Myth and Reality (or change but no change)

[ricardo 7,345]

After another loss the forum last night was full of the usual unfounded comments about how everyone else was doing better and picking up points while we were in freefall according to some. Those with new managers were on the up and if only we did the same the results were bound to follow. Well lets have a look at that.I posted a relegation thread at the end of November and those that have read it will know my thesis is that the table is quickly set in stone and very little changes from there on in. After a dozen games the relegated teams will usually be found already in the bottom five and they don''t move much if at all.Here is the bottom of the table after 12 gamesCardiff        13 pointsNorwich      11 pointsW Ham       10 pointsFulham        10 pointsPalace          7  points           new manager  23.11.13Sundrlnd       7 points            new manager  7.10.13Here it is now after 21 gamesNorwich      20 pointsFulham        19 points           new manager  1.12.13W Ham       18 pointsCardiff         18 points          new manager   2.01.14Sundrlnd      17 pointsPalace          17 pointsWe have the same bottom two, albeit they are a single point closer. Fulham are still a point behind us though W Ham have dropped a further point back. Cardiff look to be the only losers from that bunch, mostly you are hard pushed to find any change. Most of what we see is the noise in the data. The signal appears to be exactly the same as it was at the end of November.I suspect that it won''t be much different come May.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="ricardo"]After another loss the forum last night was full of the usual unfounded comments about how everyone else was doing better and picking up points while we were in freefall according to some. Those with new managers were on the up and if only we did the same the results were bound to follow. Well lets have a look at that.I posted a relegation thread at the end of November and those that have read it will know my thesis is that the table is quickly set in stone and very little changes from there on in. After a dozen games the relegated teams will usually be found already in the bottom five and they don''t move much if at all.Here is the bottom of the table after 12 gamesCardiff        13 pointsNorwich      11 pointsW Ham       10 pointsFulham        10 pointsPalace          7  points           new manager  23.11.13Sundrlnd       7 points            new manager  7.10.13Here it is now after 21 gamesNorwich      20 pointsFulham        19 points           new manager  1.12.13W Ham       18 pointsCardiff         18 points          new manager   2.01.14Sundrlnd      17 pointsPalace          17 pointsWe have the same bottom two, albeit they are a single point closer. Fulham are still a point behind us though W Ham have dropped a further point back. Cardiff look to be the only losers from that bunch, mostly you are hard pushed to find any change. Most of what we see is the noise in the data. The signal appears to be exactly the same as it was at the end of November.I suspect that it won''t be much different come May.

[/quote]

And it wasn''t good enough after 12 games and it''s not good enough now. The fact we are matching the cr*ppest sides in this league is not indicative of acceptable performance.

[Wiz 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]After another loss the forum last night was full of the usual unfounded comments about how everyone else was doing better and picking up points while we were in freefall according to some. Those with new managers were on the up and if only we did the same the results were bound to follow. Well lets have a look at that.

I posted a relegation thread at the end of November and those that have read it will know my thesis is that the table is quickly set in stone and very little changes from there on in. After a dozen games the relegated teams will usually be found already in the bottom five and they don''t move much if at all.

Here is the bottom of the table after 12 games

Cardiff        13 points
Norwich      11 points
W Ham       10 points
Fulham        10 points
Palace          7  points           new manager  23.11.13
Sundrlnd       7 points            new manager  7.10.13

Here it is now after 21 games

Norwich      20 points
Fulham        19 points           new manager  1.12.13
W Ham       18 points
Cardiff         18 points          new manager   2.01.14
Sundrlnd      17 points
Palace          17 points

We have the same bottom two, albeit they are a single point closer. Fulham are still a point behind us though W Ham have dropped a further point back. Cardiff look to be the only losers from that bunch, mostly you are hard pushed to find any change. Most of what we see is the noise in the data. The signal appears to be exactly the same as it was at the end of November.

I suspect that it won''t be much different come May.





[/quote]

 

Ah, at last you''ve woke up Mr Ricardo, give pal LDC a nudge and remind him.

[ricardo 7,345]

Yes Jim, I''m not arguing about whether it''s good enough or not, that''s an entirely different discussion.  My point is that very little will change and shuffling managers is unlikely to be of any use. I''m still waiting to be presented with some data that proves me wrong.One correction is needed, the 12 games were completed by the end of October, not November.

[ricardo 7,345]

[quote user="Jimbo_Canary"]

 

Ah, at last you''ve woke up Mr Ricardo, give pal LDC a nudge and remind him.

