Do you want Ince to stay?

[NathStPaul]

Suddenly become very sleepy.

[Stranded]

Like it or lump it. Pauno had a season where RFC finished 7th

This season he was officially in charge for 32 games, altho' I would award him the win v Birmingham

Extrapolating the Pauno points over 33 games you get:

46 49 Points 57-88 -31 GD Pauno (33) 1.07 ppg

If you give the Birmingham win to Ince Pauno would be

46 42 points 56-89 -33 Pauno (32) 0.91 ppg


INCE's record including the Birmingham "gift" is

46 49 points 46-77 -31 INCE (14) 1.07 ppg

But without it, INCE looks very poor

46 42* 46 79 -33 INCE (13) 0.92 ppg

Putting the two managers together, in terms of actual points,
GD etc there is nothing to choose between them

IGNORING the PENALTY

46 49 Points 57-88 -31 Pauno (33) 1.07 ppg
46 49 Points 46-77 -31 INCE (14) 1.07 ppg
46 47 Points 54-87 -33 ACTUAL (Managers Combined)


46 42* 46 79 -33 INCE (13) 0.92 ppg 42.5 points)
46 42 56 89 -33 Pauno (32) 0.91 ppg


Looking at the availability of players, INCE had a far better squad than Pauno could call on.

Pauno had predicted a turn-round in February-March once players like Joao, McIntyre etc would return to fitness.

This is NOT to say that Pauno was good enough.

What I am saying is that AT BEST (if we are charitable) Ince "achieved" 1.07 ppg, the same ppg as Pauno this season
but INCE did it with better players available.

There is no actual evidence that Ince has been GOOD

Of course the counter to that is he lost 3 of the first four (if you give him Brum) then pushed the squad to achieve some excellent results to get over the line. Once achieved, there was a collective exhale of breath and with a squad of players either still injured or looking at their next move, the season just finished after the final whistle v Swansea.

Not happy we lost the last 3 but given the form that pulled us away before it and the situation at the club currently, I'm a bit meh about it.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

I think we were always going to see some improvement, regardless of who was in charge. I still think we'd have survived if we kept Pauno, I just don't think it would have been as comfortable, possibly coming down to the last game.

Ince has done well enough to do the job that was asked of him, with some impressive performances and results paired with some very poor performances and results.

[tmesis]

Like it or lump it. Pauno had a season where RFC finished 7th

This season he was officially in charge for 32 games, altho' I would award him the win v Birmingham

Why? He'd gone by then, and there was a significant change in attitude among the players.

That's like awarding the win at Preston to Ince, because the players knew Pauno was going.

It felt like there was much more to it than Pauno just having a lot of players out. The players looked like they'd lost their will.

I think we were always going to see some improvement, regardless of who was in charge. I still think we'd have survived if we kept Pauno, I just don't think it would have been as comfortable, possibly coming down to the last game.

I think we'd have gone down easily. The attitude among the players was terrible. They looked exhausted, and played like they expected to lose, and just wanted the season to end.

It felt like the collapse under Bullivant.

[Nameless]

Like it or lump it. Pauno had a season where RFC finished 7th

This season he was officially in charge for 32 games, altho' I would award him the win v Birmingham

Extrapolating the Pauno points over 33 games you get:

46 49 Points 57-88 -31 GD Pauno (33) 1.07 ppg

If you give the Birmingham win to Ince Pauno would be

46 42 points 56-89 -33 Pauno (32) 0.91 ppg


INCE's record including the Birmingham "gift" is

46 49 points 46-77 -31 INCE (14) 1.07 ppg

But without it, INCE looks very poor

46 42* 46 79 -33 INCE (13) 0.92 ppg

Putting the two managers together, in terms of actual points,
GD etc there is nothing to choose between them

IGNORING the PENALTY

46 49 Points 57-88 -31 Pauno (33) 1.07 ppg
46 49 Points 46-77 -31 INCE (14) 1.07 ppg
46 47 Points 54-87 -33 ACTUAL (Managers Combined)


46 42* 46 79 -33 INCE (13) 0.92 ppg 42.5 points)
46 42 56 89 -33 Pauno (32) 0.91 ppg


Looking at the availability of players, INCE had a far better squad than Pauno could call on.

Pauno had predicted a turn-round in February-March once players like Joao, McIntyre etc would return to fitness.

This is NOT to say that Pauno was good enough.

What I am saying is that AT BEST (if we are charitable) Ince "achieved" 1.07 ppg, the same ppg as Pauno this season
but INCE did it with better players available.

There is no actual evidence that Ince has been GOOD

Of course the counter to that is he lost 3 of the first four (if you give him Brum) then pushed the squad to achieve some excellent results to get over the line. Once achieved, there was a collective exhale of breath and with a squad of players either still injured or looking at their next move, the season just finished after the final whistle v Swansea.

