Parma’s State of the Nation

[BigFish 2,257]

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

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 chances of winning by 10% whilst concurrently increasing your 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 for 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 like. 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?)

…deeper?

 

Parma 

I am shocked, shocked I tell you, at the idea that people in football might lie to us fans.

Add the argument McLean is worth his place and the defence of football coaches and this post is beyound the pale 😀

[Unthink road 152]

Very true Parma. But with percentages in football, even a fine tweak ie a certain player can change the the whole picture. Cantona a perfect example. As you rightly say, weapons. But one weapon can create more weapons. For me this is where as a club in our position, finding that master key to unlock is critical. Webber did find that in Buendia. Without him Pukki is just a decent player, with him Pukki looked a different level. 

This is why the big clubs have huge amounts of players on their books. Bigger net, bigger chance of better catch. We cannot afford or are not prepared to take a chance, on this formula. 

It takes, either a very high standard of recruitment or financial outlay.

[Don J Demorr 165]

47 minutes ago, BigFish said:

I am shocked, shocked I tell you, at the idea that people in football might lie to us fans.

Add the argument McLean is worth his place and the defence of football coaches and this post is beyound the pale 😀

I would bet the farm that they are being misleading, either because they not realise that what they are saying is garbage or because they are actually trying to mislead.  Maybe our library of reference books should be added to. To @Parma Ham's gone mouldy's Macchiavelli and @BigFish es Nick Hornby, should we now add my  ownfavourite, Sun Tzu? He is alway trying to identify plusvalenzia one way or another. 

I think that @Parma Ham's gone mouldyhas made a characteristcally elegant and perceptive job of SWOT analysis on several players, too and how they might be fitted to optimise team performance.

Good 'ere, innit?

Don

[dylanisabaddog 5,990]

On 21/12/2023 at 12:49, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

How lucky was Lambert at Villa and Ipswich?

Parma 

 

When Lambert went to Villa they had just escaped relegation with the 13th highest wage bill in Europe. His job was to get rid of overpaid underperformers but not surprisingly no one wanted them. He did claw some woney back with Benteke (our board had said no and it cost us £20m). 

Ultimately he failed but it was an impossible job. His real failure was being stupid enough to take it but when your own Chairman has refused to speak to you for a year.... 

[BigFish 2,257]

7 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

When Lambert went to Villa they had just escaped relegation with the 13th highest wage bill in Europe. His job was to get rid of overpaid underperformers but not surprisingly no one wanted them. He did claw some woney back with Benteke (our board had said no and it cost us £20m). 

Ultimately he failed but it was an impossible job. His real failure was being stupid enough to take it but when your own Chairman has refused to speak to you for a year.... 

With Lambert & NCFC, it was it was serendipity. Much of the success was down to players that were already here, bought by unlamented managers or coming through the ranks. Add the momentum that could be built from League One (see Ipswich also) and a bit of motivation/organisation and the recipe was there. He then went on to fail at enough clubs to evidence that it was City that was the outlier rather than Villa. Leaving wasn't a stupid decision, he would have been found out soon enough. It was just one more throw of the dice. It could have worked, but it didn't.

[Don J Demorr 165]

“I would rather have a general who was lucky than one who was good.”

— Napoleon

Don

[ricardo 7,928]

23 minutes ago, BigFish said:

With Lambert & NCFC, it was it was serendipity. Much of the success was down to players that were already here, bought by unlamented managers or coming through the ranks. Add the momentum that could be built from League One (see Ipswich also) and a bit of motivation/organisation and the recipe was there. He then went on to fail at enough clubs to evidence that it was City that was the outlier rather than Villa. Leaving wasn't a stupid decision, he would have been found out soon enough. It was just one more throw of the dice. It could have worked, but it didn't.

We have had plenty of successful managers at Carrow Road but the nature of the beast is that it is impossible to be successful forever.

[ricardo 7,928]

2 minutes ago, Don J Demorr said:

“I would rather have a general who was lucky than one who was good.”

— Napoleon

Don

Even Napoleon's luck ran out eventually.

[Number9 272]

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

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 

 

 

I would suggest that you do lose something quite important by playing McLean, the ball! 

Giving the ball away so frequently and being out of position so much of the time is a huge problem. 

As is the psychology aspect, surely the other ten players on the pitch are pretty pissed when they're busting a gut yet he constantly has his hand in the air for yet another mistake. 

I would be, hey I am ; I'm not running several K, I'm just sat watching it.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Number9

[Don J Demorr 165]

19 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Even Napoleon's luck ran out eventually.

