Harte Signs

[Royal With Cheese]

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

Now sixth and falling

Were they not second when you originally posted?

[Snowball]

So to clarify, Carlisle have gone from conceeding 0.75 goals a game to 0.43 since Harte has left. And are in 2nd place in the league (be interesting to know their position before he left) and this is them falling away? Wow, I really wish we were falling away as badly as they are.

Harte's obviously had a positive impact here and would be an asset to Carlisle, but they really don't look to be struggling too badly so far.

Ian, could you help me?

I can't access the League 1 table. Where in the table are Carlisle right now?

[Alan Partridge]

So to clarify, Carlisle have gone from conceeding 0.75 goals a game to 0.43 since Harte has left. And are in 2nd place in the league (be interesting to know their position before he left) and this is them falling away? Wow, I really wish we were falling away as badly as they are.

Harte's obviously had a positive impact here and would be an asset to Carlisle, but they really don't look to be struggling too badly so far.

Ian, could you help me?

I can't access the League 1 table. Where in the table are Carlisle right now?

one of their lads put a free kick in from 25 yards saturday. Still lost mind.

[Snowball]

They lost? Shucks!

Now 12 games to see how Carlisle are doing

P4 W2 D2 L0 8-3 GD of +5 in 4 (GD + 1.25 per game) 08 Points from 4 games = 2.00 points per game = 92 Point Season 57 goal GD Before

P8 W3 D2 L3 7-5 GD of +8 in 8 (GD + 0.25 per game )11 Points from 8 games = 1.37 points per game = 63 Point Season 12 goal GD After






They have dropped a projected 29 points per season and a 45 goal fall in projected GD


Anyone still prepared to say they are doing as well as when Harte was there?

[Snowball]

[
A world of difference between saying we won't miss him as much as some suggest to Snowball's "we are definitely a better team without him"

NOT what I have said, or what I am saying.

All I am saying is we get more points per game without him than with him

[Alan Partridge]

They lost? Shucks!

Now 12 games to see how Carlisle are doing

P4 W2 D2 L0 8-3 GD of +5 in 4 (GD + 1.25 per game) 08 Points from 4 games = 2.00 points per game = 92 Point Season 57 goal GD Before

P8 W3 D2 L3 7-5 GD of +8 in 8 (GD + 0.25 per game )11 Points from 8 games = 1.37 points per game = 63 Point Season 12 goal GD After






They have dropped a projected 29 points per season and a 45 goal fall in projected GD


Anyone still prepared to say they are doing as well as when Harte was there?

Can you compare 4 games vs 8 games? Chances of losing clearly goes up regardless. Think the chances of them being unbeaten after 12games with or without Harte is pretty much nil.

[Vision]

[
A world of difference between saying we won't miss him as much as some suggest to Snowball's "we are definitely a better team without him"

NOT what I have said, or what I am saying.

All I am saying is we get more points per game without him than with him

This direct post with its quite incredibly patronising and self regarding style must be another Snowball then

Perhaps I should be clearer.


WE-ARE-BETTER-OFF-WITHOUT-GLYFI


There's an exericse I teach when critiquing stories. When a few people are convinced a story is good (when in fact it isn't)
or when a few simply cannot see why a story is rated when they think it's bad, I get them to "try and mark the opposite way."

Now, why don't you and Hoop, for example try to work out WHY,
if Gylfi is such a good player (and he is) we got better results
last season when he didn't play, under Rodgers, under McDermot
and with the two sets of results combined, and again (so far) we
are getting better results THIS season.

If, instead of arguing for the sake of it in the face of very clear statistics,
you actually did the mind exercise, you might get somewhere.

[Snowball]

Do you REALLY not understand the difference between



We are better off without Gylfi

(currently a provable fact in terms of points per game)

and

We are a better team without Gylfi



??????


Try it another way, some hypothetical team has Rooney or Ronaldo at his best but the other ten players have to be amateurs
because everything is spent on Rooney... Rooney goes and the team has 11 x 10K a week players...


Gylfi's going has allowed Harte to come in, Zurab to come in, a few more contracts to be improved/extended,
and there's money in the pot for a loanee or two and maybe a signing in January

OVERALL that makes us an "all-round" better squad, which I believe will get more points.


