Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ricardo

Myth and Reality (or change but no change)

Recommended Posts

[quote user="ricardo"][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.[/quote]Ricardo, I am citing those cases as examples of where a club makes a change early enough for someone markedly better (and I think we would both take Pulis over Holloway and Poyet over di Canio) can affect a significant improvement. And a significant improvement both over the initial performances of those failed managers AND over what those failed managers might have achieved if allowed to carry on. I accept that Sunderland and Palace would probably have gained some more points than their intial PPG ratios would suggest. That those ratios were to an extent false. But that not that false. I think it is stretching credulity to suggest that Holloway and di Canio would have ended up with about 1 PPG or even close to it.What you are saying in effect is that Pulis and Poyet are getting their teams back roughly to where a half-decent manager would have had them. I agree with that. But Holloway and di Canio were not doing a half-decent job. They were failing badly, and their teams were heading straight towards being this season''s Reading and QPR. As you say, Snowy, rest in cat heaven, could have done better. Now at least those teams have a fighting chance of staying up. Which they didn''t have before.Does this apply to NCFC and Hughton? No. Less time and no-one obviously better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Dandy Mountfarto"]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.

[/quote]Indeed, but this is an entirely different argument altogether and it''s not the one I am making. Changing the manager for aesthetic reasons is not something that can be supported or opposed by simply looking at the results.However I am glad to see that you now accept that changing a manger mid season is not a panacea for avoiding relegation. There are still many on here who refuse to accept that, despite not being able to point to any convincing data that proves it to be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ricardo"]Indeed, but this is an entirely different argument altogether and it''s not the one I am making. Changing the manager for aesthetic reasons is not something that can be supported or opposed by simply looking at the results.However I am glad to see that you now accept that changing a manger mid season is not a panacea for avoiding relegation. There are still many on here who refuse to accept that, despite not being able to point to any convincing data that proves it to be wrong.[/quote]At no point did I not accept that. I don''t want Hughton sacked until summer, and that has been my position for many months, because I feel we will be able to attract a better class of candidate in the close season.My issue is not with your position, its the way you misrepresent the data to try to suggest that changing a manager is always a bad thing, which is not what any of the studies show.The most convincing of the studies shows an unclear, probably statistically insignificant, season wide positive effect and no negative effect, that is as much evidence for changing a manager as it is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Ricardo, I am citing those cases as examples of where a club makes a change early enough for someone markedly better (and I think we would both take Pulis over Holloway and Poyet over di Canio) can affect a significant improvement. And a significant improvement both over the initial performances of those failed managers AND over what those failed managers might have achieved if allowed to carry on. I accept that Sunderland and Palace would probably have gained some more points than their intial PPG ratios would suggest. That those ratios were to an extent false. But that not that false. I think it is stretching credulity to suggest that Holloway and di Canio would have ended up with about 1 PPG or even close to it.What you are saying in effect is that Pulis and Poyet are getting their teams back roughly to where a half-decent manager would have had them. I agree with that. But Holloway and di Canio were not doing a half-decent job. They were failing badly, and their teams were heading straight towards being this season''s Reading and QPR. As you say, Snowy, rest in cat heaven, could have done better. Now at least those teams have a fighting chance of staying up. Which they didn''t have before.Does this apply to NCFC and Hughton? No. Less time and no-one obviously better.[/quote]I think we are arguing over a very narrow point here Purple. I wouldn''t site the Di Canio case as proof of anything other than a man who hangs himself out to dry only has himself to blame when someone removes the pegs. Sunderland had no choice there and with only one point on the board they had nothing to lose.Holloway? who knows? but Palace always looked like relegation favourites whoever was in charge. The 30 point mark, give or take, was all they ever looked like getting and it won''t be far out will it?As for a fighting chance, haven''t I already said that there are about 10 clubs who are in that fight and that we are one of them.At the start of the season I was looking for 44 points, now it''s 38 points. I can''t see anyone in the wings who is likely to get us back to 44.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Purple I think your issue is that you are taking individual data points instead of looking at the whole cluster. The fact that on average changing a manager provides an unclear benefit does not preclude teams changing a manager and then seeing a dramatic improvement, it just suggests that there will be an equal number of teams that see a dramatic fall.I suspect that if you graphed it out, changes in ppg with regard to managerial changes would sit in a the normal distribution, i.e. a bell curve. A few outliers will see massive positive and negative changes regardless of past performance, a significant amount will see improvement because they were underperforming before (like Sunderland now), and vice versa with overperforming (I expect Cardiff to fall into this group), while the majority will only see slight +/- changes.The question is where do Norwich fit? I suspect we are mildly underacheiving but with only 2 and a half seasons in this league it is not as easy to judge as it is to point out that Moyes is massively underperforming at Man U.