McCoist vs Warburton vs Neilson win % stats

[Bearman 9]

..... cue the "But nobody had to suffer the off-field issues Ally had".... see, always an excuse when you look for one).

 

What other statistics do we need ?

 

Do you think Warbs and SDOW would have worked under the last regime?

 

McCoist had no option and probably suspected his managerial career was over well before it ended.

[craig 5,199]

Do you think Warbs and SDOW would have worked under the last regime?

 

McCoist had no option and probably suspected his managerial career was over well before it ended.

 

We will never know. However, if we want to deal in statistics then the most obvious one is pertinent.

 

Warburton gained us promotion to the top tier. Ally didn't.

 

No amount of other statistics will change that fact.

 

Do we know that MW & DW wouldn't work with them ? How do we know it would have a marked difference ? You are aware that, financially, Ally was supported by his regime to AT LEAST the same extent as MW was ????

 

McCoist always had an option - though it was much more limited after his "We don't do walking away" speech.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Ha ha, complete irony bypass.

 

Yes, I know that naked and objective facts seem completely delusional to you, hilarious! If you don't want to shatter your delusions then keep away from stuff like reality. Just because the facts are incompatible with your opinion does not make them wrong.

 

Oh yeah, speaking of your delusions, congrats on Chelsea winning the league again...

 

For others, the point of the topic is to look at the results stats, to assess how much we've progressed in that sense and how far there is to go to compete in the top league with a comparison against Hearts. I've given a lot of comparisons and as I said is up to you to look at them and decide which comparisons are the most valid.

We all know what happens when you get hit with facts:

 

http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?77338-Barrie-McKay&p=620241&viewfull=1#post620241

 

I won't bother this time as anyone with half a brain can see this topic for what it is. I've no idea why this website puts up with your obvious trolling.

 

P.S. What are you on about re: Chelsea? Who said they would win the Champions League? Nobody....so take your pathetic trolling elsewhere.

Edited May 9, 2016 by Ser Barristan Selmy

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Do you think Warbs and SDOW would have worked under the last regime?

 

McCoist had no option and probably suspected his managerial career was over well before it ended.

If McCoist was a manager he'd be managing a team just now; not back to punditry.

 

McCoist was absolutely useless.

[Frankie 8,151]

The stats are fairly interesting I suppose but I don't think they can take into account context and they definitely can't suggest McCoist is a better manager than Warburton.

 

For example, in a general sense, I'd say the quality of the Championship this season (even without Hearts) has been a fair bit better than it was last term.

[der Berliner 3,247]

Similar (!) to the transfer values given on Transfermarkt, these are bare facts which have a few and important variables missing. But at the end of the day, one has to start somewhere if you go on a compare-marathon.

[calscot 0]

The stats are fairly interesting I suppose but I don't think they can take into account context and they definitely can't suggest McCoist is a better manager than Warburton.

 

I don't know anyone who is claiming McCoist was a better manager than Warburton, and certainly not me. I've been totally consistent in saying he's a much better manager and considering him excellent with McCoist as mediocre. However, I think we have to beware of the hype surrounding both managers which I think has highly skewed a lot of people's views, and the stats show that results-wise the improvement might not be as big as people think.

 

There is no doubt that the style football has improved and there is a sign of progression and better things to come, although even there for me it's not as black and white as people suggest, as last year there was too much poor play but there was still some reasonably good stuff now and again, and this year there is a lot of good play but still some bad stuff, and maybe too often it's been a bit tedious and frustrating - with what one poster succinctly described as "U football".

 

For example, in a general sense, I'd say the quality of the Championship this season (even without Hearts) has been a fair bit better than it was last term.

 

I have to disagree here and looking at the stats, if Hearts were in the league this year and had the same results against the same teams, we'd have been struggling to win league and they would have the advantage. Of course being in a straight race with another club could change how each team but there is no way of saying whether that would help or hinder us. The only real world comparison we have is the results in isolation and Hearts would have been massive favourites even up until the Celtic game. We'd probably have needed something like 3 wins and draw against them, and our results against Hibs and Falkirk don't bode well for that.

