No Reading ill-feeling, says Swansea's Brendan Rodgers

[Mike Hunt]

Let's not forget that Brendan and Mr Mad are chums...

[Snowball]

So who did Rodgers Play or Dump
and what did McDermot change?

There were HUGE changes. Long played 3.7 times more minutes under McDermott, Mills and Gunnarson 3.6 times,
Gylfi 2.6 times, McAnuff 2.5 times, Kebe 2.2, Howard 1.8


There were 1.4 times as many minutes to be played under McDermot but all the above were more in favour with Mac than Rogers


Griffin and Kishnavilli were brought in

Look at Long as a prime example. Barely played under Rodgers and, despite a four-match ban played 1,732 minutes for McDermot


Minutes Played Under Managers, Percentage of Possible

Rodgers . . . . . . . McDermot
0000 00.00% . . . 2178 76.42% . . . 76.42% Max Griff
0000 00.00% . . . 1075 37.72% . . . 37.72% Max Kish

0472 22.80% . . . 1732 70.41% . . . 47.60% 3.7 Long
0547 26.43% . . . 1992 69.89% . . . 43.47% 3.6 Mills
0400 19.32% . . . 1431 50.21% . . . 30.89% 3.6 Gunn

0872 42.13% . . . 2247 78.84% . . . 36.72% 2.6 Gylf
1037 50.10% . . . 2605 91.40% . . . 41.31% 2.5 McAf
0925 44.69% . . . 2080 72.98% . . . 28.30% 2.2 Kebe

1000 48.31% . . . 1815 63.68% . . . 15.38% 1.8 How'd
1641 79.28% . . . 2850 99.99% . . . 20.72% 1.7 Bert
1080 52.17% . . . 1769 62.07% . . . 09.90% 1.6 Ingi
0932 45.02% . . . 1479 51.89% . . . 06.87% 1.6 Chch
1890 91.30% . . . 2829 99.26% . . . 07.96% 1.5 Feds

1058 51.11% . . . 1110 38.95% . . . -12.16% 1.0 Kar'n
0901 43.53% . . . 0836 29.33% . . . -14.19% 0.9 Ras'k
1034 49.95% . . . 0946 33.19% . . . -16.76% 0.9 Tabb
0800 38.65% . . . 0492 17.26% . . . -21.38% 0.6 Ciss
1440 69.57% . . . 0737 25.86% . . . -43.71% 0.5 Pear
0898 43.38% . . . 0312 10.95% . . . -32.43% 0.3 Mat'y
0461 22.27% . . . 0119 04.18% . . . -18.10% 0.3 HRK
0810 39.13% . . . 0000 00.00% . . . -39.13% 0.0 Cummings
0677 32.71% . . . 0000 00.00% . . . -32.71% 0.0 Odea
0450 21.74% . . . 0000 00.00% . . . -21.74% 0.0 Rosy
0488 23.57% . . . 0000 00.00% . . . -23.57% 0.0 Hunt
0248 11.98% . . . 0000 00.00% . . . -11.98% 0.0 Davies
0034 01.64% . . . 0000 00.00% . . . -01.64% 0.0 Harper

[Uke]

^^^^^^

[Svlad Cjelli]

Lot and lots of numbers

But the stats in isolation don't show the real story as it progressed - for instance Mills was brought in by BR, and was his favourite, then was dropped when he fell out with BR and criticised his methods.

The bare stats of comparing his appearances won't reflect that change in attitude at all.

[ZacNaloen]

LONG WAS INJURED FOR 90%* OF RODGERS TIME AT THE CLUB DURING THE SEASON.


Fact is Rodgers is correct, he did try to bring him in.

The Ankle injury put Long out for ages though, and he wasn't really fully fit until Mcdermott got in. Which is why Church played more minutes.


*probably

[Snowball]

The point is a number of players were given a chance, or brought in, or a second chance under McDermott

Rodgers favoured Church over Long, wouldn't play Mills or Gunnarson etc

[Snowball]

Didn't Rodgers say that Church was his Number One striker?

Remember the start of the season and the photos, and Church's interview about being the first-choice front man
(and the masses crowing about Long failing to make it)

[ZacNaloen]

He was number 1 striker while Long as recovering.

[Snowball]

Disagree

[KC Royal]

Lot and lots of numbers

But the stats in isolation don't show the real story as it progressed - for instance Mills was brought in by BR, and was his favourite, then was dropped when he fell out with BR and criticised his methods.

The bare stats of comparing his appearances won't reflect that change in attitude at all.

I thought Mills wasn't a BR signing? I read something when he signed and i'm sure he said something that suggested contact was made in May before we'd appointed Rodgers.

