Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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.

What does it say about periods of terminal decline like under DJ?

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.

bet Southampton are gutted they sacked Pardew and just as average Nigel Atkins then set on Pottecino, what a waste of compo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Big Guns

Mmmmmm.......... So on 6th November 1986 when Man Utd sacked Ron Atkinson and appointed some hardly-known Aberdeen manager, they should have only expected a temporary effect on results? The dutch scientist maybe should stick to Dutch science and leave the MASSIVE decisions to the likes of Big Guns. :-)

Wot about the 22nd of June 2014 when man utd sacked moyes after not even a full season in charge

Seems they've changed there policy from the 80s and have moved with the modern way of thinking

Hehe he he

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Replacing a manager makes very little difference because managers make very little difference in the first place. People don't want it to be true, because it's unromantic, but league placings correlate strongly with size of playing budgets and not much else. Of course there are exceptions you can point at, but sometimes it rains in Spain whilst it's sunny in England; I'd still say Spain has the better weather.

 

Look at the premier league sackings this season.

 

Di Canio at Sunderland, sacked at 20th. Where are they now? 20th.

Martin Jol at Fulham, sacked at 18th, now 19th.

Steve Clarke, West Brom, sacked at 16th, now 16th.

AVB at Spurs, sacked at 7th, now 6th.

Mackay, at Cardiff, sacked at 16th, now 18th.

Laudrup at Swansea, sacked at 12th, now 13th.

Meulensteen at Fulham, sacked at 20th, now 19th.

And finally (getting a bit recent now) Hughton at Norwich, sacked at 17th, still 17th.

 

(Didn't include Holloway at Palace because he wasn't sacked, he went on his own will).

 

Managers come and go. People think they improve the team because they pay attention when that happens (confirmation bias). There's as much evidence to say they make teams worse, and more still to say that they don't have any significant impact. Most of those managers above were replaced with more than half a season remaining, including the full January transfer window. Not one of their replacements has moved their team more than two places (Solskjaer at Cardiff) and those were 2 places down.

 

So, whilst occasionally you might find yourself appointing the next sir Alex (and I think Wednesday are better off under Gray than Jones), changing manager rarely has the significant impact that fans believe it will. It's just an expensive way to keep your most vocal fans in check.

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...