 

I think Hibs are about the same a last year overall, and Falkirk have improved, Morton are better than Cowdenbeath but I doubt all the rest of the clubs have also improved. However, Hearts were way ahead of St Mirren, so for me it's no contest.

 

To be fair to McCoist, take away Hearts and the stats show that without the shenanigans of the board and his resignation, the most likely scenario based on result trends would be for him to narrow win the league.

 

So while people WANT to think that the seasons are black and white, the reality much closer than people think with the most deciding factors for league position looking like being the board and Hearts, rather than the Warburton factor, but that's not to say he's not a very good manager.

 

To me it does say that it's a work in progress and a lot has to be done. There is a slight shade of style over substance at the moment, for me the signs are that while a lot of what we are doing is not vastly improving results, it has the foundations to do so. We can see where we need to improve - with a leaky defence and profligate attack, whereas a year ago, while the results were coming in, it was more about having better, fitter players but there was so much mediocrity everywhere that there wasn't much view of what needed to be done to raise us up to the next level.

 

I think, that this season results-wise we've not done much more than expected for any Rangers manager, certainly when you look at the criticism of McCoist, with the one stand out result against Celtic, which result-wise again was a draw in 2 hours of football - BUT the quality of the play was massively encouraging. Which kind of sums our season up.

[calscot 0]

We all know what happens when you get hit with facts:

 

http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?77338-Barrie-McKay&p=620241&viewfull=1#post620241

 

 

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.

 

I won't bother this time as anyone with half a brain can see this topic for what it is. I've no idea why this website puts up with your obvious trolling.

 

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.

 

P.S. What are you on about re: Chelsea? Who said they would win the Champions League? Nobody....so take your pathetic trolling elsewhere.

 

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

 

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.

[calscot 0]

Similar (!) to the transfer values given on Transfermarkt, these are bare facts which have a few and important variables missing. But at the end of the day, one has to start somewhere if you go on a compare-marathon.

 

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.

[calscot 0]

We will never know. However, if we want to deal in statistics then the most obvious one is pertinent.

 

Warburton gained us promotion to the top tier. Ally didn't.

 

No amount of other statistics will change that fact.

 

Craig, it's not a fact. McCoist resigned before he had the chance to have us promoted. Due to that, you're conclusion is completely and utterly invalid and you really need to think about that. The stats show that the most likely scenario had McCoist continued in the same fashion, despite the difficulties caused by the board, would be for us to gain second place and be promoted by beating Hibs and Motherwell. It's the best fit prediction, although that doesn't mean it would actually happen. That is something we will never know. The stats are about what we DO know.

 

Basically you are once again making it up, and trying to pass off very personal conjecture as fact. I really don't want to get into a debate about a total fallacy.

 

You obviously cannot think objectively on this subject - and therefore it's not surprising you don't want to know about objective stats.

 

Do we know that MW & DW wouldn't work with them ? How do we know it would have a marked difference ? You are aware that, financially, Ally was supported by his regime to AT LEAST the same extent as MW was ????

 

According to some sources McCoist had a negative net transfer balance for three seasons and one season where no money went out and no money came in. Warburton had a net positive balance. I'm surprised you think that the old board was as supportive as this one, to me THAT is black and white, but you also ignore other factors and it's smacks of making excuses. There is no doubt Ally had a harder job on his hands with many factors and even on a level playing field your opinions would mean that the results should NOT be comparable in slightest.

 

However, this is NOT what the intention of this thread is about. It's about looking at cold, hard facts. As I said their validity is up for debate, but I think I've been very objective and fair. Each part of the stats paints an objective picture, what you interpret from that is up to you. So I'm surprised at the difficulty people have in accepting them and discussing them as such with consistency - except that they don't fit in with some of the very strong memes.

 

The thread is not intended to be a McCoist thread, it's about cutting through the hype examining our improvement in the ability to win games.