The Summer clearout / Coming in thread. Updated 27/8

[ZacNaloen]

That's just misunderstanding the conversation Lee.

They aren't discussing if Harte was better than Bertrand, but if Mcanuff played better with Bertrand or Hartre.

Over the season, the difference in the available information is negligible so it's really a stupid argument anyway.

[Royalee]

That's just misunderstanding the conversation Lee.

They aren't discussing if Harte was better than Bertrand, but if Mcanuff played better with Bertrand or Hartre.

Over the season, the difference in the available information is negligible so it's really a stupid argument anyway.

Sorry mate, I'm so engrossed in this England match I couldn't be bothered to read this thread properly

McAnuff played much better with Bertrand - they understood eachother better and Bertrand overlapped. McAnuff was ineffectual on Monday because Swansea didn't have to worry about Harte as he was too pedestrian.

Either way, I'd rather we'd just loaned/signed Bertrand again rather than probably spending double the money on Williams and Harte who are both toilet. That said that's one of the very few thing's McDermott has got wrong this year.

[Hoop Blah]

Zac, just to repeat as it seems you haven't picked up the essence of my point...

Snowballs statistical analysis is completely flawed because it doesn't factor in who was playing where and in 'partnership' with who so using the individuals season stats for McAnuff, Harte and Bertrand to compare how well McAnuff has performed is pointless.

All of McAnuffs goals might've come when he wasn't playing on the left or wasn't playing with Harte. Unless you want to go to that level of detail the stats just don't have any real weight.

Furthermore, the bigger point is that McAnuffs performances aren't just measured by his goals and assists.

[ZacNaloen]

Snowballs statistical analysis is always flawed, he's just trolling you.

It doesn't really matter where Mcanuff was playing when he scored goals/got assists. Over the course of the season he created so little regardless of whether he has an attacking or defensive full back, playing in midfield or on the right or left of him that all we can really tell from the stats snowball has provided is that when you boil the numbers down when it comes to be an attacking player he isn't as effective as most seem to think he is.

Luckily for him he has other attributes that make up for that. I always get the impression that he's pretty good at holding the ball up so that other players can come into the game, for example. But considering that what you want most from a winger is assists/goals I'd actually prefer the recent form Hal starting to Mcanuff. But we'll see what happens in pre-season, Hal may lose his momentum over the summer and start slowly.

[Hoop Blah]

Didn't create much? He's been credited with more assists than any other Reading player over the last two seasons!

There was a home game in the run-in which everyone slagged off his performance yet he had a hand in creating our 3 or 4 best chances (can't remember the game but he and Long combined to set up Hunt and I think McAnuff also scored)

[Ian Royal]

Yeah, about 7 assists and 4 goals is an awful return for a winger. Especially one who's defensive, intelligence and passing qualities are so good.

McAnuff is in the heart of most of our best team play.

[ZacNaloen]

Yeah, about 7 assists and 4 goals is an awful return for a winger. Especially one who's defensive, intelligence and passing qualities are so good.

McAnuff is in the heart of most of our best team play.

Way to miss half the oxf*rd post Ian

[ZacNaloen]

Didn't create much? He's been credited with more assists than any other Reading player over the last two seasons!

There was a home game in the run-in which everyone slagged off his performance yet he had a hand in creating our 3 or 4 best chances (can't remember the game but he and Long combined to set up Hunt and I think McAnuff also scored)

I suggest reading my post again, It's rather critical of the stats if you read between the lines.

Apart from the last line that is I really would prefer Hal, he was showing signs of being more effective than Jobi towards the end of the season and I think Jobi needs a kick up the backside to get him concentrating fully again.

[Snowball]

Didn't create much? He's been credited with more assists than any other Reading player over the last two seasons!

There was a home game in the run-in which everyone slagged off his performance yet he had a hand in creating our 3 or 4 best chances (can't remember the game but he and Long combined to set up Hunt and I think McAnuff also scored)

So now you DO decide to use a stat. Make your mind up.!

He has also played more games, and it's HIS JOB to lay on assists

Noel Hunt has a better assist rate, Gyfli had a better rate, Howard has a better rate, Kebe is the same.

