Start to the season - a comparison

[Murts-is-Lej]

Great work Strap, thanks.

I tend to agree and maybe I'm being overoptimisitic but didin't Burns finish 11th? I would tkae that this season on the basis that there has been so much change.

I agree - I'm still sure there's too much quality in our squad for it to be a relegation season but the stats do have me slightly worried:
* 20 worst starts only 4 ended up in top-half of the table (with a best of 8th in Div4!)
* 20 worst starts 4 ended up in relegation
So on that basis we of course have to wait and see, but there's a slight majority in favour of an uncomfortable mid-table finish - I'll take that right now!

[strap]

Good work Strap - Just curious though, why is the Coppell promotion season not included??

He only has the worst 60 starts there, not every season.

HTH.

Great effort as always Strap, keep up the good work.

05-06 was our 80th worst start in 83 seasons! (More properly our 4th best start ever!) P9 W6 D2 L1 F18 A6 GD+12 Pts20 Posn@9 2 Posn@end 1 PlayersUse@9 14 PlayersusedInSeason 19.

[Murts-is-Lej]

Good work Strap - Just curious though, why is the Coppell promotion season not included??

He only has the worst 60 starts there, not every season.

HTH.

Great effort as always Strap, keep up the good work.

05-06 was our 80th worst start in 83 seasons! (More properly our 4th best start ever!) P9 W6 D2 L1 F18 A6 GD+12 Pts20 Posn@9 2 Posn@end 1 PlayersUse@9 14 PlayersusedInSeason 19.

In fact interesting that SSC only appears twice in the top-60 worst list and those were both PL. Rodgers obviously has some catching up to do...

[weybridgewanderer]

After ten games defeat at Preston would leave us dangerously close to requiring 1.5 points per game to acheive the safety mark of 50 points. This is a tall order and over a season would put us in contention for the play offs.
I have thought that Rodgers had enough about him to be given the time to build a settled team but the fact is he is further away from it than ever as Strap`s statistics show. After the lump it forward 4-4-2 second half against Watford he has surely been through the card bar playing three at the back.
So then, if we do lose at Preston I shall have to hold my hands up and gracefully retire.

He played 3 at the back after we went 1 down at home to barnsley in the Carling Cup

[weybridgewanderer]

so what is it, articulate it to me, how is it progressing?

Where did I say it was progressing? Where did I say it was working? Where did I even say it would work? I just said there were some positive signs.

I suggest you try reading my original comments again and then come back and argue them with me.

How about

Some good stats there Strap, however I think one difference between Rodgers and the other two is that Rodgers has a clear strategy (some might call it World Class) of what he is trying to do.

Also neither Burns or Bullivant had such an inexperienced squad in terms of RFC appearances to work with. There are definite positive signs from Rodgers team and it will become more settled once he has worked out his best combinations, for example he has only just got McAnuff and Ingimarsson available for selection.

Rodgers has a long term plan, which may or may not work, I don't think Burns or Bullivant did.

So you tell me what this clear strategy is and then I will be in a position to argue with you. My view is there is no master plan.

[Barry the bird boggler]

Strap....

Stats cover Reading's worst ever run of HOME LEAGUE games please.... are we anywhere near breaking it?!

[westendgirl]

After ten games defeat at Preston would leave us dangerously close to requiring 1.5 points per game to acheive the safety mark of 50 points. This is a tall order and over a season would put us in contention for the play offs.
I have thought that Rodgers had enough about him to be given the time to build a settled team but the fact is he is further away from it than ever as Strap`s statistics show. After the lump it forward 4-4-2 second half against Watford he has surely been through the card bar playing three at the back.
So then, if we do lose at Preston I shall have to hold my hands up and gracefully retire.

He played 3 at the back after we went 1 down at home to barnsley in the Carling Cup

And against Cardiff when they went down to 10 - O'Dea was told to stay up for the last 5 minutes or so.

[Wycombe Royal]

so what is it, articulate it to me, how is it progressing?

Where did I say it was progressing? Where did I say it was working? Where did I even say it would work? I just said there were some positive signs.

I suggest you try reading my original comments again and then come back and argue them with me.

How about

Some good stats there Strap, however I think one difference between Rodgers and the other two is that Rodgers has a clear strategy (some might call it World Class) of what he is trying to do.

