Neil McCann on MW Summer Signings

[ian1964 10,625]

Was Ally unbeaten at home in 32 games ?

 

Did Ally get us promoted to the top league,win the petrofac cup & get us to a Scottish cup final?,whilst playing a decent level of football,I think some people just don't like MW!,anyway I'm happy where we are heading,some results could have been better but overall we are progressing on & off the pitch.

Edited November 30, 2016 by ian1964

[craig 5,199]

Did Ally get us promoted to the top league,win the petrofac cup & get us to a Scottish cup final?,whilst playing a decent level of football,I think some people just don't like MW!,anyway I'm happy where we are heading,some results could have been better but overall we are progressing on & off the pitch.

 

Some people miss all of that unfortunately. Particularly the off field progress.

 

Alas, it is what it is. Rangers fans will never find consensus on our managers - would be a boring place if we did

[calscot 0]

An erroneous statistic ? So sayeth the man that lays stats out and then says he is simply stating facts.

 

Craig, for the last time READ MY EFFING POSTS!!! You make up a load of nonsense almost every time about me and what I write.

 

I have repeatedly said that you have to justify your stats and their interpretation, I do. I have shown why I think Warburton's stats are erroneous - it's pretty obvious. They are not relevant. Read my reason why again and if you have even a slightly reasonable point I will happily debate it. Read it and reply in the spirit of this site instead of trolling me.

 

The only time I go on about stats being facts is when you weirdly deny them as such when you don't like them. I don't do that, I believe Warburton's facts but question the relevance and interpretation of them.

 

I have been 100% consistent with that. Show me where I haven't.

 

The fact is that we are unbeaten at home in 32 games.... are you now saying what I have been saying for months if not years... that stats can prove whatever you wish them to ?

 

Do you just read what you want to read? READ MY POST! You cannot prove "whatever" with stats - I just said that in my last post and explained why (you even quoted it FFS) - you are 100% wrong there. You don't prove anything with stats, you make a case which may or may not be compelling.

 

That's what people say when they don't understand stats and don't like someone else's. It's their get out of jail free card. You can try prove "whatever" - but like Warburton, your assertions can be scrutinised and criticised. In this case it's pretty facile, he's trying to pull a fast one and it doesn't wash.

 

The reality is that people can show their stats and then have to justify their choice and their interpretation.

 

They are supposed to make you see things objectively. Warburton has proven nothing as his stats are not relevant to Rangers. Unbeaten runs are interesting but not a good measurement of success - except when they win a cup. Being merely unbeaten at only home won't guarantee that either.

 

I showed you in my post which you quoted, an example of this where you can win 32 games away and 31 at home and also lose one at home. That wouldn't meet Warburton's measure of success which is quite an extreme flaw.

 

So I have shown why they are not justified in defining his success - if you just read my post that you quoted.

 

Every time I use stats I try to use them fairly, know their drawbacks, explain my choices, and I'm willing to defend and debate that. I also qualify my interpretations - your's often don't even come close to explaining the stats and so you dismiss them as facts - even though I sometimes tailor them to your own criteria.

 

Hmmmmmm......

 

Next time, can you actually read my post and have a valid point? Hmmmm?

 

I realise I'm not always the most diplomatic these days, but FFS my patience has been sorely tested.

 

You seem generally a decent bloke, but once again you have made stuff up about me to attack me with; I really don't get why. As I've said before, I shouldn't have to spend most of my time debating about how to debate. For once it would be good to actually properly debate an actual point.

 

So once again, as a real debate, why do you think that Warburton's stats are not erroneous?

Edited November 30, 2016 by calscot

[craig 5,199]

Craig, for the last time READ MY EFFING POSTS!!! You make up a load of nonsense almost every time about me and what I write.

 

I have repeatedly said that you have to justify your stats and their interpretation, I do. I have shown why I think Warburton's stats are erroneous - it's pretty obvious. They are not relevant. Read my reason why again and if you have even a slightly reasonable point I will happily debate it. Read it and reply in the spirit of this site instead of trolling me.

 

The only time I go on about stats being facts is when you weirdly deny them as such when you don't like them. I don't do that, I believe Warburton's facts but question the relevance and interpretation of them.

 

I have been 100% consistent with that. Show me where I haven't.

 

 

 

Do you just read what you want to read? READ MY POST! You cannot prove "whatever" with stats - I just said that in my last post and explained why (you even quoted it FFS) - you are 100% wrong there. You don't prove anything with stats, you make a case which may or may not be compelling.

