Jump to content

A Gay Schoolboy

Members
  • Content Count

    760
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by A Gay Schoolboy

  1. [quote user="jas the barclay king"]Bye wes... cash in for a younger model[/quote]We won''t replace him like for like. We''ll buy a 6 foot positionally disciplined defensively solid tryer and then watch as the coaching staff are baffled as to why we aren''t creating any chances.
  2. If the club has released this to try to get fans onside for when the now inevitable sale happens, I can''t help but think its going to backfire. No-one sane could blame Hoolahan for wanting to leave.
  3. [quote user="PurpleCanary"]And if we stay up, which is more likely than not, he will be kept on.[/quote]Not sure I agree with this. If we stay up comfortably, with a points improvement on last season, and show some signs of becoming a more effective team, then I think he''ll be kept on.If however we do our normal sequence of terrible performances interspersed with desperate wins when the pressure is on, I think it''ll be "thanks, but we''re going to try something else" in summer.I have very little doubt that we''ll stay up, but how we do it will be what determines Hughton''s fate.
  4. We''re playing quite well but we are still terminally incapable of breaking down an organised defence
  5. That Jelavic chance is exactly how we should be picking out RVW
  6. The two wingers chosen don''t fill me with enthusiasm, based on our usual tactics. They''ll be too slow to offer a counter attacking outlet so we''ll have to hope we''re going to press high or the strikers are going to remain uninvolved again.
  7. Gutierrez joined Velez Sarsfield in 1999 as a 15 year old youth player, while Bielsa left in 1998. Please make your ITK attempts either more accurate or more vague next time.
  8. [quote user="jas the barclay king"] If the club dont sack Hughton then how many games does rvw get? He wont be here next season[/quote]Given that the number of strikers with good scoring records that Hughton has completely nullified is bordering on the farcical, I don''t think its really fair to judge any striker on how they perform in a Hughton team.
  9. [quote user="jas the barclay king"]How many games do we give him?[/quote]10 games into the new manager''s reign seems fair
  10. That Guidolin link from a few weeks back that came out of nowhere suggests that he''s out there looking at potential replacements. I still have faith in him.
  11. [quote user="the bristol nest"]Why isn''t Hoolahan playing unless he is off to Villa? It''s not like he will be tired ![/quote]Because apparently Snodgrass has to play ever game no matter what sort of form he''s in
  12. I quite like that team tbh. I''d rather Hoolahan in for Snodgrass and any of the other strikers in for Elmander but other than that I think its a decent cup lineup.Will be interesting to see what having two pacey outlets on the wings can do for us.
  13. [quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Signings made by unpopular managers will always be dismissed by those who find it impossible to make a judgement for themselves - when Roeder signed Hoolahan most people said he was useless etc.[/quote]Thats not how I remember it. I remember Hoolahan tearing us apart for Blackpool and everyone being very pleased that we''d picked him up as one of Roeder''s "new heros" that never quite materialised, especially as he cost a pittance because of his release clause.
  14. I think he''s a decent enough player who could do a job for us, but is it a job we really need doing? We''ve got 4 wingers already with the Murphys waiting in the wings, seems an odd position to make a purchase in.
  15. [quote user="PurpleCanary"]Yes, I am looking at individual cases. You are quite right. Because I am arguing against this monothithic Dutch notion - based on a very specific and narrow kind of case - that change never works. I am not saying it always works, or even that it averages out. I have no idea. I am saying that under the right circumstances it can work, and has a very good chance of working.[/quote]Ok cool I think we''re on the same page, I''m fully with you on the limitations of the Dutch study.
  16. [quote user="PurpleCanary"]You can''t start saying this case or that doesn''t count, because, for example, the manager has lost the dressing room. A failed manager is a failed manager is a failed manager. The specific reasons aren''t important.I am not sure whether we are arguing over a narow point. You have essentially stuck to the view that change never works. I think it can. Bear in mind that an improvement - which is what I am talking about - is an improvement EVEN if it doesn''t avoid relegation. If Palace and Sunderland go down that will not necessarily invalidate their decisions to make a change.Why do I think change can work? Because some managers ARE better than others, and under the right circumstances can do better. All the surveys I have read about, and the one I have read, seem to deal only with cases where a club has a blip and over-reacts by sacking the manager. There the data indeed suggest a change will not have much effect. But that is too narrow a scenario to be applied to anything every case.[/quote]For the most part I agree with this but you should have a gander at the Serie A study which takes into account all managerial changes
  17. Purple I think your issue is that you are taking individual data points instead of looking at the whole cluster. The fact that on average changing a manager provides an unclear benefit does not preclude teams changing a manager and then seeing a dramatic improvement, it just suggests that there will be an equal number of teams that see a dramatic fall.I suspect that if you graphed it out, changes in ppg with regard to managerial changes would sit in a the normal distribution, i.e. a bell curve. A few outliers will see massive positive and negative changes regardless of past performance, a significant amount will see improvement because they were underperforming before (like Sunderland now), and vice versa with overperforming (I expect Cardiff to fall into this group), while the majority will only see slight +/- changes.The question is where do Norwich fit? I suspect we are mildly underacheiving but with only 2 and a half seasons in this league it is not as easy to judge as it is to point out that Moyes is massively underperforming at Man U.
