Harte Signs

[Snowball]

Has snowball mentioned that the statistics actually show a bigger impact on our results and performances for Cummings return to the team compared to Harte's entrance btw?

Oh, I must have missed the goals Cummings scored.

Also Cummings was directly involved in failing to stop the first two goals at Boro
and was "laced" for much of the game at Leicester but we got lucky, and he got better.

He is still very dodgy defensively (whereas Harte has barely put a foot wrong)
and will be replaced as soon as Griffin is match-fit.

That will be a statistic, see, the manager choosing the player he considers vest for the post.


He MIGHT, of course, replace Harte with Armstrong. Place your bets.

[Royal With Cheese]

BTW - Carlisle are now 2nd.

Second yes, but seventh on current form, only second because they WERE top

That a class spin you've put on that there Snowball.

[Snowball]

That a class spin you've put on that there Snowball.

You people amaze me in your dumbness.

It's not spin, it's FACTS, all league games since Harte left.

They also played a cup game against Port Vale of League One
and they were 0-2 down against them before eventually drawing 2-2


If a side is 30 points clear top and loses 10 consecutive games
and is still top, after those ten straight defeats, do you say,
"Look, they are still top. They must be playing well!"


The reason Carlisle are second is NOT because they are still playing very well
but because they WERE top (best club on current form) and are slipping away steadily

They are seventh-best on form since there first game without Harte (v Swindon)

They managed just two goals in 6 of those 7 games, 4 in the other against the worst defence in the league.

CURRENT FORM TABLE Since September 4th inclusive

1 7 4 3 0 4 1 09 03 +6 15 2.14 ppg Brighton and Hove A
2 7 4 1 2 3 1 09 07 +2 13 1.86 ppg Swindon Town
3 8 4 2 2 2 1 12 11 +1 14 1.75 ppg Exeter City
4 7 3 2 2 3 1 12 07 +5 11 1.57 ppg Bournemouth
5 7 3 2 2 2 2 10 06 +4 11 1.57 ppg Rochdale
6 7 3 2 2 3 2 08 05 +3 11 1.57 ppg Bristol Rovers
7 7 3 2 2 5 4 06 03 +3 11 1.57 ppg Carlisle United

Any part of this FACT that you dispute?


At 2:59 on September 4th Carlisle were TOP, 10 places, 4 Points and a GD of +5 better than Brighton

They are now +1 GD and three points BEHIND Brighton, an 11-place turn-around, a 7-Point fall-away and -4 goals GD

and that is in just 7 games.



Let's see where they are in seven more games time. Want some money on the outcome?

[Hoop Blah]

It's not a fact that they're 2nd because they were top. It's a fact that they're 2nd because they've got more points than anyone else in the division bar the top side.

That's the only fact there snowball.

[Snowball]

It's not a fact that they're 2nd because they were top. It's a fact that they're 2nd because they've got more points than anyone else in the division bar the top side.

That's the only fact there snowball.

RUBBISH.

They are second because of the combination of points,
(First Four League Games) + (Next Seven League Games)

Presumably you do not dispute that?

You say, "It's a fact that they're 2nd because they've got more points than anyone else in the division bar the top side."


1 Carlisle 4 2 0 0 6 1 0 2 0 2 2 +5 8

But 8 of those points were "Harte Games" (8 points from 4 games)

and these clearly and directly and unarguably contribute to their current total of points

You cannot dispute that had they NOT got 2 wins and 2 draws (that is did less well)
they would now be lower than 2nd? They are second only on GD above Peterboro
who 7 games ago were 5 places, 2 points below them.

That is Peterboro, like Brighton have gained places and points on Carlisle in the last seven games

[Hoop Blah]

It's rubbish to say they're top because they've got more points that the rest of the teams apart from the side above them?

Ok then, carry on snowball!

[Snowball]

It's rubbish to say they're top because they've got more points that the rest of the teams apart from the side above them?

Ok then, carry on snowball!

No, it's rubbish to say they are SECOND and ignore the fact that
they are "living off" the excellent start they had when Harte
was in the team. Harte left them clear top. They are doing less well
Now they are a lot worse off against many teams.


Compare Carlisle-Brighton or Peterboro-Brighton for just two examples.

[Hoop Blah]

You mean like it's rubbish to ignore the fact there are many many variables that influence the outcomes of a match or series of matches, including massive ones like the opposition, and so the comparison of two small unbalanced samples is fool hardy?

[Snowball]

You mean like it's rubbish to ignore the fact there are many many variables that influence the outcomes of a match or series of matches, including massive ones like the opposition, and so the comparison of two small unbalanced samples is fool hardy?