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]Ricardo, I am citing those cases as examples of where a club makes a change early enough for someone markedly better (and I think we would both take Pulis over Holloway and Poyet over di Canio) can affect a significant improvement. And a significant improvement both over the initial performances of those failed managers AND over what those failed managers might have achieved if allowed to carry on. I accept that Sunderland and Palace would probably have gained some more points than their intial PPG ratios would suggest. That those ratios were to an extent false. But that not that false. I think it is stretching credulity to suggest that Holloway and di Canio would have ended up with about 1 PPG or even close to it.What you are saying in effect is that Pulis and Poyet are getting their teams back roughly to where a half-decent manager would have had them. I agree with that. But Holloway and di Canio were not doing a half-decent job. They were failing badly, and their teams were heading straight towards being this season''s Reading and QPR. As you say, Snowy, rest in cat heaven, could have done better. Now at least those teams have a fighting chance of staying up. Which they didn''t have before.Does this apply to NCFC and Hughton? No. Less time and no-one obviously better.[/quote]I think we are arguing over a very narrow point here Purple. I wouldn''t site the Di Canio case as proof of anything other than a man who hangs himself out to dry only has himself to blame when someone removes the pegs. Sunderland had no choice there and with only one point on the board they had nothing to lose.Holloway? who knows? but Palace always looked like relegation favourites whoever was in charge. The 30 point mark, give or take, was all they ever looked like getting and it won''t be far out will it?As for a fighting chance, haven''t I already said that there are about 10 clubs who are in that fight and that we are one of them.At the start of the season I was looking for 44 points, now it''s 38 points. I can''t see anyone in the wings who is likely to get us back to 44.[/quote]You can''t start saying this case or that doesn''t count, because, for example, the manager has lost the dressing room. A failed manager is a failed manager is a failed manager. The specific reasons aren''t important.I am not sure whether we are arguing over a narow point. You have essentially stuck to the view that change never works. I think it can. Bear in mind that an improvement - which is what I am talking about - is an improvement EVEN if it doesn''t avoid relegation. If Palace and Sunderland go down that will not necessarily invalidate their decisions to make a change.Why do I think change can work? Because some managers ARE better than others, and under the right circumstances can do better. All the surveys I have read about, and the one I have read, seem to deal only with cases where a club has a blip and over-reacts by sacking the manager. There the data indeed suggest a change will not have much effect. But that is too narrow a scenario to be applied to anything every case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]You can''t start saying this case or that doesn''t count, because, for example, the manager has lost the dressing room. A failed manager is a failed manager is a failed manager. The specific reasons aren''t important.I am not sure whether we are arguing over a narow point. You have essentially stuck to the view that change never works. I think it can. Bear in mind that an improvement - which is what I am talking about - is an improvement EVEN if it doesn''t avoid relegation. If Palace and Sunderland go down that will not necessarily invalidate their decisions to make a change.Why do I think change can work? Because some managers ARE better than others, and under the right circumstances can do better. All the surveys I have read about, and the one I have read, seem to deal only with cases where a club has a blip and over-reacts by sacking the manager. There the data indeed suggest a change will not have much effect. But that is too narrow a scenario to be applied to anything every case.[/quote]For the most part I agree with this but you should have a gander at the Serie A study which takes into account all managerial changes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Dandy Mountfarto"]Purple I think your issue is that you are taking individual data points instead of looking at the whole cluster. The fact that on average changing a manager provides an unclear benefit does not preclude teams changing a manager and then seeing a dramatic improvement, it just suggests that there will be an equal number of teams that see a dramatic fall.I suspect that if you graphed it out, changes in ppg with regard to managerial changes would sit in a the normal distribution, i.e. a bell curve. A few outliers will see massive positive and negative changes regardless of past performance, a significant amount will see improvement because they were underperforming before (like Sunderland now), and vice versa with overperforming (I expect Cardiff to fall into this group), while the majority will only see slight +/- changes.The question is where do Norwich fit? I suspect we are mildly underacheiving but with only 2 and a half seasons in this league it is not as easy to judge as it is to point out that Moyes is massively underperforming at Man U.[/quote]Yes, I am looking at individual cases. You are quite right. Because I am arguing against this monothithic Dutch notion - based on a very specific and narrow kind of case - that change never works. I am not saying it always works, or even that it averages out. I have no idea. I am saying that under the right circumstances it can work, and has a very good chance of working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]You are quite right. Because I am arguing against this monothithic Dutch notion - based on a very specific and narrow kind of case - that change never works.[/quote]Exactly this!  Change should be made for long term benefits.  Is Hughton the man to get us improving again, or will results continue to get worse under his stewardship.  The squad is clearly light years ahead of two seasons ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Yes, I am looking at individual cases. You are quite right. Because I am arguing against this monothithic Dutch notion - based on a very specific and narrow kind of case - that change never works. I am not saying it always works, or even that it averages out. I have no idea. I am saying that under the right circumstances it can work, and has a very good chance of working.[/quote]Ok cool I think we''re on the same page, I''m fully with you on the limitations of the Dutch study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Dandy Mountfarto"]For the most part I agree with this but you should have a gander at the Serie A study which takes into account all managerial changes[/quote]The Serie A study is not very interesting either: http://www.suu.edu/faculty/berri/DePaolaScoppaJSEApril2012.pdfThe problem being, managers are fired so regularly these days, everything is going to average out. Three sides will still be relegated.

