Team Melli future coach

[Martin-Reza]

^
1- I thought we already discarded the results of minnows in those stats u brought up

You again brought them up claiming MK's wins would have been with more "authority". That's why I targeted this issue again.

2- now, who is one sided?
MK enjoyed AFC's "different system of using minnows"?
and branko didnt?
what about tajikistan, guam, ... ???

Branko's TM never took on Tajikistan. He had two 7-0 wins against Guam and one win vs. Chinese Taipeh. The four matches against minnows (2x Guam, 1x Chinese Taipeh, and even the 1x against New Zealand) were excluded as well in the final version.

Yes, MK benefited more from such groupings than any other coach past him. This is an undeniable fact.

3- if GN's draw with SKorea in AC07 is considered as a loss, why arent we counting branko's loss to china in 04 as a loss?

This is one of the issues really making me wonder if you are discussing seriously here. GN's AC result against South Korea has been counted as draw. This is very obvious, as he has 0 losses in competitive games. Branko's result (interestingly called a loss by you while GN's result is referred to as draw, saying much about your intentions) as well as MK's AC results in semifinal and 3rd place playoff, are also counted as draws.

4- I like the use of "strongest in 15 years" this & that to excuse a loss here and there ... but I dont see praise for the absolute BEST result in our HISTORY against the perennial asian powerhouses SKOREA ( and even ksa ) !!! and "I" am one sided ?

2004 Germany, 2006 Portugal and 2006 Mexico are different teams than 1996 Korea. Did the 1996 Korea even have a single legionnaire?

5- plz tell me u brought up the exhuastion of players as a negative for branko, as a JOKE .... coz THAT really takes the cake!

Are you able to read? I was talking about the 1997 campaign. Didn't know Branko was coach then. You just want to complain sometimes.

An interesting issue would have been a look at the cleaned final stats now, checking if MK or Branko did significally better or had significally stronger opposition in the competitive games without the pushover games.

But I am not wasting my time on someone only targeting twisting facts, like claiming I would have counted GN's draw as a loss, despite this very obviously never was the case.

[Doctor DOOM]

oh, I just read that last part on legionnaires.
I had missed the 1997 part.
sorry.

but going though with past record of ppl excusing "travel for legionnaires" as a negative I wrote my reply without reading the rest.
I blame it on the "sugar rush" ( wolfing on a dark choclt !!! )
my bad

[Martin-Reza]

Ok, and what about GN? It was very clear from the start I didn't count his draw as loss.

I mean I also don't always read the full postings with concentration, but at least when I want to complain about sth, I carefully check if that was even said.

[Doctor DOOM]

^ actually I dont know what you have counted.
you have merely written numbers and not the teams. and one doesnt know if these are against all oppositions, or selected asian oppositions, or selected big oppositions ( including europeans and SA's ) or .... .
so .... cant answer you on this one until .....

[Martin-Reza]

^ actually I dont know what you have counted.
you have merely written numbers and not the teams. and one doesnt know if these are against all oppositions, or selected asian oppositions, or selected big oppositions ( including europeans and SA's ) or .... .
so .... cant answer you on this one until .....

Man, GN has 0 losses in competitive games. So, since AC games are competitive games, it couldn't be I counted this game as loss.