McCoist vs Warburton vs Neilson win % stats

[craig 5,199]

What agenda? My opinions are based on the facts. Maybe from our interchange I could be accessed of pushing it that Warburton is a very good Rangers manager but that's about it.

 

You on the other hand are way out there if you think your subjective opinions are fact and are oblivious to the irrelevance in this thread.

 

The weird thing is the facts in this thread are the stats, and you and others amazingly have great difficulty in accepting them and they seem to upset you. That should set off alarms in your head.

 

Your opinion on the worst Rangers manager is of no interest to me in this thread. Maybe he is but there are several candidates and none of the others have managed in such difficult circumstances. It's like saying that Mccoist is one the best due to his unbeaten season, except nobody is silly enough to say that as they realise it's not comparable to the top tier. McCoist's tenure is not compatible and as no one is arguing he was any good what the hell is your beef?

 

The amazing irony is that if you insist on comparing Mccoist while ignoring all circumstances, it transpires he has the best win rate (not including winning on penalties) of any Rangers manager. It's bonkers.

 

I'm not defending Mccoist in the slightest here, I'm defending proper debate and conclusions based on facts. The problem I have is that people like yourself are so blinded by your seemingly extreme anti Mccoist agenda, that you can't even talk about how we're doing using objective stats without going off on one.

 

In which case the only stats that matter when comparing McCoist to Warburton would be what the stats were in their tenure in the Championship, and not Ally's complete tenure when playing two full seasons in the lower reaches of the league, right ?? What are those stats cal ? And I say that with no agenda or bias.

 

What are the stats when both were in the Championship - I know it is still close but those would be stats I would prefer to see.

 

There are many factors, as you have pointed out continuously, that also need to be considered other than just the raw data - but it is a starting point and one at least interesting enough to see.

 

I doubt ANY Bear thinks Ally was as good a manager as Warburton - but that would also be taking qualitative as well as quantitative factors

[craig 5,199]

I have no idea if that's the case. You can't slag a boxer off for winning an easy fight, you can if he lises. Mccoist didn't lose. Doesn't mean he's good but from that you can't possibly conclude he's bad.

 

Mccoist had a similar budget to Warburton in the Championship I believe, and playing the exact same teams won more games. So using your own criteria he was actually better which makes your opinion incredibly inconsistent.

 

He also had the same players as his temporary successor and did so much better. Then the board changed from a shit one to a good one, and the best Scottish manager around achieved a win ratio of 40%.

 

Like I say, when you look at the win stats your opinions are not compatible. All you do is make excuse after excuse.

 

As I said, the weird thing is that NOBODY is claiming that Mccoist was any good, but you come on this thread, look at those stats, conclude Mccoist is the shitiest and expect me agree.

 

As I've repeatedly said, maybe he is for some other reasons from evidence I'm not privy to, but it's not a viable conclusion from these stats, and so is just an off the wall assessment in this context.

 

As I also keep saying, you seem to be insulting Warburton, who didn't win significantly more games in significantly easier circumstances than a guy who you say is a really shit manager. Just what are you trying to say about our current manager?

 

Like I said, I base my opinions on the facts as well as qualitative stuff instead of memes, which is why they are compatible.

 

See this is one of those qualitative vs quantitative issues that we see....

 

You say the "exact same teams" which, when you see the team name is entirely true. However, it isn't the exact same teams, is it ? In name yes, in personnel no. And you don't have to beat the team name but the personnel they deploy.

 

A qualitative factor to consider, too, is "were these teams spending more or less on their team pre or post Ally". The reason I say this is because until we came into the Championship all these teams were being visited by almost nobody. In Ally's season we were taking thousands to every away venue, boosting their coffers and, thus, allowing them to have more money to, possibly, spend on strengthening their teams. Which, in itself, would suggest that during the season just ended these teams were stronger in terms of personnel than the season Ally managed the team.

