny

[DelroyFacey22]

Managers between Ian and Cotterill 37.5% win

Cotterill had an exceptional end of season and I wish he had stayed but to say Ian with 50% with a new team is abject failure is funny

It's a new team that he'd built with a blank chequebook, the only thing that held it back was his poor management. Other managers later in the season had off the field stuff going on where everything was unravelling.

If you're a team competing for the title then your manager having a 50% win rate is nowhere near good enough.

Mourinho, Sir Alex, Pep and Antonio Conte all had 65% or more (as of Feb 2018 because thats the first article I've found), and before you say "how can you compare them to McParland? That's unfair!" I'm not, I'm merely stating what is expected for a manager that competes at the top of his league, it's relative. (Conte was also under pressure around this time too and his win % was the joint highest with 70%)

[Elite_Pie]

Managers between Ian and Cotterill 37.5% win

Cotterill had an exceptional end of season and I wish he had stayed but to say Ian with 50% with a new team is abject failure is funny

The 'abject failure' tag is based on his overall stint as manager. He was just an ordinary failure with the Munto team.

[forwardmagpie]

It's a new team that he'd built with a blank chequebook, the only thing that held it back was his poor management. Other managers later in the season had off the field stuff going on where everything was unravelling.

If you're a team competing for the title then your manager having a 50% win rate is nowhere near good enough.

Mourinho, Sir Alex, Pep and Antonio Conte all had 65% or more (as of Feb 2018 because thats the first article I've found), and before you say "how can you compare them to McParland? That's unfair!" I'm not, I'm merely stating what is expected for a manager that competes at the top of his league, it's relative. (Conte was also under pressure around this time too and his win % was the joint highest with 70%)

Yes you are right to compare McParland to Mourinho, Sir Alex, Pep and Antonio Conte is not sensible, I haven't checked but I would say that they were a little more experienced that Ian. I am not saying he is a great manager (nothing like) but far better than some of here would have you believe.

But I know it's simple have a big budget sign some good players and a 50% win ration is abject failure, tell that is Mr Nolan and all the other managers with big budgets who have failed.