[/quote]

Yes, two episodes of "The Bridge" kept me up a bit late last night.[:D]

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]Yes Jim, I''m not arguing about whether it''s good enough or not, that''s an entirely different discussion.  My point is that very little will change and shuffling managers is unlikely to be of any use. I''m still waiting to be presented with some data that proves me wrong.One correction is needed, the 12 games were completed by the end of October, not November. [/quote]Oh, give it a rest, Ricardo. We have had  countless threads about this in the past, and you know as well as I do that for every club you quote who''s changed their manager and things have not improved, I can quote another for whom it DID do the trick.Old, boring, tired argument, and I suggest you find a new slant.

[Indy_Bones 441]

Short of doing a thorough analysis of those games in regards to which sides each team has played and what results could arguably have been expected, I can''t say whether or not there''s any real substance behind the figures. If we''d simply played all the ''bad'' sides in the league, whereas those around us had played top six sides, then it would be fair to say that we''ve had easier fixtures and should have done better, if it''s the other way around then we''d have done well whereas those around would have underperformed. Chances are that it''s a bit of both, but that leads me to the main point of my response:If the only thing we were complaining about was results, then you might have a fair point Ricardo, but it''s not so much the poorer results that''s the issue - it''s the manner in which we''re getting these ''results''...The football is NOT good to watch, we invite unnecessary pressure as part of a counter-attacking system, but then miserably fail to counter effectively 9 times out of 10, our attacking players look restricted and uncomfortable in most games, and for all Hughton''s vaunted talent in improving us defensively - we''ve only conceded 2-3 goals less per season than we did with a weaker squad under Lambert - whilst scoring FAR less in the process.Football as a business may well be results based, and because of this many managers try to play the ''safe'' option by shutting up shop and trying to defend the life out of games whilst snatching a goal via a counter-attack or set play, the problem with this is that not only can better sides play through this, but it''s shocking to watch for the fans. This is why Stoke fans eventually called for Pulis to go, not because of results per se, but because they were utterly fed up of watching the same poor football on display every week.There''s a bad disconnect between the business aspect and the fan enjoyment aspect, some clubs like Arsenal are lucky enough to do well in both areas, some do badly in both, at the minute we''re doing fairly well on the business front, but very poorly on the enjoyment side. You wouldn''t pay money to watch a film that was described by critics as "90 minutes of the most boring and pointless acting you''ve ever seen, where you''ll be guaranteed to leave the cinema disappointed and wondering why you even bothered", so why should fans do the same when going to watch us play?The truth is that I''d happily settle for simply being safe each season (although I would like us to push towards top 10) as long as we played some good, attractive football and gave teams a tough match with a bit of excitement about it, I can''t say the same about simply being safe whilst watching the dross we have done since Hughton took over however...

[morty 0]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="ricardo"]Yes Jim, I''m not arguing about whether it''s good enough or not, that''s an entirely different discussion.  My point is that very little will change and shuffling managers is unlikely to be of any use. I''m still waiting to be presented with some data that proves me wrong.One correction is needed, the 12 games were completed by the end of October, not November. [/quote]Oh, give it a rest, Ricardo. We have had  countless threads about this in the past, and you know as well as I do that for every club you quote who''s changed their manager and things have not improved, I can quote another for whom it DID do the trick.Old, boring, tired argument, and I suggest you find a new slant.[/quote]I really think you''re missing the point.I agree with what Ricardo is saying, I don''t think the table will look a lot different come the end of the season, and changing a manager for a team makes a negligible difference in the medium term (we all know there can be an initial honeymoon period) and he has provided stats to back up his theories.Maybe he''s just saying something you don''t want to hear?

[ricardo 7,345]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="ricardo"]Yes Jim, I''m not arguing about whether it''s good enough or not, that''s an entirely different discussion.  My point is that very little will change and shuffling managers is unlikely to be of any use. I''m still waiting to be presented with some data that proves me wrong.One correction is needed, the 12 games were completed by the end of October, not November. [/quote]Oh, give it a rest, Ricardo. We have had  countless threads about this in the past, and you know as well as I do that for every club you quote who''s changed their manager and things have not improved, I can quote another for whom it DID do the trick.Old, boring, tired argument, and I suggest you find a new slant.[/quote]

Still waiting for the data Reggie.Anecdotes are one thing, data is something else.At the end of the day I''ll still be right as regards relegation, and yes Norwich are in that mix just as I predicted in October.Dissing the data will make you look silly.[:)]

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="morty"]I agree with what Ricardo is saying, I don''t think the table will look a lot different come the end of the season, and changing a manager for a team makes a negligible difference in the medium term (we all know there can be an initial honeymoon period) and he has provided stats to back up his theories.[/quote]And you both may well be correct in this assertion, but assuming we finish safe regardless of who''s in charge, would you rather watch the brand of football we''ve had under Hughton or the possibility for watching something a bit more exciting where you leave the ground pleased with what you''ve watched, rather than bored and hacked off with dross on display???