 

The stats are indeed the stats, and a general starting point. But there are just so many other factors at play, some of which we simply can't quantify. Which is also part of the reason people are picking this thread apart - because the stats only tell part of the story. There is a significant part that remains untold by the stats such as :

 

1. Did Ally win the Championship ? No. Did Warburton ? yes

2. Did Ally win the Petrofac ? No, despite 3 attempts at it. Did Warburton ? Yes, at the first attempt

3. Did Ally make the final of either the League Cup or Scottish Cup ? No. Did Warburton ? Yes.

4. Was Ally's team aesthetically pleasing ? in the opinion of the vast majority (maybe all) no. Is Warburton's team ? Yes, for the vast majority.

 

Far from me being an Ally basher, I supported and defended him longer than I probably should because I was desperate for a legend to be successful. But there often comes a point in time where you put your hands up in the air and accept that you were wrong. I was wrong.

 

Ally did have to manage us through probably the worst years of our Club and I will always be thankful to him for not walking away and also defending the Club and our titles. But was he a good manager ? I don't think he was. Again, though, many qualitatives would have to be considered even in that conclusion.

 

All I will close by saying is that I am VERY HAPPY to have Mark Warburton as our manager. I will look to the future with optimism rather than at the past with regret.

[calscot 0]

Adjusted the stats to include cup final.

[calscot 0]

In which case the only stats that matter when comparing McCoist to Warburton would be what the stats were in their tenure in the Championship, and not Ally's complete tenure when playing two full seasons in the lower reaches of the league, right ?? What are those stats cal ?

 

Total rubbish. All stats count in some way if they are valid. You are just dismissing the ones you don't like, that's not how it works. You need to be objective. You have even shown a lack of objectivity in your argument by ignoring the SP and EL stats - because they don't suit your argument. No consistency from you. You have made up your mind and will twist everything to fit.

 

And I say that with no agenda or bias.

 

Ha, ha, very funny.

 

What are the stats when both were in the Championship

 

See the first post. You know the one with stats that the whole thread was about?

 

- I know it is still close but those would be stats I would prefer to see.

 

Have a look, I don't think you will like them and so will obviously dismiss them in multiple ways.

 

There are many factors, as you have pointed out continuously, that also need to be considered other than just the raw data - but it is a starting point and one at least interesting enough to see.

 

At least we agree there.

 

 

I doubt ANY Bear thinks Ally was as good a manager as Warburton - but that would also be taking qualitative as well as quantitative factors

 

I find that a strange statement considering no-one has said that. To me, the really weird thing is people asserting Warburton being a genius and McCoist being an idiot which looks a very strange viewpoint when you look at the stats. Even worse, people, including yourself have tried to hard to twist these facts and rubbish the stats without any valid argument, when surely if you were even slightly right, it wouldn't need any of that, the stats would just be obvious in favour of your assertions?

[calscot 0]

See this is one of those qualitative vs quantitative issues that we see....

 

You say the "exact same teams" which, when you see the team name is entirely true. However, it isn't the exact same teams, is it ? In name yes, in personnel no. And you don't have to beat the team name but the personnel they deploy.

 

If you read what I actually say, I made the point that you cannot make exact comparisons about any of this. All you can do is try your best to compare with the data you have. Because you don't like the results it seems you want some way of recreating the exact same conditions for both managers. This is impossible and it's a real stretch. As I've said many times, just play fair. You are incredibly quick to ignore differences when it suits your argument.

 

I could spend ages trying to find the games where the players and the managers were the same but what is the point. Even if there was a significant amount of data, if you didn't like it, you'd start going on about the weather, a different ball or whatever...

 

A qualitative factor to consider, too, is "were these teams spending more or less on their team pre or post Ally". The reason I say this is because until we came into the Championship all these teams were being visited by almost nobody.