Also neither Burns or Bullivant had such an inexperienced squad in terms of RFC appearances to work with. There are definite positive signs from Rodgers team and it will become more settled once he has worked out his best combinations, for example he has only just got McAnuff and Ingimarsson available for selection.

Rodgers has a long term plan, which may or may not work, I don't think Burns or Bullivant did.

So you tell me what this clear strategy is and then I will be in a position to argue with you. My view is there is no master plan.

I said he had a clear strategy, I didn't say it was progressing, working or whether it would work. If you can't see that then you obviously have trouble reading.

There have been plenty of articles on the official site about what Rodgers wants to acheive and how he wants to achieve it and that is what he has presented to all the players, including those that have left (remember the article about him presenting it to Doyle??) and those that have joined.

[Wimb]

Hi Wycombe. I'm yet to be convinced that BR has ANY plan at all! We've already seen upwards of 6 different formations in 9 leag and 2 LC games, (4-5-1, 4-4-2, 4-4-2 diamond, 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3, 4-1-4-1 that I can remember). Couple that to the Burns-esque chopping and changing of personnel, and I personally feel you have a recipe for disaster. The evidence suggests he has no idea what he wants, despite alluding to a love of 4-5-1, (which the current squad have yet to show any ability to adapt to).

SSC stuck to 4-4-2 and brought in players who were either used to the system, or who he felt could easily be trained to adapt to it. Of course, the achilles heal of sticking rigidly to 4-4-2 was that once opposition cottoned on to it, we had no effective plan B. So I accept that it is essential that the team should be able to change formations, but until there is a coherent Plan A that the team are comfortable with, asking them to work up Plans B, C and D virtually on the hoof, is asking for trouble. That might have worked at Chelsea where the skill levels are World Class, but down here in the second tier, BR has to cut his cloth and work with more journeymen type players. I would suggest he keeps things simple untyil the team has developed a full understadning of one system, before attemoting to cram their minds with his World Clas thinking.

Top stats Strap really good work.

I'd agree with your posts but have to say I disagree with your comparison to SSC's teams. As I've posted before SSC had the benefit of having 6 or 7 players who had played with the club for a few seasons. Harper, Shorey, USA, Murty, Fozzie, Salako, Williams etc. That was a strong spine, hungry and used to playing a certain way under Pardew (a man who by his own admission had used a lot of Coppells methods etc)

I'd be interested to know what the turnover of players was during Pardew's first 12 months in charge. From what I recall it seemed to be a major clearout and a gradual reconstruction of the side in the 18 months leading up to the playoff final.

Digging a little deeper the starting lineups from Pardews first game (as caretaker) September 1999

Howie, Gray, Bernal, Casper, Primus (Polston), Gurney (Williams), Smith, Grant, Caskey, McIntyre (Scott), Forster

At Cardiff in May 2001

Whitehead, Murty, Viveash, Williams (Hunter), Robinson, Parkinson, Harper, Igoe (Forster), Cureton, Butler, McIntyre (Rougier)

So from the team Pardew inherited, only 1 survived (with a couple of exceptions for injuries/tactical preferences i.e Caskey and Parky) The team was totally revamped and few survived the massacre.

In Pardews first months in charge we went on a horrible run of results and then turned it around to finish midtable.
The key difference between BR and AP was that Pardew dismantled a very poor and slumping side and made it better. However the point stands that a high turnover of players doesn't always mean you're doomed to fail. It took Pardew less then 2 years to transform the team, and within 7 years we were bound for the Premier League.

This is the whole point about 'cycles'. Eventually someone has to tear down the house and start again. Coppell was very fortunate to have inherited some key players that would take us up. In my honest opinion BR was forced to almost start from scratch,just as Pardew did.

Look at Coppell's first team selection in 2003

Hahnemann; Newman, Brown, Williams, Shorey; Murray, Sidwell, Harper (Salako 77 mins), Hughes; Goater (Watson 88 mins) Forster

Four players there who would play in the first XI of the 106 side and 2 or 3 others who would have us fighting for the playoffs in 2004/2005 and had been there in 2002/2003.

