Worst manager in the history of SUFC

[Selly]

Wont be that. Speed scored against us for Leeds once.

Good point...

Ok then their final game in charge was not a defeat. (Robsons 0-0 draw at WBA, Spackman 2-1 over Bradford)

Thinking back...

Speed - Lost at Barnsley
Blackwell - Lost to QPR at home
Warnock - Lost to Wigan
Heath - Lost to Port Vale
Bruce - Lost at Ipswich
Kendall - Lost to Palace
Bassett - Lost to huddersfield
McKewen - Lost to Oldham
Porterfield - lost to Norwich

cant go any further back...

 

[Darren]

Good point...

Ok then their final game in charge was not a defeat. (Robsons 0-0 draw at WBA, Spackman 2-1 over Bradford)

Thats the answer!

The others' last games are are:

Harris 11/5/68 H Chelsea 1-2
Rowley 19/4/69 A Oxford 0-1
Harris 24/11/73 A Coventry 1-3
Furphy 4/10/75 A Birmingham 0-2
Sirrel 24/9/77 A Brighton 1-2
Haslam 17/1/81 H Gilingham 0-1
Peters 2/5/81 H Walsall 0-1
Porterfield 22/3/86 H Noriwch 2-5
McEwan 2/1/88 H Oldham 0-5
Bassett 9/12/95 H Huddersfield 0-2
Kendall 26/5/97 N Palace 0-1
Thompson 13/5/98 A Sunderland 0-2
Bruce 9/5/99 A Ipswich 1-4
Heath 23/11/99 H Port Vale 1-3
Warnock 13/5/07 H Wigan 1-2
Blackwell 14/8/10 H QPR 0-3
Speed 11/12/10 A Barnsley 0-1
Adams 7/5/11 A Swansea 0-4

 

[Ollessendro]

Micky Adams IS the worst manager in the history of SUFC!?!

Sorry Olle. I'm not sure where you've got your statistics from but by my reckoning (and Soccerbase) he only won 4 matches.
Besides, I think average points per game is a better way of judging a manager than win% and I've always sorted the table accordingly.
Below is the updated table as I see it and guess what?
However you look at it, Adams is statistically speaking the worst manager:-

Rank Manager P W D PTS AVG Win %
1 Spackman 43 20 17 77 1.79 47%
2 Kendall 82 34 27 129 1.57 41%
3 Blackwell 125 53 36 195 1.56 42%
4 Porterfield 226 98 58 352 1.56 43%
5 Warnock 388 165 100 595 1.53 43%
6 Harris 612 258 144 918 1.50 42%
7 Davison 592 248 139 883 1.49 42%
8 Mercer 154 64 35 227 1.47 42%
9 Bruce 55 22 15 81 1.47 40%
10 Freeman 132 54 30 192 1.45 41%
11 Nicholson 1216 486 281 1739 1.43 40%
12 Robson 38 14 12 54 1.42 37%
13 Bassett 393 150 101 551 1.40 38%
14 Coldwell 23 9 5 32 1.39 39%
15 Rowley 43 16 11 59 1.37 37%
16 Furphy 80 27 22 103 1.29 34%
17 Thompson 17 5 6 21 1.24 29%
18 Mcewan 86 27 25 106 1.23 31%
20 Haslam 158 50 40 190 1.20 32%
21 Speed 18 6 3 21 1.17 33%
21 Heath 23 7 5 26 1.13 30%
22 Sirrell 81 20 23 83 1.02 25%
23 Peters 16 3 6 15 0.94 19%
24 Adams 24 4 5 17 0.71 17%

Cheers Sothall. I (lazily) copied and pasted it from Wikedpedia and did not bother checking the stats.

 

[Bladesway]

Stats mean little to nowt though. Based on that Warnock did a better job getting United to the Premier League for one Season than Bassett did keeping us there for a few golden years. And we all know thats utter bollocks.

Although interestingly 2 of our worst ever managers we had in one season, this one.

 

[DronnieBlade]

Some interesting yet bemusing stats. Just goes to show .....

Anyways, Blackwell for me. I cant go back further than Harris / Haslam realistically so in the last 40 ish years, defo Blackwell for me. Its my view and I am entitled.

Surprised to see Robson about half way up list

But that also reinforces my thoughts on Blackwell in that he inherited the BEST squad since the 70s and slowly but surely fucked it up, IMHO of course, big style

 

[Deadbat]

Manager stats

Me and my Uncle have debated this and he sent one based on win percentage too. I reasoned it was not wholly accurate as it did not reflect two things; 1) What division they wins occured in and 2) Longevity (how long a manager has been at the club - which surely adds credence to any argument if they have been their longer and done it over a period of time.

