Parma’s State of the Nation

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,437]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

I always desperately try to remember this after a bad "performance", but often forget in the heat of disappointment. Football is such, a true game of passion. But how far do you take it?

We set up like this, we know the opposition knows we set up like this, so let's try something different?

The other side thinks, well they always set up like this, but they have done that so much surely they'll know we'll try to stop them being effective with such a set-up - what others ways could they set-up in that might hurt us? Do we prepare for a plan B?

And maybe, just maybe, that is where the current criticism of Wagner (and Smith before him) has been poured out by many on here. Why don't we have a plan B or plan C? Just why does Wagner stick to 60 minutes for at least 2 substitutions whatever the game state? This seeming focus on our own process at all costs, despite what the opposition are doing and what our squad is potentially capable of doing, in reaction to what the opposition is doing. I'm sure there are adjustments being made by Wagner, but they seem miniscule.

Is all this part of the agreed plan?

This - coupled with what I wrote above - is exactly why Farke and Hughton did not have Plan B.

The odds are against it. 

Change feels good, but if it’s worse mathematically it is counter-productive*

Fans will pour out powerful memories and hundreds of examples where this is wrong.

But of course it isn’t. 

But then again Lambert kept throwing sixes. And gambling. And winning….so?

But then he didn’t.

And he had Holt. And Wes. Together. Weapons. Goals and assists. Perfect.

And the rest ran hard. More than good enough. 

Farke of course was massively against the odds at the top level. We were worse in every sense. He chose 4 out of 10 instead of 2 out of 10. He was right. And neither worked. So what was being judged? Farke, the club, the finances or the odds? 

Ironically at the top level you keep occasional weapons and  play against the odds to achieve the 10 wins as you won’t win 28 games anyway. 

That goes against processes and means you MUST keep Buendia and Pukki (Holt and Wes). The rest don’t have to be good. Just make them run and stay in position. You’ll mostly lose anyway. 
 

Confused? I haven’t even started yet….red pill or the blue pill? 💊 

Parma 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
* Study Nashian game theory for the still mathematically correct, though counter-intuitive opposite! When change feels wrong and is right!

[Midlands Yellow 4,672]

10 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

This - coupled with what I wrote above - is exactly why Farke and Hughton did not have Plan B.

The odds are against it. 

Change feels good, but if it’s worse mathematically it is counter-productive.

Fans will pour out powerful memories and hundreds of examples where this is wrong.

But of course it isn’t. 

But then again Lambert kept throwing sixes. And gambling. And winning….so?

But then he didn’t.

And he had Holt. And Wes. Together. Weapons. Goals and assists. Perfect.

And the rest ran hard. More than good enough. 

Farke of course was massively against the odds at the top level. We were worse in every sense. He chose 4 out of 10 instead of 2 out of 10. He was right. And neither worked. So what was being judged? Farke, the club, the finances or the odds? 

Ironically at the top level you keep occasional weapons and  play against the odds to achieve the 10 wins as you won’t win 28 games anyway. 

That goes against processes and means you MUST keep Buendia and Pukki (Holt and Wes). The rest don’t have to be good. Just make them run and stay in position. You’ll mostly lose anyway. 
 

Confused? I haven’t even started yet….red pill or the blue pill? 💊 

Parma 

Blue pill if you’re on a promise. 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,437]

On 20/12/2023 at 10:06, PurpleCanary said:

I would be interested - seriously - to know what posters make of what seems, just from watching on Canaries TV, to be Nunez's new and more defensive position. From an amateur point of view it looks the opposite of the role I suspect he was bought to play, but so far appears to suit him. But I may well be missing some personal failings and structural drawbacks. If Parma could keep his explanation down below three thousand words and without analogies involving Italian sports cars that would be appreciated.🤩

@PurpleCanary

@king canary
 

Honestly it’s a bit surprising isn’t it? At the moment I honestly don’t know what to make of it. 

There are a number of thoughts that come to mind (and in no particular order of importance or possible relevance): 

1. Knapper said at the AGM we had to get our assets on the pitch and playing 

2. Knapper said at the AGM we had to bring down the average age of the team squad

3. Knapper said at the AGM we needed to play players who would-could appreciate in value

4. Wagner is literally a school teacher. He likes to teach new things and skills to people. Put them in different, unfamiliar roles. There is good and bad in this. 

5. Wagner will understand weapons. Nunez’s throw, set pieces, quarterback passes are all nice micro-weapons. So another bit of shoe-horning required.

6. The value of the assets of Sara and Nunez will likely be derived from a higher Prem level. Analysts have already seen their flaws. They are defensive positioning and spacing. Into the lion’s den then! Sink or swim! Learn! (Quietly: ‘make us some money that we need to change things around’)

7. Number 6 has been made possible because of our relatively poor form, (previously) weak momentum, hollowed out squad and lowered expectations. It is easier to try things when you are gambling against the odds anyway. It might work. You might appreciate an asset. Even Jonny Rowe had little exposure before now. 

8. Look at our current squad. Who did we pay money for? Which of our assets ‘owe us’? What do we have to try to make work or write off? 

As we noted above, you probably wouldn’t do any of it if you were better….

Parma 

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[shefcanary 2,901]

2 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

It is easier to try things when you are gambling against the odds. It might work.

A touch of the Lambert's then - just how lucky is Wagner cf Lambert?

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,437]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

A touch of the Lambert's then - just how lucky is Wagner cf Lambert?

How lucky was Lambert at Villa and Ipswich?

Parma 

 

[shefcanary 2,901]

2 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

How lucky was Lambert at Villa and Ipswich?

Parma 

 

Or Wagner is "due some luck" after his experiences at "uddersfield", Schalke and Young Boys?

[Number9 272]

17 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Or Wagner is "due some luck" after his experiences at "uddersfield", Schalke and Young Boys?

Look at the state of our team, look at how he asks them to play, he doesn't need luck he needs the boot.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,437]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

Or Wagner is "due some luck" after his experiences at "uddersfield", Schalke and Young Boys?