Do I miss Gylfi the player and Gylfi, the bloke, and the excitement of seeing someone special? OF COURSE I F-CKING DO!!


But I still think it was a good thing he left, that we played awkwardly and were sometimes unbalanced to accommodate him
(and are still suffering because we haven't now switched back to what we are best at as a club (442) )

[Snowball]

They lost? Shucks!

Now 12 games to see how Carlisle are doing
P4 W2 D2 L0 8-3 GD of +5 in 4 (GD + 1.25 per game) 08 Points from 4 games = 2.00 points per game = 92 Point Season 57 goal GD Before
P8 W3 D2 L3 7-5 GD of +8 in 8 (GD + 0.25 per game )11 Points from 8 games = 1.37 points per game = 63 Point Season 12 goal GD After
They have dropped a projected 29 points per season and a 45 goal fall in projected GD
Anyone still prepared to say they are doing as well as when Harte was there?

Can you compare 4 games vs 8 games? Chances of losing clearly goes up regardless. Think the chances of them being unbeaten after 12games with or without Harte is pretty much nil.

Of COURSE you can compare 4 games to 8. There it is above.

The question is, are the number of games, either side of the balance "sufficient"?

of course, the number isn't perfect.



Let's try this scenario. With Gylfi we W1 D2 L1, 5 points from 4 games,
he leaves and in the next 8 games we W1 D3 L4, and NOBODY says
the poor run of results is due to the loss of Gylfi. Right? My big watch!

[Alan Partridge]

Got to factor in the standard of opposition, how many at home/away.

If Carlisle were unbeaten in their first 4 against teams in the bottom 5 or 6 teams then lost 3 out of the next 8 against the top 10 with a couple of wins, which is better? Tough one.

[Snowball]

10-11-19-21 average 15th

1-2-3-4-7-13-16-17 average 8th

But I have said more than once, the position NOW does not exclude the Carlisle game.

For example before the game Exeter were 12th, Carlisle 2nd

Exeter fans would think, wow, BIG SCALP, yet now they are on the same points 6/7th, separated only by GD


So should Exeter fans think, wow they were top a few weeks ago and second when we beat them,
OR, not much of a win, really, after all they are sixth and dropping like a stone.



But, more to the point, when Carlisle got a lucky 1-0 home win v Notts County
(they were played off the park and should have lost by 4 goals)... and went
second, all the crowers were THEN saying was, "They've gone second!"

They have REALLY struggled for goals since Harte left 0-1-0-0-0-1-1 in seven games
covered up by a single 4-0 win versus Hartlepool, the worst defence in the league

[Snowball]

They play 9th, 14th, 24th next three games.

Do you predict 9 points?

I don't.

[Alan Partridge]

They play 9th, 14th, 24th next three games.

Do you predict 9 points?

I don't.

Nope.

If they had Harte would I?

Nope.

[Victor Meldrew]

Never mind all this stuff about Carlisle,what about this old-timer that we actually paid money for?
Having been dire on Saturday he somehow gets selected again v Bristol City and Brian apparently saw the light after 60 minutes and moved our best left-back to his correct position.
I didn't go to Bristol but saw the goal last night-Harte made no challenge and allowed their player a free header across our box and surprise,surprise a goal.

I am not jumping on any bandwagon having said when it happened that this was a poor signing,not because of him being a free-kick specialist but because he can't defend and first and foremost that is what you want your left-back to do and he is no good at it.
IIRC we gave him a 2-year contract-what a waste of money.

[Hoop Blah]

After the immediate post-signing good performances he's had a couple of below par games.

I wouldn't quite write him off, but like any player you can have a handful of good games before you start getting back to your standard level. Lets hope that his standard level is the one we saw in his first few games, not the last few, but like VM, I want our left back to be good defensively first and good on the free kicks etc as a nice bonus only.

[Stranded]

Aren't you just doing the same thing in reverse after less bad games than good?

[Vision]

Do you REALLY not understand the difference between



We are better off without Gylfi

(currently a provable fact in terms of points per game)

and

We are a better team without Gylfi



??????

