Long - time for a change?

[Snowball]

and Karacan, Hoop?

[Svlad Cjelli]

But they were used quite differently weren't they?

Tabb probably played most of his games under Rodgers at right back but in central midfield for McDermott.

The point is, and I assume the one pea is making, Long coming into the side wasn't the main change that McDermott made and wasn't the main reason for the upturn in form.

Indeed. If I had to decide the single biggest impact of BMc rather than BR I'd say it was the blossoming of Kebe.

[Snowball]

What I said was

Biggest single change McDermott made was to bring Shane in out of the cold

OK, overlooked the two new boys.

W06 D3 L3 25-13 21 points in 12 games 1.75 ppg ZURAB
W13 D4 L6 49-30 43 points in 23 games 1.87 ppg GRIFFIN

But in terms of the players who played under Rodgers, the biggest "bringing into the fold" was Long
and Mac obviously felt Long was important if we were to get the ball forward quickly.

321% Long (Had Shane not got himself sent off, and kept being selected)
260% Long (available for 4 less games after red card in 48th minute v WBA)
258% Mills
254% Gunn

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

someone lock this stat fest.

[pea]

and Karacan, Hoop?

Played every game until the West Brom match for us and was probably the joint best player alongside McAnuff and then Rodgers dropped him for no reason (people suggested this might have been for Jem shouting at him for sticking with Cummings during the West Brom match) and he never really appeared again. So McDermott did bring him in from the cold, but your stats wouldn't tell you any of that would they Snowwy

But yeah Hoop Blah was right, McDermott coming in marked a completely new culture at the club and you can't isolate one decision McDermott made and suggest it was responsible for the upturn in form, but they all played a part.

[Hoop Blah]

What I said was

Biggest single change McDermott made was to bring Shane in out of the cold

I'd tend to agree with Dirk though, the biggest single change he made was to get Kebe playing as he did under McDermott and not as hed had done for the 2 years before he took over.

Your stats won't show how significantly his performances improved though Snowball.

Second for me would be how he changed the way we played.

[pea]

Both of which, as well as playing Long more, are all interlinked

[papereyes]

I have to say I quite like Long in general. But less after reading these threads.

[Ian Royal]

Just pissing about with the comparative records of Rodgers and McDermott, I think it shows just how well McDermott has approved things across the board, rather than in any particular area. He's made us conceed fewer, score more, conceed loads in a game less and score loads in a game more.

It can be a bit easy to fixate on the wins / points comparison.

Rodgers: played 21 - scored 1.09 / game, conceeded 1.57 / game, 3+ conceeded every 3.5 games, 3+ scored every 7 games
McDermott: played 46 - scored 1.63 / game, conceeded 1.13 / game, 3+ conceeded every 6.57 games, 3+ scored every 4.18 games

Only thing you could really get McDermott on is the style of football we're playing at the moment... it's often fairly poor. Then again Rodgers' was pretty ineffective.

As for what the single biggest difference was, I'd say that plenty of our goalscorers showed a significant improvement under McDermott - can't be arsed to work out actual appearances under each person... but I'd suggest Kebe & Sig both showed more dramatic improvements in goalscoring than Long, considering they had actually been playing fairly regularly.

Sig scored 4 in the league under Rodgers, 12 under McDermott.
Church: 3 / 7
Kebe: 1 / 9
Long: 0 / 6

Before anyone gets pissy, League only, as the difference of quality of sides McDermott and Rodgers had to face is pretty significant IMO. I guess I could forget the FA cup games and concentrate on League cup, but I'm not going to.

[brendywendy]

[Snowball]

Played every game until the West Brom match for us and was probably the joint best player alongside McAnuff and then Rodgers dropped him for no reason (people suggested this might have been for Jem shouting at him for sticking with Cummings during the West Brom match) and he never really appeared again. So McDermott did bring him in from the cold, but your stats wouldn't tell you any of that would they Snowwy. But yeah Hoop Blah was right, McDermott coming in marked a completely new culture at the club and you can't isolate one decision McDermott made and suggest it was responsible for the upturn in form, but they all played a part.

Is bringing someone in from the cold, just "nice words" or does it involve actually PLAYING THEM?
There were 2,820 minutes played under McDermott and Karacan played just 1,110, barely a third.
How exactly is that being brought in from the cold?

Excluding the 2 League Cup Games

90-90-58-90-90-59-90-33-90-78-90-90-00-00-21-00-19-70-00-00 12/20 Starts = 60% Under Rodgers

00-24-00-90-81-90-90-75-84-90-61-84-90-63-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-68-00-90-14-10. . . . 13/31 Starts = 42% Under McDermott


Of course both of these sequences may have been affected by injuries. I can't remember.

