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

[No Fixed Abode]

Nope. If Steve Clarke has beaten better teams in the league campaign (so far) than Brian - that's a better achievement. You can't have the rule for the FA Cup then not apply it to the league campaign. Be consistent EP.

Brian's only played 3 of the current top 6, and is unbeaten in those games. Not worth comparing the two on that stat until the end of the season, for a fair comparison.

Incidentally both managers have played a Premier League team in a cup competition this season, Clarke lost his, Brian won his.

But as ever the league campaign is most important to get to the promised land of the Premier League with all this new TV money and Clarke thus far, his ppg is higher.

[Vision]

I think those with even a fairly basic knowledge know that it is often not the best team that wins the league. Both Saints and West Ham were better than us when we won the league but we got more points.
Bad teams don't win titles but efficient teams can finish ahead of good footballing teams.

In what way were Saints and West Ham better than us that season.?

You'd probably have to define "good footballing team" too. Good luck with that

Even better better luck with making a convincing argument that a Sam Allardyce side fits into your definition

It's a rather tired and tedious argument, but if you look at how close it was in the end, you could argue that our results against West Ham and Saints later on in the season made the difference. Those two had been leading virtually all the way, and the pressure was on them, whereas we were somewhat the underdogs with less pressure surging up from behind.

We certainly had far better mental strength, because we took our chances and won those games, when Saints and West Ham had arguably demonstrated across the rest of the season they were better than us. They bottled the crunch matches with us.

We weren't a particularly good side (easily top four still) but we ruthlessly mitigated our weaknesses, played to our strengths and exposed other teams weaknesses. Now there's an element to that which clearly argues we were the best side. You certainly don't finish first without having been one of the best sides. But equally the best side doesn't always finish first. Luck doesn't play an enormous part, but when we're talking one or two points maes the difference over a 46 game season, one or two small slices of fortune or mis-fortune can make the difference between one or two places.

Take out our results against the two best teams in the division and the table looks like this:

Saints 87
West Ham 86
Reading 79

We won, because we made the games against our direct rivals count, gaining 10 points and denying them 5 and 6 respectively. Something we haven't done since. We still aren't.

Lol. So we took 10 points out of 12 against them, with a gd of +7 btw , and that's the argument for them being better than us . I'll be honest Ian, I've seen more compelling arguments .

[Westwood52]

TBF to Brian he is trying to work with players who he would not necessarily have signed.
That said IMO he has a bigger and better squad than that he went up with.
There a lot of very good Chumpionship players in the squad.
The problem at the moment I feel is he is struggling with Norwood-who despite having Hector in the team still wants to pick the ball up from his CBs..
That means Kermit/Vydra/Denis are isolated and outnumbered.
Quinn is such a good pro that he is trying to stay wide & get forward.
Yet Norwood is the teams heartbeat

[Ian Royal]

In what way were Saints and West Ham better than us that season.?

You'd probably have to define "good footballing team" too. Good luck with that

Even better better luck with making a convincing argument that a Sam Allardyce side fits into your definition

It's a rather tired and tedious argument, but if you look at how close it was in the end, you could argue that our results against West Ham and Saints later on in the season made the difference. Those two had been leading virtually all the way, and the pressure was on them, whereas we were somewhat the underdogs with less pressure surging up from behind.

We certainly had far better mental strength, because we took our chances and won those games, when Saints and West Ham had arguably demonstrated across the rest of the season they were better than us. They bottled the crunch matches with us.

We weren't a particularly good side (easily top four still) but we ruthlessly mitigated our weaknesses, played to our strengths and exposed other teams weaknesses. Now there's an element to that which clearly argues we were the best side. You certainly don't finish first without having been one of the best sides. But equally the best side doesn't always finish first. Luck doesn't play an enormous part, but when we're talking one or two points maes the difference over a 46 game season, one or two small slices of fortune or mis-fortune can make the difference between one or two places.

Take out our results against the two best teams in the division and the table looks like this:

Saints 87
West Ham 86
Reading 79

We won, because we made the games against our direct rivals count, gaining 10 points and denying them 5 and 6 respectively. Something we haven't done since. We still aren't.

Lol. So we took 10 points out of 12 against them, with a gd of +7 btw , and that's the argument for them being better than us . I'll be honest Ian, I've seen more compelling arguments .

The evidence over the longer term does rather support that they were better sides, given we sunk straight back down and both of them have spent the time since in the PL, in the top half on occasion too. Fairly able demonstration of ruthless efficiency from a limited group vs lots of talent not quite as well focused in the longer term. Obviously greater (and far better) investment helps there too.

