This is a really well-researched piece - but as with much data driven assessment, it fails to acknowledge many of the intangibles that football throws up; the largest of which - for me at least - is the fact that Eustace was sacked very much against the tide of sentiment, and Rooney inherited a group of players that were clearly disgruntled at his appointment, and denied the opportunity to integrate any of his own players to the group. The following results tally with this idea.
While Birmingham plummeted under his stewardship, it is important (again, to me at least) to point out that he was in charge for LESS THAN A THIRD OF A SEASON.
As a football fan, and one of a club with some of the most fickle going, I can completely understand why Brum fans blame him for their relegation. But I can’t help feel that the players who clearly downed tools following his appointment get off incredibly lightly.
I have no idea if Rooney will be a success, and I hope to god the board aren’t guilty of simply being starstruck in his appointment, but I’m willing to allow him time to see how it pans out. I was enthused by the fact he applied for the job, and more so that we hadn’t thirstily pursued him.
As the old the saying goes, the stats will tell you anything you want, if you interrogate them hard enough…
Interesting piece, one could argue Birmingham's early season form can be discounted as no one had really hit their straps, and their late season form just wasn't good enough, let's face it they weren't in the bottom 3 when Rooney got the push so middling results may have saved them.
1. Their post-Rooney form was much improved. 2. How are you trying to blame the post-Rooney team for not salvaging the mess he made? That’s like blaming the nurses and doctors for not saving a trauma victim, and not the trauma.
Same players as the early season under a new man why didn't they push up the table rather than down if Rooney was the only cause, Birmingham had been flirting with relegation for years, 19th or worse since 2016/17 season basket case of a club.
They did “push up the table”. For every 1 point they won under Rooney they won 1.65. The problem was: so did everyone else at the bottom - Stoke; Wednesday; QPR even Argyle the last few games.
Well no as they got relegated, fact is they weren't in the bottom 3, Wednesday were gone, Argyle in absolute turmoil and QPR were as inconsistent as it's possible to be. Rotherham and Huddersfield were trash from the start they had to do better than one other and didn't, the new man had twenty games all he had to do was keep their position he didn't, Rooney signed none of those players by the way.
QPR and Wednesday only lost one game of their last 8; Stoke only lost 1 in the last 9. Table position is as much a reflection of the performance of the teams around as of any given team. It has very little indication of how successful a team is in a vacuum.
Birmingham improved massively after Rooney. The only reason they didn’t stay up is because QPR, Stoke, Wednesday and - belatedly - Argyle saw even bigger, highly unlikely turnarounds.
You're agreeing with me they just weren't a good enough squad to keep pace with the other strugglers over the entire season, as I said earlier they've been flirting with the drop for 6 years or so, and finally they did
This is a really well-researched piece - but as with much data driven assessment, it fails to acknowledge many of the intangibles that football throws up; the largest of which - for me at least - is the fact that Eustace was sacked very much against the tide of sentiment, and Rooney inherited a group of players that were clearly disgruntled at his appointment, and denied the opportunity to integrate any of his own players to the group. The following results tally with this idea.
While Birmingham plummeted under his stewardship, it is important (again, to me at least) to point out that he was in charge for LESS THAN A THIRD OF A SEASON.
As a football fan, and one of a club with some of the most fickle going, I can completely understand why Brum fans blame him for their relegation. But I can’t help feel that the players who clearly downed tools following his appointment get off incredibly lightly.
I have no idea if Rooney will be a success, and I hope to god the board aren’t guilty of simply being starstruck in his appointment, but I’m willing to allow him time to see how it pans out. I was enthused by the fact he applied for the job, and more so that we hadn’t thirstily pursued him.
As the old the saying goes, the stats will tell you anything you want, if you interrogate them hard enough…
The stats only tell you anything you want if you DON’T interrogate them enough.
I’m more than happy to give Rooney a chance: I’m merely explaining why the evidence implies it was an ill-advised appointment.
Interesting piece, one could argue Birmingham's early season form can be discounted as no one had really hit their straps, and their late season form just wasn't good enough, let's face it they weren't in the bottom 3 when Rooney got the push so middling results may have saved them.
1. Their post-Rooney form was much improved. 2. How are you trying to blame the post-Rooney team for not salvaging the mess he made? That’s like blaming the nurses and doctors for not saving a trauma victim, and not the trauma.
Same players as the early season under a new man why didn't they push up the table rather than down if Rooney was the only cause, Birmingham had been flirting with relegation for years, 19th or worse since 2016/17 season basket case of a club.
They did “push up the table”. For every 1 point they won under Rooney they won 1.65. The problem was: so did everyone else at the bottom - Stoke; Wednesday; QPR even Argyle the last few games.
Well no as they got relegated, fact is they weren't in the bottom 3, Wednesday were gone, Argyle in absolute turmoil and QPR were as inconsistent as it's possible to be. Rotherham and Huddersfield were trash from the start they had to do better than one other and didn't, the new man had twenty games all he had to do was keep their position he didn't, Rooney signed none of those players by the way.
QPR and Wednesday only lost one game of their last 8; Stoke only lost 1 in the last 9. Table position is as much a reflection of the performance of the teams around as of any given team. It has very little indication of how successful a team is in a vacuum.
Birmingham improved massively after Rooney. The only reason they didn’t stay up is because QPR, Stoke, Wednesday and - belatedly - Argyle saw even bigger, highly unlikely turnarounds.
You're agreeing with me they just weren't a good enough squad to keep pace with the other strugglers over the entire season, as I said earlier they've been flirting with the drop for 6 years or so, and finally they did