Thanks, @ricardo

Interesting to compare Napoleon's later campaigns with the insights of Sun Tzu in "The Art of Warfare". Might not have been luck he ran out of. ST's brilliant book might just as well be read as "The Art of Football Management". Well worth a look.

Don

Edited December 28, 2023 by Don J Demorr

[BigFish 2,257]

27 minutes ago, ricardo said:

We have had plenty of successful managers at Carrow Road but the nature of the beast is that it is impossible to be successful forever.

Yes @ricardo, that is the truth that underpins this thread. 🙂

[Robert N. LiM 5,944]

On 27/12/2023 at 16:56, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Look at the bit in bold and italics highlighted above. 

Great post as always. But just wanted to salute how you quoted the whole of your previous, really long post and then replied with an even longer one. The Pink'Un's servers must be overheating. No wonder they're charging for the app.

[Morph 31]

4 hours ago, BigFish said:

Yes @ricardo, that is the truth that underpins this thread. 🙂

@BigFish your comment sadly suggests that the selection of a suitable manager is somewhat of a lottery too, with football history littered with stories of managers successful at one club who fail time and again to reproduce said success.

sounds like Wagners replacement, if it happens, is someone with a good background that has lived in the shadow of someone known for success.

[Monty13 2,710]

5 hours ago, ricardo said:

We have had plenty of successful managers at Carrow Road but the nature of the beast is that it is impossible to be successful forever.

This is of course true, every organisation has peaks and troughs, it’s just how big they are that’s of note.

@Don J DemorrI do wonder though as you approach it from the corporate perspective, where else you would see essentially dozens of very similar sized businesses competing for the same success or failure?

Inevitably some are going to have time periods where they get a lot of things right and that rises them to the top of the pack, but when everything isn’t firing it’s unsurprising they fade into the pack given the number of competitors.

Corporate governance may increase the chance that peaks are higher/sustained for longer and the troughs aren’t so low, but Ricardo is right, if lucks a factor it invariably runs out at some point.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,437]

13 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Great post as always. But just wanted to salute how you quoted the whole of your previous, really long post and then replied with an even longer one. The Pink'Un's servers must be overheating. No wonder they're charging for the app.

I just really liked that one and wanted to read it again 🤣…sometimes I don’t know the answer to my own questions…..

Parma

Edited December 29, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
🤣🤣

[Don J Demorr 165]

14 hours ago, Monty13 said:

This is of course true, every organisation has peaks and troughs, it’s just how big they are that’s of note.

@Don J DemorrI do wonder though as you approach it from the corporate perspective, where else you would see essentially dozens of very similar sized businesses competing for the same success or failure?

Inevitably some are going to have time periods where they get a lot of things right and that rises them to the top of the pack, but when everything isn’t firing it’s unsurprising they fade into the pack given the number of competitors.

Corporate governance may increase the chance that peaks are higher/sustained for longer and the troughs aren’t so low, but Ricardo is right, if lucks a factor it invariably runs out at some point.

 

Thanks, @Monty13,

 

First, the only constant thing in human endeavours is change, from the rise and fall of a local shop to those of great empires. Within that concept, even from my own lifetime I can make a long list of seemingly impregnable giants of industry and commerce that have risen and fallen, from ICI downwards – and in many cases have vanished from sight altogether. To answer Monty’s question, yes I can try.

How strange therefore that I can’t make a similar list of significant Professional Football Clubs that have closed their doors and gone out of business. Why should that be? Because Football is Different, that’s why. Before the splendid @BigFish and others of the XXL Massive burst into derisive laughter at my perceived Damascene conversion – there isn’t one. My views on the need for a sound Corporate Governance structure and on the essentially victim status of the Manager are still sound (IMHO). This has been almost my entire and meagre contribution to this Forum up to now, because I have not thought about Football as a corporate venture. Here is a first pass at it.

At least in the context of Western Capitalism, a business venture seeks, in competition with other similar organisations, to provide goods or services of competitive quality and an attractive price to a common cloud of customers who can choose one supplier or another, maybe Waitrose one day, Albert Arkwright the next. Professional Football is different, at least it was in former times. Whether or not one is a customer is (or was) decided primarily by accident of birthplace and the captive customer is far more tolerant of variability of performance. If NCFC falls short, who is going to show up at Portman Road? What they will do is to stay away and smaller attendances mean lower income. Hence the Season Ticket. Success or failure did not result in going out of business but in the relative position on the greasy pole of League position and consequent bad humour in the snug at the Dodman’s Rest.