Looking at this season, the following managers have been sacked...Sunderland - Paolo Di Canio - Losing the dressing roomCrystal Palace - Ian Holloway - Team in a shamblesFulham - Martin Jol - Failed to address an aging squadWest Brom - Steve Clarke - Poor results in 2013Tottenham - Andre Villas-Boas - Failed to deal with losing BaleCardiff - Malky Mackay - Ridiculous expectations from the ChairmanSunderland and Palace will improve due to their changes, whether it will be enough is questionable.  The others are rolling the dice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"You can''t start saying this case or that doesn''t count, because, for example, the manager has lost the dressing room. A failed manager is a failed manager is a failed manager. The specific reasons aren''t important.

I am not sure whether we are arguing over a narow point. You have essentially stuck to the view that change never works. I think it can. Bear in mind that an improvement - which is what I am talking about - is an improvement EVEN if it doesn''t avoid relegation. If Palace and Sunderland go down that will not necessarily invalidate their decisions to make a change.

Why do I think change can work? Because some managers ARE better than others, and under the right circumstances can do better. All the surveys I have read about, and the one I have read, seem to deal only with cases where a club has a blip and over-reacts by sacking the manager. There the data indeed suggest a change will not have much effect. But that is too narrow a scenario to be applied to anything every case."

I was saying exactly the same thing last night in the other thread.