You people are hilarious.

You trashed Millwall because they really weren't good as their position when we played them.

The "evidence"was they had dropped positions. But they had just played 6 of the top 8 teams. Doan Matta.



And when Carlisle HAD dropped (after six games) that was "Because the opposition was tough"

Then when a 1-0 win in game 7 got them back to second, the "tough-opposition" argument
was dropped because "CLEARLY" they hadn't fallen away. I mean second/first wassa difference?

Then when it is shown that their league form for the seven games places them SEVENTH
out trots the "tough opposition" excuse again.

1 How does "tough opposition" explain being 0-2 down at home to a side from the league below?
2 How does "tough opposition" explain drawing 0-0 at home to the side in 18th place?
3 How does "tough opposition" explain drawing 0-0 at home to the side then in seventh place?
4 How does "tough opposition" explain losing 2-0 away to the side then in seventh place? NOTICE all those NILS.
5 How does "tough opposition" explain losing 1-0 away to the side then in fifth place? Oh look, another NIL.

Of course they got a 4-0 win in there against the side with the worst defence in the league
and last Saturday squeezed out a 1-0 win against the side in 14th place.

But those sides, when they played them weren't table-topping monsters like QPR. They were 18th-7th-7th-5th

Of course they are a little higher now courtesy of Carlisle's Charity.


The four-match sample is the largest possible this season as that's how many league games Harte played.
The now-7 match sample is also the largest possible, and gets one bigger every game.

Funny, though, how the sample-size didn't seem to matter
when people posted crowing that Carlisle were second!!!

Two seasons ago, when Reading were still right up there, living off their
great home record, getting wins without playing well, the few wise posters
here said we would fail because the cracks were there, we were living off our past.

They were right and we missed promotion.

Let's hear it, then. Carlisle gonna finish top? Second? I say out of the top six by January at the latest.

[Stranded]

Simple question, Snowy - if the stupidity of posters on this board riles you so much (and they clearly do) why waste so much time compiling and posting stats that we are all clearly too stupid to comprehend?

[Snowball]

I see the BBC report on Carlisle's last match mentioned

"No goals and no wins in Carlisle's last three home games."

It did mention their excellent defence, tho, and talked
about the hatful of chances Notts County missed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 078385.stm


STILL, Carlisle are away to a mid-table side (Exeter) this Saturday
and table-topping Brighton have a tough game at Charlton


So Carlisle can win 0-3 in Exeter and go top. That'll be nice.

[Snowball]

Simple question, Snowy - if the stupidity of posters on this board riles you so much (and they clearly do) why
waste so much time compiling and posting stats that we are all clearly too stupid to comprehend?

Intermittent reinforcement (Skinner)


I get proved right every now and then or someone actually admits they're wrong.

I see Shane Long was Man of the Match for Ireland yesterday.

You know, Shane Long, that guy who will NEVER be a footballer.

The official Irish FA match report described Shane as 'a lively presence throughout....
a vibrant and powerful force up front.... he brought a level of athleticism that
offered a hostile threat to Slovakia's defence on two levels - his prodigious leap
threatened their aerial security in the central positions and his pace stretched
them repeatedly on the flanks.'


How can these people be so STUPID. This is Shane first-touch-of-a-rapist Long
who will NEVER be a footballer. What a mug that Trappatoni is!

[Hoop Blah]

I really couldn't say where Carlisle might finish, and I couldn't really care less either.

I do know that the sample you've taken for your 'Harte Effect' analysis and the way you've applied it just doesn't work. There is nothing worse than using a poor sample just because there isn't anything better available when what you should do is say you can't measure something with the available information.

[Stranded]

They're not stupid though are they, they are just football fans. Rational scientific thought and fandom do not go together. A player will always either be the greatest ever, or the worst ever.

Long having a shocking game one week will see him be labelled as such, a goal the next and he's the best thing since sliced bread - No amount of statistics is going to change that. If anything, in most cases it will just act to entrench the perceived view of that person and make them look for incidents/errors to back their theory up.

Everyone knows, Shane Long, Ian Harte et al are very decent footballers, they wouldn't be earning thousands of pounds a week if they weren't - calling said player shit or whatever is just part of the pantomime to be enjoyed and argued down the pub not proved/disproved by pages of numbers - as it's frankly a battle that can't be won.

[Ian Royal]

snowball seems incapable of separating out the minority of posters who just make ridiculous statements and judgements all the time and the rest of us who occasionally go off on a ill conceived rant but generally have a much better grasp of a balanced view of things.

[Snowball]

I really couldn't say where Carlisle might finish, and I couldn't really care less either.

