McCoist vs Warburton vs Neilson win % stats

[Darthter 542]

The most important stats:

McCoist/McDowell/McCall Season 14/15

P36 W19 D10 L7

 

Warburton Season 15/16

P36 W25 D6 L5

 

Based on that, how could ANYONE argue that McCoist had a higher win percentage than Warbs???

Stats can be "massaged" to give certain outcomes, depending on the calculations/formula used. The base figures my be undisputed facts, but it's what you do with those figures that counts.

[compo 7,208]

when leaving ibrox this season all you could see was fans laughing and smiling in the dark sad days of ally we were all suicidal after ninety minutes of rubbish , rubbish and more rubbish

[calscot 0]

The most important stats:

McCoist/McDowell/McCall Season 14/15

P36 W19 D10 L7

 

Warburton Season 15/16

P36 W25 D6 L5

 

Based on that, how could ANYONE argue that McCoist had a higher win percentage than Warbs???

Stats can be "massaged" to give certain outcomes, depending on the calculations/formula used. The base figures my be undisputed facts, but it's what you do with those figures that counts.

 

I'm sorry, but your post makes no sense to me at all. I don't think you understand stats at all. You cannot make conclusions on Warbs Vs McCoist by using data based on other managers. If you don't understand that then there is no point in a discussion.

 

Even weirder, no-one has even argued that McCoist has a high win percentage that Warbs even though it is probably true. If you really want to make your stated comparison, unless I have my figures wrong the true and factual stats are this:

 

AM 72.6% (71.9% without extra time win)

MW 71.4% (73.5% with penalties win included)

 

It all depends on how you count the Celtic game. The convention is to count extra time wins but not penalties but I have included the adjustments for fairness and completeness.

 

Stats can be "massaged" but it's all about the premise and justification. If you have a problem with mine then make a case - a real one. I gave a series of stats which were fully objective and fair and after previous unfounded criticism, I have followed criteria from those that criticise McCoist. The last comparison is as apples against apples as I can do.

 

Again the fantastic irony is that your stats are more than massaged, they are totally INVALID for comparing McCoist and Warburton. It certainly suggest to me that you really need to look at the real stats and totally reassess the way you think. You are clearly denying the facts.

 

I'll say again, if people think we've moved on compared to last year because of the full season, I think they are doing a massive disservice to Warburton. Pick a manager at random and you would expect him, with our resources and the backing of the board and a huge number of fans, to do a good bit better than a season where we had three managers, a fan boycott, the board ripping the heart out of the club, and a demoralised staff. Saying he is an improvement over that is faint praise indeed.

 

But using the results of three managers against one, to prove ONE manager has a worse win ratio than the latter, is really surprising. About as extreme a straw man as you get.

 

I do find it really enlightening about how many people have a problem with my stats but can't make even a simple case against them.

 

I personally think if you think you have a decent thought out opinion, you should be comfortable with the facts.

[calscot 0]

when leaving ibrox this season all you could see was fans laughing and smiling in the dark sad days of ally we were all suicidal after ninety minutes of rubbish , rubbish and more rubbish

 

As I said, that is a different thread. But it is strange how rubbish, rubbish and more rubbish didn't result in much worse results... I think it's obvious that your distaste for the style has blinded you to the actual facts of winning of games which is what we're talking about here.

 

I really was hoping for more relevant discussion on this thread.

[calscot 0]

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

 

I think both are interesting. McCoist is where we've come from, Neilson was the bar for where we probably should have been in the league.

 

I find it disappointing we weren't the equal of Hearts especially as they were starting from scratch too, only moreso and with a fraction of the money. However, I do see you can't really finish better than first which means sometimes the players do just enough when that's all that's required, and less than enough when it's all over.

 

It does suggest to me we shouldn't get carried away and that there is a lot of improvement to be done.

 

I don't think Rangers teams should be not turning up just because we've won, I want us to have a win every game mentality. Besides they are letting down fans paying a lot of money to see them at least perform with a bit of grit and will to win.

 

I think throwing away an 8 point lead was a bit worrying against a team with a fraction of our resources, although not totally unforgivable - like some think for throwing a 9 point lead against a more expensive side in club who didn't have Whyte as owner.

 

However, the win against Hibs after that showed some ability in the bigger, must win games - something that McCoist seemed to lack.

 

That seemed to also do us some stead in the Scottish Cup and especially against Celtic and that was a result that could suggest we might have a bit more quality than Hearts - although it was basically a draw in a one off game where their manager was already under pressure, never mind the pressure against them losing was incredible. So we shouldn't get too cocky about that either.

 

Winning the challenge cup was a bonus but a winning final against Peterhead isn't worthy of too much praise in my opinion. Just as winning the second and third tier doesn't attract much from most quarters.