No hard feelings from me towards him. It was the right decision to fire him but i thought it was a bit premature, and actually on their performance at the Mad Stad i could see why we got impressive results away from home while he was here. With their style of football (which as mentioned had worked in the past) and the fact that i've known of one of their players for about 4 years or so, since before he joined, they are the Top 6 side i'd be happiest to see win promotion other than us.

[zummerset]

Brendon was a dickhead with us. He was the original big I am. Hopefully he had learnt some humility. Tactically and professionally he does have the skills tho. But still oxf@rd off Mr Big Watch.

[ZacNaloen]

Disagree

It's your perogative but Long really wasn't fit until Rodgers had already gone and he was first choice up til he got injured

[Blue_White_Blood]

On 2 occasions on Tuesday he spoke about "we" and "us" when referring to Reading.

I wonder what Swansea fans thought about that!

I was saying this to some lads at work!

He knows he is Reading through and through and the above proves that!

[MmmMonsterMunch]

BR was absolutely squirming in his seat once the whistle went. He is not liking this situation one little bit.

I did find him arrogant TBH - not the Reading way of doing things......however I do hope should we win there aren't horrible chants directed at him.

I'm sure there won't be though.

[Snowball]

Disagree

It's your perogative but Long really wasn't fit until Rodgers had already gone and he was first choice up til he got injured

First Choice? This was the first ten games of the season.

I forget. When was his injury?

26 Minutes Sub in the opening game
00 Minutes League Cup
90 Minutes Newcastle
00 Minutes Non-Playing sub in Swansea game (0-0)
90 Minutes Sheffield 1-3 defeat
00 Minutes League Cup
06 Minutes Sub v Barnsley
00 Minutes Doncaster
00 Minutes Cardiff
00 Peterboro

212 Minutes out of a possible 900

[madstadblues]

I heard that a source close to Mr BR allegedly suggested Mr Long 'quote' Couldn't trap a bag of cement 'unquote'. Nice bloke but hope that comes back to haunt him!

[Gav]

No beef with Rodgers at all; stubborn as a mule, idealistic, misguided, somewhat arrogant and ultimately a total and utter mismatch under the circumstances, but there's no doubt in my mind that he's Reading all the way through and is pleased we've pushed on well.

Saying this, there's no doubt he'll be determined to beat us for his own professional pride and it'll be an incredible contest.

I'm more concerned with not losing to Rodgers than beating him. Swansea, on the other hand, I want to utterly thrash.

[DOYLERSAROYALER]

So who did Rodgers Play or Dump
and what did McDermot change?

There were HUGE changes. Long played 3.7 times more minutes under McDermott, Mills and Gunnarson 3.6 times,
Gylfi 2.6 times, McAnuff 2.5 times, Kebe 2.2, Howard 1.8


There were 1.4 times as many minutes to be played under McDermot but all the above were more in favour with Mac than Rogers


Griffin and Kishnavilli were brought in

Look at Long as a prime example. Barely played under Rodgers and, despite a four-match ban played 1,732 minutes for McDermot


Minutes Played Under Managers, Percentage of Possible

Rodgers . . . . . . . McDermot
0000 00.00% . . . 2178 76.42% . . . 76.42% Max Griff
0000 00.00% . . . 1075 37.72% . . . 37.72% Max Kish

0472 22.80% . . . 1732 70.41% . . . 47.60% 3.7 Long
0547 26.43% . . . 1992 69.89% . . . 43.47% 3.6 Mills
0400 19.32% . . . 1431 50.21% . . . 30.89% 3.6 Gunn

0872 42.13% . . . 2247 78.84% . . . 36.72% 2.6 Gylf
1037 50.10% . . . 2605 91.40% . . . 41.31% 2.5 McAf
0925 44.69% . . . 2080 72.98% . . . 28.30% 2.2 Kebe

1000 48.31% . . . 1815 63.68% . . . 15.38% 1.8 How'd
1641 79.28% . . . 2850 99.99% . . . 20.72% 1.7 Bert
1080 52.17% . . . 1769 62.07% . . . 09.90% 1.6 Ingi
0932 45.02% . . . 1479 51.89% . . . 06.87% 1.6 Chch
1890 91.30% . . . 2829 99.26% . . . 07.96% 1.5 Feds

