I don't think either coach would get offered one of the top jobs in SL so I don't know why everyone is so bothered.

They also do Morgan a slight disservice by not counting 3 tied games. 52-3-53, is 49.5%.

Our first 2 SL seasons Rovers were 21-1-32. 2009/10 they almost mirrored that at 31/2/21.

edit: Agar's figure is too low as well, I think - even excluding his spell as caretaker in 2006. 48.5% overall, I reckon.

I think that Agar has had a lot to contend with due to the injuries the team have suffered during his reign at the club. Morgan on the other hand has not had the resources and finances at his disposal that Agar has had. I think that this is topic is a non starter due to the above mentioned. Ifs and Buts I know but how well could Hull perform with a fit team for a full season and if Rovers had more cash to spend on players how would they perform. Unfortunatley I dont think this question can be resolved at the mo. Maybe given several more years as SL coaches then the answer people are looking for maybe clearer. This of course is only my opinion and I'm not taking sides but Agar is the Hull Coach and Morgan smells

Every game they have led their team in SL, the bigger the sample the better.

Is it just about the coaches? I thought it was about FC and KR for the coming season

Personally don't think you can judge it on their SL careers either as Morgans win % in his first year in SL was never going to be that high due to the fact he had a hybrid NL1 club trying to compete in SL.

Indeed, my point when I posted the win percentages though was that even taking that into account Morgan's record is [istill [/i better than Agar's. It seems to have passed most people by though.

It's 4% or so better. Woot.

And if we're going to play the excuses game, what about Agar having to play a season and a half with Sharp's less than stellar signings?

Fact is that neither coach has a fantastic SL record for a variety of reasons.

FC IS one of the top jobs!!