The only FACT is the number of points taken in your ridiculously short sample of games.

It is your OPINION that this proves we are better off without him.

However can you prove for a FACT that if Gylfi had played in the games we wouldn't have picked up more points?

Can you prove for a FACT that it is ONLY Gylfi's absence that has resulted in those results and that all the variables that happen have not had an effect.

For the patronising and superior flag you seem to like waving on here you seem unable to grasp the concept that the only FACT is the stats themselves. They may enhance an opinion but they do not conclusively prove it. It makes any type of meaningful discussion with you impossible.

Like for like under McDermott Gylfi started 23 league games. exactly half a season. When we get to 23 league games without him then its the closest to a like for like comaprison you can get. It would also equate to a whole season's worth of data and you judge how strong a team/squad is over a season not over a random snapshot of 6 games and then multiplying it as you seem so keen to do.

Even then though it still would be open to debate whether Gylfi's absence was the main reason for the results as opposed to other factors also influencing things.

Try it another way, some hypothetical team has Rooney or Ronaldo at his best but the other ten players have to be amateurs
because everything is spent on Rooney... Rooney goes and the team has 11 x 10K a week players...


Gylfi's going has allowed Harte to come in, Zurab to come in, a few more contracts to be improved/extended,
and there's money in the pot for a loanee or two and maybe a signing in January

OVERALL that makes us an "all-round" better squad, which I believe will get more points.


Do I miss Gylfi the player and Gylfi, the bloke, and the excitement of seeing someone special? OF COURSE I F-CKING DO!!


But I still think it was a good thing he left, that we played awkwardly and were sometimes unbalanced to accommodate him
(and are still suffering because we haven't now switched back to what we are best at as a club (442) )

You see now that is an opinion. Not a proven FACT as you continually tell us.

As for Zurab. To use your logic, how can we possibly be a stronger team with him when the stats for games he's played since he came back show we're not. He's played 4 games. We won against Barnsley after he got sent off, drew at Preston (he gave the goal away) and have lost to Bristol City & Swansea. 1 point from 3 and a half games.

Does that prove for a FACT that we are better off without Zurab? According to your logic it does.

Same logic with Harte? Pl 8 w3 d2 l3 11pts = 1.38 per game which compares to 1.39 pts per game in a much more significant 23 game sample of Gylfi league starts under McDermott.

Does that prove for a FACT that having Harte makes us weaker than having Gylfi? According to your logic it does?

Only the numbers you quote are FACTS (& i question some of yours anyway). Where football is concerned they do not conclusively prove anything with regards to an individual player when there are 21 other players involved in a game and all the other factors outside of that individuals influence.

The thing is that actually some of the stuff you dig out can be generally enlightening, its just your insistence on interpreting it as Gospel coupled with the rather superior attitude you have towards others which grates.

Its a shame because there's some lively discussions which could be had rather than the boring tit for tat statfest most turn into (and I realise I'm as guilty as anyone here)

[Snowball]

The only FACT is the number of points taken in your ridiculously short sample of games.

It is your OPINION that this proves we are better off without him.

NOPE. It is an absolute fact that we are better off without him,
if, by better off, we are measuring points per game and GD


AND THAT IS ALL I AM SAYING

[Hoop Blah]

And what everyone else is saying is that you can't attribute that better return in points and goal difference to one thing, especially if that one thing is us not having our best player out of the side.

It's like blaming the spending cuts released this week on my new pants that I wore for the first time whilst Osbourne was delivering his numbers.

[Vision]

The only FACT is the number of points taken in your ridiculously short sample of games.

It is your OPINION that this proves we are better off without him.

NOPE. It is an absolute fact that we are better off without him,
if, by better off, we are measuring points per game and GD


AND THAT IS ALL I AM SAYING

IF being the key point as you are the only one taking that very small measurement as gospel.

It is a FACT that in your small sample the average number of points acheived was higher since he left.

You cannot PROVE for a FACT that had he stayed we would not have taken more points.

Thank you for proving my point though. Its the last I'll post on this thread because i'm as bored with myself as everyone else must be..