 

Again, I think this is a massive stretch. McCoist is shit, Warburton is a genius, but because the stats are close, it must be because other teams have spend more money... I'm sorry, it's a totally intangible argument and not something that can be measured, and ignores the much more obvious difference which is the absence of Hearts. But as I say, if you were right in your opinion, it would not make more than a dent in what should be overwhelming stats in Warburton's favour.

 

In Ally's season we were taking thousands to every away venue, boosting their coffers and, thus, allowing them to have more money to, possibly, spend on strengthening their teams. Which, in itself, would suggest that during the season just ended these teams were stronger in terms of personnel than the season Ally managed the team.

 

I believe you have found much, much stronger arguments of mitigation that you don't like, "laughable".

 

The stats are indeed the stats, and a general starting point. But there are just so many other factors at play, some of which we simply can't quantify. Which is also part of the reason people are picking this thread apart - because the stats only tell part of the story. There is a significant part that remains untold by the stats such as :

 

They tell a part of the story - but yours and many other's opinions are not compatible with the story.

 

1. Did Ally win the Championship ? No. Did Warburton ? yes

 

I think the stats show that is not relevant. Ally was ahead in the league of every team that Warburton had in the league. Swap St Mirren for Hearts, take away the effects of Llambias and the resignation of Ally, and you will have your Championship win. You are arguing about mitigation, but looking at it objectively it only shows that this part is as irrelevant as Ally winning League One - both that and Warburton's title wins were far easier than last season.

 

2. Did Ally win the Petrofac ? No, despite 3 attempts at it. Did Warburton ? Yes, at the first attempt

 

As I said, you have NO consistency and an obvious agenda. Both got to the final, Ally lost to a 2nd tier team while in the 3rd tier, Warburton beat a 3rd tier team while in the 2nd tier. Now considering your views on Ally's lower league wins, surely this is also irrelevant to you? I'm sure you would point this out if it was the other way around.

 

I'm the only one here treating both managers equally and swap it round and I will make the same points.

 

3. Did Ally make the final of either the League Cup or Scottish Cup ? No. Did Warburton ? Yes.

 

Ally was in a semi-final when he resigned. Didn't get the chance to play it against Celtic. Only difference here is that Warburton beat Celtic in a semi on penalties. Great result, good on him, but it's hard to compare when Ally didn't get the shot. But this it gets a bit damning for Warburton, as he lost the most important single match since 2012 against a team that are not much better than the team Ally lost to in the Challenge Cup final.

 

I said MW's biggest difference over Ally was to win the important games, now I'm not so glowing.

 

4. Was Ally's team aesthetically pleasing ? in the opinion of the vast majority (maybe all) no. Is Warburton's team ? Yes, for the vast majority.

 

As I've said, that is not what this thread is about, and it's clutching at straws for the actual subject matter. This is about ability to win, winning less games but playing nicer football just suggest flattering to deceive. For this thread, it's all about effectiveness to win - which is why it's win rates. Ability to get a draw is not something that is good for Rangers.

 

An incidentally, I have not found MW's team good to watch since the Celtic game - which was brilliant (if ultimately not that effective). There is a few things I don't like about the way we play as I don't fall for the meme that merely playing the ball on the ground is attractive - there is more to it than that, and I believe in the judicious use of the high ball. I also appreciate the aesthetics and effectiveness of good defending.

 

Far from me being an Ally basher, I supported and defended him longer than I probably should because I was desperate for a legend to be successful. But there often comes a point in time where you put your hands up in the air and accept that you were wrong. I was wrong.

 

Maybe that's your problem - you make an opinion and keep it in the face of contradictory evidence, then switch to another one and do the same thing.

 

Personally, I'm pretty sure I've been pretty consistent - I've said Ally's results have been just about passable in times when there is no massive, off-field crises, without being admirable. I said he showed he was pretty average in that it the poor results were understandable considering the circumstances, but a quality manager should possibly stem that collapse. The stats really bear this out, when you consider that Warburton's are also considered passable while being similar, despite having an easy time of it in comparison. Not only that, but Warburton also has had this failure, although his issue has been the comparatively tiny, milder one of complacency after winning the league and beating Celtic in the cup.