For me 4 players (plus the others who hung around the squad for 18 months) constitutes a very solid spine of the team. Arguably, Coppell had it far easier due to the quality of those 4, combined with the fact that Forster, Williams and Hughes were all of good quality for this level. I'd even argue that Murray, Goater and Brown weren't that bad.

So what does BR have to work with compared to SSC?

Again looking at the teams from before/after BR took over

Coppell's final team.

Hahnemann, Rosenior, Pearce, Duberry, Harding, Kebe (Kitson 53), Gunnarsson, Matejovsky (Stephen Hunt 52), Tabb, Church (Little 53), Long

Before BR even arrived at the club, Hahnemann, Duberry, Harding had gone. (With Doyle/Bikey/Hunt/Lita able to leave due to clauses in their contracts/expiry of their deals)

The subs brought on that day were all unavailable to sign or wanted to leave due to one reason or another.

That leaves, Rosie, Gunnar, Marek, Kebe, Pearce, Long and Church.

Now the majority opinion on here seems to be (forgive the generalisations) that Kebe/Long/Church aren't good enough right now or for a year or two. You could probably also throw Pearce into that for the time being.

That leaves Tabb, Marek and Gunnar. Gunnar can't play week in week out but when he has BR has used him and he's played well. Marek was never a regular under SSC and Tabb isn't that significant an upgrade/downgrade on Karacan/ Cisse. BR also inherited a decent but not brilliant keeper in A-Fed and some other injured players such as Ivar and Armstrong, and other squad players such as Harper, Kelly, Nhunt. In my opinion that leaves Rodgers with all but no 'strong spine' whatsoever.

In all honesty which players left at RFC after Coppells departure could you see forming the backbone of a decent side. Bear in mind again that by popular sentiment here, Harper/Rosie's hearts were not in it as much due to the 'seen and done it' syndrome. Not saying they don't give 100% but they didn't have the extra desire of someone who needs to prove it/experience the big time.

The whole point of the stats etc above, are to demonstrate the scope of the job Brendan has to do here and to highlight how Pardew had a very similar job to do and yet set us up for 7 years of joy and success. Will Rodgers 100% work out? No of course not. However history shows us that the methods he is adopting in terms of team building (in the long term) do have sound logic. Yes its frustrating to not be able to find a settled XI straight away (see my post in the back from the game...) but at the same time, you have to hold onto hope and remind yourself that its can be a long haul not always a sprint.

[Ryn]

Thanks for taking the time to post that, Wimb. A good read.

My only arguement is that when Pardew took over, it was clear which direction we were going, and he did a good job of steadying a sinking ship.

Our squad should not be a bottom of the table side, and I was expecting Rodgers to get more out of these boys by now.

[weybridgewanderer]

There have been plenty of articles on the official site about what Rodgers wants to acheive and how he wants to achieve it and that is what he has presented to all the players, including those that have left (remember the article about him presenting it to Doyle??) and those that have joined.

I'll assume by the fact you continue not to tell me what tis great platform is that you are as confused about what he is try to achieve and how he is going about achieving it as he is.

[weybridgewanderer]

[ In my opinion that leaves Rodgers with all but no 'strong spine' whatsoever.

Absolutely

So what did he spend 2 months buying over the summer? has he bought that spine he so badly needs?

a football teams spine is the goalkeeper, and experienced centre half, an experienced midfielder and a presence up front

[facaldaqui]

That's an excellent analysis, Wimb. But it doesn't necessarily follow that Rodgers will do what Pardew did, since the unknown factor is whether Rodgers is any good as a manager. If he isn't, he won't succeed in setting up a successful side. About Bullivant, you could argue that he inherited a reasonably competent side and turned it into a losing one. About Burns, you could say that he inherited a rubbish side and transformed it into another rubbish side. We've yet to see which of all the patterns Rodgers will follow.

[Hoop Blah]

Interesting stats, but I really don't think there is much to be gained from comparing them.

Realistically we shouldn't be expecting too much from this season. A mid-table finish with a fair number of painful performances and results along the way as the totally reconstructed squad is bedded in and Rodgers different approach to things takes effect.

I agree with WR that there are signs that Rodgers have a clear view of what he's trying to do. I think that's a good thing and I can see clear effects of it in the way we play and obviously the teams he's been selecting.

