Michael Duff evens.
Moderators: Admin, Ralph, asl, Robin
Simple - no logic whatsoever, but football is not a logical game especially at this level. if it were, those teams with the biggest budgets would always succeed.Horteng wrote:You serious?kags wrote:Would take that, keep the existing back room team and happy days.
Based on what?
-
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
- Posts: 29811
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
As you wanted Gary out, which nine names would you rather see in the top ten?Nesty wrote:That list is a joke, I hope. Only one out of the top ten I would be happy with and he ain't coming here
Sorry...totally disagree, bookers don’t rake 500% profit based on conjecture.Del Boy wrote:Luckily bookies don't have access to applications. They merely take a guess on who's available and who has connections with the club. There is little science to their approach as they know full well they won't be laying many bets.
500 per cent of what?? think your calculator must be broken againMalabus wrote:Sorry...totally disagree, bookers don’t rake 500% profit based on conjecture.Del Boy wrote:Luckily bookies don't have access to applications. They merely take a guess on who's available and who has connections with the club. There is little science to their approach as they know full well they won't be laying many bets.
Every £1 they lose ,they make £501.Del Boy wrote:500 per cent of what?? think your calculator must be broken againMalabus wrote:Sorry...totally disagree, bookers don’t rake 500% profit based on conjecture.Del Boy wrote:Luckily bookies don't have access to applications. They merely take a guess on who's available and who has connections with the club. There is little science to their approach as they know full well they won't be laying many bets.
Why are there so many betting shops.
-
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
- Posts: 29811
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Oddschecker gives an indication of where people who bet via their site are going.
Pie chart and data at the bottom of the odds page states that:
29.3% of all bets are on Milton (10/1)
22.6% on Buckle (40/1)
13.5% on Carsley (16/1)
10.5% on Duff (2/1)
8.3% on Slade (7/4)
15.8% on the rest
Indicative but likely to be a small sample. Just a few people betting 50p on Buckle as a long odds outsider is probably why he forms a high percentage of bets made via oddschecker click-throughs.
Bet Victor also offering double the odds on Duff compared to Sky (2/1 vs 1/1) again showing the low value of the market.
Re: Mal, so many betting shops so they can compete with internet bookies by having loads of fixed odds betting terminals in close proximity.
Pie chart and data at the bottom of the odds page states that:
29.3% of all bets are on Milton (10/1)
22.6% on Buckle (40/1)
13.5% on Carsley (16/1)
10.5% on Duff (2/1)
8.3% on Slade (7/4)
15.8% on the rest
Indicative but likely to be a small sample. Just a few people betting 50p on Buckle as a long odds outsider is probably why he forms a high percentage of bets made via oddschecker click-throughs.
Bet Victor also offering double the odds on Duff compared to Sky (2/1 vs 1/1) again showing the low value of the market.
Re: Mal, so many betting shops so they can compete with internet bookies by having loads of fixed odds betting terminals in close proximity.
-
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
- Posts: 29811
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Is it though? How many managers will the Board need to go through to get one you are happy with?Nesty wrote:irrelevant -RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:As you wanted Gary out, which nine names would you rather see in the top ten?Nesty wrote:That list is a joke, I hope. Only one out of the top ten I would be happy with and he ain't coming here
The Board got rid of the problem you kept moaning about and now you are already moaning about potential the solution.
-
East End Robin
- Posts: 61
- Joined: 03 May 2017, 17:04
Unfortunately it does have to be relevant. By sacking Johnson we are making the statement that we feel he is seriously under performing, and that we would expect better from a manager. If there is not another manager out there that we don't think could do a substantially better job, then Johnson can't have been seriously under performing, therefore he should not have got the sack. If we sack him but don't think we can replace him then the whole process is a waste of time and money.Nesty wrote:irrelevant -RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:As you wanted Gary out, which nine names would you rather see in the top ten?Nesty wrote:That list is a joke, I hope. Only one out of the top ten I would be happy with and he ain't coming here
No it's not. We can't afford "big" names and so i would also be interested to know the 9 names because we can afford them... right?Nesty wrote:irrelevant -RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:As you wanted Gary out, which nine names would you rather see in the top ten?Nesty wrote:That list is a joke, I hope. Only one out of the top ten I would be happy with and he ain't coming here
-
Johnsons Red Army
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: 27 Dec 2015, 14:19
- Location: Stroud
At last, someone with some common sense!East End Robin wrote:Unfortunately it does have to be relevant. By sacking Johnson we are making the statement that we feel he is seriously under performing, and that we would expect better from a manager. If there is not another manager out there that we don't think could do a substantially better job, then Johnson can't have been seriously under performing, therefore he should not have got the sack. If we sack him but don't think we can replace him then the whole process is a waste of time and money.Nesty wrote:
irrelevant -
You can make the common sense remark once a replacement, who ever that may be. Had been appointed, bedded in and after 10 games or so is returning a poorer strike rate than GJ. In saying that, the bookies list is irrelevant. Who knows what applications or feelers are out there
-
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
- Posts: 29811
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Lol. Calling the rumoured names a “joke” and saying you wouldn’t be happy with 9 of them and the other one won’t be coming anyway....I would hate to see you when you are moaning if you don’t think that is!Nesty wrote:I was not "moaning" !!