[ricardo 7,345]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]The football is NOT good to watch, we invite unnecessary pressure as part of a counter-attacking system, but then miserably fail to counter effectively 9 times out of 10, our attacking players look restricted and uncomfortable in most games, and for all Hughton''s vaunted talent in improving us defensively - we''ve only conceded 2-3 goals less per season than we did with a weaker squad under Lambert - whilst scoring FAR less in the process.

[/quote]This is not what the thread is about.Tactics, entertainment, formations etc are all arguable points.This is about what the data says.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]At the end of the day I''ll still be right as regards relegation, and yes Norwich are in that mix just as I predicted in October.Dissing the data will make you look silly.[:)][/quote]No idea what you mean by that last sentence, Rick. Please translate into English.Frankly, I''m not going to waste my Sunday morning regurgitating ''data'' that has been covered countless times on here, and if you could be bothered is relatively simple to find. But of course it doesn''t fit in with your argument.....As for your first point, well, time will tell as regards relegation. I''ll not dispute that the same names will continue to be in and around the bottom six all season. And that we will be one of them. And, that may be in part due to managers. but cannot you just possibly surmise that it may also because those teams have  poorer squads of players than those outside it. Just a thought ?

[BOO 0]

ricardo wrote the following post at 12/01/2014 10:00 AM:

After another loss the forum last night was full of the usual unfounded comments about how everyone else was doing better and picking up points while we were in freefall according to some. Those with new managers were on the up and if only we did the same the results were bound to follow. Well lets have a look at that.

I posted a relegation thread at the end of November and those that have read it will know my thesis is that the table is quickly set in stone and very little changes from there on in. After a dozen games the relegated teams will usually be found already in the bottom five and they don''t move much if at all.

Here is the bottom of the table after 12 games

Cardiff 13 points

Norwich 11 points

W Ham 10 points

Fulham 10 points

Palace 7 points new manager 23.11.13

Sundrlnd 7 points new manager 7.10.13

Here it is now after 21 games

Norwich 20 points

Fulham 19 points new manager 1.12.13

W Ham 18 points

Cardiff 18 points new manager 2.01.14

Sundrlnd 17 points

Palace 17 points

We have the same bottom two, albeit they are a single point closer. Fulham are still a point behind us though W Ham have dropped a further point back. Cardiff look to be the only losers from that bunch, mostly you are hard pushed to find any change. Most of what we see is the noise in the data. The signal appears to be exactly the same as it was at the end of November.

I suspect that it won''t be much different come May.

I agree and it''s this sort of argument that has persuaded me not to call for the managers head. I am pretty sure he will keep us up.

The other question is whether the manager is capable of doing more for us than purely achieving survival? I don''t think he has the skills required to get the best out of our players, but if he is able to prolong our stay in the Prem that may be enough for some.

[iron_stan 0]

one team always falls like a brickanother puts a run together to save their seasonnorwich play liverpool, arsenal, chelsea and man utd in the last four games, all of which are likely to be fighting for either the title, or a champions league placewe wont need a 12 point gap, but we will need to be more than 3 points clear of the final relegation place (im guessing at least 6), i dont believe we will have that gap and we will go downhughton out

[whoareyou? 0]

Its interesting that the points hail for all those teams is very very similar.I still feel the best time to make a change would be in the summer but there is no doubt we HAVE to bring in one or two quality players this month.Also our season will most likely be won or lost in the remaining games against Cardiff, West Ham and Sunderland.

[ricardo 7,345]

None of this is about Hughton. In or out. Personally I don''t care if he''s manager of NCFC or Tesco.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

"In the main you get a 2.5 points increase [after changing Manager], but after 12 matches a club''s performance is below where they''d been previously"

League Manager''s Association

Changing the manager doesn''t change the influencing factors in 85% of the issues that determine League position. Losing regularly - as the bottom 10 are condemned to do every season - understandably colours the view of what is seen.

