Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Al

50 games as manager

Recommended Posts

As well as Chris Hughton, several other managers racked up their 50th league game in charge of their respective clubs over the last few days. Brendan Rodgers at Liverpool, AVB at Spurs, Paul Lambert at Villa, Michael Laudrup at Swansea, Sam Allardyce at West Ham and Steve Clarke at WBA

Here is a comparison of how they have each done balanced against how much they have spent.

In terms of points gained AVB wins it with 92 points from his 50 games.

AVB 92

Rodgers 85

Clarke 64

Laudrup 61

Allardyce 56 (goal difference -13)

Lambert 56 (goal difference -23)

Hughton 55

In terms of money spent AVB is the clear winner (or loser).

AVB £161M

Rodgers £72M

Allardyce £40M

Lambert £40M

Laudrup £36.5M

Hughton £29.5M

Clarke £16M

Combining the two the cost per point gained is-

Clarke £250,000

Hughton £536,000

Laudrup £598,000

Allardyce £714,000

Lambert £714,000

Rodgers £847,000

AVB £1,750,000

Conclusion: Clarke is doing a cracking job at WBA but Hughton although he has won less points than any of the others comes a clear second in the pounds per point table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fool!!! Idiot!!!!

Can''t you see what''s at the end of your nose?

We''ve spent more money than ever, irrespective of the fact that others have spent far more. We have spent loads for us.

GOD!!!!!

Anyone would think that these other teams got money too, Christ, next someone will be implying that they can allocate more of this tv money to playing costs than we can!!!

I don''t believe it though, Houghton is just shoite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Probably needs a more robust approach, one too much for a message board post but here is a slightly more robust approach.

Here''s the points as you state:

AVB 92

Rodgers 85

Clarke 64

Laudrup 61

Allardyce 56 (goal difference -13)

Lambert 56 (goal difference -23)

Hughton 55

You would also need to take into account what each manager started with and how many points you would expect of them.

This part is subjective in that i will have to guess what points were expected when the new boss came in but here goes:

Clarke: WBA looked a bit ropey, i''d go 50 points

Hughton: 55

Laudrup: 60

Allardyce: 55

Lambert: 65

Rodgers: 80

AVB: 80

Now a simple sum shows these net gains/ losses:

AVB 92 - 80 = 12

Rodgers 85 - 80 = 5

Clarke 64 - 50 = 14

Laudrup 61 - 60 = 1

Allardyce 56 - 55 = 1

Lambert 56 - 60 = -4

Hughton 55 - 55 = 0

Spending wise, you would perhaps have to say that £10 million was the least amount spent in the league and £200 million the most, surely you have to go on net spend though, as you have to factor in losing Gareth Bale this season, it''s not as if Spurs have a team £161m better than when AVB joined.

If we keep things simple and only consider the main players of each team that have left for significant fees, also, most of this money was spent this summer and so only 12 of them games have the ''improved'' teams. Therefore you can probably only factor that in for about a quarter of the 50 game performance. The rest of the money was spent in January or the summer before.

Maybe call it 33.3% in each window. We haven''t even considered wages and contract/ agent fees. Free players aren''t literally free you know. Let''s keep things simple though and only consider net spend regardless of when it was spent as i''m not here all night!

It''s also a ''bad'' thing to have to spend money, so this will be what we divide the points stat by.

Here''s the net spend of the last 50 games:

AVB = -8m

Rodgers = £37m

Lambert = £31m

Allardyce = £38m

Laudrup = £15m

Hughton = £29m

Clarke = £10m

So the variables are the net spend and the points earned more than expected.

Obviously, the net spend needs standardising so they are all positive values, so add £10m to all the values, call that agent fees etc.

AVB = 2m

Rodgers = £47m

Lambert = £41m

Allardyce = £48m

Laudrup = £25m

Hughton = £39m

Clarke = £20m

Now do the sums:

AVB = 2m/12 = £133,333 per point over expectation

Rodgers = £47m/5 = £9,400,000 pp+EXP

Lambert = £41m/-4 = £10,250,000 per point lost than expected.

Allardyce = £48m/1 = £48m for 1 extra point than expected

Laudrup = £25m/1 = £25m pp+EXP

Hughton = £39m/0 = £39m to deliver as expected.

Clarke = £20m/14 = about £1.4m pp+EXP

From this, it suggests AVB did a fabulous job, kind of true based on points and over 50 games, but we all know how recent form has been...

Not taken into account is how much it takes to stay still in this league.

To me, Clarke has done the best of the lot and arguably over the 50 games, Lambert has done the worst. There is more to it than that though.