On a lonely night when the wife was out I used the various club bibles (thanks to Clareborough and Kirkham) and re-did the stats so each win in each division had a different weigting; eg 10 points for a win in the top division, 7 in the second tier, 4 in the third and 2 in the fourth.

Hopefully attachement works.

 

[Selly]

Me and my Uncle have debated this and he sent one based on win percentage too. I reasoned it was not wholly accurate as it did not reflect two things; 1) What division they wins occured in and 2) Longevity (how long a manager has been at the club - which surely adds credence to any argument if they have been their longer and done it over a period of time.

On a lonely night when the wife was out I used the various club bibles (thanks to Clareborough and Kirkham) and re-did the stats so each win in each division had a different weigting; eg 10 points for a win in the top division, 7 in the second tier, 4 in the third and 2 in the fourth.

Hopefully attachement works.

I like it.

As with all things its often a combination of things that point towrds the overall record.

In One Day Cricket, and average of 55 isn`t much good, if it comes at a strike rate of 30 runs every 100 balls.

Equally, a high Win % isn`t much good if it was acheived in the Lower divisions.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

It doesnt surprise me to see Spackman top of the pile on that list. He was only with us about half a season but he put the finishing touches to a what was a very good side he inherited. The team that still had Deane and Fjortoft in it was probably my fave Blades team. Good times.

 

[Darren]

Some interesting yet bemusing stats. Just goes to show .....

Anyways, Blackwell for me. I cant go back further than Harris / Haslam realistically so in the last 40 ish years, defo Blackwell for me. Its my view and I am entitled.

Surprised to see Robson about half way up list

But that also reinforces my thoughts on Blackwell in that he inherited the BEST squad since the 70s and slowly but surely fucked it up, IMHO of course, big style

I think that's a bit harsh

Blackwell's record:

2007-08: took a team that looked as if it might be in a relegation battle to within one game of the play offs
2008-09: one game away from the PL despite having his best player and top scorer sold
2009-10: finished just outside the play offs despite having his best players sold from under him (Walker, Naughton, Kilgallon) and having to rely on a collection of loanees and journeymen

Given the constraints under which he was working, Blackwell has a reasonable record. I bet we wouldn't have got relegated had he stayed in charge.

 

[blade too long]

win percentages dont take into account "winning draws"
a 1-1 draw at arsenal carries more sway than a 1-0 win over leyton orient

you can make stats say anything you want

seasons give you different use of stats

we got relegated with 38 points from the prem
west ham stayed up last season with 34

so they had a better season but the points stats say not

---------- Post added at 11:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 AM ----------

I think that's a bit harsh

Blackwell's record:

2007-08: took a team that looked as if it might be in a relegation battle to within one game of the play offs
2008-09: one game away from the PL despite having his best player and top scorer sold
2009-10: finished just outside the play offs despite having his best players sold from under him (Walker, Naughton, Kilgallon) and having to rely on a collection of loanees and journeymen

Given the constraints under which he was working, Blackwell has a reasonable record. I bet we wouldn't have got relegated had he stayed in charge.

as it turned out sacking him after losing at home to the best team in the division was a bit knee jerk , but we only know they were the best in hindsight
Blackwell had few freinds here but he knew how to collect points
theres a lot of guff about playing the right way
I have to say I preferrred winning and not playing like Barcelona than losing and not playing like Barcelona
Ive also come to realise you can only play like Barcelona when you are Barcelona, with Barcelonas bank account

When did we play this expansive crowd pleasing style I hear people miss
I dont recall it

anyone remember the basset era
when we won promotion some games , like oxford at home were bloody awful , only memorable for deanes last minute winner as we did in about 10 games
it certainly wasnt pretty to watch for most of the time, but who cared we were winning

 

[JohnDenver]

it certainly wasnt pretty to watch for most of the time, but who cared we were winning

Exaccerrly.

I'd tolerate dirge-ball if it paid dividends. But after years of it for absolutely zero reward, and with the prospect of poverty no-longer looming but thoroughly upon us, it's time to do things differently, more patiently and better.

Get it sorted Danny.

 

[oldblade]

Makes interesting reading that Olle. Quite a claim for Nigel Spackman, who I thought would have taken us up if we hadn't sold Deane and Fjortoft!

When you consider win percentage and number of games in charge though, you would have to say John Harris is our best ever manager. That is a phenomenal number of games in charge and to have a win percentage like that as well is remarkable. He certainly assembled arguably our greatest ever side.....post war I hasten to add.

Also Harris's record includes a large proportion of games in the first (premier) division, which to my mind makes it better than those above him in that list.