This is no longer true. One of the catastrophic influences on any business performance is what we call a Paradigm Shift, when previously tried and proven concepts become superseded. The notion that big conurbations supported big crowds, hence rich and successful clubs is now threatened by two simultaneous shifts, both in the source of money, - television and vast sums from foreign parts. It is now axiomatic that externally-sourced money is the principal determinant in the acquisition of points and the whole thing is a self-sustaining cycle

In this new context it is fruitless to try to compete in the old way. It seems to me that the NCFC, although moving in the right direction, is being relatively slow and indecisive in making the necessary changes. If it doesn’t it will almost certainly survive, but not prosper. Luck doesn’t come into it at this point.

Oh, and the self-financing concept cannot possibly work. It is exactly like trying to ward off incipient anaemia by bleeding the patient, who will simply die without blood transfusions. The policy will inevitably sink under the weight of its internal contradictions. Mr Attanasio knows this and has said so, if not in so many words.

My best to all,

Don

Edited December 29, 2023 by Don J Demorr

[repman 738]

Thought this thread would be the best place for this. It’s mainly my thoughts on how Knapper may be going about his business, as well as some wider thoughts on analytics in football too.

 

The weird dichotomy between sporting director & head coach. The SD (and recruitment team/analysts) will have an idea of what the best team is. The HC will also have an idea of what the best team is. These 2 ideas may not (and often don’t) line up. That’s why it’s still important to have at least some input from the HC in the recruitment process, the SE might think he’s the best player in the world but if the coach doesn’t rate him then his minutes will be limited.

 

As the SD in control of the overarching football strategy, Knapper will have to decide through a number of possible outcomes as I see it:

 

Players good, coach bad

Players bad, coach good

Players bad, coach bad

Players good, coach good

 

Of these 4, number 4 feels certainly unlikely. Had our underlying numbers been better you could make a case that it’s simply variance but we’re beyond that point imo.

 

If 3 is the true outcome then Knapper will have a lot of work to do, as it would mean that our analyst side is also failing. Even so, he could initially begin to remedy this by a change of manager. This is certainly easier for him as the new, incoming SD.

 

As it stands I think we’re now in the process of figuring out whether 1 is the current outcome. The inclusion of Nunez/Sainz points to this in my opinion. In this 2 other issues arise. They are:

 

How much should a SD influence the starting XI

How do we evaluate coaches 

 

Number 1 - of how a SD can influence lineup selection, and how far they should do so is a tricky one, as any move to do so would be seen as undermining the head coach (who generally love to have as much power as possible). Attanasio’s input may be crucial here and allow knapper the power to make changes. In baseball, the front office will have a significant impact on lineup construction, the key difference with football however is the tactical element. In baseball your best hitters have to hit (and play some defence, but there’s less importance placed on that), in football there’s a myriad of roles to perform and most of them are in service to the team as a whole. 

 

The obvious way of sorting out the lineup disparity between SD and HC is for the SD to tell them who to pick, and I suspect this is what has happened. Considering results under Wagner weren’t exactly great I imagine Knapper quietly ‘suggested’ how about he try some other players. The other way to fix the issue is by making it nigh on impossible for the HC to select anyone other than their chosen lineup. Webber was particularly good at this in regards to promoting youth players but perhaps worse with first teamers. However, when push comes to shove if a HC isn’t playing the squad the SD sees as the best, and results are poor, the only outcome is sacking the HC. Whether this is what happened with Farke I don’t know but Smith’s first game featuring Cantwell & Gilmour seemed pointed.

 

The 2nd issue of evaluating coaches is probably the hardest thing in the sport. As anyone who has seen my posts on here will know, I’m certainly an advocate for a more data/analytics heavy approach in the sport but the one area where I disagree most is this. The prevailing analytical thought surrounding coaches is that they aren’t all that impactful, and any impact they do have comes from making players better, which in turn comes back to the point of having good players. My view is that a lot of player ‘improvements’ you see is due to a functional side which knows how it’s trying to play, and that style is an effective one. I don’t think Ipswich’s true talent level is above ours, but I do think they’re incredibly well coached as a team. 

 

Overall, my view is that we’re probably reaching the end point of the process where Knapper decides what the issues are. What his decision will be we don’t know, and he may take the view that there’s nothing to be done between now and next season. The problem for him is that the SD can be as beholden to results as the HC, and if he decides the issue isn’t 

Wagner then the changes required will be slow (we can’t buy a new squad overnight) and perhaps not in view (analysis team).

[Robert N. LiM 5,944]

3 hours ago, repman said:

Thought this thread would be the best place for this. It’s mainly my thoughts on how Knapper may be going about his business, as well as some wider thoughts on analytics in football too.

Brilliant post

[BigFish 2,257]

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

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.

 

On 28/12/2023 at 21:35, Morph said:

@BigFish your comment sadly suggests that the selection of a suitable manager is somewhat of a lottery too, with football history littered with stories of managers successful at one club who fail time and again to reproduce said success.