Three years ago and the offer of promotion and 3 years in the top league would have seen an utopian dream.

Most now feel we will - just - survive as Ricardo notes from the stats. The is a grata achievement for Norwich. It is not unreasonable that the "expectation goalposts" get moved, but cool heads must also note realpolitik context.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

So once again, in all good faith, I have to pose the question that I posed last time we debated this. Assuming that there are clever people out there running football clubs: People who are intelligent, successful and presumably making good business decisions every day, why do they opt to make a change of their manager? If it was scientifically proven , as you say it is, surely people would have worked this out years ago, and never make a change?

 

The only other conclusion is that everyone, including highly successful individuals are idiots to make the change? 

 

I just can''t accept that. In business, and life in general, change and its effective management , can be hugely successful. that''s why people make changes.   

 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

[quote user="ricardo"]None of this is about Hughton. In or out. Personally I don''t care if he''s manager of NCFC or Tesco.[/quote]

 

 

Seconded.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]None of this is about Hughton. In or out. Personally I don''t care if he''s manager of NCFC or Tesco.[/quote]Now there I DO agree with you Rick. It''s not, and never should be, about the personalities involved.Like many, I welcomed his appointment (knows the game, safe pair of hands, good record in the transfer market etc etc). And ultimately, it was always going to come down to whether he was good enough to do job. Vis a vis one thing and one thing only. Results . OK , some people cite entertainment, but if they were honest, the majority of fans would be prepared to put up with turgid displays if we were grinding out lots of one-nil wins. But we aren''t, and only a few on here it seems remaine so easily satisfied with boring football AND poor results.So, in the end, it is down to whether he is good enough. Or whether the squad is good enough. Which , after 18 months is tantamount to the same thing, really.As things stand, the answer to both has to be erring on the side of "NO".So, no nothing against Hughton as a guy, but, he''s got to go. Perhaps, as you say, there may be a job for him at Blue Boar Lane or Harford Bridge.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Indy_Bones"]The football is NOT good to watch, we invite unnecessary pressure as part of a counter-attacking system, but then miserably fail to counter effectively 9 times out of 10, our attacking players look restricted and uncomfortable in most games, and for all Hughton''s vaunted talent in improving us defensively - we''ve only conceded 2-3 goals less per season than we did with a weaker squad under Lambert - whilst scoring FAR less in the process.

[/quote]This is not what the thread is about.Tactics, entertainment, formations etc are all arguable points.This is about what the data says.[/quote]OK. I am happy with data. There are only two clubs there - Palace and Sunderland - where the managerial change has had long enough to work/assess any kind of improvement.At Palace (where the situation is complicated by the interim after Holloway) the figures are these:With Holloway three points from eight games. That is 0.375 points per game.After Holloway 14 from 13. That is 1.076 ppg.At Sunderland (with a shorter interim):With di Canio one point from five. That is 0.2 ppg.After di Canio 16 from 16. That is 1.0 ppg.A marked improvement at both, and over a far longer period than the four or five game dead cat bounce used by that Dutch survey. Both teams are still in the relegation mix, and may go down, but the data seem strongly to show that at both a managerial change, given long enough to work, has seriously improved their chances of survival. And that is the aim of change. Not that it is a guarantee of survival but that it maximises the chances.

[Badger 2,405]

Purple has at least tried to provide some data that provides and argument Ricardo''s original point but this data is not very convincing. I would be interested in seeing some historical longer term data about clubs that change manager sort of midway through the season and the impact that it has had - is there any available?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"]

So once again, in all good faith, I have to pose the question that I posed last time we debated this. Assuming that there are clever people out there running football clubs: People who are intelligent, successful and presumably making good business decisions every day, why do they opt to make a change of their manager? If it was scientifically proven , as you say it is, surely people would have worked this out years ago, and never make a change?

 

The only other conclusion is that everyone, including highly successful individuals are idiots to make the change? 

 

I just can''t accept that. In business, and life in general, change and its effective management , can be hugely successful. that''s why people make changes.   

 

[/quote]

 

This is the way I often look at things I have no control over. We all have opinions but the bottom line is that we can make up our minds with no pressure whatsoever. We can sack or keep a manger knowing that right or wrong our opinion makes no difference.

 

The issues so many fans have with Hughton have been going on for so long that surely their gripe now must be with the board who obviously see it differently. Are our board idiots or are the ones that sacked their manager idiots?

 

I''m still happy to let our board take the decision. I believe they deserve my faith and support.