Fine margins.

[genome]

Nope. If Steve Clarke has beaten better teams in the league campaign (so far) than Brian - that's a better achievement. You can't have the rule for the FA Cup then not apply it to the league campaign. Be consistent EP.

Brian's only played 3 of the current top 6, and is unbeaten in those games. Not worth comparing the two on that stat until the end of the season, for a fair comparison.

Incidentally both managers have played a Premier League team in a cup competition this season, Clarke lost his, Brian won his.

But as ever the league campaign is most important to get to the promised land of the Premier League with all this new TV money and Clarke thus far, his ppg is higher.

Over how many games is this PPG you are referring to? Clarke took charge of 19 league games, Brian has taken 11. Seems unfair to compare the two if the sample size is not the same.

Comparing Clarke's last 11 games for a fair comparison, Clarke got 15 points and Brian has achieved 13 points, a lot closer. And that's discounting our cup record of P4 W3 D1 L0.

I admire your persistence though.

[Vision]

It's a rather tired and tedious argument, but if you look at how close it was in the end, you could argue that our results against West Ham and Saints later on in the season made the difference. Those two had been leading virtually all the way, and the pressure was on them, whereas we were somewhat the underdogs with less pressure surging up from behind.

We certainly had far better mental strength, because we took our chances and won those games, when Saints and West Ham had arguably demonstrated across the rest of the season they were better than us. They bottled the crunch matches with us.

We weren't a particularly good side (easily top four still) but we ruthlessly mitigated our weaknesses, played to our strengths and exposed other teams weaknesses. Now there's an element to that which clearly argues we were the best side. You certainly don't finish first without having been one of the best sides. But equally the best side doesn't always finish first. Luck doesn't play an enormous part, but when we're talking one or two points maes the difference over a 46 game season, one or two small slices of fortune or mis-fortune can make the difference between one or two places.

Take out our results against the two best teams in the division and the table looks like this:

Saints 87
West Ham 86
Reading 79

We won, because we made the games against our direct rivals count, gaining 10 points and denying them 5 and 6 respectively. Something we haven't done since. We still aren't.

Lol. So we took 10 points out of 12 against them, with a gd of +7 btw , and that's the argument for them being better than us . I'll be honest Ian, I've seen more compelling arguments .

The evidence over the longer term does rather support that they were better sides, given we sunk straight back down and both of them have spent the time since in the PL, in the top half on occasion too. Fairly able demonstration of ruthless efficiency from a limited group vs lots of talent not quite as well focused in the longer term. Obviously greater (and far better) investment helps there too.

Fine margins.

So a better "team" that season then. ?

[Ian Royal]

At game 11, Clarke was averaging 2.5 points a game on a rolling six game average.
By game 19, Clarke was averaging 0.8 points a game on a rolling six game average.

The team's form had dropped off the side of a cliff and showed no signs of improving, there were hints the decline had reduced in paced, perhaps bottomed out, but then you can't get a great deal worse.

By the time McDermott was appointed, we'd slipped to 0.5 points a game (same system as above).
McDermott currently has us at 1 point a game and on a cup run. A couple more wins in the next three or four and we can see the shoots of recovery are clearly there, if not strong.

The trend under Clarke was at worst continuing to drop, if less quickly, and at best bottoming out and holding steady. Under McDermott it has been more intermittent, but shows signs of improvement and certainly can't get much worse.

[Silver Fox]

It's a rather tired and tedious argument, but if you look at how close it was in the end, you could argue that our results against West Ham and Saints later on in the season made the difference. Those two had been leading virtually all the way, and the pressure was on them, whereas we were somewhat the underdogs with less pressure surging up from behind.

We certainly had far better mental strength, because we took our chances and won those games, when Saints and West Ham had arguably demonstrated across the rest of the season they were better than us. They bottled the crunch matches with us.

We weren't a particularly good side (easily top four still) but we ruthlessly mitigated our weaknesses, played to our strengths and exposed other teams weaknesses. Now there's an element to that which clearly argues we were the best side. You certainly don't finish first without having been one of the best sides. But equally the best side doesn't always finish first. Luck doesn't play an enormous part, but when we're talking one or two points maes the difference over a 46 game season, one or two small slices of fortune or mis-fortune can make the difference between one or two places.