Ricardo didn''t agree then so I doubt he will now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Dandy Mountfarto"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]Yes, I am looking at individual cases. You are quite right. Because I am arguing against this monothithic Dutch notion - based on a very specific and narrow kind of case - that change never works. I am not saying it always works, or even that it averages out. I have no idea. I am saying that under the right circumstances it can work, and has a very good chance of working.[/quote]Ok cool I think we''re on the same page, I''m fully with you on the limitations of the Dutch study. [/quote]Indeed. And just to be clear, finally, although an Outer, I have never called for Hughton to be sacked, because I don''t see those all those beneficial circumstances having applied at any time this season. We are not doing THAT badly, there is no-one obviously better, from my limited knowledge, and now there is probably too little time left anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don''t think we are underachieving. I think we are entirely where most neutral observers expect us to be and where we will for another few years if we are lucky. At some point in the future, if we manage to stay in this league for further consecutive years, we might make ourselves too good to go down, but I don''t expect this.

Hughton is an imperfect manager who is committed to Norwich and would stay if we got relegated. A real possibility for 10 clubs every year.

Are some managers better than others? Yes, in the Lambert vs Hughton sense. Messianic dynamism vs Germanic club building progression. Does Luton vs Norwich churchillian rhetoric work long term with modern footballers? No it doesn''t. Clubs revert inexorably to their mean, whether they are "up for it" or not.

I run an International business. Do I like fast-rising stars? Yes I do. Do I build the foundations of my business around them? No I don''t. Does any individual manager have the power to make or break the company? Not a chance.

Hughton is a cog in the wheel. His presence or otherwise in the dugout makes a difference, but not an enormous one.

Does spending resources wisely matter? Yes. Does improving the squad matter? Yes. Does an open personality that engages with the board and senior management over all aspects of the club matter? Yes it does.

The club had a sexy girlfriend when they needed one, they have now decided to commit to a wife, with all the imperfections that brings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="kirku"]The specific reasons aren''t important.

I am not sure whether we are arguing over a narow point. You have essentially stuck to the view that change never works. I think it can. Bear in mind that an improvement - which is what I am talking about - is an improvement EVEN if it doesn''t avoid relegation. If Palace and Sunderland go down that will not necessarily invalidate their decisions to make a change.

Why do I think change can work? Because some managers ARE better than others, and under the right circumstances can do better. [/quote]Which is very true.  Both Palace and Sunderland now look like capable squads, rather than relegation certainties.  They may not stay up, but at least they are putting up a decent fight now.Some decisions are more marginal, Martin Jol is a good example.  Fulham could easily go down with Mulensteen in charge, but had to make the decision as to whether Jol was taking them in the right direction.Some decisions are really rolling the dice... Cardiff and West Brom, like Southampton last season, have decided they can find a more talented boss.  Bold decisions, with massive consequences if it goes wrong.Also some managers are good for some clubs, and groups of players.  Swansea have been quite canny in this respect, the club has accepted a playing style and hired managers to continue that legacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]I don''t think we are underachieving. I think we are entirely where most neutral observers expect us to be and where we will for another few years if we are lucky. At some point in the future, if we manage to stay in this league for further consecutive years, we might make ourselves too good to go down, but I don''t expect this.

Hughton is an imperfect manager who is committed to Norwich and would stay if we got relegated. A real possibility for 10 clubs every year.

Are some managers better than others? Yes, in the Lambert vs Hughton sense. Messianic dynamism vs Germanic club building progression. Does Luton vs Norwich churchillian rhetoric work long term with modern footballers? No it doesn''t. Clubs revert inexorably to their mean, whether they are "up for it" or not.

I run an International business. Do I like fast-rising stars? Yes I do. Do I build the foundations of my business around them? No I don''t. Does any individual manager have the power to make or break the company? Not a chance.

Hughton is a cog in the wheel. His presence or otherwise in the dugout makes a difference, but not an enormous one.

Does spending resources wisely matter? Yes. Does improving the squad matter? Yes. Does an open personality that engages with the board and senior management over all aspects of the club matter? Yes it does.