I think the two things Rodgers has probably done wrong so far are build up the expectations and chopped and changed his team selections too much.

To be fair to him though, he had to try and re-invigorate the club and the support when he came him. He couldn't really do that by spending his first few weeks talking about mid-table aspirations and the balancing of books. He needed to try and create a positive vibe around the place to help the youngsters step into the side with a bit of a feel good factor. That's come back to bite him in the arse a bit because the players just aren't good enough yet.

That's also made it hard for him to keep such a settled side. If we'd got off to a better start (in performance as well as results) he may well have been less inclined to tinker!

No doubt it's been a tough start though. I just hope he doesn't lose the changing room and the fans give him time to get things right.

[Wimb]

That's an excellent analysis, Wimb. But it doesn't necessarily follow that Rodgers will do what Pardew did, since the unknown factor is whether Rodgers is any good as a manager. If he isn't, he won't succeed in setting up a successful side. About Bullivant, you could argue that he inherited a reasonably competent side and turned it into a losing one. About Burns, you could say that he inherited a rubbish side and transformed it into another rubbish side. We've yet to see which of all the patterns Rodgers will follow.

Valid points by all of the above (though I'm lazy so will only quote the above )

Valid point about Burns turning a rubbish side into another rubbish side of course BR could do the same and turn us into a bad side but I prefer to look on the positive side for now!

In response to Weybridge I totally agree although it seems as if his hands were tied somewhat by needing players to leave. However, since the Doncaster game, BR now has a team that by his own admission he thinks is good enough so he needs to start turning results around. By your definition he seems to think his spine would consist of Fed-Mills-Howard-Rasiak/McAnuff though its blatently obvious how much he needed Smith to make his plans work. He's been crippled by the lack of a winger/forward that can help the main striker. Though we did see glimpses on Saturday of how McAnuff might be 1/2 of a wing duo.

And Ryn, again cheers for the comments but I'd disagree that this 'team' shouldn't be bottom half. There's a reason that the players we have weren't playing for big clubs in the first place so we shouldn't expect Rodgers to suddenly turn them into superstars

[weybridgewanderer]

I'd say the spine is Feds-Ivar-Jem-Rasiak, Jury is still out on this but I think this is what he now needs to build his team around. he needed this in place at the end of pre season. I accept Ivar was injured but the relacements we had were not good enough

Instead we started with

Feds-Pearce-Jem-Long/Church, which really was not good enough

[strap]

Strap....

Stats cover Reading's worst ever run of HOME LEAGUE games please.... are we anywhere near breaking it?!

Hi Barry, we broke that ages ago! Previous worst was 8 games without a win which has happened twice (sept 91 to dec 91, and aug 54 to oct 54, League games only).

We are currently on 13 League games without a win. To be fair to BR, SSC was responsible for the first 8 of the current 13, (feb 09 to may 09), who of course also had the Play-off defeat to add, whereas BR has at least got the 5-1 v Burton to help break up the run.

(Just to really show off, we have also had 3 runs of 7 winless at home, 4 of 6, 8 of 5, 13 of 4, 50 of 3, 116 of 2, 240 of 1. Sad isn't it!?)

[Ryn]

I agree that we are probably a bottom half side with our squad, but it should be good enough to avoid relegation. Big difference there I think.

Good points well made again though Wimb, bit better than most of the other name-callers on this forum.

[Barry the bird boggler]

Strap....

Stats cover Reading's worst ever run of HOME LEAGUE games please.... are we anywhere near breaking it?!

Hi Barry, we broke that ages ago! Previous worst was 8 games without a win which has happened twice (sept 91 to dec 91, and aug 54 to oct 54, League games only).

We are currently on 13 League games without a win. To be fair to BR, SSC was responsible for the first 8 of the current 13, (feb 09 to may 09), who of course also had the Play-off defeat to add, whereas BR has at least got the 5-1 v Burton to help break up the run.

(Just to really show off, we have also had 3 runs of 7 winless at home, 4 of 6, 8 of 5, 13 of 4, 50 of 3, 116 of 2, 240 of 1. Sad isn't it!?)

Thanks Strap. I didn't realise we'd already set a new club record, just goes to show how good we must have been historically!

[weybridgewanderer]

... just goes to show how good we must have been historically!

That is one way of looking at it!