I do not think Spackman would have taken us up, because although we were virtually unbeatable at home, we simply could not win away. Our final league win away from home that season came at the beginning of November! A grand total of 3 away wins all season. I cannot ever remember a side getting promoted with so few away wins.

---------- Post added at 12:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 PM ----------

I think thats right - they both have unbeaten records in the FA Cup and no other manager who played an FA CUP game (Peters, Heath and Speed didn't) can boast that.



Spackman also has an impressive record in that we never lost a home league game under him. The defeat to Ipswich came immediately after he resigned and the defeat to WBA was towards the end of the season.

---------- Post added at 12:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 PM ----------

Theres something wrong with Adams record there, 5 win and 5 draws from 235 games, do not make an average of 0.56, its 0.8.

He is only ioff the bottome in terms of Win % though. Since League placings are decided by Points I'd argue Points per Game is much more representative of the effectiveness of a manager.

Had Adams averaged 0.94 Points per game rather than 0.80, we have ended up with an extra 3.5 points, which wouldn`t be enough to save us, bit would probably have put us in with a better shout. going into the last few matches...

We didn't win as many as 5 games under Adams. It was 4. Nottingham Forest, Leeds United, Bristol City and Reading. Can't think of any more.

---------- Post added at 12:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 PM ----------

Equally, a high Win % isn`t much good if it was acheived in the Lower divisions.

Yes it is, because it's the high win rate in lower divisions that gets you promoted to a higher division.

 

[Ollessendro]

How many games do we have to rack up to get a decent sample size? And will Weir get that far??

Weir currently has the following stats P 9 W1 D 1 L 7 Pts 4 PPG 0.44 Win % 11%

I did not think I would see it so soon after, but we have a rival for Ale House Micky's record. And Weir is in a lower division. A loss on Friday, followed by a sacking, would leave him as the undisputed worst manager in the history of SUFC!?

Yes, statistically it's by far the worst managerial record. Interestingly, several of our other worst ever managers have lost their job around the 16 to 23 game mark (Thompson, Heath, Peters).


Rank Manager P W D PTS AVG Win %
1 Spackman 43 20 17 77 1.79 47%
2 Kendall 82 34 27 129 1.57 41%
3 Blackwell 125 53 36 195 1.56 42%
4 Porterfield 226 98 58 352 1.56 43%
5 Warnock 388 165 100 595 1.53 43%
6 Harris 612 258 144 918 1.50 42%
7 Davison 592 248 139 883 1.49 42%
8 Mercer 154 64 35 227 1.47 42%
9 Bruce 55 22 15 81 1.47 40%
10 Freeman 132 54 30 192 1.45 41%
11 Nicholson 1216 486 281 1739 1.43 40%
12 Robson 38 14 12 54 1.42 37%
13 Bassett 393 150 101 551 1.40 38%
14 Coldwell 23 9 5 32 1.39 39%
15 Rowley 43 16 11 59 1.37 37%
16 Furphy 80 27 22 103 1.29 34%
17 Thompson 17 5 6 21 1.24 29%
18 Mcewan 86 27 25 106 1.23 31%
20 Haslam 158 50 40 190 1.20 32%
21 Speed 18 6 3 21 1.17 33%
21 Heath 23 7 5 26 1.13 30%
22 Sirrell 81 20 23 83 1.02 25%
23 Peters 16 3 6 15 0.94 19%
24 Adams 18 2 4 10 0.56 11%

 

[Sothall_Blade]

All the statistics were taken from Soccerbase and include cup matches as well. Which gives us:-

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

My maths aint great, Sothal, but even a win on Friday doesn't get him off the bottom of that table I think.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

My maths aint great, Sothal, but even a win on Friday doesn't get him off the bottom of that table I think.

If he wins on Friday he's as bad as Adams and people say "give him time"?

 

[Sothall_Blade]

My maths aint great, Sothal, but even a win on Friday doesn't get him off the bottom of that table I think.

No it wouldn’t on points per game, which I consider to be a more important measurement than win %.
He would need to win the next three matches to reach the dizzy heights of 1 point per game.
We’re talking a Sirrell /Peters level of competence, 46 points a season and almost certain relegation.

 

[Ollessendro]

If he wins on Friday he's as bad as Adams and people say "give him time"?

come on Grumps, be fair. We should give him a few more games, if only to get the statistical significance up. With sample sizes that low, then a couple of results completly changes things. Give him the next 2 games at the very least. That would be 13 games. Even to the end of the month, 17 games that would be, to ensure a better comparison with Peters.