 

Ally did have to manage us through probably the worst years of our Club and I will always be thankful to him for not walking away and also defending the Club and our titles. But was he a good manager ? I don't think he was. Again, though, many qualitatives would have to be considered even in that conclusion.

 

Again you are being strange here considering I have repeatedly pointed out nobody is arguing that McCoist was a good manager. The question is, is Warburton "infinitely" better than him at winning (as the memes suggest) or are we blinded by nicer football? The answer is obviously no - there is no "gulf" in effectiveness here.

 

This is the point, Warburton may be a lot better than McCoist but the stats don't show too much difference. Maybe they will improve. Had we won the cup then I think that would have been a huge trump card for MW, but alas we didn't against a second tier side and so the same criticism of Ally must be applied consistently.

 

All I will close by saying is that I am VERY HAPPY to have Mark Warburton as our manager. I will look to the future with optimism rather than at the past with regret.

 

I agree with you here, but after losing the final and looking a the stats, I'm less optimistic than before. We can play the most beautiful football in the world, but unless we are winning some of the three main Scottish trophies (especially the SP) and making inroads in Europe, it won't count for much.

 

You can't slag Ally and Celtic managers off for winning one horse races and then overly praise Warburton for doing the same. I do think he'll come good, and with a very supportive board, he has the perfect platform to do it, but then I always look at the positive and don't just get stuck into people blaming them for everything.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

That's just nonsense. His budget was what it was and he spent it poorly.<br />

<br />

<br />

There's two parts to it. He didn't get value for what he spent. Either through poor choices or bad management. <br />

<br />

He chose to spend it on players who were on the way down not up. <br />

<br />

His whole philosophy was wrong.

<br />

<br />

You obviously don't get the paradox. It's obviously contradictory to say he got very bad value for money and then complain he should have done better with these really expensive players. Come, it can't be that hard to just understand the point...<br />

<br />

I really doubt he chose these players freely - he chose them because they were free. He was dumpster diving and taking what he could find.<br />

<br />

He didn't have the luxury of a philosophy.

 

 

 

 

Where is the paradox. If he had got good performances from they would be good value.

 

This is the opposite of a paradox. The two things go hand in hand.

 

He ruined good players after paying fortunes for them. Therefore he got poor value.

[calscot 0]

So you're saying he DID get value for money and spent well, but "ruined" the players (whatever that means and if it's possible).

 

But if that's the case you can't slag him for spending badly, just for not getting the players to play to their ability.

 

BTW I can't remember who said it, but I don't believe you can get an SPL level player to move to Rangers for £26k a year...

 

May I also point out that people said we should have copied Queen of the South who didn't spend much but were easily promoted to the Championship, I didn't agree with that as I predicted they'd finish about 4th or 5th at best most seasons after that and so was not suitable for us. Going cheap was never going to work.

[calscot 0]

Seeing as we're on this thread, perhaps you should peruse the stats in the first post, check their validity, and then maybe rethink your accusations of me after remembering that AM achieved those results under far more difficult circumstances than MW.

 

So if your test of who watched any games is our opinions on McCoists ability when purely looking at his win rate, with my opinion being not good but probably mediocre, and yours being worst manager ever, I don't think you come out well...

 

The problem is that if I give AM 5/10 for his win results, under impossible circumstances, I can't really give MW more than 5/10 either, maybe he gets a 6/10 when draws are factored in. If you give AM 0/10 you can hardly give MW more than about 1/10 or with a bit of bias, 2/10.

 

For style I assume you give him 0/10 while I argue it wasn't that bad and probably give about 3/10 under difficult circumstances and about 6/10 for the start of the SPL season. I think if we showed the footage to a neutral who's never seen Rangers and compared with other Scottish teams, I think again you'd lose.