Take out our results against the two best teams in the division and the table looks like this:

Saints 87
West Ham 86
Reading 79

We won, because we made the games against our direct rivals count, gaining 10 points and denying them 5 and 6 respectively. Something we haven't done since. We still aren't.

Lol. So we took 10 points out of 12 against them, with a gd of +7 btw , and that's the argument for them being better than us . I'll be honest Ian, I've seen more compelling arguments .

The evidence over the longer term does rather support that they were better sides, given we sunk straight back down and both of them have spent the time since in the PL, in the top half on occasion too. Fairly able demonstration of ruthless efficiency from a limited group vs lots of talent not quite as well focused in the longer term. Obviously greater (and far better) investment helps there too.

Fine margins.

Christ

[AthleticoSpizz]

no, it's just Ian "34 today" Royal

not the messiah etc

[Ian Royal]

no, it's just Ian "34 today" Royal

not the messiah etc

35, yesterday.

[AthleticoSpizz]

..no Ian...really?

You hardly look old enough


Etc etc

[Winston Smith]

That's an absolute abortion of an argument you are trying to put up Ian.

[RoyalinBracknell]

I'm still bemused by his tactics. How can you play one up front at home against Rotherham, especially when we have nothing to play for in the league? Stick with a formation that works, use it to gain some confidence, momentum and familiarity ready for next season, and try and end the season with a few more highs!

I remember Clarke starting 4-4-2 at home to ?Huddersfield. We were pretty poor in the first half and everyone was bemoaning why we'd let ourselves be outnumbered in midfield.

I've no issue with Tuesday's starting line-up, with the plan of putting a second striker on if required. This is particularly so considering the promising results we've picked up since we put Hector in central midfield and changed shape.

As ?McDermott said the main issue on Tuesday was not enough midfielders got in advance of the ball to support Kermogant. Williams might help with that. But over the last year or two I think we've lost quote a few games like Tuesday!s so good to get the win.

[Ian Royal]

So then Kes; 3 wins in a row, FA Cup QF having beat PL opposition... Clarke still better?

[Royalwaster]

So then Kes; 3 wins in a row, FA Cup QF having beat PL opposition... Clarke still better?

Yeah better at losing!

[Snowball]

Since Brian returned his win percentage is

43.75%

For comparison here are the recent RFC Managers

49.34 Brian McDermott (Excluding Premiership) W75 D39 L38
48.34 Alan Pardew
44.97 Brian McDermott (Previous Reign including Prem)
44.33 Steve Coppell (includes Prem)
43.75 Brian McDermott (this reign) <<<<<<<<<<

43.17 Mark McGhee
39.82 Maurice Evans
39.32 Ian Barefoot
38.57 Ian Porterfield
36.25 Nigel Adkins
36.22 Jimmy Quinn
36.22 Mick Gooding
35.19 Steve Clarke
33.33 Kevin Dillon
30.00 Terry Bullivant
29.41 Tommy Burns
26.09 Brendan Rodgers

[harry]

Since Brian returned his win percentage is

43.75%

For comparison here are the recent RFC Managers

49.34 Brian McDermott (Excluding Premiership) W75 D39 L38
48.34 Alan Pardew
44.97 Brian McDermott (Previous Reign including Prem)
44.33 Steve Coppell (includes Prem)
43.75 Brian McDermott (this reign) <<<<<<<<<<

43.17 Mark McGhee
39.82 Maurice Evans
39.32 Ian Barefoot
38.57 Ian Porterfield
36.25 Nigel Adkins
36.22 Jimmy Quinn
36.22 Mick Gooding
35.19 Steve Clarke
33.33 Kevin Dillon
30.00 Terry Bullivant
29.41 Tommy Burns
26.09 Brendan Rodgers

Pardew's % will include some time in the 3rd division as well as some in the 2nd.

[marlowuk]

OK - the win percentage for Steve Coppell (Excluding Prem games) is
52.30%

I don't know how Snowball's figures were calculated but this includes all league games including play-off games.
The win percentage including all FA Cup games is
50.54%

[Snowball]

It wasn't hard for me to do McDermott's stats but the others I got
from a website after Googling "Reading Manager Win Statistics"

<a href='http://www.managerstats.co.uk/clubs/reading/'>

[Snowball]

OK - the win percentage for Steve Coppell (Excluding Prem games) is
52.30%

I don't know how Snowball's figures were calculated but this includes all league games including play-off games.
The win percentage including all FA Cup games is
50.54%

That 50.4% is Steve's or Brian's?