Keith's Record (Updated)

The stats have not improved since the last time they were posted as we have only managed one win with the good performance at Charlton. Keith now has a measly seventeen victories in 60 league games (28.3%), twelve draws (20%) and a disgraceful 31 defeats (51.7%). Just in case anyone missed it that's 31 DEFEATS IN 60 LEAGUE GAMES. People can bang on about budgets and everything else but surely the first priority should be to make yourself difficult to beat but that's where Keith is going wrong - we're piss easy to beat.

Another worrying stat is that in the 36 league games played in 2012 we have scored more than one goal on only four occasions, so basically if we concede we're not going to win. This is a problem itself but is made all the worse when you consider that we have kept six clean sheets this year. We have failed to score in fifteen of these games which surprised me actually as I thought it would have been more.

I'll wait for the hail bullets coming my way but all I'm doing it pointing out the facts. People can offer all the excuses they like but these stats are very poor and worrying and if we continue in this vein we will finish bottom. If Keith has a long term plan it's obviously not working unless part of the plan is to get relegated.

 

But we are losing to teams that have more money and shop at waitrose !!

 

Irrelevant. Still irrelevant, that is. I am not going to repeat why.

 

So do you think these stats would be any better if we had somebody like Slade, Irvine or Blackwell as manager. I know what I think.

 

But that is just your opinion, not fact !!

I fail to see how we could have a much worse record with Hemmsy in charge !

 

financially we are a third division club,thats the top and bottom of it..

and i honestly believe it wouldnt matter who was in charge of the team,because they wouldnt do any better than our present manager given the fact they havnt got a pot to pi55 in...

 

If the stats were representative of the club's circumstances I'd take them seriously. As they are not, I won't. If you want accuracy on progress and performance factor everything in. Conan knows that but he won't do it because he has his own mardy agenda.

 

He knew that when he came and added a bit more piss in his own pot.

If its too hot in the kitchen either get out or wipe sweat off and knuckle darn to it.

 

It doesn't help when you consider that the players he's signed with cash, are Done, Wiseman, Dagnall, Dawson and Collins. None of those are key players, no matter how often Keith plays em, and no matter how you dress it up.
I was quite impressed with Done last year, and felt that if he improved his consistency he could become key for us. I now doubt that, and the fact we could have had 500k for him annoys me.
Also, we all knew we needed a commanding centre half in the summer, but we failed to get one.
Keith then plays his mate in central defence.
It's so bad it's funny.
DNA.

 

But the objective of this thread is to discredit Hill as a good manager so I am just looking at the alternatives and I don't think the grass is any greener when we look elsewhere.

 

Those stats are all that matters though when it comes to staying the division. That is a fact. Club circumstances don't matter a *****.

 

Apart from the fact that club circumstances have a massive influence upon the resulting stats. The two are inextricably linked and you can't consider one without the other.

In pretty much any aspect of life or work, available resources have a direct impact on the quality of output. It baffles me as to why so many BBS posters refuse to accept that.

 

It baffles me why people think that no other manager could do a better job on a restricted budget than Keith Hill. I guarantee there are people out there who would do a better job. That is a 100% cast iron FACT.

 

Go on then.

 

Nope, even with capitals for added emphasis, that is an opinion.

 

My point was merely about the circumstances meaning nothing to the success (or lack of) the club. The FL don't give points for doing relatively well on the smallest budget. Circumstances are a cause of the stats but there is no accounting for them. We will go down if we don't win enough games regardless of our financial situation. For me that is what Conan is pointing out, and he is right. The 'in the 36 league games played in 2012 we have scored more than one goal on only four occasions' stat is particularly glaring considering the fact we are supposed to be playing good football, how can that be? I am not a Keef knocker but the stats are really starting to show us to be in a bit if a pickle.

 

It's not a fact, it's a hypothesis.

As I've said elsewhere on the BBS, my "belief" is that Hill is still the best man for the BFC job. I "believe" that we will drop if he goes (we may well drop with him in charge too). If he goes and the next man improves on Hill's performance I will happily let you remind me of this post and my beliefs.

 

I agree that the stats don't look great. My point is that the circumstances may mean that relegation is inevitable, regardless of who is charge, which makes all of the discussion on here pretty much redundant.

 

Sean Dyche and Dougie Freedman have done well on small budgets and Kenny Jackett is doing better than Hill again.

 

Aye, Mark Robins. By the way 100% cast iron is inaccurate, it does not exist. It is an alloy and a brittle one at that. A bit like your argument and STATS.