My sister used to work for a major global recruitment company in London. 

People would swap companies every five minutes and take their client roster with them. 

Might there have been some logic to the Ferris wheel of appointments for the likes of Harry Redkapp back in the day?

Might the modern equivalent be a Sporting Director with a good contact book? You only need a Pukki and a Buendia and your career is made. You can fail at a couple of name jobs afterwards and be set for life…

…what about a self-sustaining club with limited resources? How about an exec linked to the Arsenal Academy with an analytical knowledge of up-and-coming (who said cheap?!) Arsenal and London U21s?

Plus ça change…

Parma

Edited December 21, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
Disclaimer: I fully accept that’s a cheap shot Ben…..and yet……🤷‍♂️

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,437]

2 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

My sister used to work for a major global recruitment company in London. 

People would swap companies every five minutes and take their client roster with them. 

Might there have been some logic to the Ferris wheel of appointments for the likes of Harry Redkapp back in the day?

Might the modern equivalent be a Sporting Director with a good contact book? You only need a Pukki and a Buendia and your career is made. You can fail at a couple of name jobs afterwards and be set for life…

…what about a self-sustaining club with limited resources? How about an exec linked to the Arsenal Academy with an analytical knowledge of up-and-coming (who said cheap?!) Arsenal and London U21s?

Plus ça change…

Parma

Come to think of it @shefcanary…you can even fail at the same job afterwards….🤣

Parma

Edited December 21, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[shefcanary 2,901]

1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Come to think of it @shefcanary…you can even fail at the same job afterwards….🤣

Parma

I have been asked - the fear of failure in front of people I know is the only thing that stopped me.

[Don J Demorr 165]

Warning! - Incoming Management Consultancy Bafflegab....

First, my usual disclaimers: -

1.     I know little or nothing about football

2.     I am not and never have been a supporter of NCFC.

3.     I very rarely visit Norwich (except for N&N U H, like everybody else).

If that doesn’t get me banned already maybe I can hastily add that I would hate to see your football club fail and I will help if I can.

As Parma has observed, things have moved on with the NCFC Governance issue, which I don’t mean to take up again except to note that there are things that in my view that remain sub-optimal, both in the matter of Boardroom decision making and maybe also in the setting and measuring of corporate goals.

One worrisome thing I have not really thought about before was prompted by Parma writing that football is an emotional affair. Of course it is and on the pitch and in the stands emotion and drama are obviously very evident and arguably useful. However, I have seen more than one Boardroom where the result of an emotionally biased decision has been catastrophic. To be kind, it seems quite possible that prior to the arrival of MA the unusual social dynamics of the NCFC Boadroom were liable to influence some decisions, possibly even key ones. If so, this needed to be eliminated and with the arrival of both MA and BK this is likely to have happened. Serious decisions need clear and dispassionate heads using reality-based information. Onwards and upwards!

Next, I want to look back at the confusion in the various stated purposes of the organisation as revealed by Sheff. After some thought, I would submit now that none of these is a purpose, each one is a desired outcome. This is fine, but It is up to the Board to decide what this is to be and to put in place the means by which it is to be achieved.

As a young Engineer I was always advised that when in a complex and confusing situation one should always look to add more simplicity. When faced with a seemingly baffling question one of the ways to do this is to stop looking for the elusive answer and start looking at the question itself. Often that is where the Gordian Knot is to be found. Maybe we can do that. Is not he existential question facing the organisation “How do we achieve our desired outcome?”

Here are some simplifying thoughts: -

• ·      If the desired outcome is to avoid relegation there is only one determinant. The acquisition of sufficient points.
•        If the desired outcome is to be safe in the present league there is only one determinant. The acquisition of sufficient points.
•       If the desired outcome is to be in the playoff group there is only one determinant. The acquisition of sufficient points.
•       If the desired outcome is to become an established member of EPL there is only one determinant. The acquisition of sufficient points.

If this bit of analytical simplicity is valid then it seems very clear that the acquisition of sufficient points is the permanent vital existential question for the Board and for every agenda item in every Board meeting the (unfortunately non-existent) Chairman should ask “How does this decision influence our ability to empower our people to accrue the points total we must attain?”

It goes without saying that the best way to secure points should at all times be at the forefront of the thinking of the D of F and the HC (and it probably is already, one would hope). The most effective way for a football club to maximise its points is another controversial issue of corporate ethical behaviour, of course. See this Forum for details.

In the above ramblings I have deliberately used the vague “Sufficient” in referring to the points needed. This will not do for a real-time manager. In the jargon “You get what you measure”.  How to do this? You need to know: -

1.     Where you hoped to finish up at the end of the season (aka desired outcome)

2.     What does that mean historically in terms of points?

3.     Where you hoped you would be now

4.     Where you are now

Of these, the desired outcome is an essential Board level decision. At the very simplest level the rest is down to the D of F and the HC to plot a straight line(?) graph, monitor the points accrual, compare it with the needful and take whatever actions are required. It is also possible, though more troublesome and maybe not necessary, to do a more complex analysis involving an educated judgement of best and worst likely outcome of each upcoming group of matches and to plot an envelope of expected likely outcomes with which to compare your actuals (an arithmetic development of Parma’s percentages). More on this and the use of RMS calculation to predict the values of the most likely outcomes within the best-estimated envelope if anybody is interested. This is straight out of the playbook of predicting the most likely outcome of the Critical Path Programme of a major project. OTT for this situation? Probably.

Since finding this Forum two years ago I have much enjoyed reading about matters of your consuming interest, especially in this always thought-provoking thread. Some fascinating and perceptive contributions from so many of you.  My thanks go especially to Il Professore di Parma himself. I intend to print all his essays and store them in my bookcase between “Finnegans Wake” and the Book of Revelation in the hope that one day I might pretend to understand at least a part of one of the three!

