The Snowball stat thread

[ZacNaloen]

Tbf, Long won us a boat load* of free kicks in the perfect place for Ian Harte to take them. That hasn't been happening this year really.



*So often in fact that I'm 90% sure he played for every single one of them.

[Maguire]

'gree Shane Long was a persistent diver

[Extended-Phenotype]

Out of interest what is out points per game ratio when a) it rains for most of the game, b) it's not raining, c) it rains for a while before the game

I think rain and it’s affect on football pitches is measured in units called:

Centimetres of Unsaturated Non-mineral Texture.

Though as it's a mouthful, they often abbreviate.

[Snowball]

Defence


It's a fact that when Harte has played left back this season we have been less secure defensively
if that security is measured in terms of goals conceded per game and/or clean sheets..

With Harte at left back we have the least clean sheets (of 4 different LBs including a green youngster)

With Harte at left back we have conceded more goals per game (of 4 different LBs including a green youngster)

I confess that REALLY surprised me.

[Snowball]

We've had a pretty strong defence and defensive midfield for most the season and conceeded bugger all goals,
so I wouldn't expect many people to have made more than the odd mistake that directly leads to a goal.

Ian, initially, I'd agree. Which is why I went to overall defensive stats, rather than individuals.

But cast your mind back to first-time-round when I was defending Harte
and then the counter-argument was that the CBs were having to cover his
back and "though" (maybe) he wasn't directly responsible for conceding
goals X Y or Z his PRESENCE was.

Remember, too that another argument against Harte was he was being bailed out a LOT
by Jobi McAnuff, so we were OK DEFENSIVELY on our left, but at Jobi's expense OFFENSIVELY.

I didn't want to go down the line of trying to pick specific goals that could be put
down to Ian Harte's extreme lack of pace, especially as that might well be subjective
except in a few clear-cut cases (eg the third goal at Peterboro was embarrassing)


But what we CAN do is compare the games when he played Left Back and compare them
to the games when he was out, and he comes a very, VERY poor fourth after Griffin,
Cummings, and even the youngster Mills. (In terms of clean sheets and goals conceded.)

Surely that's a categorical fact and surely 16 games versus 30 games is enough to judge?

For all Harte's quality set piece delivery, he hasn't actually scored many goals from free kicks this season, and we don't just score from corners when he takes them.

He has had games where his delivery has been poor, others where he has been superb.

Offensively, I still think he's pretty good overall. Not sure immediately how we've done on corners
but he has a shed-load of assists.

I think he's surpassed expectations and is a great squad player...

I DON'T think he's a good squad player. I think you play him for his dead-ball skills
and balance that against his defensive deficiencies (that often he seems to hide)
or you let him go.

We can't think of him as a player to come in now and again when the LB is injured
because (if we are right and the defence is pulled around when he plays) then that
defence would have to change just to suit.

If, OTOH, he's your first-choice LB (worries me in the Prem, I have to say) then the defence
learns to deal with his speed issues. When another LB comes in to cover HIM, no problem,
because the only LB slower than Harte is dead.

but I am very nervous about going into next season if he's going to be first choice and another year older.

I agree.

I'll go as far as to say I do not believe we can stay up in the Premiership with Harte as our first choice LB

Walcott v Harte?
Lennon v Harte?
Valencia v Harte?

I think he will be targeted and we will be ripped apart.

That isn't to criticise the guy. I think he's a great servant, but this is one season too far.

[Ian Royal]

Tbf, Long won us a boat load* of free kicks in the perfect place for Ian Harte to take them. That hasn't been happening this year really.



*So often in fact that I'm 90% sure he played for every single one of them.

Big old factor, that one. I agree. Long's ability to feel contact, pass the message up his nervous system to his brain, register it, and then pass the command back down to his legs to buckle that quickly, was phenominal.

[Snowball]

The so-called Wembley Hangover doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny

The OS posted what happened to losing PO Finalists

28% went up the following season

54% went up or made the Play-Offs the following season

80% finished 10th or higher

4/25 were Champions
3/25 were promoted via the Playoffs

Below is a list of losing play-off finalists and how they fared the following season:

Champions - 2011 - Reading
Champions - 2007 - West Brom
Champions - 1998 - Sunderland
Champions - 1988 - Chelsea

4th - Won Play Offs - 1993 - Leicester
6th - Won Play Offs - 2004 - West Ham
6th - Won Play Offs - 1996 - Palace

4th - 2010 - Cardiff
4th - 2005 - Preston
5th - 1989 - Blackburn
6th - 1999 - Bolton
6th - 1997 - Sheff Utd
6th - 1992 - Leicester

7th - 1987 - Leeds
8th - 2009 - Sheff U -
8th - 2003 - Sheff U
8th - 2002 - Norwich
8th - 2001 - Preston
9th - 1994 - Derby

10th - 2008 - Bristol City
16th - 2000 - Barnsley
17th - 1995 - Reading
23rd - 1991 - Brighton
24th - 2006 - Leeds

1990 - n/a, Swindon demoted

[Ian Royal]

WTF cares whether anyone else had a Wembley hangover. We did, and that's all that matters.