Not happy we lost the last 3 but given the form that pulled us away before it and the situation at the club currently, I'm a bit meh about it.

Great misuse of stats !
Are you taking into account the fact Ince had no transfer windows or preseason ?
Are you considering that Pauno started the season with a blank canvas ? He had the opportunity to create the mood, the environment etc etc. Ince had to take overat short notice a squad he didn’t know with no time to work with them. The mood for the season was set and hisONLY target was tonot get relegated.
Are you taking into account that they played different teams ?

There is no evidence of anything really except we stayed up under Ince and looked extremely unlikely to do sounder Pauno who was clearly struggling under the strain.

It’s not really any help in determining whether Ince would do a good job long term but sticking numbers to things doesn’t tell you much if the analysis is so flawed

[YorkshireRoyal99]

I think we were always going to see some improvement, regardless of who was in charge. I still think we'd have survived if we kept Pauno, I just don't think it would have been as comfortable, possibly coming down to the last game.

I think we'd have gone down easily. The attitude among the players was terrible. They looked exhausted, and played like they expected to lose, and just wanted the season to end.

It felt like the collapse under Bullivant.

I think we'd have only gone down if Peterborough would have got another win or two under their belts than what they actually got this season.

Despite the struggles under Pauno, we still managed to draw at Peterborough and win at Preston in his last 2 games. We also managed to win at home to Birmingham 3 days later. That win is by no means accredited to Pauno obviously, but I don't think Ince will have had a major influence over that result either, I think that result happened due to a major spike in confidence after the Preston win, even if the characteristics of being extremely brittle were still apparent by conceding twice from 3-0 up.

Again, I'll reiterate that I believed we would have improved and possibly stayed up by the skin of our teeth. Ultimately, we can't say whether it would/wouldn't happen.

[Snowball]

Interesting that most of the responses seem to have completely ignored my two points

First, I said categorically that I wasn’t defending Pauno’s record

Second, ALL I said was that Ince has not, repeat NOT shown much that could be termed “good”

I still believe that it is unrealistic to attribute the Birmingham win to Ince.

A “more logical” attribution would be that RFC had a good away win at Preston and barely days later were playing Birmingham, a poor side

Strange that some think Birmingham was “Ince’s win” despite the fact that after that we lost 4-1 at Blackpool, then 0-1 at home to Millwall before losing 4-0 to Forest.

1-9 the Ince Effect?

Even including the Birmingham game, Ince has only averaged 1.07 ppg. How is that “good”? Which was my point

[Hound]

Ince came in with one job. To keep us up. He achieved it regardless of your stats, and actually did it pretty comfortably (realistically with 3 games to go)

Don’t think anyone has said he is a particularly ‘good’ manager but he came in, got the results we needed and even got the majority of fans back on side to at least some extent (remember the scenes at Peterboro)

There’s not a huge amount of point going any deeper than that tbh

[Zip]

Yep agreed Houndy. I think Snowers is getting a bit bogged down here. Ultimately we were a mess when Ince came in but he did enough to keep us up. It wasn’t great but it was enough and that’s all that mattered.

[Nameless]

If Ince gets the job his tenure will start on day 1 of next season. The period as interim manager be seen as what it was, a short term, fire fighting exercise in which ‘points pergame’ Mean nothing. It is a waste of time to ‘analyse’ his stats or compare them with completely different things.
If he get some the job and after 20 games he’s winning a point a game he won’t be doing well. But right now is a false discussion.

[Snowflake Royal]

Like it or lump it. Pauno had a season where RFC finished 7th

This season he was officially in charge for 32 games, altho' I would award him the win v Birmingham

Why? .

Same as always. To manipulate the data to tell the story he wants.

[Hendo]

Like it or lump it. Pauno had a season where RFC finished 7th

This season he was officially in charge for 32 games, altho' I would award him the win v Birmingham

Why? .

Same as always. To manipulate the data to tell the story he wants.

Wasn't it you, Ian, who was removing Pauno's first 7 games in charge when providing win% stats? Or was that someone else.

[NathStPaul]

Like it or lump it. Pauno had a season where RFC finished 7th

This season he was officially in charge for 32 games, altho' I would award him the win v Birmingham

Why? .

Same as always. To manipulate the data to tell the story he wants.

We should let the EFL know immediately that Snowball has spoken and has the authority to change results as he sees fit.

[Snowflake Royal]

Why? .

Same as always. To manipulate the data to tell the story he wants.

Wasn't it you, Ian, who was removing Pauno's first 7 games in charge when providing win% stats? Or was that someone else.

Dunno, probably a few people, and wasn't it 8?

There's a difference between breaking runs of games up to compare and remove anomalous runs to get an unskewed picture of a later series, or caveating where certain games may need to be considered more cautiously. And just reattributing a result to fit your story.

For example, I think we won Clowno’s last game because he was leaving and no other reason. I don't remove it from his record or attribute it to Ince because it makes him look worse though.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Same as always. To manipulate the data to tell the story he wants.

