HNA approval/disapproval of NA

[NewCorkSeth]

Those stats just prove what we all know. We are inconsistent and do not know what we're going to see from one match to the next regardless of the oppo.

1.6 and 1.66 suggest we are consistent. 2.4 against top teams a 0.7 against bottom teams would be inconsistent.

[MmmMonsterMunch]

Those stats just prove what we all know. We are inconsistent and do not know what we're going to see from one match to the next regardless of the oppo.

1.6 and 1.66 suggest we are consistent. 2.4 against top teams a 0.7 against bottom teams would be inconsistent.

Consistent in that we win one, then lose one yes?

[NewCorkSeth]

Those stats just prove what we all know. We are inconsistent and do not know what we're going to see from one match to the next regardless of the oppo.

1.6 and 1.66 suggest we are consistent. 2.4 against top teams a 0.7 against bottom teams would be inconsistent.

Consistent in that we win one, then lose one yes?

Exactly.

[P!ssed Off]

Mate seriously.. How could we be consistently shit against crap teams any more than any other of the teams in the Championship. It's 19 games in and were 8 points from the top! Look at the table and stop talking utter shite.

Incorrect.
Against the bottom half we have taken 16 points from 10 games. 1.6 points per game.
Against the top half we have taken 15 points from 9 games. 1.66 points per game.

Even if you formulate your opinion solely on W/D/L we have still been below par against the bottom half of the league.

It is common sense that a team should be better against weaker teams, than against good teams.
Here are the results of the top 3 teams {Burnley, QPR and Leicester} bottom half vs top half:

Burnley vs Bottom half: 22 points from 10 games = 2.2 points per game
Burnley vs Top half: 17 points from 9 games = 1.88 points per game

QPR vs Bottom half: 27 points from 12 games = 2.25 points per game
QPR vs Top half: 12 points from 7 games = 1.71 points per game

Leicester vs Bottom half: 24 points from 11 games = 2.18 points per game
Leicester vs Top half: 14 points from 8 games = 1.75 points per game

Do you still think I am talking utter shite?

Short answer? Yes. Absolutely.

Derby vs Bottom half: 21 points from 9 games = 2.33 points per game
Derby vs Top half: 13 points from 10 games = 1.3 points per game

Forest vs Bottom half: 17 points from 11 games = 1.55 points per game
Forest vs Top half: 14 points from 8 games = 1.75 points per game

Leeds vs Bottom half: 22 points from 10 games = 2.2 points per game
Leeds vs Top half: 8 points from 9 games = 0.89 points per game

Of the top 8 teams only Nottingham Forest have been weaker than Reading against the bottom half of the league.

[MmmMonsterMunch]

Those stats don't really say an awful lot TBF. We are inconsistent & we happen to have played more lower teams than higher ones at present so obviously the odds stack more towards your theory of being worse against lesser opposition.

Perhaps doing it after 23 games you might have more of a point....

I will concede though that perhaps the players concentration is heightened against better opposition but hasn't that always been the case with every single football club in the world? You don't want a spanking so you bust a gut if you know the task ahead of you is formidable.

[NewCorkSeth]

Derby vs Bottom half: 21 points from 9 games = 2.33 points per game
Derby vs Top half: 13 points from 10 games = 1.3 points per game

Forest vs Bottom half: 17 points from 11 games = 1.55 points per game
Forest vs Top half: 14 points from 8 games = 1.75 points per game

Leeds vs Bottom half: 22 points from 10 games = 2.2 points per game
Leeds vs Top half: 8 points from 9 games = 0.89 points per game

Of the top 8 teams only Nottingham Forest have been weaker than Reading against the bottom half of the league.

So what you are saying is we are better against top half teams than Derby and Leeds and better against bottom half teams than Forest! Good! What are Blackpools stats?

[P!ssed Off]

Those stats just prove what we all know. We are inconsistent and do not know what we're going to see from one match to the next regardless of the oppo.

1.6 and 1.66 suggest we are consistent. 2.4 against top teams a 0.7 against bottom teams would be inconsistent.

I made it clear to Royalee that I used the phrase "consistently bad" when talking about performances, not results.
The stats provided show that even when considering results on their own we have regularly dropped points against the weaker half of the division.

[Hoop Blah]

Not read the rest of the thread but Adkins has to be given time to develop the squad according to his wants.

In the meantime I can't warm to him and his turn of phrase and personality as it comes across from the sound items we get. Having said that, he has a record of developing good teams so he can't be all bad. I just wonder if he's the right man at the wrong club sometimes.

As I've said elsewhere it feels like something isn't right somewhere behind the scenes and its impacting performances. I've no idea what that is, perhaps it's the managers relationship with the players, the doubts over the ownership or just the hangover from a demoralising relegation season.

Right now though I'm seeing a team that's lacking direction and a consistent way of playing. The performances of late aren't as good those that Rodgers was churning out when he got the sack. Fortunately for our league position this side is getting results whilst playing poorly but I've always maintained that, in the long run, results follow performances.

Adkins stays, but something isn't right.