[Snowball]

WTF cares whether anyone else had a Wembley hangover. We did, and that's all that matters.

Did we, though? REALLY?

We hiccuped game one against a bright-looking Millwall
but showed great resilience getting back fro 0-2, then we
won very well at "big club" Leicester.

I expected big things then! (Cough!)

We then lost by a single goal at Pompey where we often do badly, contrived to lose to Barnsley, but only by inexplicably missing two penalties.
Were were OK at Hull but undone by a freak goal. Only the Watford game "stank" (and maybe the game at Bristol, even tho' we won.)

And how much of it all was down to Khumalo being so "wrong" for us,
Griffin breaking down twice during games, Harte being poor
and Elwood still on his honeymoon?

[Ian Royal]

McDermott says we did. McDermott >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you.

[Snowball]

McDermott ALSO said we didn't (before he said we did)
and it was easy to say we did, after the fact, when the corner
had been turned etc etc.

[Wimb]

Not discounting that other factors played a role but when the players, manager and staff have admitted there was a bit of a hangover that's good enough for me.

[Snowball]

Not discounting that other factors played a role but when the players, manager and staff have admitted there was a bit of a hangover that's good enough for me.

Said WAY after the fact. At the time denied.

Also, simple reflection on the last 25 years shows that a hangover from losing the POs is relatively rare.

Was it a hangover that made RFC fight back from 0-2 down in its first game?
Was it a hangover that motivated RFC to a great away win at Leicester in the next game?
Was it a hangover that caused RFC to hit the woodwork, have a good goal disallowed and a very good penalty denied at Portsmouth?
Was it a hangover that caused Griffin to break down in that game?
Was it a hangover that meant we had to play Bryn at RB in the next game versus Barnsley, then pull him off after 70 minutes?
Was it a hangover that made RFC miss two penalties, and lose to Barnsley, when, in fact, we hammered them?
Was it a hangover that Shane Long left after the first game and would take time to replace?
Was it a hangover that Khumalo would be a totally wrong fit for the club and would be permanently out after just 4 games?
Was it a hangover that forced McDermot to bring back Griffin for Hull away only to see him break down again?
Was it a hangover that forced us to bring on CHURCH for Griffin and move a midfielder to RB?
Was it a hangover that made us concede a freak goal in what looked like a 0-0 draw away, Gorkss first game?
Was it a hangover that brought back Griffin for the THIRD time in five games, (v Watford) and AGAIN he broke down? Presumably Cummings had been out injured?
Was it a hangover that made us play 4 different right backs in the first six games, and two different left backs, and three CBs?

There was a summer hangover, Elwood was a bit meh for 6-7 days (married in the summer)
and Harte was a bit off form, coasting, maybe. But we had lost Mills and Long, had pre-season
injury (Cummings) in-season injury (Griffin) and a terrible-fit CB in Khumalo.

We had to blood a new attack, bed in four new players, Khumalo (disaster, did he have the hangover?)
Le Fondre (did he have the hangover?), Gorkss (did he have the hangover?), Mills (did he have the hangover?)

IMO, I agree with what McDermot said at the time. New team and a slow start, new attack, new defence, it takes time.

Plus we got unlucky at Pompey (where we rarely do well), a bit unlucky at Hull, freak goal for them, disallowed one
for us, Church miss. And how exactly we lost to Barnsley, God only knows, just the vagaries of football.

It could easily have been DWDDW going into the Watford game (where we really WERE poor)

I though we were terrible at Bristol, too, even though somehow we contrived to win it (karma after Barnsley!)

[cmonurz]

If we didn't have a Wembley hangover, maybe it was wrong to exclude those 6 games from your analysis.











( )

[Maguire]

Actually agree with Snowball that it's just being wise after the event.

[bigmike]

McDermott ALSO said we didn't (before he said we did)
and it was easy to say we did, after the fact, when the corner
had been turned etc etc.

He also said that he didnt think we were going through a Hangover from the playoffs but with hindsight and looking back on it he believes we did..

