Clarke's Clearout - Current Players' Apps for RFC

[Ouroboros]

Appearances = starts + subs. This is the standard definition.

Link?

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid ... ppearances

[bigt_678]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... -City.html

[strap]

I had no intention of starting a discussion on the merits of what constitutes an appearance or not, so apologies if this thread has caused offence! In the interests of balance I have been trying to find more "professional" entities to see what they do.

The ENFA and AFS, not to mention soccerbase, Rothmans/Sky Yearbooks, the old Canon yearbooks all stick with apps and sub apps. To be fair, Wikipedia in their player career summaries, lump apps and subs together as one number, as do Rothmans/Sky Yearbooks in their player summaries - but they ignore cup games in that!?

I am sticking with ENFA and AFS and so will continue to spit starts and subs.

I feel this is all rather pedantic - my original table clearly identifies "Games Played", "Games as Sub", Games Subbed", "Non-playing subs". if a reader can't be bothered to simply add up the first two columns to arrive at their own definition of "appearances", then that's hardly my problem. In future, when noting lists of this nature, I will not use the word "appearance" I will use the phrase "games started", will this stop the childish sniping?

There is actually a far more important argument to have, and this HAS been argued ad nauseum on AFS - what constitutes a first class game? In my database I include our Watney Cup game v Man Utd, mainly because both teams put out what was generally to be considered their 1st XI. I have been slated for this. Yet my counter argument that these days some PL teams put ourt virtual reserves side in early LC games which are still classed as 1st class, when by definition they are not.

Do we consider Associate Members Cup games 1st class? I do, despite some of the team lineups being less than 1st XI material. However, where does this end? Is the Southern Professional Floodlit Cup a 1st class game? What about the old Div3(s) Cup? I still include htem as forming part of a player's career total, but many on AFS don't.

And there's me thinking collecting numbers was a simple exercise!

[maffff]

Lies, damned lies and statistics eh Strap.

Good work mate.

[Green]

I'm with strap here. Don't like it, make your own database.

[handbags_harris]

As a fellow statistician, I'm inclined to agree with strap on the basis that it's his database so he can do what he damn well wants with it, and present the data as he damn well pleases. I personally wouldn't present it in such a manner, I would start with the number of appearances (starts + subs) and then provide a breakdown to give context to the manner the appearances were made.

As for the question regarding which competitions to use, I think the rule of thumb to use is that any competition that occurs in the regular season that is a national club or international club competition should be considered a first team competition. So:-

1) League
2) FA Cup
3) League Cup
4) Associate Member's Trophy/Full Member's Trophy
5) European Cup
6) UEFA Cup/Fairs Cup
7) European Cup Winner's Cup

A pre-season competition just wouldn't cut the mustard. The Watney Cup (and other pre-season competitions) are anomalies really as back then every club had a small squad of probably 17-20 players, with only one sub allowed? So the likelihood of youngsters playing in it was pretty small. These days, with youngsters drafted into squads and unlimited subs allowed in friendlies (which I assume is the case with competitions like the Emirates Cup?), the likelihood of a youngster or reserve team player playing is far higher in order to give them exposure to the first team. Or in other words, the football squad climate has changed so much that top end clubs can afford to play effectively a reserve team in the early rounds of the League Cup.

[Forbury Lion]

Why have you decided coming on as a sub does not count as an appearance?

The solution to keep everyone happy is to change the stat from "appearances" to "starts"

[P!ssed Off]

Appearances = starts + subs. This is the standard definition.

Link?

339.1. “First Team Appearance” means an appearance either in the starting eleven or as a
playing substitute in a first team fixture in the Premier League, the Football League
Championship and Football Leagues 1 and 2 (including play-offs), the Football
League Cup, the FA Cup, the Football League Trophy, the UEFA Europa League or the
UEFA Champions League;
http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2015-16.pdf

Given that Reading FC are bound to the above rule, I suggest we go on that. Unless you can find anything more compelling that refutes?

[P!ssed Off]

I had no intention of starting a discussion on the merits of what constitutes an appearance or not, so apologies if this thread has caused offence! In the interests of balance I have been trying to find more "professional" entities to see what they do.

The ENFA and AFS, not to mention soccerbase, Rothmans/Sky Yearbooks, the old Canon yearbooks all stick with apps and sub apps. To be fair, Wikipedia in their player career summaries, lump apps and subs together as one number, as do Rothmans/Sky Yearbooks in their player summaries - but they ignore cup games in that!?

I am sticking with ENFA and AFS and so will continue to spit starts and subs.

I feel this is all rather pedantic - my original table clearly identifies "Games Played", "Games as Sub", Games Subbed", "Non-playing subs". if a reader can't be bothered to simply add up the first two columns to arrive at their own definition of "appearances", then that's hardly my problem. In future, when noting lists of this nature, I will not use the word "appearance" I will use the phrase "games started", will this stop the childish sniping?

There is actually a far more important argument to have, and this HAS been argued ad nauseum on AFS - what constitutes a first class game? In my database I include our Watney Cup game v Man Utd, mainly because both teams put out what was generally to be considered their 1st XI. I have been slated for this. Yet my counter argument that these days some PL teams put ourt virtual reserves side in early LC games which are still classed as 1st class, when by definition they are not.

Do we consider Associate Members Cup games 1st class? I do, despite some of the team lineups being less than 1st XI material. However, where does this end? Is the Southern Professional Floodlit Cup a 1st class game? What about the old Div3(s) Cup? I still include htem as forming part of a player's career total, but many on AFS don't.

