The mancityfans.net football forum

They say the statistics dont lie ? we would possibly be in around sixth or seventh with Ted and that is why he went. IMO I was happy with Ted but perhaps that is my/our problem always settling for a lesser outcome. If Bobby is the right man ultimatly we will have to see, however stability needs to happen, so the message from me is carry on and wait for the season to end. No doubt the board will then look at his "KPI's" and decide if his performance meets the business needs of MCFC. In my world I just want a football club that I can enjoy watching and I feel proud to wear my colours as I travel around (I always wear my shirt win or lose).
Its seems a long way from watching the boys at Layer Rd, Colchester in the old 3rd and now getting ready to go to the Derby with a real opportunity to get where we want to be, Another stat that has been challenged in recent times is 50% of married people are women ? we all now know this is certainly wrong so lets be cautious about the stats....come on City 2-0 Tevez ist goal !!!

Is that the percentage of points taken under each manager?

That one certainly does, 63 + 47= 110 %. thought this was a popularity poll rather than a win percentage, apologies.

Seen it on sky this morning and that was showing overall performance as managers. Esky, just check my numbers for them but it is significant and based on where we are at the moment it does make you think hard about the decision to do what the board did.

eastlands-lostboy wrote:Seen it on sky this morning and that was showing overall performance as managers. Esky, just check my numbers for them but it is significant and based on where we are at the moment it does make you think hard about the decision to do what the board did.

But Hughes was always stronger in the second half of the season......................................

Tin hat on

johnpb78 wrote:

eastlands-lostboy wrote:Seen it on sky this morning and that was showing overall performance as managers. Esky, just check my numbers for them but it is significant and based on where we are at the moment it does make you think hard about the decision to do what the board did.

But Hughes was always stronger in the second half of the season......................................

Tin hat on

That's a lie, he's not got a single point since the 19th of December, fuck piss poor 2nd half IMO.

Slim wrote:

johnpb78 wrote:

eastlands-lostboy wrote:Seen it on sky this morning and that was showing overall performance as managers. Esky, just check my numbers for them but it is significant and based on where we are at the moment it does make you think hard about the decision to do what the board did.

But Hughes was always stronger in the second half of the season......................................

Tin hat on

That's a lie, he's not got a single point since the 19th of December, fuck piss poor 2nd half IMO.

Yep, its almost as bad as the first half of last season.

Assume its 53% against 47%. Which looks about right since under Hughes we won 29 points and Mancini we have won 33 points if memory serves. Its about the same number of games 17 under Hughes and 16 under Mancini

I FULLY expect the usual suspects to insult original poster the same way they did with me starting pretty much the same topic. Otherwise it'd be case of bad double standards.

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:I FULLY expect the usual suspects to insult original poster the same way they did with me starting pretty much the same topic. Otherwise it'd be case of bad double standards.

if it was the same topic, maybe you should merge the threads?

Well, its obviuose that the change in manager has been the difference between borderline gettin a Europa spot and having the Champs league place ours to lose.. That is one hell of a difference and one that could totally change the shape of our club for many years to come..

Mancini 'has' a 63% win percentage (10 wins from 17 games?), Hughes 'had' a 47% win percentage (7 wins from 17 games?)

It's not rocket surgery!

(although 10 from 17 is 59% and 7 from 17 is 41%)

Stats lie if the figures are all fucked up to begin with...

mr fu wrote:Mancini 'has' a 63% win percentage (10 wins from 17 league games), Hughes 'had' a 47% win percentage (8 wins from league 17 games)

It's not rocket surgery!

(although 10 from 17 is 59%)

hughes stats were based on his 1st 17 games with city (08/09 season), so a completely different team, apples and oranges and all that

FA cup winners 2006 wrote:

mr fu wrote:Mancini 'has' a 63% win percentage (10 wins from 17 league games), Hughes 'had' a 47% win percentage (8 wins from league 17 games)

It's not rocket surgery!

(although 10 from 17 is 59%)

hughes stats were based on his 1st 17 games with city (08/09 season), so a completely different team, apples and oranges and all that

I think they based it on stats from City teams that Hughes played against through the 80's and 90's

mr fu wrote:Mancini 'has' a 63% win percentage (10 wins from 17 games?), Hughes 'had' a 47% win percentage (7 wins from 17 games?)

It's not rocket surgery!

(although 10 from 17 is 59% and 7 from 17 is 41%)

Stats lie if the figures are all fucked up to begin with...

33 games played MINUS the 17 hughes was in charge EQUALS 17?

Stats don't lie necessarily, but you need to get them right and explain what they are for them to be effective!

under hughes
p 17 w 7 d 8 l 2 f33 a 27 pts 29
under mancini
p 16 w10 d 3 l3 f36 a 14 pts 33

more or less the same games in charge the biggest differance in the stats for me is goal differance +6 under hughes +22
under mancini

110% i think these stats are down right liars

Terrible maths from members of this forum. Maybe Bwitain is bwoken after all. Or at least it was when most of you lot were at school :O)

It looks like he's done better and certainly of late, but under Mancini we have only played Chelsea and Everton out of the top 8 or so... so far. If we lost the rest of our games against Spurs, Villa, United and Arsenal, that percentage would be damn close.

At this stage though, I'm leaning more towards Mancini in almost every aspect, because of how we started to attack and still keep the back tight.