The club had a sexy girlfriend when they needed one, they have now decided to commit to a wife, with all the imperfections that brings.[/quote]Parma, there is this situation in chess that arises sometimes, called zugswang, in which any move you make is a mistake. I think you just demonstrated that zugswang can also apply to posting on football message-boards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Dandy Mountfarto"]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.[/quote]Exactly the point I was making earlier.It may make absolutely ZERO difference in regards to results and final league position if we change manager now, but if we can change to a manager who''s going to get the best out of our current squad and give us more enjoyable football to watch in the process - why wouldnt we???Ricardo, if you just to want to stick with the data to the bitter end that''s fine, but I would have thought that as a fan who regularly attends games, you''d be genuinely interested in the chance to watch better games of football - even if the end results in the league table are similar...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with data in relation to this sort of issue is that it does not take account of the circumstances surrounding individual cases and more specifically whether any current underperformance is due to the manager or other circumstances surrounding the club.

Now I know some on here do not accept that we are underperforming anyway but for those of us who believe our current squad is not fulfilling its potential whether or not you think a change of management will make a difference will depend on whether you think that underperformance is down to the manager of other mitigating circumstances.

Whilst I accept we have had injuries, I think it''s overwhelmingly down to the manager and I think that a passionate, positive manager would get an awful lot more out of these players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"]The problem with data in relation to this sort of issue is that it does not take account of the circumstances surrounding individual cases and more specifically whether any current underperformance is due to the manager or other circumstances surrounding the club. s.[/quote]Exactly the point I made earlier James. That''s why these "studies" that Ricardo seems to set so much store by, aren''t , frankly, worth the paper they are written on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Jim Smith"]The problem with data in relation to this sort of issue is that it does not take account of the circumstances surrounding individual cases and more specifically whether any current underperformance is due to the manager or other circumstances surrounding the club.

Now I know some on here do not accept that we are underperforming anyway but for those of us who believe our current squad is not fulfilling its potential whether or not you think a change of management will make a difference will depend on whether you think that underperformance is down to the manager of other mitigating circumstances.

Whilst I accept we have had injuries, I think it''s overwhelmingly down to the manager and I think that a passionate, positive manager would get an awful lot more out of these players.[/quote]

 

But the data can only be used to show a general trend. If you try and be too specific then each and every sacking is different. What I can absolutely guarantee is that in every case there''s a supporter like each and every one of us on here. In each one there''s a Jim Smith thinking it''s all the managers fault and a nutty who through his own experience as a supporter believes he knows there''s a huge risk in any change.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, there is an element of zugswang, and the only perfect vision of hindsight will tell the tale.

My rather prosaic view is that Norwich must have contingencies for relegation every year. If we were relegated, would Hughton be a reasonable choice as manager?

If better can be found and attracted, we should change. However the continued myth of the messianic manager tires me. It is almost in almost always rubbish, though it does not suit the media, managers, future managers or the instant panacea of Daily Mail mentalities and social media flickering fingertips. Some club owners do indeed change managers regularly to pander to this and cover for their own lack of club foundation. We have good foundations. The manager is the front of house cherry, not the cake itself.

Norwich may wish for the "company branding" of not being seen as a hire-em-fire-em club. They foster the principle of shared responsibility and there are many devolved powers at Norwich.

The seven year plan is well ahead of schedule. Relegation was factored in. Long term, club-building progress a key objective.

Whilst the fan in me fully understands the desire for entertainment, the truth is that many of norwich''s years drifted by in second tier mediocrity. Many, many of them.

Finding a manager - one who the majority were pleased to welcome 18 months ago - who could maintain top league status was the objective. It is hard for fans to feel entertained when there are more losses than wins, but that is the league, not the manager.