[Extended-Phenotype]

Regarding Harte, it still seems to me that any criticism of him is nothing but conjecture. Not EVERY team has wingers which will tear him apart, or who are any faster than the ones he had to deal with in the Championship, and despite the reams of stats I’m still yet to see anything which suggests Harte is responsible for the defensive disparity Snowball is illustrating.

Difference in defensive form is not automatically the responsibility of an altered line-up and could be down any one of a billion reasons.

[bigmike]

Not discounting that other factors played a role but when the players, manager and staff have admitted there was a bit of a hangover that's good enough for me.

Said WAY after the fact. At the time denied.

Also, simple reflection on the last 25 years shows that a hangover from losing the POs is relatively rare.

Was it a hangover that made RFC fight back from 0-2 down in its first game?
Was it a hangover that motivated RFC to a great away win at Leicester in the next game?
Was it a hangover that caused RFC to hit the woodwork, have a good goal disallowed and a very good penalty denied at Portsmouth?
Was it a hangover that caused Griffin to break down in that game?
Was it a hangover that meant we had to play Bryn at RB in the next game versus Barnsley, then pull him off after 70 minutes?
Was it a hangover that made RFC miss two penalties, and lose to Barnsley, when, in fact, we hammered them?
Was it a hangover that Shane Long left after the first game and would take time to replace?
Was it a hangover that Khumalo would be a totally wrong fit for the club and would be permanently out after just 4 games?
Was it a hangover that forced McDermot to bring back Griffin for Hull away only to see him break down again?
Was it a hangover that forced us to bring on CHURCH for Griffin and move a midfielder to RB?
Was it a hangover that made us concede a freak goal in what looked like a 0-0 draw away, Gorkss first game?
Was it a hangover that brought back Griffin for the THIRD time in five games, (v Watford) and AGAIN he broke down? Presumably Cummings had been out injured?
Was it a hangover that made us play 4 different right backs in the first six games, and two different left backs, and three CBs?

There was a summer hangover, Elwood was a bit meh for 6-7 days (married in the summer)
and Harte was a bit off form, coasting, maybe. But we had lost Mills and Long, had pre-season
injury (Cummings) in-season injury (Griffin) and a terrible-fit CB in Khumalo.

We had to blood a new attack, bed in four new players, Khumalo (disaster, did he have the hangover?)
Le Fondre (did he have the hangover?), Gorkss (did he have the hangover?), Mills (did he have the hangover?)

IMO, I agree with what McDermot said at the time. New team and a slow start, new attack, new defence, it takes time.

Plus we got unlucky at Pompey (where we rarely do well), a bit unlucky at Hull, freak goal for them, disallowed one
for us, Church miss. And how exactly we lost to Barnsley, God only knows, just the vagaries of football.

It could easily have been DWDDW going into the Watford game (where we really WERE poor)

I though we were terrible at Bristol, too, even though somehow we contrived to win it (karma after Barnsley!)

These things may not be caused directly by the hang over but they were connected to it. Sheer bad luck some of them and being that you create your own luck

Regarding 2 of your points I am not going through the others but an argument can be made that supports them all being connected to Hangover

Was it a hangover that motivated RFC to a great away win at Leicester in the next game? Yes as the players were motivated because they had just bought the club captain after Reading had lost the play offs .. Chances are the team were up for this match more because of this.

Was it a hangover that Shane Long left after the first game and would take time to replace? Long was always going to be sold if Reading failed to get promotion last season.. That was known before a ball was kicked in the playoff final. The reason why it took so long to replace him was also connected to losing the playoff final (Hangover) everyone had written Reading off attracting someone in that circumstance cannot be easy.

Whilst Le Fondre and Gorkss did not have the hangover as you put it they were affected by it.. They were in a new team with new people and they had to settle in. Affected by the hangover...

If you honestly do not believe that the fallout (Hangover as you call it ) from losing the play off final had the negative affect on the first 6 games you are as stupid as some of your made up stats

[facaldaqui]

At the time McDermott was saying we deserved to win some of those games we lost. To be fair, playoff finalists get a shorter summer break than any other team. The other factor was that we started the season with uncertainty about the squad and had to bring in people at the last moment; Khumalo had just been floundering. (I am convinved Brian thought he would get Kizanishvilli--it threw him out when he didn't.)

[Hoop Blah]

You can never put too much weight on what footballer and their managers say in public, but denying the existance of the hangover at the time was pretty obviously a bit of spin to try and paper over the cracks.

That they've sinced admitted that there was one probably means that they felt it and tried to address it at the time.

How much effect it had I don't think you can guess. I think the loss of certain players and leaving the incoming transfers so late in the day, thus wasting the majority of pre-season, was probably a bigger factor.