I do know that the sample you've taken for your 'Harte Effect' analysis and the way you've applied it just doesn't work. There is nothing worse than using a poor sample just because there isn't anything better available when what you should do is say you can't measure something with the available information.

Let's see. Reading start a season and win 4 games 3-0.

They sell their star player and lose 5 of their next seven, scrape a win and a draw.

BUT IT WOULD BE WRONG TO SUGGEST IT'S BECAUSE THEIR STAR LEFT?



Didn't all this start because people here were saying we were doomed
because we'd sold Gylfi? That was on a sample of ZERO games!!

And our win ratio is better than 58% without Gylfi.

[Snowball]

snowball seems incapable of separating out the minority of posters who just make ridiculous statements and judgements all the time and the rest of us who occasionally go off on a ill conceived rant but generally have a much better grasp of a balanced view of things.

RIDICULOUS and inaccurate.

Go count the number of that rare minority that posted how gash Shane Long was
or count the number from the vast majority who pilloried Jimmy Kebe.

When I first raised the Long thread it was because the vast majority of posters
were lambasting him. He had almost nobody voicing the opinion that he was
a good player or would come good.

I mean there are people in here who make "deep, learned" opinions on players
and how they've played this season, even when they haven't seen a single game
live in that same season. Imagine that! How crass is that!

[Hoop Blah]

I really couldn't say where Carlisle might finish, and I couldn't really care less either.

I do know that the sample you've taken for your 'Harte Effect' analysis and the way you've applied it just doesn't work. There is nothing worse than using a poor sample just because there isn't anything better available when what you should do is say you can't measure something with the available information.

Let's see. Reading start a season and win 4 games 3-0.

They sell their star player and lose 5 of their next seven, scrape a win and a draw.

BUT IT WOULD BE WRONG TO SUGGEST IT'S BECAUSE THEIR STAR LEFT?



Didn't all this start because people here were saying we were doomed
because we'd sold Gylfi? That was on a sample of ZERO games!!

And our win ratio is better than 58% without Gylfi.

That wasn't based on a sample of any games as such. It was based on recognising the talents of Sigurdsson and his importance to the way we played and his contribution with his goals and the pressure he created on the opposition with his touch and vision.

I still think we're worse off without one of the most technically gifted players I've ever seen play for Reading and no end of stats is going to change that...unless of course you can run a model that can accurately show me the result, performance and my enjoyment level from each and every game we now play without Sigurdsson and how it would've altered with him in the side.

[Snowball]

That wasn't based on a sample of any games as such. It was based on recognising the talents of Sigurdsson and his importance to the way we played and his contribution with his goals and the pressure he created on the opposition with his touch and vision. I still think we're worse off without one of the most technically gifted players I've ever seen play for Reading and no end of stats is going to change that...unless of course you can run a model that can accurately show me the result, performance and my enjoyment level from each and every game we now play without Sigurdsson and how it would've altered with him in the side.[/quote]

Of COURSE, you are absolutely correct.

Just saying so, makes it so.

It is IRRELEVANT that we had a 40% win rate with Gylfi
and have a 58% win rate without him. That's an anomaly,
sheer fluke, an accident. We "all know" it's "obvious"
that we were better off with Gylfi. and scored more,
and let in less.

Take no notice of facts.

IGNORE the fact that we have scored more goals per game.
IGNORE the fact that we have conceded less goals per game
IGNORE the fact that we have more points per game without Gylfi

IGNORE the fact that this IS a decent-sized sample, a third of a season's worth versus a season's worth,
under two managers, different weather, top-of-the-table opposition, mid-tablers, relegation-fodder.

WHATEVER the reasons it is totally undeniable that we have got netter league results without Gylfi than with him.


I would LOVE to have a team at Reading FC where every player was as good as Gylfi.
He was a pleasure to watch. He won us plenty of results.

But we won LESS games (%) and LOST a lot more games (%)
let in more goals per game and scored less per game. FACT.

That to me suggests that we played less well as a team or were unbalanced
or didn't buy players to cover weaknesses while Gylfi was with us

OR

(and the stats show this)

We maybe were too obsessed with feeding him at the expense of feeding others.

He had 120+ shots at goal when good strikers were getting 50.

With those shots he SHOULD HAVE scored that many goals

[Hoop Blah]

What it doesn't ignore is that I enjoyed watching him play a hell of a lot more than the rest of the team because he was quality.

It doesn't ignore the fact that we've played a few games where the opposition have collapsed after we've nicked a fortunate goal etc etc.

The stats don't show the full picture, but I'd just love to see you do a comparison of last season's form with Sigurdsson in the side and compare it to this seasons form without him. I think that could be very interesting.