| Cook vs McKenna calculations 18:42 - Feb 5 with 2382 views | TractorFrog |
I have done some calculations:
With McKenna in charge, not including the Gillingham games, we got three wins and two losses, equating to nine points.
In the equivalent fixtures under Cook, we got one win, two draws and two losses, equating to five points.
Therefore, McKenna has brought an improvement of 1.8x to the team.
Cook scored 27 points in his 20 games as boss. If McKenna had been in charge in the first 20 games instead, we would therefore have scored 27x1.8 points, which is 48.6. Add that to the 15 points scored under McKenna and the two under John McGreal (who we can pretend took over for three games anyway), and that is 65.6. In other words, top of the league by just over three points.
But what about the remaining 16 games? Well, in the reverse fixtures, Cook scored 22 points from 14 games, with Charlton and Wigan ignored as McGreal played those, and also Sunderland because McGreal played that reverse fixture. So McKenna, by this estimation, should score 1.8x22 points, which is 39.6 to the end of the season. And assuming he mirrors McGreal (he is actually probably an improvement), that is 40.6 total. So we would finish with 84.6 points, which last season was good enough for third.
Obviously all this is an estimation based on five games, so is difficult to say if it is accurate. But I think it paints a positive picture of the rest of the season and shows McKenna to be an excellent manager. |  |
| They'd all laugh at me if they knew what I was trying to do. To create a new strain of super-wine in half-an-hour with a fraction of nature's resources and a FOOL for an assistant. 'Bernard Black, he's mad,' they'd say, 'he's insane, he's dangerous.' Well I'll show them! I'll show them all! | | Poll: | What hurt more? |
| |  |
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 18:48 - Feb 5 with 2278 views | Yallop |
Good work that's an interesting stat. Be good to see how it actually turns out |  | | |
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 18:52 - Feb 5 with 2235 views | Mullet |
I don't need a calculator to use my eyes. Frankly the fact that Cook has been overshadowed almost instantly by a rookie manager is telling enough.
Listening to people who got it so badly wrong and buried themselves alive under all their bullsh1t is the only reason to even revisit the scale of improvement innit. |  |
| |
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 18:52 - Feb 5 with 2227 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
I fear you've wasted your time. There are many more variables you haven't factored in. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 19:17 - Feb 5 with 2116 views | TractorFrog |
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 18:52 - Feb 5 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I fear you've wasted your time. There are many more variables you haven't factored in. |
Of course. Teams that keep the same manager don't score the same amount of points in the first and second half of the season. It is a very approximate estimate, as all things like this are. | |
| They'd all laugh at me if they knew what I was trying to do. To create a new strain of super-wine in half-an-hour with a fraction of nature's resources and a FOOL for an assistant. 'Bernard Black, he's mad,' they'd say, 'he's insane, he's dangerous.' Well I'll show them! I'll show them all! | | Poll: | What hurt more? |
| |
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 19:20 - Feb 5 with 2082 views | Churchman |
Take a bow. That’s great work. I don’t think it has much merit, but I enjoyed it and found it interesting. |  | | |
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 14:13 - Feb 23 with 1655 views | TractorFrog |
An update on this:
Kieran McKenna has now been in charge of 11 games. Not including the Gillingham games, it is nine that he and Cook have in common:
Wycombe
Bolton
Accrington
Wimbledon
Sheff Weds
Doncaster
MK Dons
Burton
Cheltenham
From these nine games, McKenna picked up 17 points. In the equivalent reverse fixtures, Cook took 9 points. So McKenna's improvement has actually improved to x1.89.
With this further data to improve accuracy, this means that McKenna would have scored 27 x 17/9 + 2 + 23 points this year, which equals 76. Top of the league by four points, but having played one more game than Rotherham.