  18. [quote user="ricardo"]Indeed, but this is an entirely different argument altogether and it''s not the one I am making. Changing the manager for aesthetic reasons is not something that can be supported or opposed by simply looking at the results.However I am glad to see that you now accept that changing a manger mid season is not a panacea for avoiding relegation. There are still many on here who refuse to accept that, despite not being able to point to any convincing data that proves it to be wrong.[/quote]At no point did I not accept that. I don''t want Hughton sacked until summer, and that has been my position for many months, because I feel we will be able to attract a better class of candidate in the close season.My issue is not with your position, its the way you misrepresent the data to try to suggest that changing a manager is always a bad thing, which is not what any of the studies show.The most convincing of the studies shows an unclear, probably statistically insignificant, season wide positive effect and no negative effect, that is as much evidence for changing a manager as it is not.
  19. As I mentioned on the other thread, every one of the studies shows, regardless of methodology, that the honeymoon period is on average a real phenomenon, meaning that a new manager does give a short term boost (between 4 and 8 games) above the seasonal average. Therefore you have to admit that the data suggests that replacing a manager towards the end of the season, if in danger of relegation, is a reasonable decision, even if its stupid from a long term planning point of view.The Serie A study shows that a new manager gives a statistical significant boost to points per game, goals for, and goals conceded, which becomes a statistical insigificant improvement once they adjust for opponents / number of games left in a way which is beyond my statistical training to decipher and critique.The conclusion states that it is unclear whether or not changing a manager mid season has any positive effect, but it certainly shows no negative effects, so it provides as much support to changing a manager as not.As changing a manager mid season appears to (on average) have no effect one way or another, you could easily argue that we should change to a manager with a more pleasing style of play, get the honeymoon period, and then return to our average while getting more entertaining matches.However I feel that all of this is fairly irrelevant as the studies are based on a specific type of mid season sacking following a poor run of form. Regardless of current form and wherever we end up, its clear that Hughton and his team have not provided any kind of long term improvement, and look extremely unlikely to do so. Whether we sack him now or in summer its clear to everyone apart from those who''ve staked a large part of their ego on Hughton being a success here, that he''s not the right man for us. I think McNally knows this too and is actively searching out replacements.
  20. [quote user="ricardo"]Football is the same the world over. The Premier League is no special case, all teams have a level and revert to that level over time unless they make a step change in finance.This has nothing to do with Lambert and Gunn and you know it. There is no manager out there who will come in and raise us to a 1.3 ppg team.Still waiting for you to point me to anything that proves changing a manager will lead to better results.There isn''t one for a reason, it''s a myth.[/quote]See this is where you are overreaching. You are trying to apply results of a specific methodologies to all managerial changes. The Dutch and English studies are flawed because they are only measuring the honeymoon period, and pre-filtering out sackings that don''t meet their criteria, which means you are no longer looking at "result of changing a manager", you are looking at "short term result of changing a manager in specific circumstances", which is not the same thing at all, if you stated it like that, I (and I suspect Purple Canary too) wouldn''t be disagreeing.The Italian study is better in this regard, but is still only looking a managerial changes within a season, and how they affect results within that season, they specifically rule out using closed season changes as they can''t control for differences in squad and opponents.1.3 ppg is only 49 points over a season, do you genuinely think that there isn''t a manager in the world that could acheive that here? Steve Clarke managed that with WBA.You could easily make the argument that given that all the research, regardless of methods seems to agree that a 4-8 game honeymoon period is on average, a real phenomenon, that sacking a manager towards the end of a season to push you over the line would be a good tactic, even though thats completely mental from a long term planning view.
  21. [quote user="ricardo"]This is the Italian studyhttp://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/11030/[/quote]I''m only about half way through this but so far it does seem more convincing than both the dutch and english league studies, as it neither pre-filters the data nor only looks at limited windows, and makes an effort to rule out variation in opposition etc.However its also a completely different type of study to the previous ones, it makes no attempt to form a control group of ''non sackings'' to compare against. It also says things like this:[quote]The effect of Coach Change is positive and strongly statistically significant in each specification. However, the magnitude is small: according to our estimates, playing with a new coach yields a team 2-3 points more every 10 matches[/quote][quote]We find that Coach Change has a significant and positive effect on Goals Scored and a negative effect on Goals Conceded, implying that the new coach is able to improve both the offensive skills and the defensive skills of the team.[/quote]
  22. [quote user="can u sit down please"]REALISTIC candidates: Tuchel girard Malky hoddle Howe Clark avb jol di matteo bergkamp vBasten phelan Zola bielsa k''mann phelan Lennon guidolin montella rangnick. Will they do a better job? Nobody can guarantee that, but sometimes you have to take that chance and not play it safe, like we are on the pitch. If Swansea can attract Laudrup we can attract those listed. This is an attractive job for many. Remember McNally saying when we appt hughton we had apps from Germany and Italy![/quote]The question is less ''can we attract them?'' and more ''can we attract them midseason to a relegation battle?''. I think changing manager in summer would lead to us being able to get the type of candidates you mention, now? Doubtful.
  23. Interesting data from the other leagues, can I have a link to those studies? I want to see if they have the same methology issues as the dutch league one has.
  24. [quote user="ricardo"]So what points would you like to discuss from it that support your viewpoint?[/quote]I''d like to know whether you have the full or abridged version first, no point if we don''t have the same version.
  25. [quote user="ricardo"]I wouldn''t have mentioned them if I hadn''t. I actually have the original papers and have never read them on the BBC.[/quote]Do you have the full or the abridged version of the one that looks into the Premier League rather than the Dutch league?
×
×
  • Create New...