Jump to content

I know it's Dutch but you can't argue with the science


Recommended Posts

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

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

Guest JonTheOwl66

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

Guest Distraught!

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

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

Guest Distraught!

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

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

Guest Distraught!

i knew yude put a pro dj spin on it lol

 

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

Guest JonTheOwl66

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

Guest Distraught!

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

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

Guest Sweet&TenderOwl

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 by Sweet&TenderOwl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Distraught!

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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...