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

[Longhorn1970]

But still only 2 wins in 10 games.

That's confidence for you.

And as Bill Shankley once said "- “Football is a simple game, complicated by idiots,” Seems to sum EP nicely.

5 wins in 12 actually.

Do cup games not count? I thought they would have considering Chelsea's season, much like Reading's, is only really alive because of them.

Well Clarke got Reading to the semi-final so we're ignoring cup form for now. If Brian gets Reading to the FA Cup final he will have done better than Clarke in that competition. But for now - he hasn't done as well as Clarke in the league.

It won't just be Fulham on the phone if BM gets us to a cup final !!

[No Fixed Abode]

Hi Vision. That's all good and I can't argue with that. Brian has a better record in the cup as you've just proved. But that really should be aimed EP. He'll tell you Steve Clarke has a better record as there's more to it than that.

Nah, I’d argue that Brian would have the better record if he reaches the semi finals, as he has beaten better sides to get there.

Reading beat more of the higher teams in the division under Clarke they have done under McDermott. So by your logic Clarke has done better as manager in the league games than Brian.

Glad we've cleared that one up.

[Ian Royal]

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.

[sandman]

Ahh yes, a kes MeLOLtdown. We haven't had one of those since...well, yesterday.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Hi Vision. That's all good and I can't argue with that. Brian has a better record in the cup as you've just proved. But that really should be aimed EP. He'll tell you Steve Clarke has a better record as there's more to it than that.

Nah, I’d argue that Brian would have the better record if he reaches the semi finals, as he has beaten better sides to get there.

Reading beat more of the higher teams in the division under Clarke they have done under McDermott. So by your logic Clarke has done better as manager in the league games than Brian.

Bit simplistic to look at just one thing to base your decision on but even if that did paint the whole picture Clarke's old form would be a little silly to use in judging recent progress.

It would be a pretty retarded gambler who compared the last ten games of one team with the first ten games of another to make his bet!

So no, I'll go with measuring whether we've improved since Clarke's long spell of struggling. And I think green shoots are there, as mentioned.

We don't have to agree, though. And as you only really deal in basic stats like points and lack the complete picture, we are unlikely to!

[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.

[LUX]

are you just going to let Kes talk to you like that, EP?

[Maneki Neko]

But I thought Blackman was shit! !

still our topscorer, and his absence makes this team different to clarkes, and by your own rules therefore not relevant for comparison

So why, including you I think - berated me for saying it was a loss to the team when he signed for Derby?! So is he or is he not a loss for the team?

poor little kes!

the only thing I lold at you about was us having literally no choice in the matter, since blackman wanted out and was on a free in the summer,

was quite clear we could miss his goals though

[Maneki Neko]

Don't understand why we are restricting ourselves so much against opposition like this

you've seen our form generally this year yeah?
especially against the shit teams....

I have, we set up like we are about to play Real Madrid when the reality of it is we are playing teams like MK Dons and Rotherham.

3 points is 3 points I agree, but with the attacking talent within our side at this level, the game should have been out of sight. At 1-0, Rotherham had every chance of getting back in that game despite having none of the play for the majority of the game.

itheyre exactly the kind of shit weve been struggling against.

they didn't come to have any of th eplay. they came to contain, and park the bus, and stop us playing how we wanted to.
they succeeded. which is different to brian setting us up to be intentionally dull and rubbish,
dons and Rotherham are the types of teams weve struggled against, ones that park the bus.

[Maneki Neko]

Are you taking the p*ss

In perhaps the longest (46 games), most competitive, most arduous league in world football it is very safe to say that the best team ALWAYS wins this league. Our last league winning side conceded less goals and won more games than any other side in the league which is kind of what good teams do.
Best footballing team is a completely different discussion to best team. I know many Arsenal fans who would happily sacrifice the "best footballing team" tag to actually win the league and become the best team.

Clueless, you play to your strengths to win not to make up the numbers ..

what?

[Maneki Neko]

still our topscorer, and his absence makes this team different to clarkes, and by your own rules therefore not relevant for comparison

So why, including you I think - berated me for saying it was a loss to the team when he signed for Derby?! So is he or is he not a loss for the team?

Whatever SC said to him it certainly worked, and the business owners wanted to cash in on a good run of form. It could be argued that we should have held onto him if were serious about play offs but it maybe that BM had no say in the deal - we don't know. None of the recent signings look like pulling up trees at this level imo, so much so Cox is back in favour ..

vydra is injured. of course cox is back in favour

[Maneki Neko]

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.

yeah, but if we exclude all the games we lost, then we won by miles. so......

[Maneki Neko]

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.

but Clarke had more games, so of course he played and beat better teams.

inconsistent application of stats is just the worst

[OLLIE KEARNS]

Are you taking the p*ss

In perhaps the longest (46 games), most competitive, most arduous league in world football it is very safe to say that the best team ALWAYS wins this league. Our last league winning side conceded less goals and won more games than any other side in the league which is kind of what good teams do.
Best footballing team is a completely different discussion to best team. I know many Arsenal fans who would happily sacrifice the "best footballing team" tag to actually win the league and become the best team.

Clueless, you play to your strengths to win not to make up the numbers ..

I assume you're expanding on your original quote as opposed to replying to me ? Confused if not since we seem to be in agreement

[Extended-Phenotype]

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.

You are getting a bit mixed up fella. One conversation is about whether we have improved in the league since Brian came in. The other is whether Brian will have achieved more in the cup.

There two different things, chap. Clarke has certainly achieved more in the league. He's had more games. Sadly, his achievements were old news and when looking at improvement you measure more recent history. Compared to Clarke's last number of games and where we were heading, I think we have improved.

Hth

[SCIAG]

Hi Vision. That's all good and I can't argue with that. Brian has a better record in the cup as you've just proved. But that really should be aimed EP. He'll tell you Steve Clarke has a better record as there's more to it than that.

Nah, I’d argue that Brian would have the better record if he reaches the semi finals, as he has beaten better sides to get there.

Reading beat more of the higher teams in the division under Clarke they have done under McDermott. So by your logic Clarke has done better as manager in the league games than Brian.

Glad we've cleared that one up.

Great point. In McDermott's first spell, we went a whole season without a single win or even a draw against teams who finished above us in the league!

[Silver Fox]

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

I assume you mean take out the results against the 2nd and 3rd best teams in the division?

[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.

[The Royal Forester]

Can we now call this argument a draw, please? Ouch, I just banged my head ducking out of the way of the flak that is coming my way!

[Maneki Neko]

no, we shall never surrender!