Meanwhile the Seasons Greetings and good wishes to you all – I wish I could tag and thank everybody personally but I don’t know how to do those blue @ rectangle identification things. You know who you are anyway, but if I find out how to use them I’ll do an edit.

Yours ever,

Microdon... (The very smallest ever Horrible Lizard, now almost completely fossilised)

[ged in the onion bag 955]

1 hour ago, Don J Demorr said:

Warning! - Incoming Management Consultancy Bafflegab....

First, my usual disclaimers: -

1.     I know little or nothing about football

2.     I am not and never have been a supporter of NCFC.

3.     I very rarely visit Norwich (except for N&N U H, like everybody else).

If that doesn’t get me banned already maybe I can hastily add that I would hate to see your football club fail and I will help if I can.

As Parma has observed, things have moved on with the NCFC Governance issue, which I don’t mean to take up again except to note that there are things that in my view that remain sub-optimal, both in the matter of Boardroom decision making and maybe also in the setting and measuring of corporate goals.

One worrisome thing I have not really thought about before was prompted by Parma writing that football is an emotional affair. Of course it is and on the pitch and in the stands emotion and drama are obviously very evident and arguably useful. However, I have seen more than one Boardroom where the result of an emotionally biased decision has been catastrophic. To be kind, it seems quite possible that prior to the arrival of MA the unusual social dynamics of the NCFC Boadroom were liable to influence some decisions, possibly even key ones. If so, this needed to be eliminated and with the arrival of both MA and BK this is likely to have happened. Serious decisions need clear and dispassionate heads using reality-based information. Onwards and upwards!

Next, I want to look back at the confusion in the various stated purposes of the organisation as revealed by Sheff. After some thought, I would submit now that none of these is a purpose, each one is a desired outcome. This is fine, but It is up to the Board to decide what this is to be and to put in place the means by which it is to be achieved.

As a young Engineer I was always advised that when in a complex and confusing situation one should always look to add more simplicity. When faced with a seemingly baffling question one of the ways to do this is to stop looking for the elusive answer and start looking at the question itself. Often that is where the Gordian Knot is to be found. Maybe we can do that. Is not he existential question facing the organisation “How do we achieve our desired outcome?”

Here are some simplifying thoughts: -

• ·      If the desired outcome is to avoid relegation there is only one determinant. The acquisition of sufficient points.
•        If the desired outcome is to be safe in the present league there is only one determinant. The acquisition of sufficient points.
•       If the desired outcome is to be in the playoff group there is only one determinant. The acquisition of sufficient points.
•       If the desired outcome is to become an established member of EPL there is only one determinant. The acquisition of sufficient points.

If this bit of analytical simplicity is valid then it seems very clear that the acquisition of sufficient points is the permanent vital existential question for the Board and for every agenda item in every Board meeting the (unfortunately non-existent) Chairman should ask “How does this decision influence our ability to empower our people to accrue the points total we must attain?”

It goes without saying that the best way to secure points should at all times be at the forefront of the thinking of the D of F and the HC (and it probably is already, one would hope). The most effective way for a football club to maximise its points is another controversial issue of corporate ethical behaviour, of course. See this Forum for details.

In the above ramblings I have deliberately used the vague “Sufficient” in referring to the points needed. This will not do for a real-time manager. In the jargon “You get what you measure”.  How to do this? You need to know: -

1.     Where you hoped to finish up at the end of the season (aka desired outcome)

2.     What does that mean historically in terms of points?

3.     Where you hoped you would be now

4.     Where you are now

Of these, the desired outcome is an essential Board level decision. At the very simplest level the rest is down to the D of F and the HC to plot a straight line(?) graph, monitor the points accrual, compare it with the needful and take whatever actions are required. It is also possible, though more troublesome and maybe not necessary, to do a more complex analysis involving an educated judgement of best and worst likely outcome of each upcoming group of matches and to plot an envelope of expected likely outcomes with which to compare your actuals (an arithmetic development of Parma’s percentages). More on this and the use of RMS calculation to predict the values of the most likely outcomes within the best-estimated envelope if anybody is interested. This is straight out of the playbook of predicting the most likely outcome of the Critical Path Programme of a major project. OTT for this situation? Probably.

Since finding this Forum two years ago I have much enjoyed reading about matters of your consuming interest, especially in this always thought-provoking thread. Some fascinating and perceptive contributions from so many of you.  My thanks go especially to Il Professore di Parma himself. I intend to print all his essays and store them in my bookcase between “Finnegans Wake” and the Book of Revelation in the hope that one day I might pretend to understand at least a part of one of the three!

Meanwhile the Seasons Greetings and good wishes to you all – I wish I could tag and thank everybody personally but I don’t know how to do those blue @ rectangle identification things. You know who you are anyway, but if I find out how to use them I’ll do an edit.

Yours ever,

Microdon... (The very smallest ever Horrible Lizard, now almost completely fossilised)

Merry Christmas to you too Don....   

Such an intriguing piece and so well articulated it was worth the read in any event.   What's it all mean though?   Football is, of course, much more complicated, its not the simple game my old man said it could be.      

This is the proverbial conundrum of all clubs.   We all want points, only three can gain enough for promotion, 3 for relegation.... how do NCFC achieve the former?     Your right, it does rely on decisions in the boardroom, who carries out recruitment, how much to spend, how do we develop, how can we compete, improve, develop a team..  etc.... and over what kind of period... Farke, for example, was given the time and patience to develop and acquiring points wasn't all so important during those seasons.  He probably achieved the aims too quickly, another year and we may well be a different club right now (and Leeds might not be thumping Ipswich right now!).    

As far as I can see, we've asked (probably expected) the managers since to acquire sufficient points at all costs; unrealistic expectation trumping squad capability.   

I agree and have said on many occasions on here, this board has 'lost its way' but right now it needs 'a man with a plan' in charge of the team, then patience and time from the club and the fans.    

Happy Christmas all.

 

 

[Unthink road 152]

6 hours ago, Don J Demorr said:

Warning! - Incoming Management Consultancy Bafflegab....