 

On 29/12/2023 at 12:46, Don J Demorr said:

 It is now axiomatic that externally-sourced money is the principal determinant in the acquisition of points and the whole thing is a self-sustaining cycle

Not a lottery @Morph, which implies fortune or luck but probability, and that within parameters of the fundamentals of the club. As @Don J Demorr posts money in the principal determinant of football success. But within that his position that good methods, lead to better decision making and this increases the probability of better outcomes is also true. Finally, it comes to @Parma Ham's gone mouldy's result spectrum. Good decisions & a good coach might shift the results from around 40% e.g. good coach +5%, bad coach -5% but it takes money to move the baseline from 40% to 60%. Even then, it is only the cost of failure that is mitigated. Without the prior two "success"" is not guaranteed. Manchester United, the greatest cash generating machine football has ever seen, and Chelsea, bankrolled by US billionaires, look a long way from being in a position to win the big trophies. They lack that right time, right place serendipity that keeps football interesting.

[Unthink road 152]

On 29/12/2023 at 12:46, Don J Demorr said:

 

Thanks, @Monty13,

 

First, the only constant thing in human endeavours is change, from the rise and fall of a local shop to those of great empires. Within that concept, even from my own lifetime I can make a long list of seemingly impregnable giants of industry and commerce that have risen and fallen, from ICI downwards – and in many cases have vanished from sight altogether. To answer Monty’s question, yes I can try.

How strange therefore that I can’t make a similar list of significant Professional Football Clubs that have closed their doors and gone out of business. Why should that be? Because Football is Different, that’s why. Before the splendid @BigFish and others of the XXL Massive burst into derisive laughter at my perceived Damascene conversion – there isn’t one. My views on the need for a sound Corporate Governance structure and on the essentially victim status of the Manager are still sound (IMHO). This has been almost my entire and meagre contribution to this Forum up to now, because I have not thought about Football as a corporate venture. Here is a first pass at it.

At least in the context of Western Capitalism, a business venture seeks, in competition with other similar organisations, to provide goods or services of competitive quality and an attractive price to a common cloud of customers who can choose one supplier or another, maybe Waitrose one day, Albert Arkwright the next. Professional Football is different, at least it was in former times. Whether or not one is a customer is (or was) decided primarily by accident of birthplace and the captive customer is far more tolerant of variability of performance. If NCFC falls short, who is going to show up at Portman Road? What they will do is to stay away and smaller attendances mean lower income. Hence the Season Ticket. Success or failure did not result in going out of business but in the relative position on the greasy pole of League position and consequent bad humour in the snug at the Dodman’s Rest.

This is no longer true. One of the catastrophic influences on any business performance is what we call a Paradigm Shift, when previously tried and proven concepts become superseded. The notion that big conurbations supported big crowds, hence rich and successful clubs is now threatened by two simultaneous shifts, both in the source of money, - television and vast sums from foreign parts. It is now axiomatic that externally-sourced money is the principal determinant in the acquisition of points and the whole thing is a self-sustaining cycle

In this new context it is fruitless to try to compete in the old way. It seems to me that the NCFC, although moving in the right direction, is being relatively slow and indecisive in making the necessary changes. If it doesn’t it will almost certainly survive, but not prosper. Luck doesn’t come into it at this point.

Oh, and the self-financing concept cannot possibly work. It is exactly like trying to ward off incipient anaemia by bleeding the patient, who will simply die without blood transfusions. The policy will inevitably sink under the weight of its internal contradictions. Mr Attanasio knows this and has said so, if not in so many words.

My best to all,

Don

Great post Don. 

I think in football, we have seen the move to a more business focused approach. I think investors now see it as a good return on their investment in most cases. They lend money to the clubs they own and gamble with that club's future. This has been fueled and welcomed by fans demanding success. Like moths to a bulb, football fans are sucked into the Premier League dream. We all want our club to win every game, but at what price? 

In football, if you have the right people in the recruitment and coaching side, you can generate decent income from player sales that can negate the need for external finance. It is very hard to maintain, eventually upset the fans and you will ultimately have lean times. 

[king canary 8,644]

On 27/12/2023 at 16:56, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

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 

From a mathematical standpoint an individual player can increase and decrease your chances of winning a game. However as you say you have to build a team and those equations for an individual player is influenced by the other players around them and the system they fit into.

Take Sara. In this set up, playing as a deep central midfielder and with a McLean type player next to him Vs playing him in a freer, number 8 type role, in a midfield three with a couple of more positionally sound players next to him. In the current system the % chance of him winning you the game is reduced and the chance of him losing you it increased.