 

[Ollessendro]

Weir has now had 13 games (unlucky for some!) meaning his stats are:

P W D L Pts PPG Win%
13 1 3- 9- 6 - .46 -- 7%

He's pretty much cemented himself in as the worst SUFC manager in the history of the club. Truly terrible stats. Small sample size though. But will he be given a chance to increase the sample size? Got to give him until at the very earliest the start of November, preferably the start of Decemember and maybe even to Christmas. The statistician that sits next to me in the office says 50 games (!?) but I would have Christmas as the cut off .... unless things start to improve

 

[JJ Sefton]

Weir has now had 13 games (unlucky for some!) meaning his stats are:

P W D L Pts PPG Win%
13 1 3- 9- 6 - .46 -- 7%

He's pretty much cemented himself in as the worst SUFC manager in the history of the club. Truly terrible stats. Small sample size though. But will he be given a chance to increase the sample size? Got to give him until at the very earliest the start of November, preferably the start of Decemember and maybe even to Christmas. The statistician that sits next to me in the office says 50 games (!?) but I would have Christmas as the cut off .... unless things start to improve

I don't think there is sufficient variance in the results to necessitate a larger sample size. There's nothing to suggest we are seeing 'Black Swans' here. Notts County was the outlier, the shit since is reversion to the mean.

 

[Darren]

Weir has now had 13 games (unlucky for some!) meaning his stats are:

P W D L Pts PPG Win%
13 1 3- 9- 6 - .46 -- 7%

He's pretty much cemented himself in as the worst SUFC manager in the history of the club. Truly terrible stats. Small sample size though. But will he be given a chance to increase the sample size? Got to give him until at the very earliest the start of November, preferably the start of Decemember and maybe even to Christmas. The statistician that sits next to me in the office says 50 games (!?) but I would have Christmas as the cut off .... unless things start to improve

If we are including cup games, his start is not quite as bad as Adams, whose first 13 games were P13 W0 D4 L9.

 

[JJ Sefton]

By my reckoning the only manager with a worse win percentage is Russell Slade in his two stints.

 

[Darren]

By my reckoning the only manager with a worse win percentage is Russell Slade in his two stints.

He only had one that I am aware of - 2 games between Heath and Warnock - D1 L1. Mind you that 25% points gathering rate is better than Weir's 17%

Whoops - crap maths - his rate is exactly the same as Weir's - 1 out of 6 = 17%

 

[Selly]

If we are including cup games, his start is not quite as bad as Adams, whose first 13 games were P13 W0 D4 L9.

Which was, of course, in the division above this...

 

[Darren]

Which was, of course, in the division above this...

And Adams won his next game, so Weir has to win at Coventry to not become offiically the manager with the worst ever start...

 

[JJ Sefton]

He only had one that I am aware of - 2 games between Heath and Warnock - D1 L1. Mind you that 25% points gathering rate is better than Weir's 17%

Whoops - crap maths - his rate is exactly the same as Weir's - 1 out of 6 = 17%

Did he not also have a couple after Spackman left?

 

[Darren]

Did he not also have a couple after Spackman left?

If memory serves I think it was annoucned that he and Thompson were in joint charge for the first game at home to Ipswich (lost 0-1), and then Thompson was in sole charge for the next game at Coventry in the cup. I think the Ipswich game tends to be accorded to Thompson.

 

[Kev Gee]

not good reading.

How the hell have we ended up in this mess.

Other teams must be pissing themselves at us.

Top 3 in the league in terms of fanbase & support. A new co-owner ready to drive us on. and a squad that should on paper be challenging around the top 6.

And here we are. 1 win all season. 2 losses against League 2 sides.

Can we sink any lower?

If i was the prince i would be on a plane ASAP & ready to crack some fucking skulls together.

 

[Ollessendro]

I don't think there is sufficient variance in the results to necessitate a larger sample size. There's nothing to suggest we are seeing 'Black Swans' here. Notts County was the outlier, the shit since is reversion to the mean.

More sample size is alwsys good. 13 games is not enough to build a trend line. As I am sure Darren will agree, randomness, luck and other externalities could be at force here and Weir needs at least another 6 or 7 games to see if any of those change ........ not that they are forced to change over a season .....

 

[Darren]

More sample size is alwsys good. 13 games is not enough to build a trend line. As I am sure Darren will agree, randomness, luck and other externalities could be at force here and Weir needs at least another 6 or 7 games to see if any of those change ........ not that they are forced to change over a season .....

Thing is, the only manager with a comparably awful records was Adams and whilst he did get better (record after the first 13 P11 W4 D1 L6 pts 13), it wasn't enough to save us from relegation.

If Weir did an Adams post first 13 games and we averaged 1.2 points a game from hereon we would end up with 48 points and almost certain relegation.

In other words even improvement to mid table form is unlikely to save us from relegation and mid table form seems a long way off at the moment.