How impressed are you with BMcD's return to the club?

[OLLIE KEARNS]

Stats don't lie. Plus you're assuming Clarke wouldn't have turned it around.

Yours do You keep banging on about being 7th when we were 9th and you seem to have forgot that Steve Clarke was also manager last year when we got 1 point per game under his leadership.
Per previous post I have no great interest in the debate but at least get close to some real numbers.

[Vision]

Stats don't lie. Plus you're assuming Clarke wouldn't have turned it around.

Yours do You keep banging on about being 7th when we were 9th and you seem to have forgot that Steve Clarke was also manager last year when we got 1 point per game under his leadership.
Per previous post I have no great interest in the debate but at least get close to some real numbers.

1 win in our last 1 games. 100% form. Stats don't lie.

[stealthpapes]

Plus you're assuming Clarke wouldn't have turned it around.

Yeah, tough call to make, that one.

[genome]

What do you do all day, Kes?

You know you've lost an argument when this response gets wheeled out.

I'm not conceding anything, there is just no point in engaging an obvious troll who can only be bothered to repeat the same point with his fingers in his ears when someone offers a valid counter-argument.

But if you want to feel like you've "won", indulge yourself. It's playground level stuff m8.

[OLLIE KEARNS]

Stats don't lie. Plus you're assuming Clarke wouldn't have turned it around.

Yours do You keep banging on about being 7th when we were 9th and you seem to have forgot that Steve Clarke was also manager last year when we got 1 point per game under his leadership.
Per previous post I have no great interest in the debate but at least get close to some real numbers.

1 win in our last 1 games. 100% form. Stats don't lie.

I have checked your stats and I am pleased to tell you that you have achieved 100% accuracy !

[No Fixed Abode]

I was watching the Agenda the other night and a politician said "Once you try and get personal in a debate you've lost the argument"

I'm not the only who doesn't think Reading haven't improved under McDermott.

[No Fixed Abode]

All we can go by is you were 7th under Clarke and 1 point off the play-offs. Now you're 14th and 14 points from the play-offs.

Stats are interesting when applied properly/logically (otherwise you become Snowball) but even then - at best - they only tell part of a story and are frankly useless without narrative. The narrative in this case is that apart from a purple patch in the autumn which was absolutely atypical of Clarke's miserable year in charge during which time we otherwise displayed relegation form, there was little or nothing good about his tenure and the dip in performances in the weeks leading up to his thoroughly merited departure suggested that all at the club had lost confidence in him. Added to that his keeness to distance himself from playing personnel he seemed keen to move on in the spring of 2015 as our form dipped below the mediocre standards set by his predecessor to then be given the chance to reshape the team as he desired with good backing by the owners, he then more than half-fancied a crack at the next job made available to him despite this backing. So not only were results largely poor he also forfeited the right to be trusted and respected. We now have a manager back with a track record and trusted and liked at this club and he should be afforded the time he was so reprehensibly denied back in the spring of 2013.

At least you can argue a point without getting personal Floyd.

[Longhorn1970]

What do you do all day, Kes?

You know you've lost an argument when this response gets wheeled out.

I'm not conceding anything, there is just no point in engaging an obvious troll who can only be bothered to repeat the same point with his fingers in his ears when someone offers a valid counter-argument.

But if you want to feel like you've "won", indulge yourself. It's playground level stuff m8.

Give it up ! The club were willing to let Sir Steve go because they thought they could make a few quid in the deal as Fulham would have to pay up his contract or at least offer comp, the figures banded around were £500k to £1.25m. The press coverage was clearly intended to stir things up and it backfired as SC wanted to stay. The mood changed (not helped by a dip in form) and the result against a poor QPR didn't help (ignoring al Habsi howler). The non footballing owners panic and the club end up paying up SC's contract, that happens in football, it's not the first time and won't be the last.
I personally was surprised we took a backward step given who was available at the time but the owners are clearly trimming the wage bill and some higher profile names probably priced themselves out, we move on ..

[If you still hate Futcher]

I'm not the only who doesn't think Reading haven't improved under McDermott.

Erm - you may want to revisit that sentence

[leon]

I'm not conceding anything, there is just no point in engaging an obvious troll who can only be bothered to repeat the same point with his fingers in his ears when someone offers a valid counter-argument.

But if you want to feel like you've "won", indulge yourself. It's playground level stuff m8.

Give it up ! The club were willing to let Sir Steve go because they thought they could make a few quid in the deal as Fulham would have to pay up his contract or at least offer comp, the figures banded around were £500k to £1.25m. The press coverage was clearly intended to stir things up and it backfired as SC wanted to stay. The mood changed (not helped by a dip in form) and the result against a poor QPR didn't help (ignoring al Habsi howler). The non footballing owners panic and the club end up paying up SC's contract, that happens in football, it's not the first time and won't be the last.
I personally was surprised we took a backward step given who was available at the time but the owners are clearly trimming the wage bill and some higher profile names probably priced themselves out, we move on ..