Maybe at the end of the season, i''ll do a proper analysis but it''s impossible on one post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very interesting thread.  No question that Clarke has done a great job at WBA.

 

I''d like to see the comparison with the wage bill rather than the transfer spend over the period, as the fact is that Spurs/Liverpool started out with the strongest squads.  Spurs selling Bale for such a massive amount and reinvesting it in a lot of good players coming in looked a great move earlier in the season, time will tell if they''re currently just having a blip or something deeper.

Personally I am less keen on trying to look at it from the subjective idea of what the expectations were for a manager, which in the end is just a matter of opinion; I''d rather look at the actual numbers.

It is odd tho that Hughton has, which ever way you look at it, basically performed in line with expectations and yet so many on here are desperate to get rid of him. While Lambert has underperformed at Villa but many would love to have him back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It''s not news is it ICF. Amongst all the wailing we finished 11th last season. It gets dismissed as being nothing to do with Hughton and I am now of the opinion that those who say that really believe it. Which is worrying but amusing nonetheless.

 

Right at this moment we are not in the bottom three and really should be looking upwards rather than downwards. The fact that Hughton is still here is testament that our board feel he is doing well and have confidence in him.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was all a good read. For me when I look at CH I feel that he has this season certainly slightly under performed compared to my expectations, and when I then look at PL at Villa I feel that he has significantly under performed at Villa and presume that the Villa fans feel the same and are launching Lambert Out petitions as we speak?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Its Character Forming"]

A very interesting thread.  No question that Clarke has done a great job at WBA.

 

I''d like to see the comparison with the wage bill rather than the transfer spend over the period, .....//.....  odd tho that Hughton has, which ever way you look at it, basically performed in line with expectations and yet so many on here are desperate to get rid of him. While Lambert has underperformed at Villa but many would love to have him back.

[/quote]With a wage bill at Villa in the region of 70-80 million pounds per year I think that''s another analysis under which Lambert would struggle to better Hughton but in fairness to Lambert some monster mental wage agreements were put in place by his predecessors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The Sensational Zak Cartman"][quote user="Its Character Forming"]

A very interesting thread.  No question that Clarke has done a great job at WBA.

I''d like to see the comparison with the wage bill rather than the transfer spend over the period, .....//.....  odd tho that Hughton has, which ever way you look at it, basically performed in line with expectations and yet so many on here are desperate to get rid of him. While Lambert has underperformed at Villa but many would love to have him back.

[/quote]

With a wage bill at Villa in the region of 70-80 million pounds per year I think that''s another analysis under which Lambert would struggle to better Hughton but in fairness to Lambert some monster mental wage agreements were put in place by his predecessors. 
[/quote]

 

Yes I agree that the wage level would be another measure that would show Lambert has underperformed, but he does have quite a few players in his squad that are rated more highly than anyone at City eg Benteke, Agbonlahor.  Also he still seems to be struggling to deal with players like Bent who are more experienced pro''s on high wages, which I think would also put off any bigger clubs from thinking about appointing him (if his record wasn''t enough to put them off).  I wasn''t aware tho'' of players being paid silly wages by Villa ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s all very interesting this stuff, and entertaining to read over a sandwich at Friday lunchtime, but , ultimately, all it proves is that you can make statistics say anything you want, depending what slant you put on them.

But we all knew that anyway ?

But, frankly, I do not care much about Lambert/Villa, Clarke/WBA, Villas Boas/Spurs, etc etc. What matters to me is that NCFC are a mere one point off a relegation place right now. OK that may look a little rosier ar 4.50 tomorrow. Altenatively, it could look a whole lot worse and we''ll be one point off bottom place. And, tbh, the fact that AVB or Steve Clarke may also have nudged up a few points in this "performance league" by then will not matter a jot to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jimmy Smith"]Probably needs a more robust approach, one too much for a message board post but here is a slightly more robust approach.

Here''s the points as you state:

AVB 92

Rodgers 85

Clarke 64

Laudrup 61

Allardyce 56 (goal difference -13)

Lambert 56 (goal difference -23)

Hughton 55

You would also need to take into account what each manager started with and how many points you would expect of them.