I disagree that there is nothing to lose by playing McLean- there is lots to lose with him as a central midfielder next to Sara where he is constantly out of position and cut through far too easily. I don't think it's a coincidence our midfield looked better when he wasn't in it. Conversely he's a limited 'jack of all, master of none' player who doesn't add much to our chances of winning from there in this system.

You've also got to find ways to accommodate those 'boom or bust' type players like Sainz. You can't have a team of xi McLean's and all too often under pressure managers fall into the trap of filling the team with players they see as reliable and predictable in carrying out their instructions, even if those players lack the skill or quality to actually unlock a team.

Largely I'm of the opinion that this system doesn't maximise the outputs of anywhere enough players and often does the opposite. Wagner is not helped by a squad that was built so poorly with no balance but he's also putting nobody in a position to succeed. I find it hard to make judgements on players like Sainz until we see them under a coach with at least a smidge of tactical competence.

 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,437]

Some excellent recent posts from @BigFish, also really liked @king canary ‘s one above and of course marvellous input from the @Don J Demorr 👍

Following King’s post - and thinking of Don’s interest in the fundamental lines of demarcation between the sporting Director and Head Coach  -  I certainly think that Knapper will be using Socratic method to judge Wagner’s tactical approach. 

I would imagine that the following questions loom large:

1. Is the 2 x false nine, deep striker box well-suited to Barnes and Sargent as a pair?

2. Is it well suited to any of our other strikers or players?

3. If not, why was it persisted with without Sargent and-or Barnes?

4. Does playing 2 strikers compromise the shape of the rest of the team regardless of who plays it? 

5. Who are the fixed points that should be tactically built around?

6. Does the current system suit Sara?

7. If Sara and Rowe are key assets in disrupting the opposition are there better ways to deploy them?

8. Can 7 be done playing two strikers?

9. If the aim is to bring down the average age of the squad, why are we currently deploying 7 players over 30?

10. We have spent most money on Sara and Nunez. To appreciate these asserts they must play. To increase as assets they must play in the position and system most suited to them: Are they good enough to deserve this? Is this what the current coach is doing?

11. Are we repeatedly exposed in the CDM area because of the system?

12. If you were the opposition, would the deep box double striker system scare you more than playing Barnes high and others running beyond? (For example)

13. If you use the inverted wide players to go beyond as your strikers drop into the box, do you get repeatedly exploited and overloaded wide and 3/4 wide and get exposed to a large volume of unchallenged crosses?

14. You have good headers of the ball, experienced, dominant defenders, a high quality goalkeeper for this level, are comfortable from crosses and are happy to concede wider areas as it stretches the opposition (as they attack). Is this counter-punching tactic suited to deep strikers and inverted wingers asked to work hard in deep areas? Where is the cheap counter-attack ball (say to a Vardy)? So where is the counter-threat?

15. Sara plus MacClean does not look at all balanced or positionally-disciplined (as @king canary notes). MacClean’s vertical delivery from Centre back and ability to step into midfield areas looked a neat find. Why did you revert?

16. With full backs high and no natural CDM, is the area in front of the Centre backs strongly enough protected?

17. Is a midfield of Sainz, Rowe, Sara, Nunez (say) plus playing two strikers - solid enough as a structure? 

18. Teaching new skills to players skills is excellent, though players tend to revert to their natural tendencies under pressure. Is this a valid gamble with a limited squad or is there an element of unnecessary shoe-horning into fixed blueprint?

19. Idah has finally had a run. What have we learned?

20. Do we have any weapons? 

Parma

Edited December 31, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[ged in the onion bag 955]

5 hours ago, king canary said:

From a mathematical standpoint an individual player can increase and decrease your chances of winning a game. However as you say you have to build a team and those equations for an individual player is influenced by the other players around them and the system they fit into.

Take Sara. In this set up, playing as a deep central midfielder and with a McLean type player next to him Vs playing him in a freer, number 8 type role, in a midfield three with a couple of more positionally sound players next to him. In the current system the % chance of him winning you the game is reduced and the chance of him losing you it increased.

I disagree that there is nothing to lose by playing McLean- there is lots to lose with him as a central midfielder next to Sara where he is constantly out of position and cut through far too easily. I don't think it's a coincidence our midfield looked better when he wasn't in it. Conversely he's a limited 'jack of all, master of none' player who doesn't add much to our chances of winning from there in this system.

You've also got to find ways to accommodate those 'boom or bust' type players like Sainz. You can't have a team of xi McLean's and all too often under pressure managers fall into the trap of filling the team with players they see as reliable and predictable in carrying out their instructions, even if those players lack the skill or quality to actually unlock a team.