Hi Kes!!!

<waves>

[genome]

You know you've lost an argument when this response gets wheeled out.

I'm not conceding anything, there is just no point in engaging an obvious troll who can only be bothered to repeat the same point with his fingers in his ears when someone offers a valid counter-argument.

But if you want to feel like you've "won", indulge yourself. It's playground level stuff m8.

Give it up ! The club were willing to let Sir Steve go because they thought they could make a few quid in the deal as Fulham would have to pay up his contract or at least offer comp, the figures banded around were £500k to £1.25m. The press coverage was clearly intended to stir things up and it backfired as SC wanted to stay. The mood changed (not helped by a dip in form) and the result against a poor QPR didn't help (ignoring al Habsi howler). The non footballing owners panic and the club end up paying up SC's contract, that happens in football, it's not the first time and won't be the last.
I personally was surprised we took a backward step given who was available at the time but the owners are clearly trimming the wage bill and some higher profile names probably priced themselves out, we move on ..

If he wanted to stay, why did he go and speak to them?

At least you can argue a point without getting personal Floyd.

Don't cry, Kes. I wasn't insulting you, just asking where you find the time to argue about a team that shouldn't really make a difference to you. Come back with a proper response to all these counter claims instead of just "NO, NOT LISTENING, CLARKE IS BETTER" then I'd be happy to engage.

[No Fixed Abode]

I'm listening but all I'm getting from Brian fans is 'we're improving' when the stats don't back that up at the moment.

It's all ifs and Nicky Butts with you guys.

[Nameless]

I'm listening but all I'm getting from Brian fans is 'we're improving' when the stats don't back that up at the moment.

It's all ifs and Nicky Butts with you guys.

1. Stats don't tell you anything. It's interpreting stats properly that is useful
2. You've selected one measure, with no real justification for why it shows what you think it does
3. You've ignored any other way of looking at things
4. You got your measure wrong, as has been pointed out
5. You've misinterpreted the measure, as has been pointed out
6. The stats at the moment show Brian to be way more successful than Clarke. Brian has 100% win rate whereas Clarke had a 0% win rate *


*doing a Kes and selectively using just the last 2 games

[genome]

I'm listening but all I'm getting from Brian fans is 'we're improving' when the stats don't back that up at the moment.

It's all ifs and Nicky Butts with you guys.

How does 2 losses in 12 after 6 losses in 7 not constitute an improvement?!

[No Fixed Abode]

I'm sure the Hillman Imp is faster than a Bugatti Veyron but I'll trust the stats thank you very much.

[No Fixed Abode]

I'm listening but all I'm getting from Brian fans is 'we're improving' when the stats don't back that up at the moment.

It's all ifs and Nicky Butts with you guys.

How does 2 losses in 12 after 6 losses in 7 not constitute an improvement?!

Clarke this season 1.5 points per game
McDermott 1.27 points per game.

How does than constitute an improvement?

[bcubed]

Why are you all still feeding Kes' obvious, one dimensional and not very good trolling?

This

I just don't get it

[genome]

I'm listening but all I'm getting from Brian fans is 'we're improving' when the stats don't back that up at the moment.

It's all ifs and Nicky Butts with you guys.

How does 2 losses in 12 after 6 losses in 7 not constitute an improvement?!

Clarke this season 1.5 points per game
McDermott 1.27 points per game.

How does than constitute an improvement?

[Ian Royal]

I've got some stuff on team performance I might graph and chuck up here tonight if I can be arsed.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Stats don't lie.

But you have to admit, unless you are trolling, that they don't paint the complete picture either.

Comparing points/league position over two different tenures of different lengths and times, doesn't factor in opposition nor current form.

Clarke's more recent form was bad. McDs more recent form is better. We look better defensively and are letting in less goals. We are playing better as a team. We have stopped folding once we go behind.

With a smarter eye beyond just stats, we look like we have improved.

Your more simple way of looking at it, fine for football beginners, isn't comprehensive enough for the rest of us - no offence.

Smarter eye? Most Reading fans say it's a chore going to watch Reading (In the league at the moment)

Sure thing, and they have been for ages under Clarke and Adkins - what we are talking about is whether they are improving.

Like I said, just stats are fine for the unsophisticated footie novice but those of us with a deeper understanding of the game get that there are aspects of the performance which stats don't cover, and find the measure of two tenures of different lengths and opponents is rather crude.

That's all I'm sayin.