 

 

[kirku 1,332]

Copied from a previous thread:

"playing with a new coach yields a team 2-3 points more every 10 matches" - Italian report linked by Ricardo.

Therefore, Norwich would be 3-5 points better off at the end of the season if they sacked Hughton.

[ricardo 7,345]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Indy_Bones"]The football is NOT good to watch, we invite unnecessary pressure as part of a counter-attacking system, but then miserably fail to counter effectively 9 times out of 10, our attacking players look restricted and uncomfortable in most games, and for all Hughton''s vaunted talent in improving us defensively - we''ve only conceded 2-3 goals less per season than we did with a weaker squad under Lambert - whilst scoring FAR less in the process.

[/quote]This is not what the thread is about.Tactics, entertainment, formations etc are all arguable points.This is about what the data says.[/quote]OK. I am happy with data. There are only two clubs there - Palace and Sunderland - where the managerial change has had long enough to work/assess any kind of improvement.At Palace (where the situation is complicated by the interim after Holloway) the figures are these:With Holloway three points from eight games. That is 0.375 points per game.After Holloway 14 from 13. That is 1.076 ppg.At Sunderland (with a shorter interim):With di Canio one point from five. That is 0.2 ppg.After di Canio 16 from 16. That is 1.0 ppg.A marked improvement at both, and over a far longer period than the four or five game dead cat bounce used by that Dutch survey. Both teams are still in the relegation mix, and may go down, but the data seem strongly to show that at both a managerial change, given long enough to work, has seriously improved their chances of survival. And that is the aim of change. Not that it is a guarantee of survival but that it maximises the chances.[/quote]Yes Purple but both you and I know that the averages achieved by Holloway and Di Canio were never going to continue for the rest of the season without an improvement else Palace would have gained only another 11 points all season while Sunderland would have only got another six. I hope you are not suggesting that Sunderland would have finished the entire season on 7 points and Palace on 14 points. Even without the gift of clairvoyance we can all see that is total nonsense. My late lamented cat Snowy could have guided Sunderland to a higher total than that.[:D]To site the improvement as due to a managerial change is stretching it a bit because the improvement is nothing more than a return to something approaching normality. Both teams never looked like being any more than a 1 ppg team and that''s where it will end up come May.I won''t argue that Sunderland shouldn''t have got rid of Di Canio because there was an obvious loss of the dressing room there.What should be plain to everyone is that there are probably 10 clubs who will end up with a points per game average of between .08 and a little over 1.0. Norwich City will be one of these clubs. Those that swapped their manager are just as unlikely to see a step change as those that haven''t.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="kirku"]Copied from a previous thread:

"playing with a new coach yields a team 2-3 points more every 10 matches" - Italian report linked by Ricardo.

Therefore, Norwich would be 3-5 points better off at the end of the season if they sacked Hughton.[/quote]All these "studies" that Rick  keeps harping on about are totally pointless, and that''s why I do not recognise them. For all sorts of reasons, but the main one is that circumstances in different leagues are different, and every individual case where a manager has been replaced is TOTALLY different. For instance can we equate a situation where a competent manager has been sacked for gross misconduct to one whose results have been awful ? Of course not. Are we saying that Norwich''s decision to sack Gunn/appoint Lambert is the same as Sunderland''s to fire Di Canio/hire Poyet. Or Southampton''s to get shot of Adkins/get in Pochettino is the same as Cardiffs swap of Mackay for Solskjaer. ?  Completely different scenario.In the end, frankly, I''m really not all that bothered what the upshot of other teams'' managerial comings and goings are. Just interested in what is best for NCFC. No one is denying it''s a gamble, but at somepoint , someone, somewhere has to take the plunge. And is Ricardo being arrogant enough to say that he knows better than the people who are paid to do that job ? He''s entitled to his opinion. We all are, but let''s not try dressing his up as "scientific fact ".

[ricardo 7,345]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="kirku"]Copied from a previous thread:

"playing with a new coach yields a team 2-3 points more every 10 matches" - Italian report linked by Ricardo.