Largely I'm of the opinion that this system doesn't maximise the outputs of anywhere enough players and often does the opposite. Wagner is not helped by a squad that was built so poorly with no balance but he's also putting nobody in a position to succeed. I find it hard to make judgements on players like Sainz until we see them under a coach with at least a smidge of tactical competence.

 

There are some very well articulated posts in this thread, many in fact.   Logically, this may well be the best of the lot.    Spot on analysis although some won’t be able to contemplate that McLean has quite the range of deficiencies.    He has though.

[Morph 31]

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy excellent post.

In this SD HC operation is the style of play a collaborative decision or an edict passed down by the SD that all HCs should follow if they work for the club?

Furthermore, who is responsible for addressing those questions you raise, and those points others have pointed out about players positions and roles? Knapper or Wagner?

Who determines how the young talent is developed and gets game time? Warner, Rowe et al

From what you’ve seen is Wagner addressing any of those questions himself. His whole team selection, in game changes et al just seem random, like he’s throwing a D20 for any decision and choice he makes. For many supporters no rhyme or reason in what he’s doing.

[Jim Smith 2,540]

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

Some excellent recent posts from @BigFish, also really liked @king canary ‘s one above and of course marvellous input from the @Don J Demorr 👍

Following King’s post - and thinking of Don’s interest in the fundamental lines of demarcation between the sporting Director and Head Coach  -  I certainly think that Knapper will be using Socratic method to judge Wagner’s tactical approach. 

I would imagine that the following questions loom large:

1. Is the 2 x false nine, deep striker box well-suited to Barnes and Sargent as a pair?

2. Is it well suited to any of our other strikers or players?

3. If not, why was it persisted with without Sargent and-or Barnes?

4. Does playing 2 strikers compromise the shape of the rest of the team regardless of who plays it? 

5. Who are the fixed points that should be tactically built around?

6. Does the current system suit Sara?

7. If Sara and Rowe are key assets in disrupting the opposition are there better ways to deploy them?

8. Can 7 be done playing two strikers?

9. If the aim is to bring down the average age of the squad, why are we currently deploying 7 players over 30?

10. We have spent most money on Sara and Nunez. To appreciate these asserts they must play. To increase as assets they must play in the position and system most suited to them: Are they good enough to deserve this? Is this what the current coach is doing?

11. Are we repeatedly exposed in the CDM area because of the system?

12. If you were the opposition, would the deep box double striker system scare you more than playing Barnes high and others running beyond? (For example)

13. If you use the inverted wide players to go beyond as your strikers drop into the box, do you get repeatedly exploited and overloaded wide and 3/4 wide and get exposed to a large volume of unchallenged crosses?

14. You have good headers of the ball, experienced, dominant defenders, a high quality goalkeeper for this level, are comfortable from crosses and are happy to concede wider areas as it stretches the opposition (as they attack). Is this counter-punching tactic suited to deep strikers and inverted wingers asked to work hard in deep areas? Where is the cheap counter-attack ball (say to a Vardy)? So where is the counter-threat?

15. Sara plus MacClean does not look at all balanced or positionally-disciplined (as @king canary notes). MacClean’s vertical delivery from Centre back and ability to step into midfield areas looked a neat find. Why did you revert?

16. With full backs high and no natural CDM, is the area in front of the Centre backs strongly enough protected?

17. Is a midfield of Sainz, Rowe, Sara, Nunez (say) plus playing two strikers - solid enough as a structure? 

18. Teaching new skills to players skills is excellent, though players tend to revert to their natural tendencies under pressure. Is this a valid gamble with a limited squad or is there an element of unnecessary shoe-horning into fixed blueprint?

19. Idah has finally had a run. What have we learned?

20. Do we have any weapons? 

Parma

The obvious answer to all of the above is no playing this kind of variant 4-4-2 formation does not work and suits nobody except perhaps Barnes. It has been obvious to me all season that 4-2-3-1 suits our squad and players best snd would leave us less exposed on the counter if at least one of the 2 can be positionally disciplined. Personally I would play Nunez and Gibbs as the 2 and then Sainz, Sara and Rowe behind Sargent with Kenny dropping back into the back four again. 
 

Re Idah, what we have learnt is he’s a super sub. Which made the decision to go with the team he did at WBA rather strange as playing the extra midfielder v Hudds had actually resulted in one of our best displays for some time 

[Indy 3,448]

Some fantastic posts, I’m not going to post a long drawn out response as the points made are brilliant….my one major question to Parma as a person involved is why do managers or coaches who recently failed at a club and sacked tend to struggle at the next job?

Should we really not learn from our previous success by appointing managers without recent failures, even the Binners finally learned this to much success!