Wasn't it you, Ian, who was removing Pauno's first 7 games in charge when providing win% stats? Or was that someone else.

Dunno, probably a few people, and wasn't it 8?

There's a difference between breaking runs of games up to compare and remove anomalous runs to get an unskewed picture of a later series, or caveating where certain games may need to be considered more cautiously. And just reattributing a result to fit your story.

For example, I think we won Clowno’s last game because he was leaving and no other reason. I don't remove it from his record or attribute it to Ince because it makes him look worse though.

So that's your excuse for saying Pauno's first 8 games were a testament to Bowen's work and nothing else.

[Snowflake Royal]

Wasn't it you, Ian, who was removing Pauno's first 7 games in charge when providing win% stats? Or was that someone else.

Dunno, probably a few people, and wasn't it 8?

There's a difference between breaking runs of games up to compare and remove anomalous runs to get an unskewed picture of a later series, or caveating where certain games may need to be considered more cautiously. And just reattributing a result to fit your story.

For example, I think we won Clowno’s last game because he was leaving and no other reason. I don't remove it from his record or attribute it to Ince because it makes him look worse though.

So that's your excuse for saying Pauno's first 8 games were a testament to Bowen's work and nothing else.

It's not especially data driven, or even particularly certain.
But when you have a manager with a record over a large number of games that's starts very well and deteriorates very badly the further into his reign it gets, it's not rocket science to attribute the early form, that occurred with little lead time to change anything, to the predecessor.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Dunno, probably a few people, and wasn't it 8?

There's a difference between breaking runs of games up to compare and remove anomalous runs to get an unskewed picture of a later series, or caveating where certain games may need to be considered more cautiously. And just reattributing a result to fit your story.

For example, I think we won Clowno’s last game because he was leaving and no other reason. I don't remove it from his record or attribute it to Ince because it makes him look worse though.

So that's your excuse for saying Pauno's first 8 games were a testament to Bowen's work and nothing else.

It's not especially data driven, or even particularly certain.
But when you have a manager with a record over a large number of games that's starts very well and deteriorates very badly the further into his reign it gets, it's not rocket science to attribute the early that occurred with little lead time to change anything to the predecessor.

If that's the case we'd attribute the cliche "new manager bounce" to the previous manager as well then?

In terms of the fitness element, Bowen and his team take credit for getting players up to a certain level, but you're talking about two different managers, with different play styles and likely different philosophies as well, I'm not sure you can say Bowen had that much influence on the run at the start of last season.

[Snowflake Royal]

So that's your excuse for saying Pauno's first 8 games were a testament to Bowen's work and nothing else.

It's not especially data driven, or even particularly certain.
But when you have a manager with a record over a large number of games that's starts very well and deteriorates very badly the further into his reign it gets, it's not rocket science to attribute the early that occurred with little lead time to change anything to the predecessor.

If that's the case we'd attribute the cliche "new manager bounce" to the previous manager as well then?

In terms of the fitness element, Bowen and his team take credit for getting players up to a certain level, but you're talking about two different managers, with different play styles and likely different philosophies as well, I'm not sure you can say Bowen had that much influence on the run at the start of last season.

No, you obviously wouldn't, because that's a change in fortunes mid-season occurring when a change is made. Typically you have a long run of poor results followed by q short term increase.

The new manager bounce is hard to pin down and will depend on the exact circumstances.

Sometimes its going to be more to do with the absence of the old guy and the players immediately doing things different / throwing off the mental fatigue.

Sometimes it's going to be the new guy changing attitudes.

Sometimes it's going to be luck.

Sometimes it's going to be simple tactical, selection or training activities that can be put in place immediately.

Ofnew manager bounce is probably more about the old guy going than the new guy starting .

[YorkshireRoyal99]

It's not especially data driven, or even particularly certain.
But when you have a manager with a record over a large number of games that's starts very well and deteriorates very badly the further into his reign it gets, it's not rocket science to attribute the early that occurred with little lead time to change anything to the predecessor.

If that's the case we'd attribute the cliche "new manager bounce" to the previous manager as well then?

In terms of the fitness element, Bowen and his team take credit for getting players up to a certain level, but you're talking about two different managers, with different play styles and likely different philosophies as well, I'm not sure you can say Bowen had that much influence on the run at the start of last season.

No, you obviously wouldn't, because that's a change in fortunes mid-season occurring when a change is made. Typically you have a long run of poor results followed by q short term increase.

In principle then, it's not really that much different to Pauno replacing Bowen. A poor-ish run of results at the end of the season before, followed by a short term increase at the beginning of the season after. As I say, you do not credit the predecessor for the new manager changing the results of the club, be it short, medium or long term.

[Millsy]

New manager bounce could also apply to any manager who buys a trampoline and uses it for the first time, although I accept this is not what is always meant when discussed here.