If the board changes manager, then so be it. If they support the manager through difficult times because they bievd in him and want to be seen as a club that supports managers and wants to build long term, then I will feel proud of that ethos at my club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[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.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]Which would therefore suggest that changing manager will not change much points and position wise - and therein lies the flaw in what underpins your point Ricardo.If merely avoiding relegation was the sole remit of the manager then remaining as we are might be acceptable. I say ''might'' as I believe that the manager''s job is to develop the players, if only as part of above remit  However that is where I (and many many others) feel  that Hughton has is failing.Players are not developing .. in fact most seem to be going backwards. What has happened to Bechio, a free scoring player before he joined us ? RVW promised so much .. and yet ? Redmond likewise had so much promise, much of which now seems to end up in row z, Fer looks lost and disinterested. Fox, whatever interest he has we are not going to see under Hughton. Bassong has either fallen out with Hughton or simply has developed a fit of the heebie jeebies as has Ruddy. Was Vaughan that bad ?Can so many players go backwards in the development without there being a common cause ? I don''t think. and I would argue that it is Hughton with his desperation to cling on to draws or one goal leads at all costs that is where the fault lies.And if we stay up what then  More of the same, with the likelihood that some players may see their future elsewhere whilst those who remain are too scared to play or express themselves with the team hoping to wheeze over the line after 9 months of dire unimaginative football ? Will that be a signal to developing youth that we are the club to stay with and develop the PL potential ? I doubt very much.At some point we need to move Hughton on and get in a manager and coaching team who can get the best out of the first team squad. If Ricardo''s figures are true (which a glance at the previous tables confirms they they are) then it has to be a case of sooner rather than later, if only to put a halt to the damage still being caused.Onwards and upwards when the cloud lifts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Dandy Mountfarto"]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.[/quote]Exactly the point I was making earlier.It may make absolutely ZERO difference in regards to results and final league position if we change manager now, but if we can change to a manager who''s going to get the best out of our current squad and give us more enjoyable football to watch in the process - why wouldnt we???Ricardo, if you just to want to stick with the data to the bitter end that''s fine, but I would have thought that as a fan who regularly attends games, you''d be genuinely interested in the chance to watch better games of football - even if the end results in the league table are similar...[/quote]I can''t imagine how a manager could be judged as getting the best of out of a squad previously seen as underperforming and NOT get improved results? [8-)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="City1st"]. If Ricardo''s figures are true (which a glance at the previous tables confirms they they are) then it has to be a case of sooner rather than later, if only to put a halt to the damage still being caused.

[/quote]Exactly C1st. Even if you are to believe and take notice of Rick''s figures/studies (which I don''t), then surely the lesson to be taken from them is to get your managerial changes done  quickly and ruthlessly, and move quickly on as it''s the best way to make them successful ?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]Yes, there is an element of zugswang, and the only perfect vision of hindsight will tell the tale.

My rather prosaic view is that Norwich must have contingencies for relegation every year. If we were relegated, would Hughton be a reasonable choice as manager?

If better can be found and attracted, we should change. However the continued myth of the messianic manager tires me. It is almost in almost always rubbish, though it does not suit the media, managers, future managers or the instant panacea of Daily Mail mentalities and social media flickering fingertips. Some club owners do indeed change managers regularly to pander to this and cover for their own lack of club foundation. We have good foundations. The manager is the front of house cherry, not the cake itself.

Norwich may wish for the "company branding" of not being seen as a hire-em-fire-em club. They foster the principle of shared responsibility and there are many devolved powers at Norwich.

The seven year plan is well ahead of schedule. Relegation was factored in. Long term, club-building progress a key objective.

Whilst the fan in me fully understands the desire for entertainment, the truth is that many of norwich''s years drifted by in second tier mediocrity. Many, many of them.

Finding a manager - one who the majority were pleased to welcome 18 months ago - who could maintain top league status was the objective. It is hard for fans to feel entertained when there are more losses than wins, but that is the league, not the manager.