This part is subjective in that i will have to guess what points were expected when the new boss came in but here goes:

Clarke: WBA looked a bit ropey, i''d go 50 points

Hughton: 55

Laudrup: 60

Allardyce: 55

Lambert: 65

Rodgers: 80

AVB: 80

Now a simple sum shows these net gains/ losses:

AVB 92 - 80 = 12

Rodgers 85 - 80 = 5

Clarke 64 - 50 = 14

Laudrup 61 - 60 = 1

Allardyce 56 - 55 = 1

Lambert 56 - 60 = -4

Hughton 55 - 55 = 0

Spending wise, you would perhaps have to say that £10 million was the least amount spent in the league and £200 million the most, surely you have to go on net spend though, as you have to factor in losing Gareth Bale this season, it''s not as if Spurs have a team £161m better than when AVB joined.

If we keep things simple and only consider the main players of each team that have left for significant fees, also, most of this money was spent this summer and so only 12 of them games have the ''improved'' teams. Therefore you can probably only factor that in for about a quarter of the 50 game performance. The rest of the money was spent in January or the summer before.

Maybe call it 33.3% in each window. We haven''t even considered wages and contract/ agent fees. Free players aren''t literally free you know. Let''s keep things simple though and only consider net spend regardless of when it was spent as i''m not here all night!

It''s also a ''bad'' thing to have to spend money, so this will be what we divide the points stat by.

Here''s the net spend of the last 50 games:

AVB = -8m

Rodgers = £37m

Lambert = £31m

Allardyce = £38m

Laudrup = £15m

Hughton = £29m

Clarke = £10m

So the variables are the net spend and the points earned more than expected.

Obviously, the net spend needs standardising so they are all positive values, so add £10m to all the values, call that agent fees etc.

AVB = 2m

Rodgers = £47m

Lambert = £41m

Allardyce = £48m

Laudrup = £25m

Hughton = £39m

Clarke = £20m

Now do the sums:

AVB = 2m/12 = £133,333 per point over expectation

Rodgers = £47m/5 = £9,400,000 pp+EXP

Lambert = £41m/-4 = £10,250,000 per point lost than expected.

Allardyce = £48m/1 = £48m for 1 extra point than expected

Laudrup = £25m/1 = £25m pp+EXP

Hughton = £39m/0 = £39m to deliver as expected.

Clarke = £20m/14 = about £1.4m pp+EXP

From this, it suggests AVB did a fabulous job, kind of true based on points and over 50 games, but we all know how recent form has been...

Not taken into account is how much it takes to stay still in this league.

To me, Clarke has done the best of the lot and arguably over the 50 games, Lambert has done the worst. There is more to it than that though.

Maybe at the end of the season, i''ll do a proper analysis but it''s impossible on one post.[/quote]

never seen a post so one sided , all your focus is on to show avb as a hero. while in actual he is the biggest looser .1) for eg., when you talk abt ** where each manager started and what position or points thwy were expected to finish , avb started with a team finishing 4th , while rodgers started a team finishing 7th .  , so how come both are expected to get 80 points ? expectation of fans that both team finish in top 4 ie champions league is dreamy part , i.e every fan an every board wants the team to finish highest , but in reality while one team is already in top 4 position other team is around 17-20 points behind in 7-8th. on what ground , the expected points for spurs n liverpool i.e. avb n rodgers are same? in 2012-13 season while spurs had 69 points , liverpool had 52 , thats 17 points difference , and by your calculation , as next year both avb n rodgers took charge of the respective team , avb is expected to improve the points from 69 to 80 , thats 11 points more , while in same period rodgers is expected to get from 52 to 80 points ? i.e. 26 points more ? what logic are you using , while also taking in the consideration that for any n any whether its your calculated 80 points or any unrealistic target , spurs , avb''s team were in better condition to achieve it , simply becoz they have the best team of the lot.you cant be so one sided mate ,2) another example abt the net spend .,,why consider net spend ? the fact is bale is no more part of tottenham , but the other fact is all the bale money has been invested , for 7 players. n these are not some cheep bargains , a 25miln+ striker , a 30miln midfielder , plus 50miln for test of the 5 players . , 1. if you really want to count point to money ratio , you have to consider all this values coz simple fact they are now playing for avb''s team , bale is history this 110miln signings are present .and 1st of all, the word *net spend*  is more related to the financial profit or loss i.e, for bank accounts of levy this word might fit perfectly , coz at the end of the day total money withdrawn is some 20miln only. but for avb''s team ,this word doesnt fit any where, as he is rightly or wrongly using those 110miln signings every game , they have more option n bench strength now compare to their rivals , though he cant use them properly is another story .   why tottenham fans talk abt net spend is , coz they are not seeing those 110miln in results , city or other fans dont talk abt the profit lost statement, coz the see their 30 -40 min players banging in goals.3) another example ,though i totally disagree with your net spend logic, even with the figures u stated ,  in total net spend for avb you show 8milns . i dont agree with it but lets just consider of sake of it. ok . then you standardize that value for each manger . i.e. add 10mln to that value, calling them the agent fees n all.so avbs standardized net spend should be 8miln + 10minl = 18miln. dont know how you show the 2minl fig. , even here in calculation your avb bias is seen , even the wrong net spend logic , the   per point over expectation for  avb should be 18miln / 12 = £1,500,000. and not £133,333 you stated