Therefore, Norwich would be 3-5 points better off at the end of the season if they sacked Hughton.[/quote]All these "studies" that Rick  keeps harping on about are totally pointless, and that''s why I do not recognise them. For all sorts of reasons, but the main one is that circumstances in different leagues are different, and every individual case where a manager has been replaced is TOTALLY different. For instance can we equate a situation where a competent manager has been sacked for gross misconduct to one whose results have been awful ? Of course not. Are we saying that Norwich''s decision to sack Gunn/appoint Lambert is the same as Sunderland''s to fire Di Canio/hire Poyet. Or Southampton''s to get shot of Adkins/get in Pochettino is the same as Cardiffs swap of Mackay for Solskjaer. ?  Completely different scenario.In the end, frankly, I''m really not all that bothered what the upshot of other teams'' managerial comings and goings are. Just interested in what is best for NCFC. No one is denying it''s a gamble, but at somepoint , someone, somewhere has to take the plunge. And is Ricardo being arrogant enough to say that he knows better than the people who are paid to do that job ? He''s entitled to his opinion. We all are, but let''s not try dressing his up as "scientific fact ".[/quote]I''m sorry Reg but you persist in barking up the wrong tree. This has nothing to do with the Gunn/ Lambert situation nor the Di Canio/ Poyet one. Gunn was an inexperienced manager appointed from within the club to a position he was not qualified to hold. Di Canio had lost the support of players, supporters and the board. He was always an accident waiting to happen and in both cases the clubs did the right thing..Anyone who believes the Adkins/Pochettino  change made any difference to the results hasn''t looked at the figures. Pochiettino was in charge for the last 16 games, his record was won 4 drawn 7 lost 5 for 19 pointsAdkins last 16 games was won 4 drawn 7 lost 5 for 19 points.I know it makes you angry Reg but as I''ve told you before, facts don''t change because you don''t like them.With the McKay/ Solskjaer situation we will have to see what happens, but it hasn''t started too well has it. The chances of a step change will pretty much remain at nil IMO but events will eventually show us who is right.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]I know it makes you angry Reg but as I''ve told you before, facts don''t change because you don''t like them.

[/quote]Well OK Rick, but is not precisely what you are doing ? ie changing the so callec "facts" around because you don''t like them/don''t fit into your narrow theory. Basicall you are cherry picking the scenarios that support your idea , but dismissing the few examples that I offered , because they "don''t count ".It doesn''t make me angry, btw. I have much more important subjects to express my extreme emotions on right now, thanks all the same. Perhaps frustration would be more apt. Frustration that there are still people on this board who continue to dress their (genuinely held) opinions as "fact".

[A Gay Schoolboy 0]

As I mentioned on the other thread, every one of the studies shows, regardless of methodology, that the honeymoon period is on average a real phenomenon, meaning that a new manager does give a short term boost (between 4 and 8 games) above the seasonal average. Therefore you have to admit that the data suggests that replacing a manager towards the end of the season, if in danger of relegation, is a reasonable decision, even if its stupid from a long term planning point of view.The Serie A study shows that a new manager gives a statistical significant boost to points per game, goals for, and goals conceded, which becomes a statistical insigificant improvement once they adjust for opponents / number of games left in a way which is beyond my statistical training to decipher and critique.The conclusion states that it is unclear whether or not changing a manager mid season has any positive effect, but it certainly shows no negative effects, so it provides as much support to changing a manager as not.As changing a manager mid season appears to (on average) have no effect one way or another, you could easily argue that we should change to a manager with a more pleasing style of play, get the honeymoon period, and then return to our average while getting more entertaining matches.However I feel that all of this is fairly irrelevant as the studies are based on a specific type of mid season sacking following a poor run of form. Regardless of current form and wherever we end up, its clear that Hughton and his team have not provided any kind of long term improvement, and look extremely unlikely to do so. Whether we sack him now or in summer its clear to everyone apart from those who''ve staked a large part of their ego on Hughton being a success here, that he''s not the right man for us. I think McNally knows this too and is actively searching out replacements.

[ricardo 7,345]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="ricardo"]I know it makes you angry Reg but as I''ve told you before, facts don''t change because you don''t like them.

[/quote]Well OK Rick, but is not precisely what you are doing ? ie changing the so callec "facts" around because you don''t like them/don''t fit into your narrow theory. Basicall you are cherry picking the scenarios that support your idea , but dismissing the few examples that I offered , because they "don''t count ".It doesn''t make me angry, btw. I have much more important subjects to express my extreme emotions on right now, thanks all the same. Perhaps frustration would be more apt. Frustration that there are still people on this board who continue to dress their (genuinely held) opinions as "fact".[/quote]They are not my theories they are scientific studies covering a range of leagues around the world. They all say the same thing.If past results are not facts then I don''t know what they are.Ahh, frustration. Possibly the best one word description of what being a lifetime supporter of NCFC is like.Something we all share.[Y]