[Snowball]

As for what the single biggest difference was, I'd say that plenty of our goalscorers showed a significant improvement under McDermott - can't be arsed to work out actual appearances under each person... but I'd suggest Kebe & Sig both showed more dramatic improvements in goalscoring than Long, considering they had actually been playing fairly regularly.

Sig scored 4 in the league under Rodgers, 12 under McDermott.
Church: 3 / 7
Kebe: 1 / 9
Long: 0 / 6

Before anyone gets pissy, League only, as the difference of quality of sides McDermott and Rodgers had to face is pretty significant IMO. I guess I could forget the FA cup games and concentrate on League cup, but I'm not going to.

I fail to see what the quality thing does as McDermott overcame clearly better sides, Liverpool, Burnley, WBA
You also need to remember that the number of games wasn't the same.

Rodgers had 21 Games plus 2 Lg Cup games where he clearly put out weaker sides.
McDermott had 31 games.

21-31 Games Possible
03-09 Goals Church
04-15 Goals Gylfi
01-11 Goals Kebe
00-09 Goals Long


I guess the real test is minutes per goal

[SLAMMED]

I fail

Yes you do.

[Snowball]

We talk about our "useless strikers"

Last Season under McDermott they were AWESOME

He managed to get FOUR players scoring around once every other game or better.

2,247 Minutes 14 Goals 161 Minutes per Goal Gylfi
1,479 Minutes 09 Goals 164 Minutes per Goal Church
2,080 Minutes 11 Goals 189 Minutes per Goal Kebe
1,732 Minutes 09 Goals 192 Minutes per Goal Long

[Snowball]

I fail

Yes you do.

I really worry about your opinions, Slammed

[pea]

Is bringing someone in from the cold, just "nice words" or does it involve actually PLAYING THEM?
There were 2,820 minutes played under McDermott and Karacan played just 1,110, barely a third.
How exactly is that being brought in from the cold?

Excluding the 2 League Cup Games

90-90-58-90-90-59-90-33-90-78-90-90-00-00-21-00-19-70-00-00 12/20 Starts = 60% Under Rodgers

00-24-00-90-81-90-90-75-84-90-61-84-90-63-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-68-00-90-14-10. . . . 13/31 Starts = 42% Under McDermott


Of course both of these sequences may have been affected by injuries. I can't remember.

Urm, you've just proved my point entirely, in Rodgers last eight games he made 1 start and 2 sub appearances, once McDermott was made permanent manager he had 11 starts consecutively. I don't care about averages, that is the period that saw our upturn in form. He got injured versus Blackpool along with Gunnarsson and Tabb and Howard came in and formed a great partnership, but he still got a few starts and sub appearances when he returned from injury. Once again, stat fail.

Theres more to life than stats Snowwy

[Snowball]

Is bringing someone in from the cold, just "nice words" or does it involve actually PLAYING THEM?
There were 2,820 minutes played under McDermott and Karacan played just 1,110, barely a third.
How exactly is that being brought in from the cold?

Excluding the 2 League Cup Games

90-90-58-90-90-59-90-33-90-78-90-90-00-00-21-00-19-70-00-00 12/20 Starts = 60% Under Rodgers

00-24-00-90-81-90-90-75-84-90-61-84-90-63-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-68-00-90-14-10. . . . 13/31 Starts = 42% Under McDermott


Of course both of these sequences may have been affected by injuries. I can't remember.

Urm, you've just proved my point entirely, in Rodgers last eight games he made 1 start and 2 sub appearances, once McDermott was made permanent manager he had 11 starts consecutively. I don't care about averages, that is the period that saw our upturn in form. He got injured versus Blackpool along with Gunnarsson and Tabb and Howard came in and formed a great partnership, but he still got a few starts and sub appearances when he returned from injury. Once again, stat fail.

Theres more to life than stats Snowwy

Just as a matter of interest, what do you think the following meant?

Of course both of these sequences may have been affected by injuries. I can't remember.

[Snowball]

Not too bad a run, but not a great first 8 games: DDLD WLWL WWW DWL

W6 D3 L4 17-19 (Negative Goal Difference) 21 Points from 13 Games = 1.62 ppg

[Snowball]

Just picked up a copy of Football League paper.

I see Shane Long and Ian Harte are joint 20th in the CCC top-scorers list with their 6-goals apiece.

7 goals is good enough for 13th.

[RG30]

Doesn't matter how many stats Snowball can bore us with, fact of the matter was Long was excellent on Saturday and would have been MOTM had it not been for Federici's match winning saves