Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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.

 

What if the new manager spends his transfer budget more wisely on players who he'll actually select for the first team, instead of standing by his consistently underperforming favourites?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Distraught!

What if the new manager spends his transfer budget more wisely on players who he'll actually select for the first team, instead of standing by his consistently underperforming favourites?

 

I think you will find that the study covers for such a scenario.

 

Any such study can only operate on the balance of probability given a large enough sample for it to be representative.

 

It is not focused on individual situations.

 

We could take Sheffield as a very good example.

 

Both clubs have changed managers rapidly in the last fifteen or twenty years.

 

Has it made any real difference to the two clubs' fortunes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Distraught!

Good paper, but I'd still like Demo to be fooked-off...!

 

Statistically proven as a poor manager, man-manger and tactician...!

 

Let's look at it from a longer term point of view. Supposing Megson hadn't been sacked when it happened and Mandaric had gambled on a longer term strategy. The season that we went up from League One was very tough. If Megson had kept his job and Charlton, Pigs and Huddersfield had got promoted, it would have left what looked like a very simple passage to promotion last season. We could have had Antonio and COG strutting their stuff in League One for one extra season.

 

Some revenue may have been lost taking an extra season to get promoted but it is entirely feasible we could now be in a stronger position in the Championship. DJ did wonders to get us promoted but if we end up relegated this season, it could all be for nothing.

 

I wish at some point we could give a manager at least five or six seasons to impose real change.

 

Once appointed, give somebody time to do the job properly FFS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Distraught!

Based on what?

 

Based on the fact that he is a statistician doing a research paper and not somebody scribbling notes on the back of a *** packet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Distraught!

 it's a load of shiite... :biggrin:

 

Aye, I guess so if you disagree with the contents.

 

The same thing can be said for every publication, theory, report or book ever written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Good. Because no sane person thinks that replacing DJ with a new manager on a similar budget in Oct/Nov will result in a top 2 finish.

 

A better manager might just do enough to keep us out of the bottom three. This is the hope in switching.

 

But surely to god, you don't think Jones is here for the long term. You're not highlighted this study to advocate this are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good. Because no sane person thinks that replacing DJ with a new manager on a similar budget in Oct/Nov will result in a top 2 finish.

 

A better manager might just do enough to keep us out of the bottom three. This is the hope in switching.

 

But surely to god, you don't think Jones is here for the long term. You're not highlighted this study to advocate this are you?

 

I think it highlights that changing the manager for no other reason than to produce an immediate upturn in results will usually not yield a better outcome than sticking with the manager you have - somewhere along the line the team will revert to the mean and results will slump again. Might get a club out of a short term hole but likely to see the same problems arise again

 

I think the subtext is that for change have an ongoing effect then there needs to be more than just managerialchange 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Distraught!

its a bit desperate yo be quotin a dutch bloke with a funny name to support yer argument if you ask me

 

I would like a Dutchman with not such a funny name as manager if that helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Refer to #14.

 

So let me get this right and jump right into La La land with you.

 

This forum has been completely dominated by threads regarding the sacking or not sacking of Dave Jones, due to us being in a mid season crisis.

 

and you highlight a report regarding the outcome sacking/not sacking a manager during a mid season crisis.

 

And you claim it' nowt to do with Jones, just a coincidence.

 

Cheers Big Ears, say hello to Noddy for me. (you could make this poo  up).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it highlights that changing the manager for no other reason than to produce an immediate upturn in results will usually not yield a better outcome than sticking with the manager you have - somewhere along the line the team will revert to the mean and results will slump again. Might get a club out of a short term hole but likely to see the same problems arise again

 

I think the subtext is that for change have an ongoing effect then there needs to be more than just managerialchange 

 

No one thinks a manager chance will cause an irreversible change in fortunes and results (unless the budget changes).

 

At best it might give us a shot in the arm and cause us to win a couple of games, improve moral (fans & players and allow us just to compete in this league and hopefully avoid the drop.

 

IMO this aint going to happen under Jones, it did last season, but things are worse this time round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Distraught!

So let me get this right and jump right into La La land with you.

 

This forum has been completely dominated by threads regarding the sacking or not sacking of Dave Jones, due to us being in a mid season crisis.

 

and you highlight a report regarding the outcome sacking/not sacking a manager during a mid season crisis.

 

And you claim it' nowt to do with Jones, just a coincidence.

 

Cheers Big Ears, say hello to Noddy for me. (you could make this poo  up).

 

I am discussing a subject within a thread that I didn't start, thanks!

 

Something that I have been saying on here for years and not just days.

 

A paper that backs up things I was saying during Laws' and Megson's time too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying we should never sack managers or managers should never leave.

 

All I'm saying is, don't expect sacking the manager it to radically transform the clubs fortunes in the medium to long term.

 

No one does, this is a claim being made up, by the usually condescending posters on, in order for them to write patronising posts like yours.

 

Find me one post which states that replacing Jones will result in a radical transform of the clubs fortunes.

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...