If the board changes manager, then so be it. If they support the manager through difficult times because they bievd in him and want to be seen as a club that supports managers and wants to build long term, then I will feel proud of that ethos at my club.[/quote]I thought I was being clear enough, Parma, but perhaps not. I wasn''t suggesting Norwich City are in zugswang. I meant your post showed you were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Dandy Mountfarto"]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.[/quote]Exactly the point I was making earlier.It may make absolutely ZERO difference in regards to results and final league position if we change manager now, but if we can change to a manager who''s going to get the best out of our current squad and give us more enjoyable football to watch in the process - why wouldnt we???Ricardo, if you just to want to stick with the data to the bitter end that''s fine, but I would have thought that as a fan who regularly attends games, you''d be genuinely interested in the chance to watch better games of football - even if the end results in the league table are similar...[/quote]

We seem to have wandered a long way from my OP, which merely states that the situation after 12 games is pretty much what we can expect to see at the end of the season. This logically means that managerial changes, injuries, suspensions etc are likely to even out and not make much difference in the long run as teams with dips in form revert to their mean potential.I show you the figures after a further 9 games and to all intents and purposes nothing has changed. Looking back on previous seasons the same pattern keeps on repeating with very minor changes. It seems to me Indy that you want to talk about the semantics of attractive football more than what the data means.Whether we want to see a different type of football, a different style of play is a completely different argument to the one I have presented. This is about what the data says regarding what we can expect the league table to look like come May. If anybody would like to show me where I have gone wrong I would be interested to discuss it with them.This is NOT and never has been anything to do with Hughton, his style of play or whether I would prefer to see something different. It''s about finding the earliest time that you can sensibly predict what will happen at the end of the season and if there is any evidence  to show that you can do anything about it. I''ve looked at every Premier League season and have fully explained on my relegation threads what the data shows. I have even shown you the few exceptions to the rule. Look at it yourselves and you will find the conclusions drawn are inescapable. Why some persist in seeing this as an apology for Chris Hughton I am unable to fathom. I''ve already stated that it makes no difference to me who the manager is, I''m more interested in what the figures tell me than using them as a stick to beat the manager. He goes or he stays dependent upon results as will the next manager and the one after that, it has always been so.What remains incontrovertible is that NCFC and all the other also-rans in this division will never make the step change that propels them into the upper tier simply by the power of a better manager. Some managers are better than others but not to the extent that many imagine. They will have their brief moments in the sun which may delude their fans into thinking they''ve made it but the reality is that nothing can really change for them without financial parity.Well, what are we left with? It seems to me the only thing you can say is "never mind the results I want to see some attractive football". Fair enough, but that has nothing to do with my OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PC :

I thought I was being clear enough, Parma, but perhaps not. I wasn''t suggesting Norwich City are in zugswang. I meant your post showed you were.

------------------------------------------

How so? PHgm forced into a reply he didn''t want to make??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The flaw there is that most fans at this level ARE NOT expecting to make the top tier - and do not believe that a change in manager will achieve that.In our particular case it is more that we feel that Hughton is not capable of getting the best out of the players and is in fact setting them back in their development. If the latter is the case then there is every reason to believe that some, squad as well as youth team, players may well be off.Which could well mean that the problem of not getting the best out of our players will mean that we are in that doomed bottom five (if not three) at both times next season.Perhaps fatalism comes with age, but as someone still bouncing about like Tigger on speed I think things can be done ... if only in grabbing the extra £6m or so as prize money for finishing a bit higher up the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="City1st"]The flaw there is that most fans at this level ARE NOT expecting to make the top tier - and do not believe that a change in manager will achieve that.In our particular case it is more that we feel that Hughton is not capable of getting the best out of the players and is in fact setting them back in their development. If the latter is the case then there is every reason to believe that some, squad as well as youth team, players may well be off.Which could well mean that the problem of not getting the best out of our players will mean that we are in that doomed bottom five (if not three) at both times next season.Perhaps fatalism comes with age, but as someone still bouncing about like Tigger on speed I think things can be done ... if only in grabbing the extra £6m or so as prize money for finishing a bit higher up the table.[/quote]Well they were certainly expecting more than me C1. When we went through expectations before the season started mine were for 44 points and that was at the lower end of the predictions on offer from most people. I don''t know what yours were but there were a lot in the 50 points plus area. Not surprising that some feel short changed.

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...