[Number9 272]

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

Some excellent recent posts from @BigFish, also really liked @king canary ‘s one above and of course marvellous input from the @Don J Demorr 👍

Following King’s post - and thinking of Don’s interest in the fundamental lines of demarcation between the sporting Director and Head Coach  -  I certainly think that Knapper will be using Socratic method to judge Wagner’s tactical approach. 

I would imagine that the following questions loom large:

1. Is the 2 x false nine, deep striker box well-suited to Barnes and Sargent as a pair?

2. Is it well suited to any of our other strikers or players?

3. If not, why was it persisted with without Sargent and-or Barnes?

4. Does playing 2 strikers compromise the shape of the rest of the team regardless of who plays it? 

5. Who are the fixed points that should be tactically built around?

6. Does the current system suit Sara?

7. If Sara and Rowe are key assets in disrupting the opposition are there better ways to deploy them?

8. Can 7 be done playing two strikers?

9. If the aim is to bring down the average age of the squad, why are we currently deploying 7 players over 30?

10. We have spent most money on Sara and Nunez. To appreciate these asserts they must play. To increase as assets they must play in the position and system most suited to them: Are they good enough to deserve this? Is this what the current coach is doing?

11. Are we repeatedly exposed in the CDM area because of the system?

12. If you were the opposition, would the deep box double striker system scare you more than playing Barnes high and others running beyond? (For example)

13. If you use the inverted wide players to go beyond as your strikers drop into the box, do you get repeatedly exploited and overloaded wide and 3/4 wide and get exposed to a large volume of unchallenged crosses?

14. You have good headers of the ball, experienced, dominant defenders, a high quality goalkeeper for this level, are comfortable from crosses and are happy to concede wider areas as it stretches the opposition (as they attack). Is this counter-punching tactic suited to deep strikers and inverted wingers asked to work hard in deep areas? Where is the cheap counter-attack ball (say to a Vardy)? So where is the counter-threat?

15. Sara plus MacClean does not look at all balanced or positionally-disciplined (as @king canary notes). MacClean’s vertical delivery from Centre back and ability to step into midfield areas looked a neat find. Why did you revert?

16. With full backs high and no natural CDM, is the area in front of the Centre backs strongly enough protected?

17. Is a midfield of Sainz, Rowe, Sara, Nunez (say) plus playing two strikers - solid enough as a structure? 

18. Teaching new skills to players skills is excellent, though players tend to revert to their natural tendencies under pressure. Is this a valid gamble with a limited squad or is there an element of unnecessary shoe-horning into fixed blueprint?

19. Idah has finally had a run. What have we learned?

20. Do we have any weapons? 

Parma

I really enjoy reading & thinking about your posts Parma, considering carefully your logic & mindset which obviously comes from some experience & knowledge within the game. 

If I may be so impudent, this post seems somewhat unwieldy and could be distilled into a couple of key points (In my opinion)

 

Numbers 9, 18 & 20 - 

Player recruitment, why? Just why did we bring in the players we currently have?

 

Number 19 - 

Idah, his development & deployment. 

 

Numbers 1-8, 10-18 -

What adjustments to team setup & in game management do you feel are necessary to achieve our stated aims in terms of playing style & League position?

 

 

[Monty13 2,710]

On 29/12/2023 at 12:46, Don J Demorr said:

 

Thanks, @Monty13,

 

First, the only constant thing in human endeavours is change, from the rise and fall of a local shop to those of great empires. Within that concept, even from my own lifetime I can make a long list of seemingly impregnable giants of industry and commerce that have risen and fallen, from ICI downwards – and in many cases have vanished from sight altogether. To answer Monty’s question, yes I can try.

How strange therefore that I can’t make a similar list of significant Professional Football Clubs that have closed their doors and gone out of business. Why should that be? Because Football is Different, that’s why. Before the splendid @BigFish and others of the XXL Massive burst into derisive laughter at my perceived Damascene conversion – there isn’t one. My views on the need for a sound Corporate Governance structure and on the essentially victim status of the Manager are still sound (IMHO). This has been almost my entire and meagre contribution to this Forum up to now, because I have not thought about Football as a corporate venture. Here is a first pass at it.

At least in the context of Western Capitalism, a business venture seeks, in competition with other similar organisations, to provide goods or services of competitive quality and an attractive price to a common cloud of customers who can choose one supplier or another, maybe Waitrose one day, Albert Arkwright the next. Professional Football is different, at least it was in former times. Whether or not one is a customer is (or was) decided primarily by accident of birthplace and the captive customer is far more tolerant of variability of performance. If NCFC falls short, who is going to show up at Portman Road? What they will do is to stay away and smaller attendances mean lower income. Hence the Season Ticket. Success or failure did not result in going out of business but in the relative position on the greasy pole of League position and consequent bad humour in the snug at the Dodman’s Rest.