[P!ssed Off]

Derby vs Bottom half: 21 points from 9 games = 2.33 points per game
Derby vs Top half: 13 points from 10 games = 1.3 points per game

Forest vs Bottom half: 17 points from 11 games = 1.55 points per game
Forest vs Top half: 14 points from 8 games = 1.75 points per game

Leeds vs Bottom half: 22 points from 10 games = 2.2 points per game
Leeds vs Top half: 8 points from 9 games = 0.89 points per game

Of the top 8 teams only Nottingham Forest have been weaker than Reading against the bottom half of the league.

So what you are saying is we are better against top half teams than Derby and Leeds and better against bottom half teams than Forest! Good! What are Blackpools stats?

Oops meant to post Blackpool as well.

Blackpool vs Bottom half: 20 points from 12 games = 1.67 points per game
Blackpool vs Top half: 11 points from 7 games = 1.57 points per game

[P!ssed Off]

FAO NewCorkSeth

To summarise:
I said: "We've played consistently shit against the weak teams."
Royalee said: "We've only lost 2 against the bottom half, all the good teams lose against bad ones sometimes etc."
I said: "I was referring to performances not results. However, when looking at results alone we have still performed badly against the bottom half of the division."
I then gave stats to support the statement.

[P!ssed Off]

Might as well put them all in one place.

Reading vs Bottom half: 16 points from 10 games. 1.6 points per game.
Reading vs Top half: 15 points from 9 games. 1.66 points per game.

Burnley vs Bottom half: 22 points from 10 games = 2.2 points per game
Burnley vs Top half: 17 points from 9 games = 1.88 points per game

QPR vs Bottom half: 27 points from 12 games = 2.25 points per game
QPR vs Top half: 12 points from 7 games = 1.71 points per game

Leicester vs Bottom half: 24 points from 11 games = 2.18 points per game
Leicester vs Top half: 14 points from 8 games = 1.75 points per game

Derby vs Bottom half: 21 points from 9 games = 2.33 points per game
Derby vs Top half: 13 points from 10 games = 1.3 points per game

Forest vs Bottom half: 17 points from 11 games = 1.55 points per game
Forest vs Top half: 14 points from 8 games = 1.75 points per game

Blackpool vs Bottom half: 20 points from 12 games = 1.66 points per game
Blackpool vs Top half: 11 points from 7 games = 1.57 points per game

Leeds vs Bottom half: 22 points from 10 games = 2.2 points per game
Leeds vs Top half: 8 points from 9 games = 0.89 points per game

[Cureton's Volley]

What's a oxf*rd nonsense argument is Stoke beat Chelsea so it's acceptable for Reading to be consistently shit against crap teams.

Mate seriously.. How could we be consistently shit against crap teams any more than any other of the teams in the Championship. It's 19 games in and were 8 points from the top! Look at the table and stop talking utter shite.

Incorrect.
Against the bottom half we have taken 16 points from 10 games. 1.6 points per game.
Against the top half we have taken 15 points from 9 games. 1.66 points per game.

Even if you formulate your opinion solely on W/D/L we have still been below par against the bottom half of the league.

It is common sense that a team should be better against weaker teams, than against good teams.
Here are the results of the top 3 teams {Burnley, QPR and Leicester} bottom half vs top half:

Burnley vs Bottom half: 22 points from 10 games = 2.2 points per game
Burnley vs Top half: 17 points from 9 games = 1.88 points per game

QPR vs Bottom half: 27 points from 12 games = 2.25 points per game
QPR vs Top half: 12 points from 7 games = 1.71 points per game

Leicester vs Bottom half: 24 points from 11 games = 2.18 points per game
Leicester vs Top half: 14 points from 8 games = 1.75 points per game

Do you still think I am talking utter shite?

Q.E.D.

Fair play son!

[John Peel]

I'm just glad that fans don't run clubs when I read some of the posts on here. I enjoy his style more than McDermott's - by far. We are sixth in the table. We are still improving and Nigel is building a team for the future, not just focusing on the short term. We are a Championship side, not a Premiership side. Time for people to take a reality check and stop being so pesmisstic. 100% keep the guy in charge. That's just my opinion of course.

[NewCorkSeth]

Might as well put them all in one place.

Reading vs Bottom half: 16 points from 10 games. 1.6 points per game.
Reading vs Top half: 15 points from 9 games. 1.66 points per game.

Forest vs Bottom half: 17 points from 11 games = 1.55 points per game
Forest vs Top half: 14 points from 8 games = 1.75 points per game

Blackpool vs Bottom half: 20 points from 12 games = 1.66 points per game
Blackpool vs Top half: 11 points from 7 games = 1.57 points per game

I am the first to admit my maths is not a strong point but seeing as all these teams are on equal points should their points per game total not be the same figure? Other wise they would have different points right? Sorry If this is a very basic thing I'm missing out but very confused.

[AthleticoSpizz]

Whatever the maths, whatever you say or think.

Nige is here until our "owner" says otherwise.


(insert comment)...................................................