 

That's what people say when they don't understand stats and don't like someone else's. It's their get out of jail free card. You can try prove "whatever" - but like Warburton, your assertions can be scrutinised and criticised. In this case it's pretty facile, he's trying to pull a fast one and it doesn't wash.

 

The reality is that people can show their stats and then have to justify their choice and their interpretation.

 

They are supposed to make you see things objectively. Warburton has proven nothing as his stats are not relevant to Rangers. Unbeaten runs are interesting but not a good measurement of success - except when they win a cup. Being merely unbeaten at only home won't guarantee that either.

 

I showed you in my post which you quoted, an example of this where you can win 32 games away and 31 at home and also lose one at home. That wouldn't meet Warburton's measure of success which is quite an extreme flaw.

 

So I have shown why they are not justified in defining his success - if you just read my post that you quoted.

 

Every time I use stats I try to use them fairly, know their drawbacks, explain my choices, and I'm willing to defend and debate that. I also qualify my interpretations - your's often don't even come close to explaining the stats and so you dismiss them as facts - even though I sometimes tailor them to your own criteria.

 

 

 

Next time, can you actually read my post and have a valid point? Hmmmm?

 

I realise I'm not always the most diplomatic these days, but FFS my patience has been sorely tested.

 

You seem generally a decent bloke, but once again you have made stuff up about me to attack me with; I really don't get why. As I've said before, I shouldn't have to spend most of my time debating about how to debate. For once it would be good to actually properly debate an actual point.

 

So once again, as a real debate, why do you think that Warburton's stats are not erroneous?

 

Maybe you should read your own posts Cal - because when you don't know what you have posted you end up hoisting yourself on your own petard.

 

We have gone round and round in circles before where you have "Simply stated the facts" and when people have attempted to put some colour to them and provide possible reasons for them happening you come back to "I only stated facts". Ergo, you are showing a level of hypocrisy.

 

I would personally have expected better of you than to start swearing, but that is fine too - I am thick skinned and it doesn't phase me.

 

I haven't read all of your post because you will no doubt have been defending what you said, but the reality is that in previous discussions you have used hard facts to state your case and then not be swayed due to other factors. Now you are suggesting different. It looks to me as if you are merely making an attempt to have a go at Warburton - again, if so, that is your prerogative.

 

I did however read the last sentence of your post. And I will say, quite categorically, that when Warburton says that we are unbeaten at home in 32 games then NO, categorically, he is NOT erroneous in his statistics. I am all ears though..... because, statistics being scientific and provable either one way or another I am more than just a little interested in how you can possibly suggest that Warburton is erroneous when he says "We are unbeaten in 32 games at home" - go for it, convince me he is wrong

[calscot 0]

Did Ally get us promoted to the top league,win the petrofac cup & get us to a Scottish cup final?,whilst playing a decent level of football,I think some people just don't like MW!,anyway I'm happy where we are heading,some results could have been better but overall we are progressing on & off the pitch.

 

Did Warburton do as well as Ally in the first 14 games of the SPL? Did he beat Celtic in 90 minutes? Did he have as good a win record against SPL teams?

 

Is his current football a decent level?

 

Some people just don't like McCoist (and maybe they now have good reason but it's irrelevant to football). The fact is McCoist wasn't good enough, Warburton hasn't shown he's any better. If you use all the McCoist judgements on Warburton he'd be one of the worst managers in history.

 

Some people care more about how they like a manager, than about the actual results.

 

Warburton is not doing so well - even possibly worse than McCoist ever did and without the shit boards and the turmoil that caused. See it as it is.

 

He's under pressure and starting to say stuff that does actually make him less likeable, as he's patronising the support.

[ian1964 10,625]

Did Warburton do as well as Ally in the first 14 games of the SPL? Did he beat Celtic in 90 minutes? Did he have as good a win record against SPL teams?

 

Is his current football a decent level?

 

Some people just don't like McCoist (and maybe they now have good reason but it's irrelevant to football). The fact is McCoist wasn't good enough, Warburton hasn't shown he's any better. If you use all the McCoist judgements on Warburton he'd be one of the worst managers in history.

 

Some people care more about how they like a manager, than about the actual results.

 

Warburton is not doing so well - even possibly worse than McCoist ever did and without the shit boards and the turmoil that caused. See it as it is.

 

He's under pressure and starting to say stuff that does actually make him less likeable, as he's patronising the support.

 

I'm out of this,can't be arsed,I'm looking forward to the match tonight............

[craig 5,199]

Did Warburton do as well as Ally in the first 14 games of the SPL?

 

Would Ally have done as well if it wasn't Walter's team he inherited ? That team had multiple players who individually were worth more than out whole squad combined. Talk about making statistics work for you huh ????

