Handball_!! Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Statistically sacking a manager has no effect on results when compared to keeping the manager. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23724517 "Changing a manager during a crisis in the season does improve the results in the short term," he says. "But this is a misleading statistic because not changing the manager would have had the same result." Ter Weel analysed managerial turnover across 18 seasons (1986-2004) of the Dutch premier division, the Eredivisie. As well as looking at what happened to teams who sacked their manager when the going got tough, he looked at those who had faced a similar slump in form but who stood by their boss to ride out the crisis. He found that both groups faced a similar pattern of declines and improvements in form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam1867 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Statistically sacking a manager has no effect on results when compared to keeping the manager. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23724517 "Changing a manager during a crisis in the season does improve the results in the short term," he says. "But this is a misleading statistic because not changing the manager would have had the same result." Ter Weel analysed managerial turnover across 18 seasons (1986-2004) of the Dutch premier division, the Eredivisie. As well as looking at what happened to teams who sacked their manager when the going got tough, he looked at those who had faced a similar slump in form but who stood by their boss to ride out the crisis. He found that both groups faced a similar pattern of declines and improvements in form. I don't care Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Guns Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 So basically we should never have sacked Megson then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonTheOwl66 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 What a ridiculous study. Its simply impossible to say. There aren't two scenarios possible for each team are there? You don't know if sacking the manager would be any different to keeping him with the same team do you? I tell you what, I'd like a job where you make up bullsh!t hypothetical scenarios like this. Ludicrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Distraught! Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 If you work on a large enough sample size, that is exactly the result I would expect. Statistically, it would more than likely be accurate. Hence, I despise changing managers for the sake of it. In the long run, it is accurate to say it makes little or no difference to a club's fortune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Past Member Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Statistically sacking a manager has no effect on results when compared to keeping the manager. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23724517 "Changing a manager during a crisis in the season does improve the results in the short term," he says. "But this is a misleading statistic because not changing the manager would have had the same result." Ter Weel analysed managerial turnover across 18 seasons (1986-2004) of the Dutch premier division, the Eredivisie. As well as looking at what happened to teams who sacked their manager when the going got tough, he looked at those who had faced a similar slump in form but who stood by their boss to ride out the crisis. He found that both groups faced a similar pattern of declines and improvements in form. On that flawed research and conclusion. We could and should have Peter Eustace as manager and Alex Ferguson should still be at Aberdeen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowl Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 So basically we should never have sacked Megson then We should never have sacked Yorath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Distraught! Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 On that flawed research and conclusion. We could and should have Peter Eustace as manager and Alex Ferguson should still be at Aberdeen. I don't think the purpose of the study is to say a club should never change managers. It is comparing scenarios regarding the change of manager during periods of rapid decline and if there is any correlation regarding uplift in fortune or further decline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scram Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 What a ridiculous study. Its simply impossible to say. There aren't two scenarios possible for each team are there? You don't know if sacking the manager would be any different to keeping him with the same team do you? I tell you what, I'd like a job where you make up bullsh!t hypothetical scenarios like this. Ludicrous. Here's somebody who doesn't understand research methodology... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonTheOwl66 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Here's somebody who doesn't understand research methodology... Ah. I thought you'd approve of such obvious tripe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEnchanter Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Ipswich made a mistake getting McCarthy then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Distraught! Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 i knew yude put a pro dj spin on it It is absolutely nothing to do with DJ. I pulled that old thread the other day to show I took EXACTLY the same viewpoint with regards to Megson. It was wrong in his case too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonTheOwl66 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 It is absolutely nothing to do with DJ. I pulled that old thread the other day to show I took EXACTLY the same viewpoint with regards to Megson. It was wrong in his case too. We got promoted on the back of it though didn't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Distraught! Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 We got promoted on the back of it though didn't we? Yes, we did but I was no more in favour of the random dismissal of Megson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elvin Parsnip Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Yes but the managers in that league are poo poo - so it's a complete waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scram Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Ah. I thought you'd approve of such obvious tripe. Dr Bas ter Weel. World renowned academic and scholar - multiple publications in peer-reviewed academic journals. Highly respected author and presenter at high level global conventions Senior researcher at a top university Producer of obvious tripe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sweet&TenderOwl Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 (edited) Changing managers or sticking with a failing one doesn't guarantee anything either way. If no-one ever got sacked or changed, Liverpool would've never had Shankly; Forest would've never had Cloughie, Man U would never had Fergie, Arsenal wou;d've never had Wenger and we would've never had Big Ron, etc. It's more important to find the right man in the first place and have a long-term plan in place, so that everyone can join together and see what a club is trying to do. In my opinion, we never had one after the back of promotion, and I can't believe in what the club is trying to achieve, unlike back in Big Ron's time. With or without a takeover, we need a manager who suits the club better than DJ, who can build something to give ourselves a better chance of pushing forward in the long run. Edited October 14, 2013 by Sweet&TenderOwl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt_Hatstand Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 It does seem rather limited mathematically though, many of those "slumps" in form could be at clubs who are around mid table, or are performing better than expected.I would like to see the results of the same study only considering teams in a relegation dogfight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Distraught! Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 It does seem rather limited mathematically though, many of those "slumps" in form could be at clubs who are around mid table, or are performing better than expected. I would like to see the results of the same study only considering teams in a relegation dogfight I am sure that he took a scientifically representative sample to define the statistics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dukeries Owl Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 It does seem rather limited mathematically though, many of those "slumps" in form could be at clubs who are around mid table, or are performing better than expected. I would like to see the results of the same study only considering teams in a relegation dogfight With overseas owners over 70. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now