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

[Guest Distraught!]

like i said clever but no common sense

 

So go on, enlighten us then.

 

Why is sacking Jones going to give the club a statistically higher chance of going forward than the sacking of numerous other managers in Sheffield during the last twenty years?

[Guest Big Guns]

So go on, enlighten us then.

 

Why is sacking Jones going to give the club a statistically higher chance of going forward than the sacking of numerous other managers in Sheffield during the last twenty years?

because hes a crap manager who doesnt no wot hes doing if you dont believe me read nugents post craig bellamy will tell you why

[Guest Distraught!]

because hes a crap manager who doesnt no wot hes doing if you dont believe me read nugents post craig bellamy will tell you why

 

OK, Mr Common Sense!

 

Is that the best you can come up with in terms of a coherent argument?

[Guest Big Guns]

OK, Mr Common Sense!

Is that the best you can come up with in terms of a coherent argument?

It's common sense

[sonofbert2]

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...

 

Versus JonTheOwl66

 

Most of the time a pubescent, attention-seeking girl who cries on his way home from football matches.

[Guest Distraught!]

It's common sense

 

Common sense based on the ramblings of Craig Bellamy who most people consider to be the nearest thing to Neanderthal Man

 

against

 

the findings of four eminent statisticians collecting data in four different countries and twenty years of local experience to fall back on as well.

 

 

 

PS: If you did have common sense, you would realize anyway that all of this only provides statistical evidence and does not directly relate to the specific circumstances surrounding Jones. All that it does tell us is that sacking Jones is unlikely to make any real difference to the medium and long term fortunes of the club unless other factors within the club also change along with the new manager, whoever that happens to be.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Distraught!

[Anthndav]

I think a lot of you are concentrating on the results only aspect. But it's a singular facet, a manager brings with him more more. e.g. his man management techniques, a plan, a vision, his determination (or lack of) to see those goals come to fruition, his psychology, tactical nous, coacing ability. No two managers have the same views on all aspects.

 

Therefore the research is in fact correct. However, the big caveat on that reaserch is that mangers are often sacked for far more reasons than results alone, and a failing of any of the aspects of laid out above (it's not an exhaustive list btw!) could also lead to a sacking, or in fact just personal disciplinary reasons.

[Guest Distraught!]

I think a lot of you are concentrating on the results only aspect. But it's a singular facet, a manager brings with him more more. e.g. his man management techniques, a plan, a vision, his determination (or lack of) to see those goals come to fruition, his psychology, tactical nous, coacing ability. No two managers have the same views on all aspects.

 

Therefore the research is in fact correct. However, the big caveat on that reaserch is that mangers are often sacked for far more reasons than results alone, and a failing of any of the aspects of laid out above (it's not an exhaustive list btw!) could also lead to a sacking, or in fact just personal disciplinary reasons.

 

Yes, all of that is true.

 

All the numbers provide is a statistical probability based on a representative sample.

 

It cannot predict outcomes in individual cases.

[Owlsfan]

Probably an interesting read when you have the time, but a few things stick out from a quick glance at the first few pages and the bbc story.

 

You're looking at Dutch clubs, the majority of whom will have structures where the manager is more of a coach, and so by defiinition of his job, you're bound to see less of an effect on the 'position' of the club than most sackings over here.

 

The study is based on teams spending over 50% of seasons in the top flight. Combined with the above, you're therefore looking at clubs who've generally made good personnel decisions over time. That should make it more likely that a 'performance blip' is simply that, rather than a situation where a manager should be replaced, so you're more likely to see similar upturns in form in the cases of sacking/non sacking. There may well be several cases where this was not the case, but the results will be outweighed by those that are.

 

The period of 4 games (or I guess effectively 6? with the way he's mentioned moving averages) being 'sufficiently long' just seems a bit crackers. It's difficult I guess, there may well be no better ways to define it, but this is then likely to include every team who goes through a very difficult run of fixtures as having a 'performance blip'. If you have a difficult run of fixtures followed by a run of easier games, results are very likely to improve. But 9/10 chairmen/boards/whoever are likely to recognise who you've played, and won't change the manager because of it. That gives you 9 managers not sacked getting the 'easy games' bump, and only one new manager, which is bound to distort results a bit.