again how can you comment such bias view . that cant be known instead of thay lets just calculate few simple fact for avb n rodgers , (cant do for all the cllubs) 1.starting position.avb - 4throdgers - 7th2. end position avb -5th (thats one position down , even then your calculations show that avb gained most point/position)  rodgers - 6th (one position up.)as points earned n finish position directly related , in actual , avb lost a place .3. new season - spending avb - 110 milnrodgers - 50miln (here is the link to check the figs,  http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/fc-liverpool/transfers/verein_31.html  )and not to forget that while avb signed players at top valus above 20miln , rodgers is been deeling with cheap bargains , loan players .

you can clearly see , avb isnt producing any results .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its interesting isn''t it that most would seem to say that WBA have had a decent start to the season yet they have only one more point than us yet Villa fans are questioning their start and they have one more point than WBA. Again Swansea, have they had a bad start? Again they have one more point than us.I suspect that this is all the Premier League becomes about when you have been there for 2 or 3 seasons with no real hope of entering the big top 6 teams. Its all about surviving and nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did some additional analysis.  I won''t bore you with the workings, but Hughton came rock bottom on -16 while Lambert scores 87 and Sir Alec Ferguson scored 86.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awesome analysis Al.

Goes to show Hughton is doing a great job.

Especially given Clarke inherited a better and more established Prem side. Well done Hoots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jimmy Smith"]Probably needs a more robust approach, one too much for a message board post but here is a slightly more robust approach.

Here''s the points as you state:

AVB 92

Rodgers 85

Clarke 64

Laudrup 61

Allardyce 56 (goal difference -13)

Lambert 56 (goal difference -23)

Hughton 55

You would also need to take into account what each manager started with and how many points you would expect of them.

This part is subjective in that i will have to guess what points were expected when the new boss came in but here goes:

Clarke: WBA looked a bit ropey, i''d go 50 points

Hughton: 55

Laudrup: 60......[/quote]Here is where I stopped reading.You can''t provide statistical analysis based on the guessed expectations of other managers.You''re approch is not robust. You''re approch is based on you''re own assumptions and opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mayurr. I''ll digest all that in a bit, but AVB had a net spend of minus 8 million, hence the two million when the £10m was added on. As i stated, it''s tough to do a detailed analysis in a thread.

As far as points go, AVB''s Spurs got a record haul for where they finished last season, most years, their 72 points would have them 3rd or 4th. That makes the points analysis a bit biased towards him, yes. Our haul of points for 11th place was low. Funny how stats can turn things.

I also stated that some of the signings have only had 12 of them 50 gaames so some form of equation like x=12y+50z would have to be factored in but i said it was just too much to think about in a forum thread.

Personally i think AVB has done a good job but is in a bit of a rut now and needs to stop that or he''ll be gone by January. Hughton is in much the same boat but i think that win yesterday will ease the pressure for at least the month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"][quote user="Jimmy Smith"]Probably needs a more robust approach, one too much for a message board post but here is a slightly more robust approach.

Here''s the points as you state:

AVB 92

Rodgers 85

Clarke 64

Laudrup 61

Allardyce 56 (goal difference -13)

Lambert 56 (goal difference -23)

Hughton 55

You would also need to take into account what each manager started with and how many points you would expect of them.

This part is subjective in that i will have to guess what points were expected when the new boss came in but here goes:

Clarke: WBA looked a bit ropey, i''d go 50 points

Hughton: 55

Laudrup: 60......[/quote]Here is where I stopped reading.You can''t provide statistical analysis based on the guessed expectations of other managers.You''re approch is not robust. You''re approch is based on you''re own assumptions and opinions.[/quote]

But it did cover the one main flaw from the initial analysis, the fact that net spend and performance based on expectation hadn''t been factored in.

Imagine if Celtic finished second having spent no money this season, that would be a disaster for them but it''d look good with the stats, all them points from no money spent, how amazing!

I don''t see why due to it being a forum post i can''t use the subective opinion from myself for expectations as there was no better variable to use. It certainly needed to be considered though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...