 

With Warburton I assume you give him 10/10, whereas I'd be giving about a 7.5/10, sometimes U football is very dull and it needs mixed up a bit. Also the defending is not very stylish as yet. I think the results themselves were a bit disappointing compared to AM's and therefore he should really lose marks for that. Winning ugly is still ultimately more entertaining for me than passing the ball around without penetration and goals, and ultimately drawing or losing.

 

I certainly wasn't entertained much in both cup defeats - although really enjoyed the Celtic game.

 

Ironically, the St Johnstone game was the one I hoped to go and see on my yearly viisit to Scotland but couldn't arrange visiting friends and family around it and ended up visiting friends near Aberdeen, and so watching it on telly... Not the worst one to miss out on.

Edited June 29, 2016 by calscot

[the gunslinger 3,366]

So you're saying he DID get value for money and spent well, but "ruined" the players (whatever that means and if it's possible).

 

But if that's the case you can't slag him for spending badly, just for not getting the players to play to their ability.

 

BTW I can't remember who said it, but I don't believe you can get an SPL level player to move to Rangers for £26k a year...

 

May I also point out that people said we should have copied Queen of the South who didn't spend much but were easily promoted to the Championship, I didn't agree with that as I predicted they'd finish about 4th or 5th at best most seasons after that and so was not suitable for us. Going cheap was never going to work.

He both spent badly then ruined players. Giving kyle 2k when he wanted 500 quid is spending badly. He then failed to get anything like 2k worth of performance out of him.

 

The two things are entwined.

 

Did any of his signings work. No they didn't. Did any provide value. No they didn't. Did any turn a profit. No they didn't.

 

That's both poor selection and poor management.

 

Ally constantly told us he had to sign internationals so we could be competitive in cups. We weren't.

 

Of course it was a lie. The truth was he was so inept he needed 11 internationals to win the 4th tier with a worse record than Gretna.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Seeing as we're on this thread, perhaps you should peruse the stats in the first post, check their validity, and then maybe rethink your accusations of me after remembering that AM achieved those results under far more difficult circumstances than MW.

 

So if your test of who watched any games is our opinions on McCoists ability when purely looking at his win rate, with my opinion being not good but probably mediocre, and yours being worst manager ever, I don't think you come out well...

 

The problem is that if I give AM 5/10 for his win results, under impossible circumstances, I can't really give MW more than 5/10 either, maybe he gets a 6/10 when draws are factored in. If you give AM 0/10 you can hardly give MW more than about 1/10 or with a bit of bias, 2/10.

 

For style I assume you give him 0/10 while I argue it wasn't that bad and probably give about 3/10 under difficult circumstances and about 6/10 for the start of the SPL season. I think if we showed the footage to a neutral who's never seen Rangers and compared with other Scottish teams, I think again you'd lose.

 

With Warburton I assume you give him 10/10, whereas I'd be giving about a 7.5/10, sometimes U football is very dull and it needs mixed up a bit. Also the defending is not very stylish as yet. I think the results themselves were a bit disappointing compared to AM's and therefore he should really lose marks for that. Winning ugly is still ultimately more entertaining for me than passing the ball around without penetration and goals, and ultimately drawing or losing.

 

I certainly wasn't entertained much in both cup defeats - although really enjoyed the Celtic game.

 

Ironically, the St Johnstone game was the one I hoped to go and see on my yearly viisit to Scotland but couldn't arrange visiting friends and family around it and ended up visiting friends near Aberdeen, and so watching it on telly... Not the worst one to miss out on.

I think given the nature of the wins and Warburton lower budget. Higher league and not having 2 years to prep for the championship you can score him much higher than super. But who cares. If you boil management down to one thing especially if it's not league position then you can make a case for anyone.

 

Tommy burns lost one game all season and got sacked.

Edited June 30, 2016 by the gunslinger
J