[cowl]

I think Big Guns was just about to post something similar.

[Guest Distraught!]

I think Big Guns was just about to post something similar.

 

He would do if he had the slightest idea at all what this research paper is about.

 

 

BG has found his level intellectually alongside Craig Bellamy.

 

 

 

Better not steal too much of his limelight.

[Guest davet30]

What is it they say .. there are lies damn lies and statistics?

 

It really is an impossible hypothetical statistic to prove.

 

Unless you can have a parallel scenario running along side each other then I put it to you that you just couldn't draw a conclusive result but just an assumption as to what may have happened.

[Guest Distraught!]

 

Unless you can have a parallel scenario running along side each other then I put it to you that you just couldn't draw a conclusive result but just an assumption as to what may have happened.

 

That is exactly what four similar studies have done but using actual scenarios rather than hypothetical situations.

 

Each one (an it has been done in Holland, Italy, Germany and England) selected various struggling football clubs and, using a statistical model, compared the performance of each.

 

The two parallels that they used is that some clubs choose to retain the manager after a run of bad form and some choose to sack the manager. They can be the only two possible outcomes. The clubs either keep the manager or sack him.

 

The four studies by four different authors came to a very consistent conclusion. By comparing the results over a set period of time between the ones that keep the manager and the ones that sack the manager, there is very little difference in uplift of results. The ones that sack the manager may show an uplift in results but so do the clubs that retain the manager.

 

Therefore the conclusions can be that statistically, sacking the manager does not achieve very much and is just a waste of money, resources and time. The only thing that can bring about real change is other factors also changing at the club like money becoming available to buy more players etc. Simply changing the manager only rarely makes any real, long term difference.

 

Those statistics are perfectly illustrated by the fortunes of the two Sheffield clubs. Each has had a rapid turnover of managers and neither has any real benefit from it. In fact, it has taken both clubs backwards whilst costing the two clubs an absolutely fortune.

[Sonny]

I've posted it several times before but I'll do it again here as I believe it's pertinent.

Since 1991, all 14 managers that we have had (with the possible exception of Ron Atkinson's second spell) have faced considerable and prolonged calls for their dismissal, regardless of what they might have achieved previously with ourselves or other clubs.

And many of the criticisms levelled at them have been remarkably consistent, if not clichéd.

It's funny seeing a few posters who were proper gunning for Laws' head for weeks on end now saying we need to get rid of Jones because he doesn't match up to the job Laws did on a budget. What a larf.

:-)

[Guest Big Guns]

Wots the world coming to wot a waste of flippingtime a study to see if sacking managers works ffs

Just use your common flippingsense oh you can't cos you've got none

[Guest Distraught!]

It's funny seeing a few posters who were proper gunning for Laws' head for weeks on end now saying we need to get rid of Jones because he doesn't match up to the job Laws did on a budget. What a larf.

:-)

 

If Jones is replaced, I expect the first people that will be on the back of the new guy appointed when we have an inevitable run of poor results will be those so vehemently calling for Jones' head now. The ones that will be calling for calm and trying to give him some support will be the likes of myself, DJM, Scram and the other usual suspects.

[Guest Distraught!]

Wots the world coming to wot a waste of flippingtime a study to see if sacking managers works ffs

Just use your common flippingsense oh you can't cos you've got none

 

You stick to "Tales of Craigy Baby" and leave statistics to those capable of interpreting them.

[Guest Big Guns]

You stick to "Tales of Craigy Baby" and leave statistics to those capable of interpreting them.

You mean nugents post that you can't answer

He he he

Hook line and sinker

[Guest Distraught!]

You mean nugents post that you can't answer

He he he

Hook line and sinker

 

But Craig FFS

 

 

The new standard bearer for the Snappy Sackers on here.

[modboy]

i think the main correlation in football is "investment = on the field success"

 

often managerial changes are looking for the miracle "cure". If we changed would the new guy get the money to really make a difference? 

 

Personally feel our only chance of success is to use the long term loan market better, but we seem to be unwilling to invest in that route either, mainly just using cheap short loan deals on unfit players etc