Brian: The right decision?

[St. Brynjar]

I for one am not ungrateful to McDermott and will applaud him when we play Leeds

Good bloke, did well, chose a strategy which ended up working and got us up but we were
left woefully short of the kind of class required to stay in the Premiership and
that, IMO, was partly due to the squad over-ahieving and "pinching" top spot
the season before.

I think player for player, and as a team there were three teams/squads better than us
Saints, West Ham and Birmingham. Below that three there were 3-4 sides much of a muchness
(including us) and we had a decent shot at the POs, but should have been long odds for automatic.

I can't think of any game in the title season where it was "extra managerial brilliance" that won us the points. It was partly
a few brilliant crucial games from a keeper in form, other sides bottling it, a few opposition shots hitting the woodwork
and Alfie coming good as super-sub.



Surely all you have to do is realise we won at Leeds with Simon Church scoring a wonder goal to realise that it was all a dream?

4fs

Don't see how Snowball's written anything controversial there but y'know.

[RoyalinBracknell]

If the squad did over-achieve though - as quite possibly it did - could that not be largely put down to good management though? If you have the 5th highest wage bill in the division, then is it not a great success to finish 1st?

Ultimately you don't win 15 out of 17 games simply through luck, though obviously there are bound to be individual instances within that run where maybe on another day something different would have happened; cause and effect is clearly a significant part of football. Yet I don't think instances of great goalkeeping, or poor finishing from the other side, or the other team losing their discipline can be put down to 'luck'. Those kinds of things are exactly what a football match is supposed to test. I'd also equally argue that it is generally more likely the better teams will take advantage of any 'bounce of the ball' that does come their way.

I'm sure there were some instances that did go in our favour - although actually there's not too much 'luck' in this period that I can directly think of - but equally there were things that went against us against times. We might indeed have been dominated by Brighton but were we not slightly unfortunate that Karacan and Leigertwood had both picked up injuries in the Leeds game and so missed this one? It surely wasn't luck in the Southampton game only 72 hours later - which Karacan and Leigertwood also missed - when McDermott sacrificed a central midfielder for a striker who won us the match, pushing another striker to the wing in the process? I don't think that victory can be put down to 'luck'. Matches between two teams at the top of the league are generally going to be close encounters which are decided by small margins, and you'd often expect the home team to dominate; McDermott's substitution helped to make the difference and we scored 3 class goals (particularly the first 2).

We were arguably a bit unfortunate with the standard of refereeing at home to Leeds but were good enough to win the match regardless. Equally perhaps on another day we might not have lose away to Blackpool (harshly disallowed goal if I remember) and at home to Hull, and equally maybe could have beaten Southampton at home.

I think Reading were one of the strongest teams in the division that season, even if a few things went for us at times. Equally I think we were one of the weakest teams in the Premier League last season, even if a few things went against us at times.

I'm not sure exactly what the 'luck' debate is meant to test. If it's designed to rewrite McDermott's history at Reading, as does seem to have happened a few times since the start of the 2012/13 season, then I'm against it. If the argument is simply that you can't say McDermott's a superior manager to Adkins just because he won the title by a point then I agree. It was obvioulsy only an indicator of results within the reasonable short-term and a like-for-like comparison is always difficult - as it will be next season.

Personally I think McDermott did a brilliant job with Reading for 2 and a half seasons in the Championship, at least meeting and probably surpassing expectations in each of those seasons. For whatever reason he had a poor season last time and his dismissal can certainly be justified, but that shouldn't take away from his largely positive contribution to the club. I think Adkins was a brilliant appointment and I have high hopes of a very successful and enjoyable season to come. In the long-term I think Adkins might well be a better prospect for helping to establish us as a Premier League club, but equally I think it very likely that we'll see McDermott managing again in the Premier League at some point.

[Maguire]

And that's the ball game. Excellent post.

[maffff]

Excellent post. Been a few of these recently. What's with the recent outbreak of sense and rationality

Only bit I think is missing is

I think it very likely that we'll see McDermott managing again in the Premier League at some point*.

*just hopefully not with Leeds.

[winchester_royal]

Ultimately you don't win 15 out of 17 games simply through luck, though obviously there are bound to be individual instances within that run where maybe on another day something different would have happened; cause and effect is clearly a significant part of football. Yet I don't think instances of great goalkeeping, or poor finishing from the other side, or the other team losing their discipline can be put down to 'luck'. Those kinds of things are exactly what a football match is supposed to test. I'd also equally argue that it is generally more likely the better teams will take advantage of any 'bounce of the ball' that does come their way.

I disagree, if you allow the opposition a chance that they really should score and they don't because of poor finishing then you've got lucky. There's no grand design behind giving the opposition chances.

Saying that, you're right, clinical teams take advantage of their 'luck', and last season we were very clinical.

Obviously you don't go on runs solely through luck, but it will play a part...it has to.

Good post in general though, and apart from a couple of these minor quibbles I agree with the vast majority of your points.