This is no longer true. One of the catastrophic influences on any business performance is what we call a Paradigm Shift, when previously tried and proven concepts become superseded. The notion that big conurbations supported big crowds, hence rich and successful clubs is now threatened by two simultaneous shifts, both in the source of money, - television and vast sums from foreign parts. It is now axiomatic that externally-sourced money is the principal determinant in the acquisition of points and the whole thing is a self-sustaining cycle

In this new context it is fruitless to try to compete in the old way. It seems to me that the NCFC, although moving in the right direction, is being relatively slow and indecisive in making the necessary changes. If it doesn’t it will almost certainly survive, but not prosper. Luck doesn’t come into it at this point.

Oh, and the self-financing concept cannot possibly work. It is exactly like trying to ward off incipient anaemia by bleeding the patient, who will simply die without blood transfusions. The policy will inevitably sink under the weight of its internal contradictions. Mr Attanasio knows this and has said so, if not in so many words.

My best to all,

Don

Great insight as always Don, thanks.

The bit in bold is self evident to me, it’s why I’ve found some comments from NCFC hierarchy over the last few years so interestingly either ignorant or dismissive of the self evident. You can’t point at season tickets as a measure of your success. Given the number is capped it says nothing really about the true demand and that demand isn’t based on the current product you sell. They know how big the waiting list is so they know the true demand and have no reason to share, but they have no idea how close all those individuals are to giving up faith in their club.

While time will tell on Attanasio, for me he is a requirement to move forwards as you have outlined. It would take a monumental shift for the TV and external investment dominance of the last 30 years to be changed, and I see zero will for it to happen, at least not to a point where either won’t still be a defining factor.

We needed someone, on face value we seem to have as benevolent a foreign benefactor as can be asked for. None are coming at this for free or a love of the clubs they take ownership of. At least he has a track record that somewhat calms the nerves in terms of how this may go.

Only thing I would say Don is while everything you’ve said absolutely chimes true about the Premier League, it doesn’t seem to have permeated the Football league to the same extent. There has been notable cooling of the investor chasing the PL pot of gold at Championship level in recent years. While bigger spending teams generally see their outlay result in league position, it’s no where near the almost completely closed shop the top 6 of the Premier League is.

[Monty13 2,710]

2 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

The obvious answer to all of the above is no playing this kind of variant 4-4-2 formation does not work and suits nobody except perhaps Barnes. It has been obvious to me all season that 4-2-3-1 suits our squad and players best snd would leave us less exposed on the counter if at least one of the 2 can be positionally disciplined. Personally I would play Nunez and Gibbs as the 2 and then Sainz, Sara and Rowe behind Sargent with Kenny dropping back into the back four again. 
 

Re Idah, what we have learnt is he’s a super sub. Which made the decision to go with the team he did at WBA rather strange as playing the extra midfielder v Hudds had actually resulted in one of our best displays for some time 

I completely agree with this assessment. Which for me begs two questions.

Why did we pursue this course?

Why are we persisting with it?

The answer to the first for me seems to be nothing more than a gamble on something different that had worked before for this manager with different players. I don’t believe if Webber wasn’t leaving we’d have taken this short term view.

I wonder if the answer to the second is just that we are a supertanker and the change of direction needs to be so large that the assessment is there’s too much needed to make the change mid season, at least outside a transfer window. I’m not sure I agree with that, but we’ll find out what the assessment really is over the next 6 months I guess. 

 

[BigFish 2,257]

5 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

The obvious answer to all of the above is no playing this kind of variant 4-4-2 formation does not work and suits nobody except perhaps Barnes. It has been obvious to me all season that 4-2-3-1 suits our squad and players best snd would leave us less exposed on the counter if at least one of the 2 can be positionally disciplined. Personally I would play Nunez and Gibbs as the 2 and then Sainz, Sara and Rowe behind Sargent with Kenny dropping back into the back four again. 
 

Re Idah, what we have learnt is he’s a super sub. Which made the decision to go with the team he did at WBA rather strange as playing the extra midfielder v Hudds had actually resulted in one of our best displays for some time 

Well something we agree with @Jim Smith, the false 9 approach is interesting but the wheels come off too often. Leaving Barnes out (and not replacing the position) seems to be the key. However, I don't feel either 4231 or Gibbs mitigate our issues when pressing or on transition. I would go with a 343 base formation with Kenny as a third CB with the license to step out if the oppositions striker drops deep to create an overload in midfield. I am sure there is a weakness in this though @Parma Ham's gone mouldy?