McCoist vs Warburton vs Neilson win % stats

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Anyway the best comparison is like for like. You've massaged the stats to suit.

 

Ally had 20 championship league games. 14 wins 4 defeats 2 draws and was second.

 

In the same 20 Warburton had 16 wins 2 draws 2 defeats. And was top.

 

 

Warburton also did better in the cups.

Edited June 30, 2016 by the gunslinger

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Feel free to check my stats. Very much fag packet math.

[calscot 0]

Anyway the best comparison is like for like. You've massaged the stats to suit.

 

Ally had 20 championship league games. 14 wins 4 defeats 2 draws and was second.

 

In the same 20 Warburton had 16 wins 2 draws 2 defeats. And was top.

 

 

Warburton also did better in the cups.

 

The stats I gave are not "massaged" they are very fair and give different viewpoints. You call them so because you don't like them as they don't fit your narrative. Can you explain in what way they are not valid? I have not treated either manager with any preference.

 

It's obvious Hearts are a special case, and their form meant that Warburton could not compete with them either and would have been second place also. Then to compare like with like, if you take out the Hearts results, and concentrate on the teams they both played, there is not really any difference between the two. Hearts were in a different league to the teams Warburton played, and as Craig would say, "apples and oranges".

 

If Warburton's results were much better than Ally's then every comparison like this would show him as much better, but they don't.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

You didn't compare like for like. I did. My stats are the only ones that matter.

 

With 2 years to prepare Warburton would have pushed all over hearts as he will this season coming.

 

You OPINION that hearts would have beaten a Warburton team to the title is flawed and only an opinion. Impossible to prove.

 

Who knows what supers record would have been in the second half of the season. But we do know what it was in the first. Poorer than Warburton. Poorer in the cups too.

 

When the facts don't even match your defense of the indefensible your finished in this debate which has gone on to long anyway.

[calscot 0]

He both spent badly then ruined players. Giving kyle 2k when he wanted 500 quid is spending badly.

 

I think that's a bit glib. Firstly, like I said, I don't believe he'd have come to Rangers for well below the national average wage. I don't think anyone at Rangers would believe that either and so not risk insulting him with such a ludicrously low offer.

 

2K a week is incredibly low for Rangers and so if you're thinking you're going to get the same performance from him as a 20k player of the past that we are used to, then your expectations are just too high.

 

Even if he didn't live up to expections, all managers have that, and as this thread shows, the players can't have been that bad as results wise they were not significantly worse than under MW despite all the doom and gloom at the club.

 

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.

[/quote

 

Results-wise they were in the same ballpark as MW's season. The outlay for them was zero, whereas MW spent money. Wages wise, they were in the same ball park again and so did not provide significantly worse value than MW's players. Neither manager turned a profit. AM is ahead of MW on transfer fee balance - at zero for the former and less than zero for the latter.

 

That's both poor selection and poor management.

 

Which must also apply to MW.

 

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

 

Both he and MW got to the Challenge cup final, AM lost to an on form, 2nd tier club, MW won against a 3rd tier club. So slightly better.

 

Both got to a semi against Celtic, AM resigned before he played them - so that's pretty much equal, unless you count the SC as better than the LC.

 

In the other cup AM was in the 5 round but didn't play that game, and so again about equal although McCoist did beat an SPL team so maybe shades it there.

 

So MW was able to play a few more games - of which he won one on penalties, albeit to Celtic, and lost the other two.

 

So again, AM was not significantly worse, in worse circumstances.

 

I get why you don't like the facts but it doesn't make them not true.

 

 

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.

 

See, again you want to argue things in a paradoxical way again. Your saying he played 11 internationals in the 4th tier. Now as I recall, this is where he played a LOT of young players from the academy, in a way that absolutely trounces MW, but the argument is that he only played them because he "had to". Now if he had 11 internationals at his disposal, why did he "have to" play so many academy graduates? And again, if he "needed 11 internationals", why did he play so many home grown players?

 

Bringing Gretna into it, shows a lack of understanding about what the club was going through at the time. But if doing worse than a team in a previous season who had less money than you had is a crime, then MW is obviously also very guilty - especially when you consider he had an easier league.