And in the remaining 12 games, Cook took 18 points from 10 games. Wigan and Charlton are still to go, with McGreal taking one points from those. So McKenna should score 18 x 17/9 + 1 point in those 12 games. That is 35 points, which is impossible, as it is only one off the maximum. But that would be 87 points total, equal with second place from last season. Obviously this won't actually happen, and the problem with it is that in a match that Cook takes 3 points, McKenna cannot take 5.7 points. But it still shows McKenna to be a very good manager and suggests we have a great chance of making the playoffs. | |
| They'd all laugh at me if they knew what I was trying to do. To create a new strain of super-wine in half-an-hour with a fraction of nature's resources and a FOOL for an assistant. 'Bernard Black, he's mad,' they'd say, 'he's insane, he's dangerous.' Well I'll show them! I'll show them all! | | Poll: | What hurt more? |
| |
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 14:24 - Feb 23 with 1594 views | FPL_Tractor |
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 14:13 - Feb 23 by TractorFrog |
An update on this:
Kieran McKenna has now been in charge of 11 games. Not including the Gillingham games, it is nine that he and Cook have in common:
Wycombe
Bolton
Accrington
Wimbledon
Sheff Weds
Doncaster
MK Dons
Burton
Cheltenham
From these nine games, McKenna picked up 17 points. In the equivalent reverse fixtures, Cook took 9 points. So McKenna's improvement has actually improved to x1.89.
With this further data to improve accuracy, this means that McKenna would have scored 27 x 17/9 + 2 + 23 points this year, which equals 76. Top of the league by four points, but having played one more game than Rotherham.
And in the remaining 12 games, Cook took 18 points from 10 games. Wigan and Charlton are still to go, with McGreal taking one points from those. So McKenna should score 18 x 17/9 + 1 point in those 12 games. That is 35 points, which is impossible, as it is only one off the maximum. But that would be 87 points total, equal with second place from last season. Obviously this won't actually happen, and the problem with it is that in a match that Cook takes 3 points, McKenna cannot take 5.7 points. But it still shows McKenna to be a very good manager and suggests we have a great chance of making the playoffs. |
9 games, McKenna with 5 home games and Cook 4 i think. So a *slightly* easier run for McKenna, but I do like this like-for-like analysis.
My less technical view is this is gonna go all the way. |  |
| For more ITFC chat and some fantasy football mutterings follow me on twitter @fpl_tractor. |
| |
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 16:49 - Feb 23 with 1365 views | TJS |
By my reckoning even if we lost the next 11 in a row McKenna would still have a point more than Cook managed from his first 22 games. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 16:53 - Feb 23 with 1348 views | positivity |
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 16:49 - Feb 23 by TJS |
By my reckoning even if we lost the next 11 in a row McKenna would still have a point more than Cook managed from his first 22 games. |
by my reckoning mckenna wouldn't have done as well in his first 22 games if he was lumbered with the players lambert/hurst/mccarthy had bequeathed to cook.
he may well have done better than cook though! |  |
| |
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 19:01 - Feb 23 with 1172 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 16:53 - Feb 23 by positivity |
by my reckoning mckenna wouldn't have done as well in his first 22 games if he was lumbered with the players lambert/hurst/mccarthy had bequeathed to cook.
he may well have done better than cook though! |
And yet those players did better than Cook achieved with his own squad!
We will never know what McKenna would have done with a squad of: Holy, Cornell, Donacien, Woolfenden, Chambers, McGuinness, Wilson, Vincent-Young, Ward, Skuse, Downes, Dozzell, Edwards, Judge, Jackson, Norwood, Sears, Parrott.
However, I think it is reasonable to expect that he would have got the best out of them. Considering the improvement he got out of at least 4 of those very players, I suspect he would have done at least as well, maybe even better! |  |
| |
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 22:46 - Feb 23 with 1016 views | positivity |
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 19:01 - Feb 23 by Nthsuffolkblue |
And yet those players did better than Cook achieved with his own squad!
We will never know what McKenna would have done with a squad of: Holy, Cornell, Donacien, Woolfenden, Chambers, McGuinness, Wilson, Vincent-Young, Ward, Skuse, Downes, Dozzell, Edwards, Judge, Jackson, Norwood, Sears, Parrott.
