Harte Signs

[Victor Meldrew]

Apart from now having been spun around by your spin through the haze I see that in the games since Harte left they have played:-
Brighton-1st
Peterborough-3rd
Bournemouth-4th
Sheff Wed-5th.
As I see it (and surely everybody but Snowball will agree) Carlisle have been playing against much harder teams than when Harte was there and they themselves are now in 2nd, ergo Carlisle are a better team without Harte.
Maybe they don't fanny around trying to get free-kicks and penalties,something I am worried that we are starting to do (Shane Long in particular)just as we did when Morley played and I don't believe that is a sustainable and progressive way to play the game.

[Snowball]

Apart from now having been spun around by your spin through the haze I see that in the games since Harte left they have played:-
Brighton-1st
Peterborough-3rd
Bournemouth-4th
Sheff Wed-5th.
As I see it (and surely everybody but Snowball will agree) Carlisle have been playing against much harder teams than when Harte was there and they themselves are now in 2nd, ergo Carlisle are a better team without Harte.
Maybe they don't fanny around trying to get free-kicks and penalties,something I am worried that we are starting to do (Shane Long in particular)just as we did when Morley played and I don't believe that is a sustainable and progressive way to play the game.

Oops, you missed the clubs in 15th, 17th, 19th

1
3
4
5
15
17
19

average 9th (versus 15th with Harte)

[Snowball]

As I see it Carlisle have been playing against much harder teams than when Harte was there and they themselves are now in 2nd, ergo Carlisle are a better team without Harte.
Maybe they don't fanny around trying to get free-kicks and penalties,something I am worried that we are starting to do (Shane Long in particular)just as we did when Morley played and I don't believe that is a sustainable and progressive way to play the game.

Excluding, the clubs in 15th, 17th, 19th, that is? But YES, they have, I don't dispute that.

But their record in terms of results is A LOT worse than under Harte, TWENTY points over a season...


But, as i said: when I posted a clear difference in GD and points per game
the other side came back with "quality of opposition"

THEN, when Carlsile nicked a 1-0 win and crept back into second
place, that "other side" DROPPED the quality of opposition get-out
and went on about league position.

Now, proven wrong by the actual facts of goals scored, conceded, goal difference and points per game
you revert to the quality of opposition get-out clause.

It's quite funny, really.

[Snowball]

And average of 9th position versus average of 15th... THAT big a difference?


Coventry v Barnsley in our league

[Victor Meldrew]

I think the Labour Party needs a new spin doctor-go for it.
BTW come the end of the season I don't think that relegation or promotion are settled on average positions.
Today they are 2nd without Harte contributing and I should think they are well pleased.

[Ian Royal]

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.

[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.

SELECTIVE STATS, Ian? YOU?

It is STUPID, MORONIC and SENSELESS to ONLY look at goals-conceded (or goals scored)

A side can be relegated without EVER conceding a goal, the whole season long. 46 0-0 draws, 46 points...

Look, if Reading won their next 20 games 5-4 they would be on P30 W24 D4 L2 and they'd have a GD of 25.

They would be virtually guaranteed a play-off place with just 30 games gone.

But you'd bleat and say, look at goals shipped. No, what matters is goal-difference and points gained.

[Snowball]

YES, I can see that Carlisle have shipped less goals,
BUT THEY HAVE GONE FROM SCORING TWO GOALS PER GAME TO SCORING .84 GOALS PER GAME.

And because they are not scoring, their GD per game has dropped significantly,
their points accrued per game has dropped significantly, and whereas they
were TOP when Harte left, TEN PLACES and FOUR POINTS ABOVE BRIGHTON, with a GD 5 better than Brighton
they are now second, three points BEHIND Brighton with a GD one WORSE than Brighton.

OK, they had played a game more, (a 1-1 draw) so drop that lead from 4 points to 3 points,
but that still means that in 6/7 games they have, compared with Brighton, gone
from 3 points in front to 3 behind = 6 points in 6/7 games. That is a HUGE change

After Harte's Final Game

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

There are 5 teams now in the top eight who have gained on Carlisle in the last 6/7 games

+7 Brighton (had played 1 games less) so a gain of six removing the game in hand
+3 MK Dons (had played 2 games less) so a gain of 2 removing one of the games in hand
+2 Peterboro (had played 1 games less) so a gain of 1 removing the game in hand
+2 Huddersfield (had played 1 games less) so a gain of 1 removing the game in hand
+1 Bournemouth (had played 1 games less) so a gain of 0 removing the game in hand

[Stranded]

If the 4-0 win against Hartlepool is an anomoly since Harte left, what is the 4-1 win against MK Dons when he was there?

It seems that they are a team that really score more than 1, in fact bar the 2 games where they scored 4, they only managed to score more than once in the opening game - (yes I'm aware Harte scored the 2nd from the spot).

So it is pretty fair to say that their goalscoring prowess hasn't significantly weakened since he left but they are conceding less goals.

Don't really know whay I'm arguing these points as I rate Ian Harte...

[Snowball]

If the 4-0 win against Hartlepool is an anomoly since Harte left, what is the 4-1 win against MK Dons when he was there?