 

Did he beat Celtic in 90 minutes?

 

Did Ally get a draw with Celtic in 90 minutes when we were a Championship team ? Like for like, right ? Rangers under Ally as a Championship team and Rangers under Warburton as a Championship team....

 

Did he have as good a win record against SPL teams?

 

Probably as good, no ? Or are you deliberately including Ally's record when we were last in the SPL and had a completely different set of circumstances ?

 

Is his current football a decent level?

 

Yes it is.

 

Some people just don't like McCoist (and maybe they now have good reason but it's irrelevant to football). The fact is McCoist wasn't good enough, Warburton hasn't shown he's any better. If you use all the McCoist judgements on Warburton he'd be one of the worst managers in history.

 

And some will defend McCoist for the sake of defending him. It really isn't irrelevant to football. The performances that Ally's team produced on the climb back to the top were terrible. Wholly relevant to football. No, Warburton really WOULDNT be as bad as McCoist using ALL the McCoist judgements - only a blind man would ever consider that Ally's teams on the climb back to the top division played as attractive a style as Warburton's team.

 

Some people care more about how they like a manager, than about the actual results.

 

Ditto when considering McCoist - Did Ally get us promoted from the Championship ?

 

Warburton is not doing so well - even possibly worse than McCoist ever did and without the shit boards and the turmoil that caused. See it as it is.

 

Ha, nope. We may not be where we would like to be but the suggestion Warburton is doing worse than McCoist "ever" did is absolutely ludicrous. You do realize that by "ever" any one of us could use whatever set of "statistics" we would like ?? How about this one.... Did Warburton do worse than McCoist "ever" did in the Championship ? Nope. So you are proven wrong in the most simplistic of terms.

 

He's under pressure and starting to say stuff that does actually make him less likeable, as he's patronising the support.

 

It makes him less likeable to you - but I get the impression that you haven't really taken to him for a while now. Some others will quite possibly commend him for taking a stance against a compliant media that seeks to only ever find the negative in anything Rangers related, which you seem to buy into.

[calscot 0]

Maybe you should read your own posts Cal - because when you don't know what you have posted you end up hoisting yourself on your own petard.

 

We have gone round and round in circles before where you have "Simply stated the facts" and when people have attempted to put some colour to them and provide possible reasons for them happening you come back to "I only stated facts". Ergo, you are showing a level of hypocrisy.

 

Please show evidence of your accusations.

 

Again your twisting things. I put up some stats with no interpretation to see how people would take them. They took them badly and denied them as facts. So I asserted they were facts. You really are now being really insulting and not telling the truth.

 

I would personally have expected better of you than to start swearing, but that is fine too - I am thick skinned and it doesn't phase me.

 

What? Are you Mary Whitehouse in disguise? Or in an episode of Sorry - "Language Timothy!" If you were thick skinned you'd not even mention it.

 

I haven't read all of your post

 

And you wonder about the swearing? FFS!

 

because you will no doubt have been defending what you said, but the reality is that in previous discussions you have used hard facts to state your case and then not

be swayed due to other factors.

 

No, that's you. I don't have to be swayed by other factors - I can take them into account and still have a different viewpoint than yourself. I debate EVERYTHING and have the ability to mitigate and "seasonally adjust".

 

Now you are suggesting different.

 

I have been 100% consistent unlike yourself. You have been consistent only in your own hypocrisy and then throw the toys out the pram when it's pointed out.

 

It looks to me as if you are merely making an attempt to have a go at Warburton

 

Of course I am - he deserves it, he has insulted the intelligence of the support. I have good reason - and you are again hypocritical in not once pointing out when people actually make stuff up about McCoist to attack him, or use absolute nonsense. It's here all the time and I've grown tired of pointing it out. How come you have never or rarely have done so?

 

- again, if so, that is your prerogative.

 

Of course it is, this site is here to debate the performance of the club, team and manager. If you have a problem with it - DEBATE THE POINT. That's what we're supposed to be here for.

 

I did however read the last sentence of your post. And I will say, quite categorically, that when Warburton says that we are unbeaten at home in 32 games then NO, categorically, he is NOT erroneous in his statistics. I am all ears though..... because, statistics being scientific and provable either one way or another I am more than just a little interested in how you can possibly suggest that Warburton is erroneous when he says "We are unbeaten in 32 games at home" - go for it, convince me he is wrong

 

I've explained it TWICE. READ MY POSTS! Is there something I'm missing here? To me it's sooooo obvious, but you have to actually think about it.