[handbags_harris]

Where''s the option for "give him 2-3 transfer windows to build the squad as he sees it and see how we are playing in, say, a year's time? I'm no fan of toothless performances, and that ultimately is what we have been served up consistently for months now, but I am of the firm belief that Adkins methods will eventually work because he has done so previously. Currently we sit 6th, we're sitting quite nicely in a position to push on after Christmas and look to chase the top two, when hopefully we will have offloaded some players who possess insufficient quality and replace them with two or three proven quality players who are comfortable playing the style of play we are aiming for.

What I completely dislike about him is his insistence on changing a team game by game. I think that in order to produce fluent performances on a consistent basis you need a no.1 formation (Adkins doesn't have one) and form players playing. Adkins has his three or four undroppables - McCarthy, Gunter, Guthrie for example - but the rest are all vulnerable to being dropped for reasons unbeknown, the only justification being we need the whole squad. How can you produce good form when certain players are rarely given a look in or are dropped from the starting line up after a game or two? You can't build up any rhythm, any sense of the pace of the game, any true form...only today in his post match interview I read the quote "...we've got a good record of changing it around and that will continue." and I just think why?

So, currently I'm fairly happy with him there, but if we continue to produce the mind-numbingly turgid performances that we have been after Adkins signs his own players, I'm not sure how long I can put up with it.

[AthleticoSpizz]

Adkins has his three or four undroppables - McCarthy, Gunter, Guthrie for example - but the rest are all vulnerable to being dropped for reasons unbeknown.

mmmmm when did we last hear this mantra?

Meet the new boss

Same as the old boss....to quote a tune

[P!ssed Off]

Those stats don't really say an awful lot TBF. We are inconsistent & we happen to have played more lower teams than higher ones at present so obviously the odds stack more towards your theory of being worse against lesser opposition.

Perhaps doing it after 23 games you might have more of a point....

I will concede though that perhaps the players concentration is heightened against better opposition but hasn't that always been the case with every single football club in the world? You don't want a spanking so you bust a gut if you know the task ahead of you is formidable.

Realistically those that had been to all the games this season and hadn't looked at the table would probably be pretty surprised to see that we are as high as 6th. Fair comment?

I think the stats go some way to explaining why we are higher than one might think.
Essentially, position-wise it is actually in our favour to have a better record against the top teams than against the bottom.
If we swapped our wins against Forest and Derby for wins against Leeds and Ipswich or Forest and Derby, then although we'd still have the same amount of points, we'd be 8th instead of 6th or adrift of the top 5 respectively.

However, just because position-wise you'd be better off with a higher ratio against the top half (If given a choice of one or the other) it is obviously not a good thing to have a poor record against the bottom half of the division.
These are essentially easy points and each dropped point is a wasted opportunity.

Basically I would say that our record against the top half shows our potential: 'If we can take points off the top teams then of course we can take more off the bottom teams' etc.
Our record against the bottom half shows that so far we have not lived up to our potential, and have squandered many of the easier opportunities to succeed.


I might update the stats and make a thread after 23 games, to make it a better representation of the division.

[P!ssed Off]

Might as well put them all in one place.

Reading vs Bottom half: 16 points from 10 games. 1.6 points per game.
Reading vs Top half: 15 points from 9 games. 1.66 points per game.

Forest vs Bottom half: 17 points from 11 games = 1.55 points per game
Forest vs Top half: 14 points from 8 games = 1.75 points per game

Blackpool vs Bottom half: 20 points from 12 games = 1.66 points per game
Blackpool vs Top half: 11 points from 7 games = 1.57 points per game

I am the first to admit my maths is not a strong point but seeing as all these teams are on equal points should their points per game total not be the same figure? Other wise they would have different points right? Sorry If this is a very basic thing I'm missing out but very confused.

They do have the same ppg. However, the two separate points per game added together and divided by 2 is not the same as ppg.

It would be if they had all played the same number of games vs top as they had vs bottom.
Obviously having played an uneven number of games so far this season, this is impossible. The effect is further emphasised by the disparity e.g. Blackpool's 12 against bottom, and 7 against top.

[winchester_royal]

Not read the rest of the thread but Adkins has to be given time to develop the squad according to his wants.

In the meantime I can't warm to him and his turn of phrase and personality as it comes across from the sound items we get. Having said that, he has a record of developing good teams so he can't be all bad. I just wonder if he's the right man at the wrong club sometimes.

As I've said elsewhere it feels like something isn't right somewhere behind the scenes and its impacting performances. I've no idea what that is, perhaps it's the managers relationship with the players, the doubts over the ownership or just the hangover from a demoralising relegation season.

Right now though I'm seeing a team that's lacking direction and a consistent way of playing. The performances of late aren't as good those that Rodgers was churning out when he got the sack. Fortunately for our league position this side is getting results whilst playing poorly but I've always maintained that, in the long run, results follow performances.

Adkins stays, but something isn't right.

Yep, an excellent post that roughly sums up my position after today's game. Something just isn't clicking and it's hard to put a finger on why that is when you look at the 'quality' of the players we have and the management team's record at previous clubs.

Thus far it's been a pretty horrendous season. There's little to no sign of progression in the performances, if anything they're getting worse, and the longer this takeover nonsense goes on the worse the atmosphere is going to get around the club.

Fingers crossed there's some development over the next few months, otherwise next season could be a desperately damaging one for the future of this club.