However, I think it is reasonable to expect that he would have got the best out of them. Considering the improvement he got out of at least 4 of those very players, I suspect he would have done at least as well, maybe even better! |
yeah, that's basically it, he may well have done better, but not as well as he's doing with the squad cook built.
i think mckenna is happier working with what is basically a good bunch of players and a united squad without the dressing room politics that cook had to deal with.
he might have struggled coming into a dressing room with players older than him, who'd been there since the year dot (and are currently fighting relegation in the league below) | |
| |
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 23:25 - Feb 23 with 960 views | TractorFrog |
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 16:53 - Feb 23 by positivity |
by my reckoning mckenna wouldn't have done as well in his first 22 games if he was lumbered with the players lambert/hurst/mccarthy had bequeathed to cook.
he may well have done better than cook though! |
I don't think 'they're not my players' is a good excuse at all. Cook did worse than Lambert did with Lambert's players, and now McKenna is doing better than Cook with Cook's players. Obviously the greatest manager in the world can only do so much with a bad set of players, but Lambert (who wasn't exactly Bobby Robson) had got those players on the brink of the playoffs, so Cook should at least have been able to keep them at the level they had been at under Lambert, and probably should have got them into the playoffs given he was signed after Lambert was sacked, so was expected to be an improvement on his predecessor. But instead he just gave up on them.
Cook says he did not expect the takeover to happen before his appointment, in which case he would have had to stick with the players he inherited from Lambert. Yes, he may well have signed Burns, Evans, Harper and the first few signings, but there is no way he would have got nineteen new players. Luke Chambers would certainly still be here if the takeover had not happened (this is no disrespect to Chambers who was a fantastic servant to the club and one of the top players from last season, he is just being used as an example as the former skipper). And with those players under Cook we would possibly have spent the season in form not much better than we finished the last. So I don't think it is right to not judge him on last season's performances.
If McKenna had taken over from Paul Lambert in February last season, I believe we would have made the playoffs. And there is no doubting that this season's squad is a class above, so the stat in question is not really fair, but had he had it from the start of the season we would be HMS Piss the League. And let's not forget that this is McKenna's first time in management. Paul Cook was very much my first choice for Lambert's job, and earlier in his career he was certainly a fantastic manager. But I think it is the sad reality that he failed at Ipswich. I sincerely hope he learned from his mistakes and will have great success at Chesterfield.
I hope I have been harsh but fair in this assessment. | |
| They'd all laugh at me if they knew what I was trying to do. To create a new strain of super-wine in half-an-hour with a fraction of nature's resources and a FOOL for an assistant. 'Bernard Black, he's mad,' they'd say, 'he's insane, he's dangerous.' Well I'll show them! I'll show them all! | | Poll: | What hurt more? |
| |
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 12:25 - Feb 24 with 845 views | positivity |
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 23:25 - Feb 23 by TractorFrog |
I don't think 'they're not my players' is a good excuse at all. Cook did worse than Lambert did with Lambert's players, and now McKenna is doing better than Cook with Cook's players. Obviously the greatest manager in the world can only do so much with a bad set of players, but Lambert (who wasn't exactly Bobby Robson) had got those players on the brink of the playoffs, so Cook should at least have been able to keep them at the level they had been at under Lambert, and probably should have got them into the playoffs given he was signed after Lambert was sacked, so was expected to be an improvement on his predecessor. But instead he just gave up on them.
Cook says he did not expect the takeover to happen before his appointment, in which case he would have had to stick with the players he inherited from Lambert. Yes, he may well have signed Burns, Evans, Harper and the first few signings, but there is no way he would have got nineteen new players. Luke Chambers would certainly still be here if the takeover had not happened (this is no disrespect to Chambers who was a fantastic servant to the club and one of the top players from last season, he is just being used as an example as the former skipper). And with those players under Cook we would possibly have spent the season in form not much better than we finished the last. So I don't think it is right to not judge him on last season's performances.