However when you also add GOALS McAnuff looks much MUCH weaker

Assists (Two Seasons

08 Assists + 12 Goals 28 (21) One assist every 3.5 games Noel Hunt
10 Assists + 22 Goals 42 (05) One assist every 4.2 games Gylfi Siggurdson
12 Assists + 03 Goals 54 (12) One assist every 4.5 games Brian Howard
17 Assists + 07 Goals 85 (00) One assist every 5.0 games Jobi McAnuff
14 Assists + 21 Goals 71 (16) One assist every 5.0 games Jimmy Kebe
12 Assists + 34 Goals 75 (13) One assist every 6.2 games Shane Long

Assists with Goals (Two Seasons)

10 + 22 Goals 42 (05) One goal or assist every 1.34 games Gylfi Siggurdson
08 + 12 Goals 28 (21) One goal or assist every 1.57 games Noel Hunt
12 + 34 Goals 75 (13) One goal or assist every 1.68 games Shane Long
14 + 21 Goals 71 (16) One goal or assist every 2.09 games Jimmy Kebe

17 + 07 Goals 85 (00) One goal or assist every 3.54 games Jobi McAnuff <<<<<<
12 + 03 Goals 54 (12) One goal or assist every 3.73 games Brian Howard

[Snowball]

I am not trying to prove anything with these stats
except to say that using stats, McAnuff doesn't blow
his team-mates out of the water for number of assists
when you factor in his number of games.

And when goals are added he looks far inferior to Hunt, Gylfi, Long, Kebe.


Those saying "it's obvious" that McAnuff does X and Y can't use actual official stats
because those stats show clearly that he is not a stand-out. So, instead, they just
SAY McAnuff is better and justify that with vague, woolly statements or remembering
one game

[Hoop Blah]

Not trying to prove anything?

I thought you were 'busting another myth' weren't you? Won't you have to prove/disprove something to do that?

[Snowball]

Not trying to prove anything?

I thought you were 'busting another myth' weren't you? Won't you have to prove/disprove something to do that?

OK, I'll rephrase.

I neither think McAnuff is fantastic, or a bad player.
I have no problem with saying Bertrand is a very good player.

Where the "problem" lies is people casually, without justification,
saying that McAnuff "played better when playing with Bertrand"

NOT more shots. (A LOT less)
NOT more shots on target (about half)
NOT more goals
NOT more assists
NOT more goals for the team as a whole
NOT a better defensive record for the team as a whole.
NOT more points (14 less)

So I ask myself, not more shots or goals or assists or better defence, or taking pressure so others score more goals. WHAT then?


What's left?

Making runs to take away defenders so others can score? NO. We scored a lot less goals.

Perhaps it's "working in tandem with the FB"

Er, no, not that either. Bertrand had one goal all season and just three assists.


WITHOUT ANY SENSIBLE EVIDENCE in support of your claims I'd have to say you were very clearly WRONG. This season McAnuff and Harte have scored 15 goals, kept more clean sheets, conceded a lot less goals and have a GD of +21 better than McAnuff-Bertrand. How come if McAnuff Bertrand was so brilliant, did they only manage 4 goals between them in 92 STARTS between them? This year, with 44 Starts, McAnuff managed that on his own, and Harte got a mere 11 goals.


That is such a huge difference. It's one thing to say 6 of one half-dozen of the other
but to argue that McAnuff was better with Bertrand is plain denial of the facts

92 Starts = 04 Goals = 2 goals a season
88 Starts = 15 Goals

[Snowball]

78 Shots on target 43 Off-target 10 Hit Woodwork 15 Goals McAnuff-Harte
33 Shots on target 39 Off-target 02 Hit Woodwork 04 Goals McAnuff-Bertrand

240% shots on target, 10% shots off target, 500% hit woodwork 375% goals


These differences are massively in favour supporting the contention
that McAnuff Harte was a FAR better pairing that McAnuff Bertrand

The team also conceded 9 less goals, so had a better defence.

The team also had a +21 GD


Where is your EVIDENCE for saying McAnuff played better with Bertrand?







48 Shots on target 22 Off-target 01 Hit Woodwork McAnuff
30 Shots on target 21 Off-target 09 Hit Woodwork Harte
78 Shots on target 43 Off-target 10 Hit Woodwork McAnuff-Harte

25 Shots on target 29 Off-target 02 Hit Woodwork McAnuff
08 Shots on target 10 Off-target 00 Hit Woodwork Bertrand
33 Shots on target 39 Off-target 02 Hit Woodwork McAnuff-Bertrand

[Vision]

Hmm. Aren't Harte & McAnuff this season's dead ball takers?

Bertrand wasn't last season was he?
Siggurdsson would also have taken a significant number of the corners that McAnuff took this season wouldn't he?