First, my usual disclaimers: -

1.     I know little or nothing about football

2.     I am not and never have been a supporter of NCFC.

3.     I very rarely visit Norwich (except for N&N U H, like everybody else).

If that doesn’t get me banned already maybe I can hastily add that I would hate to see your football club fail and I will help if I can.

As Parma has observed, things have moved on with the NCFC Governance issue, which I don’t mean to take up again except to note that there are things that in my view that remain sub-optimal, both in the matter of Boardroom decision making and maybe also in the setting and measuring of corporate goals.

One worrisome thing I have not really thought about before was prompted by Parma writing that football is an emotional affair. Of course it is and on the pitch and in the stands emotion and drama are obviously very evident and arguably useful. However, I have seen more than one Boardroom where the result of an emotionally biased decision has been catastrophic. To be kind, it seems quite possible that prior to the arrival of MA the unusual social dynamics of the NCFC Boadroom were liable to influence some decisions, possibly even key ones. If so, this needed to be eliminated and with the arrival of both MA and BK this is likely to have happened. Serious decisions need clear and dispassionate heads using reality-based information. Onwards and upwards!

Next, I want to look back at the confusion in the various stated purposes of the organisation as revealed by Sheff. After some thought, I would submit now that none of these is a purpose, each one is a desired outcome. This is fine, but It is up to the Board to decide what this is to be and to put in place the means by which it is to be achieved.

As a young Engineer I was always advised that when in a complex and confusing situation one should always look to add more simplicity. When faced with a seemingly baffling question one of the ways to do this is to stop looking for the elusive answer and start looking at the question itself. Often that is where the Gordian Knot is to be found. Maybe we can do that. Is not he existential question facing the organisation “How do we achieve our desired outcome?”

Here are some simplifying thoughts: -

• ·      If the desired outcome is to avoid relegation there is only one determinant. The acquisition of sufficient points.
•        If the desired outcome is to be safe in the present league there is only one determinant. The acquisition of sufficient points.
•       If the desired outcome is to be in the playoff group there is only one determinant. The acquisition of sufficient points.
•       If the desired outcome is to become an established member of EPL there is only one determinant. The acquisition of sufficient points.

If this bit of analytical simplicity is valid then it seems very clear that the acquisition of sufficient points is the permanent vital existential question for the Board and for every agenda item in every Board meeting the (unfortunately non-existent) Chairman should ask “How does this decision influence our ability to empower our people to accrue the points total we must attain?”

It goes without saying that the best way to secure points should at all times be at the forefront of the thinking of the D of F and the HC (and it probably is already, one would hope). The most effective way for a football club to maximise its points is another controversial issue of corporate ethical behaviour, of course. See this Forum for details.

In the above ramblings I have deliberately used the vague “Sufficient” in referring to the points needed. This will not do for a real-time manager. In the jargon “You get what you measure”.  How to do this? You need to know: -

1.     Where you hoped to finish up at the end of the season (aka desired outcome)

2.     What does that mean historically in terms of points?

3.     Where you hoped you would be now

4.     Where you are now

Of these, the desired outcome is an essential Board level decision. At the very simplest level the rest is down to the D of F and the HC to plot a straight line(?) graph, monitor the points accrual, compare it with the needful and take whatever actions are required. It is also possible, though more troublesome and maybe not necessary, to do a more complex analysis involving an educated judgement of best and worst likely outcome of each upcoming group of matches and to plot an envelope of expected likely outcomes with which to compare your actuals (an arithmetic development of Parma’s percentages). More on this and the use of RMS calculation to predict the values of the most likely outcomes within the best-estimated envelope if anybody is interested. This is straight out of the playbook of predicting the most likely outcome of the Critical Path Programme of a major project. OTT for this situation? Probably.

Since finding this Forum two years ago I have much enjoyed reading about matters of your consuming interest, especially in this always thought-provoking thread. Some fascinating and perceptive contributions from so many of you.  My thanks go especially to Il Professore di Parma himself. I intend to print all his essays and store them in my bookcase between “Finnegans Wake” and the Book of Revelation in the hope that one day I might pretend to understand at least a part of one of the three!

Meanwhile the Seasons Greetings and good wishes to you all – I wish I could tag and thank everybody personally but I don’t know how to do those blue @ rectangle identification things. You know who you are anyway, but if I find out how to use them I’ll do an edit.

Yours ever,

Microdon... (The very smallest ever Horrible Lizard, now almost completely fossilised)

Great points. However, how you become successful requires many unpredictable parts falling in line. Some of the points you raise about engineering are valid, but in football there are so many variables in comparison. When predicting outcomes on football, you also have to factor the opposition, poor officiating, etc. 

[Robert N. LiM 5,944]

7 hours ago, Don J Demorr said:

First, my usual disclaimers: -

1.     I know little or nothing about football

2.     I am not and never have been a supporter of NCFC.

3.     I very rarely visit Norwich (except for N&N U H, like everybody else).

Can't believe it's taken me so long to realise: you're Mark Attanasio, aren't you?!

[Don J Demorr 165]

9 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Can't believe it's taken me so long to realise: you're Mark Attanasio, aren't you?!

Hah! No, I'm not, admittedly an easy mistake to make, but I'm a few bob behind him - and if I was him I would have taken an emotionally-driven decision quite some time go.

Microdon

[Don J Demorr 165]

1 hour ago, Unthink road said:

Great points. However, how you become successful requires many unpredictable parts falling in line. Some of the points you raise about engineering are valid, but in football there are so many variables in comparison. When predicting outcomes on football, you also have to factor the opposition, poor officiating, etc. 

Thank you, Sir, for your kind and thoughtful input, which is truly appreciated. In our jargon, your "unpredictable parts" are called "Confounding Variables". They can be dependent or independant in nature and as you say they are a big problem. I can imagine that they are many in football but in a big engineering project their number and complexity can be absolutely enormous. However, whether the elephant is big or small, what I am trying to show as simply as I have to in the limited context of this Forum, is that the only way to eat it is one bite at a time and that in each case the process is the same. In the words of one of my favourite philosophers, the great Yogi Berra "Prediction is difficult, especially about the future". True, dat.