Why do you deny clear evidence? In the Harte games Carlisle scored in every game 1-1-2-4
It would hardly be reasonable to suggest that 4-1 in this case was "anomalous"

They were averaging 2 goals a game

H W 2-0 Brentford
A D 1-1 Plymouth
H W 4-1 MK Dons
A D 1-1 Colchester


But in the games since they have struggled to score, big-time,
failing to score AT ALL no less than 4 times out of 7 games,
scoring a single goal twice. Total 2 goals in six games.

Take out the 4-0 (after) and the 4-1 (before) and you get

4 goals in 3 games BEFORE = 1.33 goals per game
2 goals in 6 games AFTER = 0.33 goals per game

That is, BEFORE they were scoring FOUR TIMES AS MUCH as now




H D 0-0 Swindon Town
A W 1-0 Sheffield Wed
H D 0-0 Brighton
A L 0-2 Bournemouth
A W 4-0 Hartlepool
H L 0-1 Peterborough
H W 1-0 Notts County



So it is pretty fair to say that their goalscoring prowess hasn't significantly weakened since he left but they are conceding less goals.

That is total rubbish

A fall-off of either 75% or 50% is hardly "small"!

Including the 4-0/4-1 (ie all league games)

The rate was 6 in 7 = 0.84 goals per game AFTER
The rate was 8 in 5 = 1.60 goals per game BEFORE (TWICE AS GOOD when Harte was there)

Excluding the 4-0 and 4-1 the scoring rate has dropped to ONE QUARTER of what it was before.

[Hoop Blah]

Don't really know whay I'm arguing these points as I rate Ian Harte...

Agreed...but it's classic snowball.

[Stranded]

But statistically any movement over such a small sample is irrelevant due to the small sample size as any action is magnified but you already know that.

[brendywendy]

its not irrelevant. its just less relevant.

[Stranded]

Agreed. Sorry wrong choice of word.

[Snowball]

Totally agree that the small (but ever-growing) sample size 4 v 7 games for Carlisle 5 v 6 for Reading, is small
but there is a totally reasonable case for COMBINING them as I am arguing that Harte's leaving Carlisle has hurt
them and helped us.

That makes 10 Harte games v 11 non-Harte games, 21 games, almost half-a season, in effect, and Carlisle have dropped a place,
their GD change per game has dropped, and they are on 20-points-a-season less (projected)

Meanwhile Reading are up six places, drastically better growth in their GD and projected to gain 36 points more.


COMBINED that makes a seven-place difference and 56 points relative difference by season's end.

The effect is very large. Of course it is NOT all due to any "Harte Effect" but it's hard to believe it isn't to do with Harte at all (at both clubs.)

[Stranded]

Ypu are welcome to your opinion but I strongly disagree, as there are too many variables to be able to accurately state that there is a "Harte effect". There are 21 other players involved (at least), at different standards - different formations, Harte himself playing in a different position, different standard of refereeing the list goes on. It is nigh on impossible to accurately state that there is a Harte effect.

[Snowball]

Ypu are welcome to your opinion but I strongly disagree, as there are too many variables to be able to accurately state that there is a "Harte effect". There are 21 other players involved (at least), at different standards - different formations, Harte himself playing in a different position, different standard of refereeing the list goes on. It is nigh on impossible to accurately state that there is a Harte effect.

Yet listers say,

"All we need is a goal-scoring striker" (one man changed)

or

"Get rid of Cummings." (one man changed)

OR

"Williams is leaving us wide-open. Replace him and we'll be fine." (one man changed)

OR

"Pearce is too slow and has the turning-circle of a tanker. Replace him." (one man changed)


If we started playing Pires in attacking midfield, just one man changed. No effect right?

How about Tevez? Or just drop Howard and replace him with Gerrard.

One man, same formation, ten other players the same, but bringing in Tevez, Gerrard or Pires,
if there was an increase in points-per-game won, that wouldn't be due to improving the team,
it would be "just loads of factors."


TWADDLE.

[Royal With Cheese]

If we started playing Pires in attacking midfield, just one man changed. No effect right?

How about Tevez? Or just drop Howard and replace him with Gerrard.

One man, same formation, ten other players the same, but bringing in Tevez, Gerrard or Pires,
if there was an increase in points-per-game won, that wouldn't be due to improving the team,
it would be "just loads of factors."


TWADDLE.

Have I got this wrong or are you now comparing Harte to Tevez or Gerrard?

[Snowball]

So it's not Harte, it's Zurab (who has played two games?)

But hang on, we got Zurab in because we sold Gylfi and now had the money (ditto Harte)

And all this debate started because so many were saying we were DOOMED DOOMED DOOMED I TELL YER!
and I said we were not, we would be a better side for Gylfi going and Harte etc coming in.

And so far, my predictions are provably, factually correct.

And, at the same time it can be shown that Carlisle are worse since Harte left.

[Snowball]

If we started playing Pires in attacking midfield, just one man changed. No effect right?

How about Tevez? Or just drop Howard and replace him with Gerrard.

One man, same formation, ten other players the same, but bringing in Tevez, Gerrard or Pires,
if there was an increase in points-per-game won, that wouldn't be due to improving the team,
it would be "just loads of factors."


TWADDLE.

Have I got this wrong or are you now comparing Harte to Tevez or Gerrard?

Of course not. What I AM saying is ONE PLAYER can have a significant effect on a team.