 

If you think it's fine then please rebut my points and possibly make one or two of your own instead of just attacking me with made up nonsense.

 

Craig, come on, last, last time. Your really messing up the thread with personal crap.

[craig 5,199]

Please show evidence of your accusations.

 

Again your twisting things. I put up some stats with no interpretation to see how people would take them. They took them badly and denied them as facts. So I asserted they were facts. You really are now being really insulting and not telling the truth.

 

 

 

What? Are you Mary Whitehouse in disguise? Or in an episode of Sorry - "Language Timothy!" If you were thick skinned you'd not even mention it.

 

 

 

And you wonder about the swearing? FFS!

 

 

 

No, that's you. I don't have to be swayed by other factors - I can take them into account and still have a different viewpoint than yourself. I debate EVERYTHING and have the ability to mitigate and "seasonally adjust".

 

 

 

I have been 100% consistent unlike yourself. You have been consistent only in your own hypocrisy and then throw the toys out the pram when it's pointed out.

 

 

 

Of course I am - he deserves it, he has insulted the intelligence of the support. I have good reason - and you are again hypocritical in not once pointing out when people actually make stuff up about McCoist to attack him, or use absolute nonsense. It's here all the time and I've grown tired of pointing it out. How come you have never or rarely have done so?

 

 

 

Of course it is, this site is here to debate the performance of the club, team and manager. If you have a problem with it - DEBATE THE POINT. That's what we're supposed to be here for.

 

 

 

I've explained it TWICE. READ MY POSTS! Is there something I'm missing here? To me it's sooooo obvious, but you have to actually think about it.

 

If you think it's fine then please rebut my points and possibly make one or two of your own instead of just attacking me with made up nonsense.

 

Craig, come on, last, last time. Your really messing up the thread with personal crap.

 

I haven't read your post again. You can't decide to use sections of statistics (1 game, 5 games, 10 games, 14 games etc etc) to prove one manager is better than another - and then expect to take hard facts used by someone else and decide you want to change the argument on them. It doesn't work like that - even though that is exactly what you are trying to do.

 

We had this very same discussion in an old thread on Ally and comparing results between him and Warburton and you did exactly that.

 

I actually don't have to think about anything cal - I am still waiting, and it will be a cold day in hell before it actually happens that you disprove the statistic that Warburton provided. I think you are being deliberately obtuse now. He stated, for your edification once more "We are unbeaten at home in 32 games". Again, for the last, last time.... can you please explain to me what is erroneous about that statistic ? Forget all of your "ifs, buts, maybes" and forget all of your "you have to consider wins vs draws" addendums - just explain where he is erroneous when he states "we are unbeaten in 32 games" ? The issue is..... YOU CAN'T !!!!!

 

As for me "messing the thread up with personal crap" - sorry but that is complete fallacy. If anyone made things personal it was you when you capitalized for me to "read your effing posts" and now you attempt to belittle me with "to me its sooooooo obvious, but you have to actually think about it". Talk about a superiority complex. I actually find that more than just a little ignorant, and indeed it would be offensive to someone who had sensitivities, but I don't, so I find it amusing.

 

You really need to stop with the "I know better than all of you" style of posting - you are far better than that.

 

Before you know it you will be responding to yourself in these threads because you will chase people away with the manner in which you post. Again, as I say, that is your prerogative.

 

And, yes, I am aware that the last two sentences could be construed to be "personal" but they are intended to help you see that there are better ways in which to post and debate.

 

I have absolutely NO desire to debate with anyone who is so stubborn (when they are wrong) as to completely ignore the evidence presented to them. I have absolutely NO desire to debate with someone who thinks nothing of trying to belittle those they are attempting to debate with.

 

I simply wont partake in it.

[calscot 0]

Would Ally have done as well if it wasn't Walter's team he inherited ? That team had multiple players who individually were worth more than out whole squad combined. Talk about making statistics work for you huh ????

 

I was only responding in kind to stuff that isn't quite comparable. However, seeing as you're at it, Ally is supposed to be the worst manager in the world or have you forgotten? He had Craig Whyte as chairman.

 

Ally had the last board when in the Championship as well as Hearts who did better than Warburton. He quit while second in the league and still in the cup. However, you hypocritically don't point any of that out.

 

Did Ally get a draw with Celtic in 90 minutes when we were a Championship team ?

 

Like for like, right ?

 

What are you on about - he quite before we played them. Get your facts right.

 

Rangers under Ally as a Championship team and Rangers under Warburton as a Championship team....

 

I really don't know where you're going with that. Just when is it apples and oranges? When you disagree with it?

