McCoist vs Warburton vs Neilson win % stats

[Frankie 8,531]

cal/SBS:

 

You two lads clearly don't get on. Rather than bore us with your continual handbags, please either ignore each other completely with the forum function provided or take it to PM.

[calscot 0]

So from that I take it given we are promoted, having scored more points than our opponents, whilst also scoring more points than McCoist's team did, that Warburton is clearly a better manager ? Agreed.

 

Craig, I really am getting tired of telling you I agree. For the last time, in caps, I THINK WARBURTON IS A MUCH BETTER MANAGER THAN MCCOIST.

 

What the stats show is that you seem to have the opinion that Warburton is a little bit better than shit... I seem to have a much higher opinion of him than you do.

 

I'm not one of those people who will hide behind the "yes, but" philosophy. However, lets be real.. McCoist could have stayed at Rangers all season long last year and there is absolutely NO WAY (Sure, go ahead, dispute it) that we would have gotten promoted - that was clear, as clear as day, at the half way point in the season.

 

Craig, please show a tiny bit of consistency. You've just gone on about Warburton winning the league by having more points, McCoist was in second place reasonably solidly. You cannot objective conclude that he would have achieved anything other than second place, which would put him in the playoffs. Considering he showed he was as capable of beating Hibs as we are now, better at beating Falkirk, Kilmarnock and St Johnstone, and had beaten a decent ICT team, also having beaten Motherwell in his previous game, while in the 4th tier, everything points towards the likelihood of us being promoted.

 

There is no object evidence that I can see, or you have put forward, to suggest we wouldn't. You obviously don't think so, because you don't WANT to think so. We weren't great but we were the best in the league after Hearts. There are no facts to suggest this season is different in that regard.

 

Irrelevant stuff snipped.

 

He also managed to win the Petrofac Cup in his first attempt

 

For consistency in your own arguement this can't be relevant. McCoist lost a final to a second tier club while in the third tier, Warburton won against a third tier club while in the second tier - I believe you call that "comparing apples with oranges"... Your analysis not mine.

 

More snip.

 

Sorry, and I don't mean any disrespect, but this thread proves nothing more than the fact that statistics don't even come close to telling the whole story. In fact, they can clearly (given THESE statistics) defend the indefensible.

 

I never said they tell the whole story, they each tell a part of the story. I've already said there is qualitative stuff to consider BUT the considering the objective stuff makes you challenge your preconceptions. You don't have to change them but they should be compatible.

 

Yours clearly aren't. There's nothing like valid statistics that are incompatible with people's beliefs to bring out the "stats are crap" opinions. Stats are invaluable if you know how to treat them.

 

As I said I'm not defending anything except logic and rationality, you just seem to emotionally attached to your opinion to be able to see any objectivity. If you're views were correct, we'd be looking at more obviously matching stats.

 

McCoist failed.

Warburton succeeded.

 

Do we really need any more statistics than those ?

 

To make a realistic viewpoint, we need stats based on reality, not fantasy. The whole premise of your argument is just not real and in sticking to that irrational agenda, you are missing the whole point.

 

Again, I am not defending McCoist, I have said again and again I don't think he was good enough for Rangers, I first said it half way through his first season; however I reserve to keep my well rational-led opinion that results wise he was mediocre - you will not bully me otherwise - if you have a compelling argument then I will listen and perhaps change my mind, but you haven't been close. The stats are fair and I challenge anyone to show otherwise. The fact they are more compatible with my opinion and that you are once again attacking them as they don't suit yours suggests a lot - but doesn't mean I am right.

 

However, since you are not taking reality into account of yours, if you are somehow completely right in your opinion, I can only suggest that it's coincidental.

 

For me it doesn't really matter whether McCoist was mediocre or rubbish per se, I'm glad we now have Warburton. What does matter is rationality of thought and I will defend my opinions if I have enough evidence and logic to back them up. However, it does get tiresome when I'm constantly attacked for an opinion I don't have - as I said many times, people with extreme views like yourself, mistakenly believe that someone with a moderate view has the extreme opposite. People with extreme views also don't like inconvenient facts and stats.

 

I will say last time, I'm NOT defending McCoist, but if you think fair and valid stats are an agenda to do so, then you should perhaps question your own thinking.

Edited May 9, 2016 by calscot

[calscot 0]

Any chance you can put together the above stats as soon as promotion was won ? Because, as far as I can see it is convenient to show these stats now that the team haven't won in a few games (conveniently since the league was won and they have had little to play for).

 

No, I'm being objective and consistent. In this sense you CANNOT have mitigation (or "excuses" as some would have it) for one and not the other, and it brings subjectivity into it.

 

I personally believe a club being ripped apart by a nefarious board, a manager who is compelled to resign (and playing a couple of games after that), a fan boycott, morale at an incredible low where players are reputedly feigning injury, and a pessimistic future to be stronger mitigation, than a club on a high, with happy fans turning up in droves, a morale boosting win wining of the league and a cup tie win against Celtic, with a surprisingly bright future ahead. You have the right to analyse that differently. I think Warburton will agree with me (because he has publicly done so - and because I think he is fair minded).

 

For me, to avoid that kind of discussion that few are able to do on here, it's best to keep it about determining our ability to win in all circumstances - which also means that the manager is only part of the equation, albeit a large and important one.

 

I'm only including McCoist's from last season as I believe the results after that are incomparable and therefore not valid - like apples and chickens.

Edited May 9, 2016 by calscot

[calscot 0]

cal/SBS:

 

You two lads clearly don't get on. Rather than bore us with your continual handbags, please either ignore each other completely with the forum function provided or take it to PM.