-
East End Robin
- Posts: 61
- Joined: 03 May 2017, 17:04
There may well be better candidates out there than the bookies know, I'm not denying that. My original statement wasn't saying Gary absolutely should not have been sacked. Rather, he should only have been sacked IF the board think they can fairly easily find a substantially better replacement. If so, fine and dandy. If not, then sacking him makes no sense.Ihearye wrote:You can make the common sense remark once a replacement, who ever that may be. Had been appointed, bedded in and after 10 games or so is returning a poorer strike rate than GJ. In saying that, the bookies list is irrelevant. Who knows what applications or feelers are out there
Personally though, the bookies list does concern me. There doesn't seem to be a stand out candidate that combines a solid FL record and actually possibly wanting to manage our club. It could be that our best chance of success is with a complete unknown, but that's also a MASSIVE gamble that may not be worth the risk.
its not down to me that GJ was sacked I was one of a large number of people on social media to comment (and most of my comments concerned the lack of strikers)
it is not down to me to select his successor indeed the board should have had an idea of who was out there, and affordable, that could do a better job
it is not down to me to select his successor indeed the board should have had an idea of who was out there, and affordable, that could do a better job
-
Johnsons Red Army
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: 27 Dec 2015, 14:19
- Location: Stroud
Why give the new manager any more than 4 games, that's all the patience GJ was shown with this new squad.?Ihearye wrote:You can make the common sense remark once a replacement, who ever that may be. Had been appointed, bedded in and after 10 games or so is returning a poorer strike rate than GJ. In saying that, the bookies list is irrelevant. Who knows what applications or feelers are out there
-
Johnsons Red Army
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: 27 Dec 2015, 14:19
- Location: Stroud
You and all the other moaners on here (and social media) almost-certainly contributed to his departure. So yes, it was down to YOU (maybe not you alone, but you almost-certainly contributed to it).Nesty wrote:its not down to me that GJ was sacked I was one of a large number of people on social media to comment (and most of my comments concerned the lack of strikers)
it is not down to me to select his successor indeed the board should have had an idea of who was out there, and affordable, that could do a better job
and the previous 94 games?!! pus losing FA Cup games to non league oppositionJohnsons Red Army wrote:Why give the new manager any more than 4 games, that's all the patience GJ was shown with this new squad.?Ihearye wrote:You can make the common sense remark once a replacement, who ever that may be. Had been appointed, bedded in and after 10 games or so is returning a poorer strike rate than GJ. In saying that, the bookies list is irrelevant. Who knows what applications or feelers are out there
-
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
- Posts: 29811
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Typical football fan - mouthing online or chanting on the terraces then as soon as the Board deliver what they wanted claim zero responsibility and in fact line themselves up for criticising the next Board appointment!
-
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
- Posts: 29811
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Did we miss a fixture? As far as I know the current squad - our best for about 5 years or so - has yet to play in the FA Cup.Nesty wrote:and the previous 94 games?!! pus losing FA Cup games to non league oppositionJohnsons Red Army wrote:Why give the new manager any more than 4 games, that's all the patience GJ was shown with this new squad.?Ihearye wrote:You can make the common sense remark once a replacement, who ever that may be. Had been appointed, bedded in and after 10 games or so is returning a poorer strike rate than GJ. In saying that, the bookies list is irrelevant. Who knows what applications or feelers are out there
-
East End Robin
- Posts: 61
- Joined: 03 May 2017, 17:04
I'll admit I'm not entirely sure where this 'best in five years' has come from either! Please do explain? 
Also is it painful to know that in the last 5 seasons, we've been knocked out of the FA cup by non-league teams 4 times (and the time we weren't we were the non-league team that couldn't knock out a league team in bloody Hartlepool).
Also is it painful to know that in the last 5 seasons, we've been knocked out of the FA cup by non-league teams 4 times (and the time we weren't we were the non-league team that couldn't knock out a league team in bloody Hartlepool).
-
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
- Posts: 29811
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Based on performances and the calibre of player (Mullins, Hussey, etc) I believe that the current squad is:
Better than the 2017/18 squad which shipped too many goals
Better than the 2016/17 squad which saw the Champions saved from relegation by loans and January signings
Better than the 2015/16 squad - as we saw, the Champions couldn’t compete in the League
Better than the 2014/15 squad - which got relegated so by default rubbish
So the best since at least 2013/14 in my view, which itself was a poor squad coming 17th, which would have been enhanced by Forster, Mullins, Boyle, Hussey, Nige, Jones and Clements.
That group, with Tozer and Dawson too, are the most solid and experienced core to a team we have had since Bennet, Elliott, Lowe, Penn, Pack and Summerfield in my view.
The only permanent players I would have from 2014 to 2018 squads which would I believe would enhance our current first choice match day squad are:
Scott Brown
Pre-injury Holman
Fit Asa Hall
Winchester
Mo
Better than the 2017/18 squad which shipped too many goals
Better than the 2016/17 squad which saw the Champions saved from relegation by loans and January signings
Better than the 2015/16 squad - as we saw, the Champions couldn’t compete in the League
Better than the 2014/15 squad - which got relegated so by default rubbish
So the best since at least 2013/14 in my view, which itself was a poor squad coming 17th, which would have been enhanced by Forster, Mullins, Boyle, Hussey, Nige, Jones and Clements.
That group, with Tozer and Dawson too, are the most solid and experienced core to a team we have had since Bennet, Elliott, Lowe, Penn, Pack and Summerfield in my view.
The only permanent players I would have from 2014 to 2018 squads which would I believe would enhance our current first choice match day squad are:
Scott Brown
Pre-injury Holman
Fit Asa Hall
Winchester
Mo