 

However, winning trophies is what we're about so NOT winning the Petrofac would take some shine off. Winning the Scottish Cup could be the one really exceptional achievement, but we haven't done it yet.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

You really are a card mate, you talk about facts and point to one of your posts where your first line is totally untrue. Your mistruths and lies are so tedious, I can't even imagine what your motivation is for them.

Which part is untrue? That you spent years championing McCoist as manager? That you criticised Warburton for playing long balls? That we played 5 at the back v Celtic? These are all things you have said/done.

 

I must admit agree with your half a brain synopsis. You certainly seem to struggle. I really think you should look up the word "trolling", really. You're lack of self awareness is astounding.

I'm not going to waste any more time explaining what an abysmal manager McCoist was. It's clear to everyone on this website apart from you.

 

I never mentioned the CL so, once again, have no idea what you're rambling on about.

I thought you said CL but you said league. I can admit when I'm wrong; perhaps it might be time for you to do likewise. Can you explain what Chelsea not winning the league has to do with my 'delusions'? It certainly has nothing to do with this topic.

 

Instead of constantly come on with your tedious insults and whacky interpretations of what I write, I invite you to actually partake in a reasoned debate. That is what this forum thrives on.

See above.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

when leaving ibrox this season all you could see was fans laughing and smiling in the dark sad days of ally we were all suicidal after ninety minutes of rubbish , rubbish and more rubbish

Indeed. It's starkly apparent to those who take the time to watch our games on a weekly basis that the difference between us this season and the previous ones is seismic. McCoist failed at every challenge; Warburton has risen to them. When McCoist left us we were getting pumped out of cups by part-time opposition and Hearts were running away with the lead. The football was atrocious and we were on our knees. He will never work in management again because put simply, he is not a manger. This topic serves no purpose other than to provoke reactions. I'm just glad that what I advocated for years came to fruition: a very capable manager with modern ideas who plays with positive, attack minded football with a focus on possession and signing players who bring value to the club. Not signing players to the club who are utterly worthless and leave us for absolutely nothing, as ended up happening with every single player McCoist signed.

 

This will be my last comment on this topic.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Ser Barristan Selmy

[Darthter 542]

I'm sorry, but your post makes no sense to me at all. I don't think you understand stats at all. You cannot make conclusions on Warbs Vs McCoist by using data based on other managers. If you don't understand that then there is no point in a discussion.

 

Even weirder, no-one has even argued that McCoist has a high win percentage that Warbs even though it is probably true. If you really want to make your stated comparison, unless I have my figures wrong the true and factual stats are this:

 

AM 72.6% (71.9% without extra time win)

MW 71.4% (73.5% with penalties win included)

 

It all depends on how you count the Celtic game. The convention is to count extra time wins but not penalties but I have included the adjustments for fairness and completeness.

 

Stats can be "massaged" but it's all about the premise and justification. If you have a problem with mine then make a case - a real one. I gave a series of stats which were fully objective and fair and after previous unfounded criticism, I have followed criteria from those that criticise McCoist. The last comparison is as apples against apples as I can do.

 

Again the fantastic irony is that your stats are more than massaged, they are totally INVALID for comparing McCoist and Warburton. It certainly suggest to me that you really need to look at the real stats and totally reassess the way you think. You are clearly denying the facts.

 

I'll say again, if people think we've moved on compared to last year because of the full season, I think they are doing a massive disservice to Warburton. Pick a manager at random and you would expect him, with our resources and the backing of the board and a huge number of fans, to do a good bit better than a season where we had three managers, a fan boycott, the board ripping the heart out of the club, and a demoralised staff. Saying he is an improvement over that is faint praise indeed.

 

But using the results of three managers against one, to prove ONE manager has a worse win ratio than the latter, is really surprising. About as extreme a straw man as you get.

 

I do find it really enlightening about how many people have a problem with my stats but can't make even a simple case against them.

 

I personally think if you think you have a decent thought out opinion, you should be comfortable with the facts.

 

Stats are only as good as the parameters/datasets used. What are the parameters/datasets that you used in your calculations???

Did you use results from McCoists entire time as manager?? If so, is that a fair balance compared to MW??? The most accurate comparison would be to take only the games the AMc was in charge of in the Championship, compared the same number of games for MW.

 

You can't compare AMc's win stats against the lowest 2 tier teams against MW's performance against those in the 2nd tier. AMc's resources vastly out-weighed those of the opposition.

 

The reality is that as soon as AMc came up against half-way decent opposition, he struggled.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Super was by a long long way our worst manager ever.

[calscot 0]

Stats are only as good as the parameters/datasets used. What are the parameters/datasets that you used in your calculations???

 

I thought they were explained enough. Let me know which one's you need more info on. I think I've covered most bases and been as objective and fair as I can. The reason I can do that is that I don't have an agenda other than the desire in making a decent analysis.

 

Did you use results from McCoists entire time as manager?? If so, is that a fair balance compared to MW???