 

Probably as good, no ? Or are you deliberately including Ally's record when we were last in the SPL and had a completely different set of circumstances ?

 

Craig, it's always different circumstances, it's up to us to make sense of that otherwise how can you tell if one manager is good or bad or better than another - you can't really do that unless the circumstances were exactly the same which is impossible - and makes this site completely redundant.

 

We make adjustments to compare. The fact is that Ally did quite well with a half decent team, after a frustrating transfer window, until other external circumstances kicked in. Then it went pear shaped, we lost games and had a 10 point penalty - he was still in comfortable second place - not bad for the worse manager in the world.

 

Warburton does not have the same problems and yet is doing incredibly badly with a budget that should have better rewards.

 

However, you would have it that Warburton is a 9 and Ally is a 0.

 

Yes it is.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree there. I've explained my position on that and I've heard a ton of criticism of the football on here.

 

And some will defend McCoist for the sake of defending him.

 

Who and when? No some just point out when the criticism is just overboard and demonising - the nonsense is still happening and he's being blamed for everything. I'm not impressed with his gardening leave or non vote but it doesn't change how I see the football. But I've pointed out how weird people get and when they argue against ludicrous stuff against someone - they get accuse of lauding them.

 

It really isn't irrelevant to football. The performances that Ally's team produced on the climb back to the top were terrible.

 

How do you know Warburton would have done any better? You're own logic says you cant. He might have had the team playing the ball on the deck but that doesn't mean he'd have won the leagues. I think that point has been made by what we're watching now. Warburton's footballing philosophy doesn't guarantee results or entertainment - and I predicted that before he arrived.

 

Wholly relevant to football. No, Warburton really WOULDNT be as bad as McCoist using ALL the McCoist judgements - only a blind man would ever consider that Ally's teams on the climb back to the top division played as attractive a style as Warburton's team.

 

"Only a blind man" would disagree with you, hmmm?

 

As said Warburton didn't have McCoist's problems. And again there is no guarantee that he could recruit players in the lower divisions who would deal with the off-field stuff, play entertaining football and win. You are making it up.

 

For me, the most likely scenario is that Warburton would NEVER have got us promoted from the three divisions. Absolutely not. He would have quit well before.

 

Ditto when considering McCoist - Did Ally get us promoted from the Championship ?

 

He was on track before he quit - and under extreme circumstances and the presence in the league of a better team than Warburton's team. But you don't want to accept that do you? Hypocrisy again.

 

Ha, nope. We may not be where we would like to be but the suggestion Warburton is doing worse than McCoist "ever" did is absolutely ludicrous. You do realize that by "ever" any one of us could use whatever set of "statistics" we would like ?? How about this one.... Did Warburton do worse than McCoist "ever" did in the Championship ? Nope. So you are proven wrong in the most simplistic of terms.

 

Did you read the "possibly"? Yes disagreeing with you means it's ludicrous. Of course.

 

Again your hypocritical, Warburton didn't play in the same Championship as McCoist which had a team on fire which Warburton's team didn't match. Ally was also hampered by the board - the most awful atmosphere the club has ever had, and didn't have the transfer budget of Warburton.

 

But of course you like apples and oranges when it suits you. You ignore all McCoist's problems and then mitigate for Warburton because of the terrible circumstance of "winning the league".

 

It makes him less likeable to you - but I get the impression that you haven't really taken to him for a while now.

 

That's not true, I have had a lot of patience for him; however, there are many things about him that don't rock my boat - his results since the Celtic game being the major factor. I don't agree with a lot of his philosophy and have explained that and why before he even came and a lot since.

 

Some others will quite possibly commend him for taking a stance against a compliant media that seeks to only ever find the negative in anything Rangers related, which you seem to buy into.

 

When you make a stance, it's best to do it with something decent to say rather than trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. And I resent the accusation which seems to say I buy into the negative Rangers press, I am very vociferous against it which you would know if YOU READ MY POSTS. Again you are insulting and trolling and bringing the forum down. You are totally out of order. I really don't know why you have to continually make up stuff to attack me. Please desist.

 

Neil McCann is not known for his anti-Rangers agenda, and I didn't write about agreeing with him, I wrote about not liking Warburton's response which I thought was poor as his interpretation of the stats don't hold true.

 

Once again, Craig, you have to twist things to try and defend an indefensible position. You don't have one consistent point in this post.

 

But I have to ask you why you had to digress with this stuff instead of actually debating the point which I have asked you several times in this thread. It's boring for others and it is 100% instigated by you. It's a terrible waste of everyone's time and bandwidth.