The play-off final alone gave McAnuff 2 assists which had nothing to do with how he and Harte linked up (which is the myth Snowball seems to be trying to explode)

Taking goals/assists as the proof of the effectiveness of a partnership when the vast majority of those goals/assists have come from set play situations rather than actual combination play is a bit flawed to say the least.

That Harte isn't a very very good free-kick/corner taker isnt really open to debate but that doesn't in any way prove that Mcanuff plays better generally with him than with Bertrand.

[Hoop Blah]

Snowball, this comes back to the cmon point you seem to consistently miss, that those stats don't really translate into how an individual has played.

From all the above stats I still don't think you isolated those outcomes (shots, assists, goals etc etc) that McAnuff got whilst playing with in a partnership with either of Bertrand or Harte, all you've done is totally up their seasons tallys and tried to make out that it's better than the opinion formed based on watching how he's played.

You've busted nothing!

[loyalroyal4life]

For all his goals, Harte costs us just as many if not double the amount of goals through being utterly inept defensively. How anyone can put him in the same class as Bertrand is beyond me.

Can't be arsed to find out who has classed harte with bertrand but agree, harte is no where near close to being in the same league as bertrand!

We have not got a chance of getting bertrand unfortunately, think swansea may go in for him or even QPR

[ZacNaloen]

Once again Snowball, Hartes goals are irrelevent to this analysis.

They weren't scored as "part of the partnership"

They were free-kicks and penalties.

[Snowball]

Hmm. Aren't Harte & McAnuff this season's dead ball takers?

Bertrand wasn't last season was he?
Siggurdsson would also have taken a significant number of the corners that McAnuff took this season wouldn't he?

The play-off final alone gave McAnuff 2 assists which had nothing to do with how he and Harte linked up (which is the myth Snowball seems to be trying to explode)

Taking goals/assists as the proof of the effectiveness of a partnership when the vast majority of those goals/assists have come from set play situations rather than actual combination play is a bit flawed to say the least.

That Harte isn't a very very good free-kick/corner taker isnt really open to debate but that doesn't in any way prove that Mcanuff plays better generally with him than with Bertrand.

WOAH, guys, the argument has slipped.

The statement (which I strongly dispute) was
"McAnuff played a lot better with Bertrand"


I wasn't arguing necessarily about Harte v Bertrand OR the partnership

except to say that part of the assessment of the winger must
include how well the partnership performed.

So PLEASE list the obvious and less obvious measures of McAnuff's playing better.


Number of Goals (Higher with Harte)
Number of Shots (Higher with Harte)
Number of shots on target (Higher with Harte
Number of Assists (about the same)
Number of crosses resulting indirectly in a goal (eg a flick on so Mac doesn't get the assist) (No idea but don't remember any)
Number of secondary assists (eg like Kebe didn't get the assist for his 100 yard dash, but "made the goal" (ditto)
Number of completed passes? (No figures but Mac has neither gone off the boil or imrpoved on this)
Number of tackles won? MORE this season because he's done more covering Harte)
Goals or chances won for others by movement taking away defenders? (Nothing significant either way)
Hard work/cover supporting the left back (MORE this season covering for Harte
Anything else?

So on just about every measure McAnuff has done better this season, and then when you look at the TEAM it had a massively better GD of +21


I ask again, exactly HOW was McAnuff better with Bertrand. Did it win us more goals, passes, assists, points
or did it in fact NOT occur, but RTG have clouded memory?

[Snowball]

Once again Snowball, Hartes goals are irrelevent to this analysis.

They weren't scored as "part of the partnership"

They were free-kicks and penalties.

I only partly agree. A manager picks a LB-LW combo and judges
its efficacy on goals, assists, tackles, completed passes, truly
dangerous passes.. then that's counterbalanced by how many
goals that side ships.

What about Harte's shots from distance, his sometimes brilliant crosses
his defence splitting balls out to Kebe, the mere fact that because he is
so dangerous at free-kicks defences get more cautious and that (indirectly)
means we get pens instead of frees or the player is through?

[Snowball]

That's just misunderstanding the conversation Lee.

They aren't discussing if Harte was better than Bertrand, but if Mcanuff played better with Bertrand or Harte.

Over the season, the difference in the available information is negligible so it's really a stupid argument anyway.

I'm not arguing about the facts but the stupidity of the statement.

There is no evidence whatsoever (other than "Yes he did!") to support the contention "Mcanuff played better with Bertrand than with Harte"

There IS evidence to suggest he played better with Harte. Plenty of it.