And there's me thinking collecting numbers was a simple exercise!

I've not taken any issue with your database or the way you've set out the data.
It's perfectly reasonable to display appearances in either format: starts + subs OR starts(subs).

What's factually incorrect is to state "Chris Gunter is the current player with the most RFC apps". This is just incorrect and I'm terribly sorry if my pointing out this inaccuracy feels like "childish sniping" to you.

[poohs pure]

I had no intention of starting a discussion on the merits of what constitutes an appearance or not, so apologies if this thread has caused offence! In the interests of balance I have been trying to find more "professional" entities to see what they do.

The ENFA and AFS, not to mention soccerbase, Rothmans/Sky Yearbooks, the old Canon yearbooks all stick with apps and sub apps. To be fair, Wikipedia in their player career summaries, lump apps and subs together as one number, as do Rothmans/Sky Yearbooks in their player summaries - but they ignore cup games in that!?

I am sticking with ENFA and AFS and so will continue to spit starts and subs.

I feel this is all rather pedantic - my original table clearly identifies "Games Played", "Games as Sub", Games Subbed", "Non-playing subs". if a reader can't be bothered to simply add up the first two columns to arrive at their own definition of "appearances", then that's hardly my problem. In future, when noting lists of this nature, I will not use the word "appearance" I will use the phrase "games started", will this stop the childish sniping?

There is actually a far more important argument to have, and this HAS been argued ad nauseum on AFS - what constitutes a first class game? In my database I include our Watney Cup game v Man Utd, mainly because both teams put out what was generally to be considered their 1st XI. I have been slated for this. Yet my counter argument that these days some PL teams put ourt virtual reserves side in early LC games which are still classed as 1st class, when by definition they are not.

Do we consider Associate Members Cup games 1st class? I do, despite some of the team lineups being less than 1st XI material. However, where does this end? Is the Southern Professional Floodlit Cup a 1st class game? What about the old Div3(s) Cup? I still include htem as forming part of a player's career total, but many on AFS don't.

And there's me thinking collecting numbers was a simple exercise!

If I were you, I would post what I wanted to, in the format I was happy with and if someone on here wants to pick holes and generally be a pedant, I wouldn't rise to the bait. Usually, those that criticise are looking for a response, without one they crash and burn. Totally ignore them and be happy in the knowledge that your non reply is seriously annoying to them.

[P!ssed Off]

He's created a thread for the sole purpose of telling us that Chris Gunter has the most Reading appearances of any current Reading player.

It's hardly a minor detail, it's the whole premise of the thread. And it's incorrect, so I thought I'd point that out.

Wish I hadn't bothered now though, what a waste of time.

[Ian Royal]

The points is very clearly made. All you need to do is be able to read. Get over yourself.

[bcubed]

He's created a thread for the sole purpose of telling us that Chris Gunter has the most Reading appearances of any current Reading player.

It's hardly a minor detail, it's the whole premise of the thread. And it's incorrect, so I thought I'd point that out.

Wish I hadn't bothered now though, what a waste of time.

Seems very clear to me too.
Gunter has not by all normal meaning and usage of the word, had the most appearances

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

I also agree to the Watney Cup game being included, this was a competition open to all clubs in the league, not some invitation like the Emirates Cup

[Forbury Lion]

I guess Adam LeFondre must have a good goals per appearance ratio in his time as a supersub, what with the sub appearances not counting.

[Sutekh]

I had no intention of starting a discussion on the merits of what constitutes an appearance or not, so apologies if this thread has caused offence! In the interests of balance I have been trying to find more "professional" entities to see what they do.

The ENFA and AFS, not to mention soccerbase, Rothmans/Sky Yearbooks, the old Canon yearbooks all stick with apps and sub apps. To be fair, Wikipedia in their player career summaries, lump apps and subs together as one number, as do Rothmans/Sky Yearbooks in their player summaries - but they ignore cup games in that!?

I am sticking with ENFA and AFS and so will continue to spit starts and subs.

Correct, my understanding is that an appearance is either a start or to be used as a sub, however the distinction should continue to be made.

I feel this is all rather pedantic - my original table clearly identifies "Games Played", "Games as Sub", Games Subbed", "Non-playing subs". if a reader can't be bothered to simply add up the first two columns to arrive at their own definition of "appearances", then that's hardly my problem. In future, when noting lists of this nature, I will not use the word "appearance" I will use the phrase "games started", will this stop the childish sniping?

There is actually a far more important argument to have, and this HAS been argued ad nauseum on AFS - what constitutes a first class game? In my database I include our Watney Cup game v Man Utd, mainly because both teams put out what was generally to be considered their 1st XI. I have been slated for this. Yet my counter argument that these days some PL teams put ourt virtual reserves side in early LC games which are still classed as 1st class, when by definition they are not.

Do we consider Associate Members Cup games 1st class? I do, despite some of the team lineups being less than 1st XI material. However, where does this end? Is the Southern Professional Floodlit Cup a 1st class game? What about the old Div3(s) Cup? I still include htem as forming part of a player's career total, but many on AFS don't.

And there's me thinking collecting numbers was a simple exercise!

Associate member games are 1st class games, as are Anglo/Scottish Cups and Watney Cups. I would presume that the Southern Floodlit Cup would be seen as somewhat of a forerunner of those competitions so again would class that as 1st team

To settle this one though, can you detail how many minutes each player has played for Reading in 1st team games ?