 

But that's the problem with all your criticism, you think Ally was crappiest manager ever but you can't seem to argue consistently about why you think that, and all the evidence is against you.

 

The thing is, for me to argue Ally was average instead of the worst, I just need to show he was a good bit worse than MW but not devastatingly so. The thing is that the facts show, at least when it comes to results, he wasn't very far behind at all.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I think we better take his word over your beliefs. Seems sensible.

 

Your massaging more stats.

 

Oh and they are wrong again. Super spent more on 1 player than all of warbs.

 

At least we've moved on from pretending he was better if you squint at the facts out the corner of your eye.

 

I'm not sure 6 points in 20 games is only a bit worse.

 

Your cup comparison is dodgey as well.

 

Not in 3 seasons did super reach the final of the Scottish or win the challenge.

 

The league is certainly up for debate. Super shades that for sure.

Edited June 30, 2016 by the gunslinger

[calscot 0]

You didn't compare like for like. I did. My stats are the only ones that matter.

 

You mean they only matter to you because they work for you. I produced various stats to get as like for like as possible, in the most like for like, where it was the same teams, AM won by a margin. I really don't know how you can say yours are like for like when you include a much better team like Hearts whom MW didn't play. That would be similar to comparing AM's third tier season with MW's 2nd tier.

 

But the funny thing is, that your own stats prove you wrong. It shows even though there was an off-field crisis, a fan boycott, a resignation by AM, the presence of a much better side than MW's, despite all that, AM was only slightly worse... What would they be like on a level playing field?

 

As I've also said, the most non-turbulent time for AM was the 3rd tier, and he didn't lose a game, despite still having the equivalent of one hand tied behind his back. So how can we get a really supportive board, the fans back and excited, money to spend, and instead of the worst manger in the world, one of the best, and still do much worse merely one division up? We're talking going from the Scottish 3rd tier to the 2nd. Hardly a huge step up.

 

With 2 years to prepare Warburton would have pushed all over hearts as he will this season coming.

 

You can make up what you like but Hearts had no more preparation time than MW, in fact you could argue they had less. We will probably be better than them next season, but it's hard to judge the manager when he has a far greater budget.

 

You OPINION that hearts would have beaten a Warburton team to the title is flawed and only an opinion. Impossible to prove.

 

I agree it's impossible to prove, but the we can only compare with what we have and be sensible about it. I think the sensible conclusion is that Hearts were better. Warburton had an even record with Hibs and Falkirk who were obviously lesser sides. I can see why you would want to disagree but I can't see how it's sensible.

 

 

Who knows what supers record would have been in the second half of the season. But we do know what it was in the first. Poorer than Warburton. Poorer in the cups too.

 

That's just not true - as we've been discussing. Please just look at the facts.

 

When the facts don't even match your defense of the indefensible your finished in this debate which has gone on to long anyway.

 

In what way don't they match? You just want to ignore them because it doesn't suit your narrative.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

My stats are the definitive like for like comparison.

 

I don't like yours because they are not like for like.

 

Oh and nielson had a year working with the bulk of his players in the u20 before hearts went down.

[calscot 0]

 

Your massaging more stats.

 

Oh and they are wrong again. Super spent more on 1 player than all of warbs.

 

Show me the transfer fee stats - it's easy to look up and DB recently put them in a thread you were on so no excuses there. AM had a negative transfer fee balance in every season. MW's is positive in every season so far.

 

You are arguing against indisputable and verifiable facts, it's not good for your argument, or the validity of your opinion.

 

I'm not sure 6 points in 20 games is only a bit worse.

 

It's not that bad and when you add in the cup games, especially against SPL teams, the gap closes. But the significant bit of info from that is that 6 points were lost Hearts... A better team than MW's at a time when he was losing to St Johnstone...

[the gunslinger 3,366]

The hibs team Warburton faced was excellent and beat hearts for that matter iirc. The idea super faced better is opinion based as well. Warburton faced st mirren as well.

 

I've said many times rangers and hibs were the best two teams in Scotland last year. Theirs evidence for that.