[Don J Demorr 165]

I don’t think I have properly dealt with some of the very relevant points raised by several fellow contributors, most recently Unthink Rd, Robert and Ged but many others over the last couple of years.

The background is that more than forty years ago serendipity took me from analysing how my own projects could best be successful, to becoming responsible for how various problem areas in the many subsidiaries in the huge company I worked for could be improved. For my part in the team set up to do this I spent a lot of time in the USA learning from and with a group of consultants led by the wonderful Dr W Edwards Deming. The techniques I learned to use and eventually came to teach were originally developed to deal with problems in the Aerospace, Military and major industrial organisations. They were specifically formulated to deal with complexity, uncertainty, schedule pressure and shonky management processes. At no time did we ever tell people what executive actions they must take. What we did was to show them how to use the tools we had and guide them in using these tools to solve the problems for themselves.

 The salient point here is that the techniques were developed to be most useful when things are complex and difficult.They are not needed when they are easy. If indeed football is complicated and difficult to manage and things are not working well, what to do?

There are many more tools in the box than I have mentioned so far. For instance, I have suggested that the Board needs to be clear about the desired outcome of the organisation and that the D of F and that the HC should try to predict the most likely outcome of future matches. One simple tool would help in both cases – we call it SWOT analysis. This is nothing to do with passing exams, the letters are an acronym for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. The Board should meet with the specific objective of taking a long, cold-eyed and dispassionate look at the business, taking each topic in turn. (You also need a swivel-eyed loon who knows nothing about things but could ask the unaskable – need you ask, this is how I got started!). This is not a simple matter nor is it a quick one. The discussion needs to be guided as to process, otherwise the dominant personality will take over and you will get the number you first thought of. Again. There are well-established ways of ensuring this does not happen but it can be a wrestle.

If the analysis shows that your limitations mean that you can only presently compete with Albert Arkwright it is no good dreaming of taking on Fortnum and Mason but if you still dream, your Opportunities should hint how to get there and your Strengths and Weaknesses should tell you where to act, your Threats are what you need to protect yourself against. Meanwhile, if you beat poor Albert you have won. If you overtrade you will put yourself out of business.

As to match result predictions, the best of these will come from the people who know most about your own team and your opponents. This should not be one or two people, it needs a team each with specialised knowledge. If you don't have them - get them. First apply the SWOT analysis to your own players as individuals, then to how they are organised on the field by the HC. Then of course the next step is to do the same for your opponents. (Parma’s famous Weapons will be prominent I'm sure!) You should then be in the best position to understand the range of future possibilities over the next tranche of games. Ged and Unthink – this is where your Confounding Variables are dealt with – or not, as the case may be.

SWOT Analysis is in fact hardly more than organised thinking and there is one other simple and very useful stratagem when you are faced with a swirling mass of problems. The first thing to do is to pin down the problems by making a written list. Number them. Draw yourself a big rectangle and divide it into four parts. Along the top write "Important"  for the left box and "Not Important"for the right one. Down the left side write "Urgent" for the top one and "Not Urgent" for the bottom one. Now take each problem from your list and agree whether or not it is important and whether or not it is urgent. Then write that number in the relevant box. Then the (sadly non-existent) Chairman can ask why items in the Important and Urgent box are not top of the Agenda for the next Board Meeting. Somebody might not want them there. It is easier to fart about and seem decisive with trivia. (Known as "The bicycle shed syndrome").

These are just a couple of ideas. If you don’t like them I have others….

Now, how do I do those blue rectangles for your names, please? It is a bit embarrassing when everybody but me knows how. I hate to appear discourteous.

 

Best to everybody, as ever.

Don

Edited December 24, 2023 by Don J Demorr
Tidying up.

[Unthink road 152]

Thanks Don. Articulate as usual.  I have been fortunate to play football at a decent level and as of now been a owner of a successful construction company in the North West of England. I have also been lucky in the respect that I have had the ear of very respected football people in the circles I am in. 

Any new ways at looking how football can improve, from outside should be analysed. 

 

[Morph 31]

@Don J Demorr this has been one of the best threads on the forum and I thank you for your insights.

i do have question / comments. Forgive my naivety and lack of business insight.

Question I have is whether the club can be considered a successful business without success on the pitch? Is the football success a pre-requisite for business success?

Could City be a successful business outside the top flight?

The primary source of revenue from top flight football is TV revenues, but that income only really comes from having success on the pitch, to get to the EPL and stay there.

What are the other sources of income?

• Gate receipts
• Player sales
• Other club revenues 

Are there other income streams that haven’t been identified and exploited?

Expanding the ground to take in more revenue does that require the club to be in the EPL? I have no idea as to whether or how big a season ticket waiting list is. If the club is a middling Championship team could it survive on turnover of supporters?

[BigFish 2,257]

15 hours ago, Morph said:

@Don J Demorr this has been one of the best threads on the forum and I thank you for your insights.

i do have question / comments. Forgive my naivety and lack of business insight.

Question I have is whether the club can be considered a successful business without success on the pitch? Is the football success a pre-requisite for business success?

Could City be a successful business outside the top flight?

The primary source of revenue from top flight football is TV revenues, but that income only really comes from having success on the pitch, to get to the EPL and stay there.

What are the other sources of income?

• Gate receipts
• Player sales
• Other club revenues 

Are there other income streams that haven’t been identified and exploited?

Expanding the ground to take in more revenue does that require the club to be in the EPL? I have no idea as to whether or how big a season ticket waiting list is. If the club is a middling Championship team could it survive on turnover of supporters?

