Another Mole Uncovered...?

[Evil Monkey 52]

On the 25th September Blahblahblah posted this, under the title "Management Departures - The Facts":

"Statistical

analysis on the success or otherwise of replacing managers from the

University of Warwick.  I''ve edited to cut it down, there''s some

analogy about Churchill I didn''t get at the start, oh, and it''s a bit

old (printed 31st December), but still relevant.

Full article - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7973-1964029,00.html

The Fink Tank’s Dr Henry Stott and Dr Ian Graham have been looking

at when clubs sack their managers. And it turns out that the choice

between following the odds or taking the plunge is one that directors

face all the time.

The first point is that the turnover (of managers) is huge. There

have been 367 Premiership and League managers since the beginning of

the 2001-02 season (up to Dec 2005).

The

average tenure of a manager is only 59.4 games, and this excludes the

120 managers who lasted fewer than ten games, many of whom were clearly

caretakers.

There has also been a large variety of manager-firing strategies.

Clubs on average changed managers three times each, but while some

(Arsenal and Sheffield United, for instance) haven’t changed managers

at all, others (Oldham Athletic, Coventry City) have changed nine

times.

The statisticians thought they would be able to find some pattern to

all this sacking: that, for instance, the Aston Villa pattern would be

fairly standard — a new manager takes over, a sharp but brief

improvement follows, then there is a levelling off, then a sharp

decline, then curtains. But this wasn’t common at all. Indeed, nothing

was.

So many things (the wage bill, personal relations, expectations)

confuse the picture, that there is no standard relationship between

team strength, its fluctuation, and management tenure.

The Fink Tank did discover, unsurprisingly, that a decline usually

preceded a departure. However, it wasn’t clear whether this decline was

long term or a blip that would have righted itself anyway.

So this leaves the question of whether sacking the manager is the right move. Our data suggests that on average it makes no difference.

On average, managers arrive and leave without having significantly

altered the team strength. The board has gone to a whole load of

trouble for nothing.

This, however, is on average. Some managers leave the team far worse

off than when they found it — David O’Leary at Leeds, , Jean Tigana at

Fulham — while others make spectacular improvements (Harry Redknapp at

Portsmouth when he went there for the first time, say, or Paul Sturrock

at Plymouth Argyle).

The problem is there is no way, except a hunch, to know which type of manager you are choosing. On average you wouldn’t bother."

Now read Chris Lakey''s column this morning: http://new.pinkun.com/content/ncfc/story.aspx?brand=PINKUNOnline&category=Norwich&tBrand=PinkUnOnline&tCategory=Norwich&itemid=NOED09%20Oct%202006%2008%3A34%3A52%3A670

Are they the same person, or has the Archant journo shamelessly stolen Blah''s idea? Or is it just sheer coincidence?

Discuss.

[blahblahblah 2]

To be fair to Mr Lakey, he appears to have found the original report that the times article I linked to used.

We have both shamelessly stolen the research done by the University of Warwick to prove our own points - I was saying why bother changing our manager, it very rarely makes a provable difference, Chris is saying, Cor Blimey guvnor strike a light, who''d be a footy boss ? 

Anyone interested in this kind of stuff might like to check out The Fink Tank column in the Times - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,7973,00.html - with regular guest appearances from the good people at Decision Technology group - www.dectech.org -  which is a company that specialises in research into decision making.  They also run a football scores prediction program which they claim is more accurate than the bookies at picking out results - http://www.dectech.org/times/Predictor.html but I''ve rarely managed to pick 5 correct results on any given weekend from their predictions.  Maybe I''m not using it very well... [^0)]

For the record, I am not now, nor have i ever been, Chris Lakey, although sometimes at weekends, my name has occasionally been Susan.

 

[Canary02 0]

Blah x3 and Lakey, sitting in a tree....

 

[Mello Yello 2,572]

Waghorn, or his lookey likey, Lakey..........Mmmmh! I think there could be something in it![^o)]

You may have, hit nail on t'' head........CONSPIRACY!

 

[Yellow fever 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

To be fair to Mr Lakey, he appears to have found the original report that the times article I linked to used.

We have both shamelessly stolen the research done by the University of Warwick to prove our own points - I was saying why bother changing our manager, it very rarely makes a provable difference, Chris is saying, Cor Blimey guvnor strike a light, who''d be a footy boss ? 

Anyone interested in this kind of stuff might like to check out The Fink Tank column in the Times - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,7973,00.html - with regular guest appearances from the good people at Decision Technology group - www.dectech.org -  which is a company that specialises in research into decision making.  They also run a football scores prediction program which they claim is more accurate than the bookies at picking out results - http://www.dectech.org/times/Predictor.html but I''ve rarely managed to pick 5 correct results on any given weekend from their predictions.  Maybe I''m not using it very well... [^0)]

For the record, I am not now, nor have i ever been, Chris Lakey, although sometimes at weekends, my name has occasionally been Susan.

 

[/quote]

predicts cardiff and preston for automatic positions

[sheded 0]

I posted  Dr Bridgewaters   findings   on football managers   quite a while ago   !    seems she has " suddenly " been " discovered "    again ......  [:P]

[blahblahblah 2]

It''s a small world sheded !  Dr Bridgewaters deserves the credit, it''s interesting research.