If McKenna had taken over from Paul Lambert in February last season, I believe we would have made the playoffs. And there is no doubting that this season's squad is a class above, so the stat in question is not really fair, but had he had it from the start of the season we would be HMS Piss the League. And let's not forget that this is McKenna's first time in management. Paul Cook was very much my first choice for Lambert's job, and earlier in his career he was certainly a fantastic manager. But I think it is the sad reality that he failed at Ipswich. I sincerely hope he learned from his mistakes and will have great success at Chesterfield.
I hope I have been harsh but fair in this assessment. |
agree with most of that only question of how much of the continued poor form last season was down to cook and how much to the players.
however, my main point was that mckenna would rather have taken over cook's squad than the chambo/skuse one... | |
| |
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 13:45 - Feb 24 with 749 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 22:46 - Feb 23 by positivity |
yeah, that's basically it, he may well have done better, but not as well as he's doing with the squad cook built.
i think mckenna is happier working with what is basically a good bunch of players and a united squad without the dressing room politics that cook had to deal with.
he might have struggled coming into a dressing room with players older than him, who'd been there since the year dot (and are currently fighting relegation in the league below) |
The established older players may have a point but the rest is rot.
Several of those players are still playing at or above this level. Some of the others are now struggling at the foot of the level below because they are another year older. At least 3, if not 4, of that squad were written off as not good enough and are now playing regularly in a successful team under McKenna.
McKenna would clearly have done at least as well with that squad as he is doing with this one. To pretend otherwise is to ignore that a less successful manager had them already on the verge of the play-offs. | |
| |
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 13:55 - Feb 24 with 729 views | itfcjoe |
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 13:45 - Feb 24 by Nthsuffolkblue |
The established older players may have a point but the rest is rot.
Several of those players are still playing at or above this level. Some of the others are now struggling at the foot of the level below because they are another year older. At least 3, if not 4, of that squad were written off as not good enough and are now playing regularly in a successful team under McKenna.
McKenna would clearly have done at least as well with that squad as he is doing with this one. To pretend otherwise is to ignore that a less successful manager had them already on the verge of the play-offs. |
For all the talk of the ex-Ipswich players struggling at Colchester - other than Chambers, and potentially Judge who seems to have missed a lot of this season, they were hardly regulars last year. Sears played a fair bit but Skuse played 1 or 2 games, Huws played half a dozen, Kenlock barely played etc.
I keep seeing this talk about no wonder we struggled last year when these players are now struggling in League 2 - they were very much, Chambers and Judge aside, on the fringes of our squad |  |
| |
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 16:06 - Feb 24 with 630 views | positivity |
| Cook vs McKenna calculations on 13:45 - Feb 24 by Nthsuffolkblue |
The established older players may have a point but the rest is rot.
Several of those players are still playing at or above this level. Some of the others are now struggling at the foot of the level below because they are another year older. At least 3, if not 4, of that squad were written off as not good enough and are now playing regularly in a successful team under McKenna.
McKenna would clearly have done at least as well with that squad as he is doing with this one. To pretend otherwise is to ignore that a less successful manager had them already on the verge of the play-offs. |
i think you underestimate the power that the older players had at the club, it would be a difficult dressing room to come into as a 35-year old first time boss. bobby had similar battles with baxter et al, and cook's no bobby!
which are the 4 you mention?
woolfenden? cook didn't use him to his best, but he's performing much better in a 3 than a 4, and when you get cook you know he's going to use the 4
norwood? was that cook or rolls? either way i'd be shocked if mckenna chooses to keep him
donacien? cook brought him back from loan, gave him a new contract and played him regularly
jackson? again didn't fit the cook system. should he have been more flexible? definitely
apologies if i've missed any
when lambert stepped down they'd won one in 7, which is hardly playoff form even if gill managed to get 3 wins (with declining performances!) afterwards.
we weren't going great guns with cook, but he'd won 4 of his last 8 in the league (and the dropped points were against top 6 teams), so it's a much better position to take over.
to summarise, i'm very glad mckenna's here, he's doing excellently, but i doubt he'd have been averaging over 2 points a game with lambert's leftovers! | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
