Hasselbaink Vs Holloway - A Year at QPR
Nov 9, 2017 12:35:01 GMT
Post by northwesthoop on Nov 9, 2017 12:35:01 GMT
I've crunched some numbers and it raises an interesting debate of Hasselbaink Vs Holloway...
It was a quirk of the fixture lists that we played away to Nottingham Forest on the first weekend of November both this season and last season.
The difference is that after a 1-1 draw last year Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink was sacked, and after a 4-0 defeat this year Ian Holloway is secure in his job.
When Hasselbaink was sacked 12 months ago QPR were just 1 point worse off than they currently are. The only difference from the opening 16 games of each season being that we have drawn 1 game so far this season that we lost last season.
JFH was in charge at Loftus Road for nearly a year and Holloway is about to celebrate his anniversary so the timings are ironic.
I should preface the rest of this article by clearing up that I am not in any way saying Holloway should be sacked, just opening the debate on why did the axe fall on Hasselbaink when anybody at the club right now will tell you Holloway is doing a good job and meeting the remit.
Is it just the way the form was heading into November each season that made the difference? Holloway has just been nominated for October manager of the month having won 2 and drawn 2 before the Forest game. But then again Hasselbaink also won 2 matches last October. QPR drew 1 and lost 2 of the other games under Hasselbaink. Hardly disastrous form and there are fine margins between the 2 records.
My question is what has changed in 12 months to mean one manager loses his job and the other doesn’t, despite the fact QPR sit in an almost identical position.
Why are expectations lower at QPR in 2017 compared to 2016?
Why is the remit suddenly different for Holloway compared to the one Hasselbaink had? Surely both seasons were about consolidation and both were/are doing just that?
Does it come down to the style of football? But then again there aren’t that many differences between the records of the two managers, we had conceded the same amount of goals last season when Hasselbaink got the sack and only scored 2 fewer goals.
Is it simply that the history of Ian Holloway with QPR affords him more time and leniency?
The fixtures against Forest were only 365 days apart and as far as I’m aware there has been no significant change in finances at the club. A year ago we were already trying to cut our cloth accordingly and abiding by financial fair play rules, we were trying to cut wage bills etc and Lee Hoos' tenure was well under way. The only justification I can see is that the aspirations of the club must have changed in 12 months to be ‘happy and content’ now but feeling the need to sack a manager a year ago. Let's also not forget that we ended up a lot closer to relegation last season under Holloway than we were when Hasselbaink was shown the door
In Numbers:
Hasselbaink was in charge of QPR for 47 games. He won 14, drew 18 and lost 15. A win ratio of 30.23%, a defeat ratio of 31.91%.
Holloway has been in charge for 49 games, winning 16, drawing 9 and losing 24. So Holloway has both won more (2) and lost more (9) than Hasselbaink. His win ratio is therefore slightly better at 32.65% but his defeat ratio is considerably worse; we’ve lost nearly half of the games in the past 12 months at 48.98%. Yet Holloway keeps his job and Hasselbaink was shown the door. That is a poor defeat ratio and let’s not forget we haven’t won any of our last 15 away games under Holloway. Hasselbaink was possibly the victim of too many draws looking at those stats.
Were the board still chasing promotion last season when JFH was sacked after an initially promising start to last season?
An interesting debate for sure.
It certainly makes me think Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink was a little unlucky to face the chop a year ago. Or do you view it that Ian Holloway is lucky to still be in a job now?
Share your thoughts and reasons below!
Thanks for reading.
It was a quirk of the fixture lists that we played away to Nottingham Forest on the first weekend of November both this season and last season.
The difference is that after a 1-1 draw last year Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink was sacked, and after a 4-0 defeat this year Ian Holloway is secure in his job.
When Hasselbaink was sacked 12 months ago QPR were just 1 point worse off than they currently are. The only difference from the opening 16 games of each season being that we have drawn 1 game so far this season that we lost last season.
JFH was in charge at Loftus Road for nearly a year and Holloway is about to celebrate his anniversary so the timings are ironic.
I should preface the rest of this article by clearing up that I am not in any way saying Holloway should be sacked, just opening the debate on why did the axe fall on Hasselbaink when anybody at the club right now will tell you Holloway is doing a good job and meeting the remit.
Is it just the way the form was heading into November each season that made the difference? Holloway has just been nominated for October manager of the month having won 2 and drawn 2 before the Forest game. But then again Hasselbaink also won 2 matches last October. QPR drew 1 and lost 2 of the other games under Hasselbaink. Hardly disastrous form and there are fine margins between the 2 records.
My question is what has changed in 12 months to mean one manager loses his job and the other doesn’t, despite the fact QPR sit in an almost identical position.
Why are expectations lower at QPR in 2017 compared to 2016?
Why is the remit suddenly different for Holloway compared to the one Hasselbaink had? Surely both seasons were about consolidation and both were/are doing just that?
Does it come down to the style of football? But then again there aren’t that many differences between the records of the two managers, we had conceded the same amount of goals last season when Hasselbaink got the sack and only scored 2 fewer goals.
Is it simply that the history of Ian Holloway with QPR affords him more time and leniency?
The fixtures against Forest were only 365 days apart and as far as I’m aware there has been no significant change in finances at the club. A year ago we were already trying to cut our cloth accordingly and abiding by financial fair play rules, we were trying to cut wage bills etc and Lee Hoos' tenure was well under way. The only justification I can see is that the aspirations of the club must have changed in 12 months to be ‘happy and content’ now but feeling the need to sack a manager a year ago. Let's also not forget that we ended up a lot closer to relegation last season under Holloway than we were when Hasselbaink was shown the door
In Numbers:
Hasselbaink was in charge of QPR for 47 games. He won 14, drew 18 and lost 15. A win ratio of 30.23%, a defeat ratio of 31.91%.
Holloway has been in charge for 49 games, winning 16, drawing 9 and losing 24. So Holloway has both won more (2) and lost more (9) than Hasselbaink. His win ratio is therefore slightly better at 32.65% but his defeat ratio is considerably worse; we’ve lost nearly half of the games in the past 12 months at 48.98%. Yet Holloway keeps his job and Hasselbaink was shown the door. That is a poor defeat ratio and let’s not forget we haven’t won any of our last 15 away games under Holloway. Hasselbaink was possibly the victim of too many draws looking at those stats.
Were the board still chasing promotion last season when JFH was sacked after an initially promising start to last season?
An interesting debate for sure.
It certainly makes me think Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink was a little unlucky to face the chop a year ago. Or do you view it that Ian Holloway is lucky to still be in a job now?
Share your thoughts and reasons below!
Thanks for reading.