1058 51.11% . . . 1110 38.95% . . . -12.16% 1.0 Kar'n
0901 43.53% . . . 0836 29.33% . . . -14.19% 0.9 Ras'k
1034 49.95% . . . 0946 33.19% . . . -16.76% 0.9 Tabb
0800 38.65% . . . 0492 17.26% . . . -21.38% 0.6 Ciss
1440 69.57% . . . 0737 25.86% . . . -43.71% 0.5 Pear
0898 43.38% . . . 0312 10.95% . . . -32.43% 0.3 Mat'y
0461 22.27% . . . 0119 04.18% . . . -18.10% 0.3 HRK
0810 39.13% . . . 0000 00.00% . . . -39.13% 0.0 Cummings
0677 32.71% . . . 0000 00.00% . . . -32.71% 0.0 Odea
0450 21.74% . . . 0000 00.00% . . . -21.74% 0.0 Rosy
0488 23.57% . . . 0000 00.00% . . . -23.57% 0.0 Hunt
0248 11.98% . . . 0000 00.00% . . . -11.98% 0.0 Davies
0034 01.64% . . . 0000 00.00% . . . -01.64% 0.0 Harper

Snowball - you really need to get out more often .........

[Ian Royal]

LONG WAS INJURED FOR 90%* OF RODGERS TIME AT THE CLUB DURING THE SEASON.


Fact is Rodgers is correct, he did try to bring him in.

The Ankle injury put Long out for ages though, and he wasn't really fully fit until Mcdermott got in. Which is why Church played more minutes.


*probably

Wasn't that the season where he came back from the summer having done boxing training to strengthern up, only to put on way too many pounds and look lumbering and cumbersome as well having a first touch like he was wearing concrete boots?

That excess weight, combined with Rodgers decision that fitness training wasn't as important as fun kick abouts probably made him more suseptible to injuries and take longer to shrug them off. Look at him now, afterall. He's like the oxf*rd Terminator the way he gets kicked about and just carries on.

McDermott coming in and us returning to the usual levels of fitness training made a huge difference to the club and Long in particular IMO.

[Snowball]

So who did Rodgers Play or Dump
and what did McDermot change?

There were HUGE changes. Long played 3.7 times more minutes under McDermott, Mills and Gunnarson 3.6 times,
Gylfi 2.6 times, McAnuff 2.5 times, Kebe 2.2, Howard 1.8


There were 1.4 times as many minutes to be played under McDermot but all the above were more in favour with Mac than Rogers


Griffin and Kishnavilli were brought in

Look at Long as a prime example. Barely played under Rodgers and, despite a four-match ban played 1,732 minutes for McDermot


Minutes Played Under Managers, Percentage of Possible

Rodgers . . . . . . . McDermot
0000 00.00% . . . 2178 76.42% . . . 76.42% Max Griff
0000 00.00% . . . 1075 37.72% . . . 37.72% Max Kish

0472 22.80% . . . 1732 70.41% . . . 47.60% 3.7 Long
0547 26.43% . . . 1992 69.89% . . . 43.47% 3.6 Mills
0400 19.32% . . . 1431 50.21% . . . 30.89% 3.6 Gunn

0872 42.13% . . . 2247 78.84% . . . 36.72% 2.6 Gylf
1037 50.10% . . . 2605 91.40% . . . 41.31% 2.5 McAf
0925 44.69% . . . 2080 72.98% . . . 28.30% 2.2 Kebe

1000 48.31% . . . 1815 63.68% . . . 15.38% 1.8 How'd
1641 79.28% . . . 2850 99.99% . . . 20.72% 1.7 Bert
1080 52.17% . . . 1769 62.07% . . . 09.90% 1.6 Ingi
0932 45.02% . . . 1479 51.89% . . . 06.87% 1.6 Chch
1890 91.30% . . . 2829 99.26% . . . 07.96% 1.5 Feds

1058 51.11% . . . 1110 38.95% . . . -12.16% 1.0 Kar'n
0901 43.53% . . . 0836 29.33% . . . -14.19% 0.9 Ras'k
1034 49.95% . . . 0946 33.19% . . . -16.76% 0.9 Tabb
0800 38.65% . . . 0492 17.26% . . . -21.38% 0.6 Ciss
1440 69.57% . . . 0737 25.86% . . . -43.71% 0.5 Pear
0898 43.38% . . . 0312 10.95% . . . -32.43% 0.3 Mat'y
0461 22.27% . . . 0119 04.18% . . . -18.10% 0.3 HRK
0810 39.13% . . . 0000 00.00% . . . -39.13% 0.0 Cummings
0677 32.71% . . . 0000 00.00% . . . -32.71% 0.0 Odea
0450 21.74% . . . 0000 00.00% . . . -21.74% 0.0 Rosy
0488 23.57% . . . 0000 00.00% . . . -23.57% 0.0 Hunt
0248 11.98% . . . 0000 00.00% . . . -11.98% 0.0 Davies
0034 01.64% . . . 0000 00.00% . . . -01.64% 0.0 Harper

Snowball - you really need to get out more often .........

Had the playing minutes data. The above took a couple of minutes (and then I went out again, to "The Old Statistician" for .783 of a pint.)