 

Completely agree! I've tried the ignore function, but as I've highlighted before, it means I'm constantly disparaged behind my back, so need reciprocation in this regard from SBS. Any handbags I swing have been merely in response, intended as a bit of a deterrent, since trying to rationalise has repeatedly failed.

[Frankie 8,531]

Completely agree! I've tried the ignore function, but as I've highlighted before, it means I'm constantly disparaged behind my back, so need reciprocation in this regard from SBS. Any handbags I swing have been merely in response, intended as a bit of a deterrent, since trying to rationalise has repeatedly failed.

 

In that case, use the report function and allow the admin team to deal with it.

 

You can't be using the ignore function very stoutly if you're replying to such people's posts.

 

The same goes for SBS.

 

Please, I must insist here - interesting subjects are being spoiled.

Edited May 9, 2016 by Frankie

[calscot 0]

I should maybe explain that producing in the stats I was attempting to pre-empt previous complaints of "slicing and dicing", so the first one is all the results of the managers. But then there is that accusation of "apples and oranges comparison", so then limited it to the Championship season. Then I was thinking people might consider including cup games as better for McCoist so did league games only. But then there is the anomaly as the leagues had different teams the previous year and so excluded the differences in the top teams as they are more important. But then I thought I better be complete by removing the change in the bottom teams. So the final comparsion is as apples vs apples as you can get here, with no "slicing and dicing" for the respective managers' results.

 

Then for interest I realised there are some cup games where there were teams that both MW and AM both played and as a couple were SP teams I thought that could be relevant and so added it in for those two managers which also increases the size of the data samples. So ironically this version of the stats is about as best as I can do to take into account Craig's criteria.

 

Of course it's impossible to do complete like with like in this kind of thing EVER as no two games can ever be exactly the same test, and in this case there is change of personnel in the opposition as well as a different number of games against each team and probably different home and away scenarios. But it's better than just making up an unsubstantiated subjective view and interesting to compare it to your assumptions.

 

The irony is of course, that complying with Craig's criteria, McCoist comes out well in front. As I've acknowledged, this does not mean Ally is better, but it does question the meme where he is useless and we've come a long way - purely results-wise. As I've pointed out, it makes the meme possibly suggest that Warburton isn't good at at all, and all praise is a bit like complimenting the competitive dad on the Fast Show thrashing his young son at squash - except for the lack of a thrashing. It's more like him pipping him 9-7 at say 3-1.

 

I would say I'm useless at F1 and Jenson Button is rather good but you'd find it pretty impossible to fairly and justifiedly compare us in some way to make me come out in front.

 

But again that digresses into the whole McCoist thing where the point is that we need to look at the results objectively and not allow the dislike of a manager and his team's playing style to obfuscate what the real progress we've made is - in terms of winning games.

 

This is why I also put Nielson's stats in too, as I think that is a very relevant comparison. I would discount the challenge cup as they didn't seem to treat it seriously, and they were knocked out of both big cups by Celtic - which while nothing to be ashamed of, is the one ace we hold. However, as Ally takes flack for having a larger wage bill, we must be as consistent with Warburton.

 

But the thing I was disappointed with in the stats is that it showed the most likely scenario suggested by the stats, had, Warburton been manager last season and had no effect on their results against other teams, would be for us to finish second, which is the same best fit from McCoists results. Conversely, allow McCoist to manage this season without Hearts and the best prediction for the stats is to win the league - again the same result.

 

Now the stats also suggest Warburton would have more points for both seasons - especially when you factor in the draws, but the actual placings completely contradict Craig's "facts" that Warburton was more successful in this sense than McCoist.

 

Again it's not about McCoist, or detracting from Warburton, but instead it's about not getting too carried away with "massive" improvements which result wise - Celtic game apart, are not quite yet realised. There are definite large improvements the case of the style of play, and the hope for the future, but in the end it's all down to winning games and where you finish in the league, so the improvement in play needs to count for more. The take home I get from these stats is that we have to do much better than Hearts did last summer, and build on our excellent possession play to turn it into more wins than we currently do. It may kind of sound obvious but it's not quite what people are generally saying on here.

 

We need more of a step up in quality.

Edited May 9, 2016 by calscot

[compo 6,937]

Do we have a stat on performance level and fan satisfaction

[calscot 0]

Do we have a stat on performance level and fan satisfaction

 

That would be a different thread. This one is purely about results.

 

You might have been very dissatisfied with the performance level of a pension and think it was terrible, awful, the worst, and so you move it to one that looks like it performs fantastically, has great customer service and seems really promising for the future, and you may then seem incredibly satisfied with it. But what happens if you decide to just look at the raw figures and find the difference in the pension payments are just a bit better than the one you though was really, really terrible, and nowhere near as much as an improvement as you thought and worse than another one that's cheaper to pay into? How would that affect your performance and satisfaction stats personally?

 

No-one is disputing that the football philosophy and style hasn't improved massively and the team are enjoyable to watch most of the time (but not all the time), but that doesn't mean you should take your eye off the bottom line and just assume it's a lot better than it really is.

[ranger_syntax 4,255]

The interesting comparison is Neilson v Warburton, not Warburton v McCoist.

[der Berliner 3,716]

I disagree, the results stats are cold, hard facts, Transfermarkt is using certain assumptions to ascertain a basic starting point for the value of players.

 

I agree the stats are not the whole story but I think it's interesting to sometimes look at them in isolation to question our subjective conclusions.

 

Of course, hence I wrote "similar" and not "like" ;-) Point is that a great number of variables kick in here, like different teams, different opposition players, different players (!!!) in the Rangers sides, different playing styles etc.. That is only natural and will have an influence on results. A reason why e.g. Bayern doesn't win the BL each year or why e.g. Leicester can snatch a title.

 

But anyway, I'm not going to get this manager thread derailed any further.