It is a good question, but this debate is based on Don's admitted limited understanding. It would be worth @Don J Demorr reading Nick Hornby's Fever Pitch to get an understanding of the lot of a football fan. The experience is generally of failure or at least persistent humdrum disappointment. Success is rare, fleeting and ephemeral. There are clubs in the EFL that have never won anything, and will never win anything beyond the occasional promotion to League 1 to be followed by a matching releagtion. Even "Big" clubs can survive for decades without a trophy.

Clubs are social enterprises, not businesses. They are not run for profit (with the possible exception of Man U). Generally every penny, and more, goes on the search for the transitory feeling of success. The only way to make a small fortune from club ownership is to start with a big one. Players, agents, the media all make money from the game but not clubs.

The essential duality of professional football is that they are also a sporting endeavour. The greatest indicator of success is the injection of cash. Clubs with the most money tend to sign the best players and coaches. The teams with the best players win more often than not. They can also invest more in scouting, conditioning and development. They do not need SWOT analysis, sporting data analytics has alreading gone much further than that. The analysts know where, how far and how fast the players run, the duels they win and lose as well as the profiles of the players they beat/lose to, their strenghths, weaknesses. Artificial Intelligence will soon be able to map out "what-if" analysis of entire games, possibly entire seasons. Money is king, this is expensive stuff and the arms race will be led by the clubs with deepest pockets.

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by BigFish

[Don J Demorr 165]

Thank you Big Fish for such a  classy reply. I am always happy to learn. I would be fascinated to know whether and how the advent of Messrs Attenasio and Knapper will change the analytical capabilities at Carrow Road and how they will be used. SWOT analysis is at least forty years old, so I'm not surprised it is superseded to some degree but the underlying logic and structure is sound. I would hope and expect that the vastly improved data you describe is used with the same or very similar logic for your own club.  The problem I have is that I doubt if such info is shared with opposing clubs so how can a useful balaced comparison be made even with AI? My guess would be that Humint still matters.

It would also be informative if the fans knew that some of the team selection and substitutions about which so much controversy exists in these pages were driven by the analysis of data in the manner you so eloquently describe. Is that maybe why recent results are an improvement?

Looking at the apparent confusion as to the desired outcome of the club at Board level, I do wonder whether the same sohisticated level of analysis is applied at that level as that you describe for the players. One would hope so.

My best to you, sir.

Don

Edited December 26, 2023 by Don J Demorr

[Morph 31]

@BigFish you highlight a very important point about football supporters in that they defy any logic or reason around brand loyalty. The only phrase I can think of to sum it up is “If you cut us do we not bleed yellow and green”

Does it ever mean that they desert the terraces when things are bad? Those years tumbling into League One did the fan numbers decrease?

[BigFish 2,257]

3 hours ago, Don J Demorr said:

Thank you Big Fish for such a  classy reply. I am always happy to learn. I would be fascinated to know whether and how the advent of Messrs Attenasio and Knapper will change the analytical capabilities at Carrow Road and how they will be used. SWOT analysis is at least forty years old, so I'm not surprised it is superseded to some degree but the underlying logic and structure is sound. I would hope and expect that the vastly improved data you describe is used with the same or very similar logic for your own club.  The problem I have is that I doubt if such info is shared with opposing clubs so how can a useful balaced comparison be made even with AI? My guess would be that Humint still matters.

It would also be informative if the fans knew that some of the team selection and substitutions about which so much controversy exists in these pages were driven by the analysis of data in the manner you so eloquently describe. Is that maybe why recent results are an improvement?

Looking at the apparent confusion as to the desired outcome of the club at Board level, I do wonder whether the same sohisticated level of analysis is applied at that level as that you describe for the players. One would hope so.

My best to you, sir.

Don

Appreciate that @Don J Demorr. Your make a good point about data not being shared between clubs that I neglected, in professional football clubs with money will almost certainly attempt to gain marginal advantage through bigger and better data models. For that reason the clubs are unlikely to share the rationale for team selection and substituitions with the fans. Knowledge is power, why give that away for free. Although a good, but undergraduate analysis, can usually be found here. Still much better than the average fan.

 

As for your lask sentence I have no idea whether the non-football side of the dualist pair is operating at the same level of sophistication although evidence would seem to suggest no, or at least not yet. Webber provided a step change improvement but eventually came unstuck when asked to stick or twist and Smith & Jones lacked the financial firepower to fund it. MA was the answer to the latter, it will be interesting to see if Knapper brings from Arsenal the answers to the former. And that I would give you would be an interesting SWOT exercise.

[BigFish 2,257]

35 minutes ago, Morph said:

@BigFish you highlight a very important point about football supporters in that they defy any logic or reason around brand loyalty. The only phrase I can think of to sum it up is “If you cut us do we not bleed yellow and green”

Does it ever mean that they desert the terraces when things are bad? Those years tumbling into League One did the fan numbers decrease?

Football has changed @Morph, gates held up very well in those dark days by historical standards. All seater stadiums and the rise in season ticket holders mean that in absolute terms fans go more often but there are possibly fewer of them.

[essex canary 601]

9 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Football has changed @Morph, gates held up very well in those dark days by historical standards. All seater stadiums and the rise in season ticket holders mean that in absolute terms fans go more often but there are possibly fewer of them.

Really? 

Is that Hull's experience in their declared attendance increasing by over 8,000 in the last 18 months?

What is most probably happening at Carrow Road is people buying Season Tickets then sharing out the matches to avoid paying high casual prices or when this fails simply leaving the seats empty.

[Robert N. LiM 5,944]

On 24/12/2023 at 19:15, Don J Demorr said:

Now, how do I do those blue rectangles for your names, please? It is a bit embarrassing when everybody but me knows how. I hate to appear discourteous.

If you type the '@' key, then begin typing the poster's name, you should get a list of options - select the one you want, hit return and you should get their name in a rectangle, @Don J Demorr

[Don J Demorr 165]

Many thanks @Robert N. LiM

Always ready to learn!!!

Don

[Robert N. LiM 5,944]

1 hour ago, Don J Demorr said:

Many thanks @Robert N. LiM

Always ready to learn!!!

Don

It works!