 

That was the first stat. Considering it includes an SPL season, Whyte, administration, 10 point penalty, newco, Green, transfer embargos, Llambias, fan boycott, crisis after crisis, shit board after shit board, I think it might balance in favour of Warbs and possibly be a tad unfair to McCoist... However, the stats are the stats all for that, I let the reader decide on the qualitative analysis.

 

That stat is all Rangers games by McCoist vs all Rangers games by Warbs vs all Hearts games by Neilson without adjustment or favour or taking into account divisions, or other difficulties. There is the anomaly of extra time and penalties which I've also put in notes for.

 

The most accurate comparison would be to take only the games the AMc was in charge of in the Championship, compared the same number of games for MW.

 

I once did that and it was pretty even Steven and as people didn't like the result I was accused of "slicing and dicing". See how fickle people are.

 

I believe I also included something here but covering all games in the season.

 

Your assertion about what is the most accurate is some that is up for debate. I don't think there really is such a thing, I find it best to look at them all and see the scene from lots of different angles. I don't think you can draw subtle conclusions but you can draw ones that otherwise would suggest they needed wildly different stats. If we want to be pedantic, it could be argued the last stat is the most accurate as it only includes teams that both manager's played - so I'm surprised you didn't go for that one. However, you were probably swayed by the result... I had a look at that one because of complaints of "apples against oranges" - funny that.

 

You can't argue against the fact that McCoist has a better win record than Warbs against the same oppostion while playing the Championship. How you interpret that is up to you. For me it doesn't show that McCoist is better, but it does suggest to me that this is no competition between the genius and the clueless.

 

You can't compare AMc's win stats against the lowest 2 tier teams against MW's performance against those in the 2nd tier.

 

Of course you can. But with that qualification. Just as there is a qualification of hard the job is with the off pitch stuff and erroneous club punishments. You conveniently didn't mention the inclusion of the SPL games or European of McCoist. As I said, I compiled the stats as fairly as I could - I don't have an agenda as I formulate my opinions on what actually goes on, so if stats disagree with my opinions, I need to work out why and if my opinion is still valid, and if not, adjust it to suit. I try to make my opinions to be my model of the real world, and evidence based.

 

For example my opinion allowed me to be probably the only person here that predicted that results after McCoist resigned would not likely be much better and probably worse before the end of the season.

 

However, you come across like you have an agenda yourself and are looking at things in a biased way. The irony is that if Warbs is much better than Ally then surely you don't need to twist things in his favour? Why is it ok to compare them when Ally had the biggest and longest crisis in our history - but different leagues are out of bounds? Not only that, I think the stats show that the presence of Hearts made our current league totally different. All things being equal it doesn't look like Warbs would have bested Hearts.

 

That also makes him look poor against Neilson when you look at the difference in the financials you were on about.

 

AMc's resources vastly out-weighed those of the opposition.

 

So does Warbs but with a more supportive board, a positive transfer budget, scouts, time to find players, and no transfer ban. Again I think that suggests Warbs had it easier than Ally. In case you're not listening as most don't, I think Warbs would have had better results than McCoist with nicer football, but I think he would also have found doing it a struggle, like wading in treacle, and I can't imagine his results would be that much better, except maybe in the challenge cup.

 

The reality is that as soon as AMc came up against half-way decent opposition, he struggled.

 

I disagree somewhat. He did well in the SPL before the meltdown and beat Celtic, and I think he had a harder time and playing in lower leagues with all the difficulties and then having to raise the game against opposition in higher leagues than the players were used to. He did ok against the likes of Motherwell, ICT, Kilmarnock and St Johnstone for instance. Also his results against Falkirk were better. That's five teams who make up some of the biggest games.

 

I will fully admit his results in Europe were poor - although not 100% to blame on him. I would have liked him to have another chance to see if it was a one off but it never arose. Taking bad European results in isolation would condemn most Rangers managers bar Le Guen - whom I don't rate as a Rangers manager.

 

I am on record on saying that I don't think he was good in some crucial games, and that's one of the main differences of Warburton apart from people loving the style and the way he talks etc - and for me the hope of continual progression and improvement.

 

As I continually say, Ally was not a good manager for Rangers, he was mediocre in my mind and didn't do better than I'd expect any other mediocre manager picked at random. You might think he was worse than that and that's fine.

 

What this is about is to see how much we've improved over Ally - results wise only. I think there's no point comparing the other two managers as that was such an exceptional time that there is little to learn from it. They will come out very badly and it will flatter Warbs - and I don't think he deserves to be damned by such feint praise.

 

I'm not comparing style as that's subjective and many teams flatter to deceive. I remember Yogi's Falkirk playing our style of football and being relegated, I remember Burns' Celtic get the plaudits without winning the league. It's a different discussion and if the results were a lot worse than Ally's, I wouldn't give a crap about the style.

 

Fortunately, the team is winning more and the style is far better - although for me still needs improvement. "U" football can be a yawnfest at times.