[melonhead]

nope.

if you allow the opposition possession in the first two thirds, and reduce them to shots from outside the area, which are saved by your incredible keeper, or blocked by your gr8 defence, & you set up to soak up pressure, take possession, break quickly, and score clinically.

then its hardly luck when this is what happens.

[winchester_royal]

nope.

if you allow the opposition possession in the first two thirds, and reduce them to shots from outside the area, which are saved by your incredible keeper, or blocked by your gr8 defence, & you set up to soak up pressure, take possession, break quickly, and score clinically.

then its hardly luck when this is what happens.

I didn't say shots from outside the area though, I'm talking about clear cut chances that they miss because of poor finishing.

[soggy biscuit]

over-achieve

Really hate this expression. You achieve what you achieve based on a number of criteria i.e individual skill, teamwork, fitness, tactics, mental strength etc.

People claiming over achievement or under achievement are usually looking on from afar and don't have knowledge of all the 'components'

[Maguire]

I disagree, if you allow the opposition a chance that they really should score and they don't because of poor finishing then you've got lucky. There's no grand design behind giving the opposition chances

That's not luck, that's them not being good enough at football.

[winchester_royal]

I disagree, if you allow the opposition a chance that they really should score and they don't because of poor finishing then you've got lucky. There's no grand design behind giving the opposition chances

That's not luck, that's them not being good enough at football.

And if the striker spoons it over because it bobbles slightly just as he hits it?

[maffff]

And if the striker spoons it over because it bobbles slightly just as he hits it?

Then that's just confirmation that Nick Blackman is still with us.

[AirRaidSiren]

seriously, who gives a shit now?

The number of posts you've notched on here recently would suggest that you do.

FTR I expect Adkins to do very well this coming season.

Me too.

As for the number of posts, I put my weeks wages on that I have been waaaaaaay outnumbered with posts on this thread compared to yours. Is that what it boils down to now, how many posts each person posts? It's ironic you say some are so fickle!

I'll do this though, I'll let you have the glory and have the last word....I know that's what you like. Over to you, Mags.

[creative_username_1]

I'd say there are 100's (probably more) of events throughout a game which are largely determined by luck. How a ball bounces, deflections, ricochets, gusts of wind turning it onto the post and in rather than out etc etc....poor finishing less so but it's a dynamic game.

More skillful players are able to adapt better (I'm only reasoning i can't actually back this up with any evidence)

[soggy biscuit]

I'd say there are 100's (probably more) of events throughout a game which are largely determined by luck. How a ball bounces, deflections, ricochets, gusts of wind turning it onto the post and in rather than out.

Don't see those as good luck or bad luck. They just are things that happen a lot.

How a ball bounces in particular can't surely be luck? the game is played with a round object on a slightly uneven surface. Some people are better able to judge better in advance if the ball will bounce slightly 'off' than others. It's just how life is.

[creative_username_1]

[melonhead]

nope.

if you allow the opposition possession in the first two thirds, and reduce them to shots from outside the area, which are saved by your incredible keeper, or blocked by your gr8 defence, & you set up to soak up pressure, take possession, break quickly, and score clinically.

then its hardly luck when this is what happens.

I didn't say shots from outside the area though, I'm talking about clear cut chances that they miss because of poor finishing.

poor finishing as the result of excellent pressure from the defence, great positioning from the keeper etc?

[melonhead]

I disagree, if you allow the opposition a chance that they really should score and they don't because of poor finishing then you've got lucky. There's no grand design behind giving the opposition chances

That's not luck, that's them not being good enough at football.

And if the striker spoons it over because it bobbles slightly just as he hits it?

should be able to read and anticipate the pitch. if its bobbly, you should probably take longer to make sure the ball will be where you intend to kick it

[Royal With Cheese]

FCUK ME.

If football is such a lottery why bother paying exorbitant wages to get the best players?

It appears form some posters just having 11 people on the pitch is enough to win games.

[creative_username_1]

I'd say there are 100's (probably more) of events throughout a game which are largely determined by luck. How a ball bounces, deflections, ricochets, gusts of wind turning it onto the post and in rather than out.

Don't see those as good luck or bad luck. They just are things that happen a lot.

Whilst the outcome may be determined by the laws of physics who it benefits is down to chance.

EDIT: the ball may hit a slightly harder patch of earth, a bobble the blades of grass may be lined up slightly differently. I'm just thinking how complicated this would be to model if you had to take all the variables into account.

[Maguire]

seriously, who gives a shit now?

The number of posts you've notched on here recently would suggest that you do.

FTR I expect Adkins to do very well this coming season.

Me too.

As for the number of posts, I put my weeks wages on that I have been waaaaaaay outnumbered with posts on this thread compared to yours. Is that what it boils down to now, how many posts each person posts? It's ironic you say some are so fickle!

I'll do this though, I'll let you have the glory and have the last word....I know that's what you like. Over to you, Mags.

Of course i've posted a lot but i'm not sat here saying "who gives a shit, lock the thread"