[PurpleCanary 6,276]

4 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

If you type the '@' key, then begin typing the poster's name, you should get a list of options - select the one you want, hit return and you should get their name in a rectangle, @Don J Demorr

 

4 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

If you type the '@' key, then begin typing the poster's name, you should get a list of options - select the one you want, hit return and you should get their name in a

 

@Don J Demorr

@Robert N. LiM
 

WOW. So that is how it works…thanks. Not any there are any posters here I would remotely want to quote…or at least not in a positive way…😜🤐

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,437]

On 20/12/2023 at 15:51, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

‘Some people are right and everyone else isn’t’….….is one of my wise Father’s sayings.

As with many things in life - and tessellating neatly with the analysis of coaching plusvalenza  - it is not what it appears to be on paper. It is understood as one thing, though means something else. 

‘Coaching is a series of imperfect trade-offs. What you gain with one move, you lose somewhere else’ is an increasingly understood concept and some of you are starting to point out and understand that no decision exists in isolation. 

I am conscious that I am going to descend into Alice’s rabbit hole here, so definitely stop reading now if you don’t want a bit of the coaching mad hatter…

Fans focus very strongly on results. Coaches focus very strongly on processes. Fans win a game and go home happy. Coaches can win a game and go home unhappy. Fans lose a game and go home unhappy. Coaches can lose a game and go home happy.

It is not just an ego-driven desire to see your coaching ‘fingerprints’ all over the pitch, in the patterns of play, the movements, the fixed point structures, the in-game tendencies, the questions you pose to the opposition coach, the on-the-fly solutions you find to the tactical  questions you get asked. Who wins the chess match of likelihood? Who does best with the resources, advantages and limitations they have?

And this where we are going somewhere. Maybe somewhere new for some of you. Some of you won’t like it. Some of you won’t get it. Some will, but can’t handle it on a losing Saturday night. Others maybe can, or will…

It also highlights many of the - sometimes cryptic or elliptical - questions that have been posed of the board, manager, sporting director, head coach, players on this thread. The question of why Farke was sacked, why Buendia was sold, why we failed at the top level, how we set up tactically now, whether Wagner should be kept on, why he might be, why he won’t be,  why MacClean plays Centre back, why Nunez is being trained into a different role, why our strikers play in a way that makes it harder for them to score as often as one might expect…

As a coach you must make the best of what you have. You must identify what your weapons are. What does or could hurt the opposition. 

This does not necessarily mean scoring goals, or even creating chances. 

It means creating repeating patterns of play on the field that the opposition coach is forced to address and adjust his or her own preferred methodology for. 

Barnes coming down into the midfield area and linking play with his back to goal, feeding inverted wingers coming off the line repeatedly is hard to deal with. Barnes is good at it (pace Ipswich’s second goal). He’s awkward. He’s a ‘structural player’. He’s creating a particular repeatable pattern on the field that can be built around. It can be built around because as a coach we can be sure 8 or 9 times out of ten that he can and will do it.  This is also why managers often take certain players to new clubs with them. It is not that they are necessarily brilliant, but that they are structural (in some way).

We are very limited within our squad at the moment where weapons are concerned. The ones we have - like Barnes above - are worthy, though not game changing. They are small factors in our favour in a huge menu of two-directional examples - from both teams never forget!! - in every game. If we have 3 mini-weapons and the other team has 6, we are already likely to lose more than we win if we play 100 times.

This is what sporting directors should be fixated on and report upwards to Board. 

Has your head coach set up in such a way as to maximize the outcome?

Now careful here. 

This is absolutely not what fans often mistake this for: it does NOT mean ‘has he set us up in the best way to win?’

I’m going to repeat that. It does not mean setting us up in the best way to win. 

Confused? You shouldn’t be.

Why did Lambert do so incredibly well at Norwich and then never come close to repeating it anywhere else?

Why do bookmakers fear me creating an algorithm for PUPs picks that returns a small  amount year-after-year and not someone who makes a huge return one season? (nota bene: it is a long way from merely choosing the shortest odds). 

Why did I get thrown out of an American casino playing multiple tables of a kind of 3 card brag for relatively low stakes, repeatedly turning minimum stakes into $500 returns? (I’m not a gambler by the way, it was for demonstration purposes to clients) 

Why did sacking Farke because he failed to get results in the 2021 Premier League prove almost absolutely nothing about his suitability for the Norwich job?

Think of results as a spectrum. Think of a binary  graph with 0 at one end and 100 at the other. Easy. I want to win! I’ll choose 100! 

Ok, but 51 is still a win isn’t it? And 49 is a loss! There is 2% difference between those and yet one makes everything perfect and the other is a disaster.

Now what if your tactical on field plusvalenza - your lack of weapons and rather hollowed out, much-of-a-muchness squad - can only be configured to achieve 40%?  
 

You are going to lose 60% of the time. Though you have actually optimized everything that you have. 

4 out of 10 is pretty poor the fans bay!…we are losing! ….….yes but 4 out of 10 is markedly better than 2 out of 10…that was the choice in front of you. Perfection was not on offer. 
 

Now we are getting somewhere.

This is what coaches are constantly evaluating, monitoring and judging each other on. What did you do with what you had? What cute ideas did you come up with to hide your deficiencies and maximize your odds?

Winning one year - as Lambert did for a while - because you go on a Glasgow gambler’s hot streak, is loved, enjoyed and patted-on-the- back, but it is not respected in the way that constantly beating the bookmakers odds through calculation, analysis, marshalling, planning and algorithmic deviousness is viewed as professional alchemist’s gold and hugely admired and respected. 

Though of course it can also lead to a rather mad scientist’s tinkering and a fool’s gold cauldron of coaching trying-too-hard. Is this Wagner? 

Football is a maddeningly incoherent, fluid game of small margins. ‘Both boxes’ the old boys say. 

Control the middle bit, have brilliant processes, beautifully-constructed patterns……then Michael Owen - who has done nothing much all game and not troubled anyone - just gambles that a defender might lose concentration and misjudge a fairly nothing ball (and he does it 109 times, for the 1 time it actually happens), and he does. And he scores. And you lose. 

So. Weapons. 

Things you can’t ignore. Someone who just loves scoring and is prepared to waste 98% of their effort for one moment. 

Someone who can score direct from free kicks. Win penalties. Confidently score penalties . Win free kicks. Take good corners. Long awkward throws (Nunez?). 

Wagner had no real weapons so he had to make patterns that were mini strategic pattern-of-play weapons. Barnes and Sargent coming into midfield as a double-false-9-box-lay-off team that couldn’t be ignored, but had to involve complicated handing on of players into certain unusual areas. I deliberately left that unpunctuated as it is breathless, though not in itself very damaging to the opposition yet. 

You need to get Sara into places he can shoot from. Nunez into places he can shoot from. Use their set pieces, free kicks, long throws. Though they don’t know how to defend. Where to position themselves defensively in a fluid game. 

The opposition has excellent teams of analaysts too of course. They spent all week finding out our plans and countering them. Setting up problems for us too. Counter-punching. 

So now think differently. Completely differently. 

Think how you’d set up against Norwich.

Think what you’d do to undermine Sara, to exploit Nunez, to calculate that Norwich might play 2 strikers plus a midfield with Rowe, Sainz, Sara and Nunez in???? 

Spend an hour calculating how you’d cut holes in the way we operate, then come back to me and tell me how good we are again…

..then tell me how important it is to get Sara, Nunez, Rowe, Sainz on the pitch together …all focused on scoring more goals!!…..or?…….

Almost nobody plays with 2 strikers anymore. It exposes the midfield too much. You might do it with 352 of course, though most Italian sides would think of 4411 with a Holt and a Wes and then a pretty prosaic 8 block behind. 

So next time you draw a team on paper, draw another team to play against it and beat it. 

Then go back and re-draw your first team.

Parma

Yesterday’s game provides us with an excellent opportunity to descend deeper into the rabbit hole for those willing to go a little further…

Look at the bit in bold and italics highlighted above. 

This equation is also applied by coaches to each and every player under their tutelage. 

To start at the end: here is the answer to ‘why does he play MacClean every week?’ and quite possibly also ‘Why has it taken so long for Sainz to get a start?’

Aah Sainz. Let’s choose him. He didn’t have his best moment yesterday. He might well be prone to such petulance. We must account for that in our calculations of course. We are not just playing the white pieces, we must play the black also. 

So here’s another mad hatter’s bit of logic for you:

A player can simultaneously increase your chances of winning and your chances of losing. 

Now we are really getting somewhere.

Think again about the plusvalenza net equation. Start with what you gain, subtract what you risk or stand to lose, this net number is your plusvalenza analysis of your player (or team, or squad, or match chances). There is art and science here (hence manager’s ‘favourites’…which can of course become a self-fulfilling prophecy..)

Now let’s go back to our boy Borja. He can do brilliant attacking things. Dribble dynamically, take players on, shoot from distance, cut inside repeatedly and pick a spot…

.….he can also lose it in bad areas, try too much at the wrong time, fail to identify important defensive transitional moments, dangle a leg rather than commit to a good technical block tackle, be too often positionally out of defensive shape, get a cheap yellow….(ahem)…

Can you see how he could simultaneously increase your team chances of winning by 20% whilst concurrently increasing your team chances of losing by 30%? 

Now fans either don’t see this or don’t want to see it. They only care about what he can do. How he could help us score. How he could help us win. 

This isn’t good enough. Sorry. It is just not the whole picture. 

Fans are like poor chess players. They are brilliant with their own pieces, though they do not pay the same effort or attention to the coming moves of the opposition.

Managers and coaches are also somewhat guilty for creating and fomenting this. They say things like  ‘we just play our own game’ or ‘we are just thinking about ourselves’.

This is a lie. Some of you won’t like that or will not not want to accept it. Sorry again. There are lots of lies in football. 

It isn’t quite a lie of course. It is a message for the players. A statement of qualified truth. 

The players do need to just think about their own games. The instructions that I have given them.

However the lie is that this single instruction that I want them to carry out - and focus on to the exclusion of all else - is actually a small part of a hundred cogs that have already been calculated to include all opposition moves and percentages and tactics and weapons and patterns of play.

The skill of the manager is to distill it down into single or simple instructions that comfortably fill the mind of the individual player to the exclusion of all else, despite the fact that it is derived from complex calculations that are anything but simple and fit into the far greater whole. 

MacClean plays every week - for the last four managers with varying approaches, beliefs and styles -  because he has one of the best overall plusvalenza equations. 

He can do everything quite well. He has a will to win. Leadership qualities. He offers some attacking impetus via vertical passing, drive, heading ability, desire to get involved, whilst also being diligent defensively, having a sense of danger, being physical, a hard runner, someone not injured much, spiky but controlled, a good influence on his teammates, likeable….

Don’t forget you must make a team. A unified cohesive unit. Off the field counts too. Social interactions. Psychology figures large. 

You don’t lose anything by playing MacClean. He is not Buendia. But he doesn’t really cost you anything either. Every week. And he does have some good qualities. This adds to the pot. For free (in plusvalenza terms). 

Fans want to win. Today. Here and now. This minute. What increases our chances of scoring a goal right now!…is their internal monologue. It’s not enough. By a long way. 

And coaches don’t think like that. And can’t. Mustn’t…..

(Is this making sense….?… Can we go further…?)

…except if you have weapons of course…or if you are not trying to be better…or if you are expecting to lose a lot of games anyway…or if the odds are against you anyway….…(what?)…you can manipulate the odds (how?) and play players that do not help the whole but amortize the worst deficiencies of your weapon…specific ‘qualities’ that are designed exclusively in conjunction with something (someone) else. And possibly quite poor by themselves. Not even useful otherwise even…

…deeper?

 

Parma 

Edited December 27, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy