Myth and Reality (or change but no change)

[lowlyfendweller 0]

The findings make sense as each club is likely to find an level of performance and stick to it. However why would matches be played if we now what''s gonna happen by november? Perhaps performance is like blood flow and clots must be removed or substances ingested just to maintain the mean level of flow throughout the season.... Its all about the correct diagnosis and treatment. Is our club about to have a coronary or do we just have pins and needles?

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

[quote user="ron obvious"]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??[/quote]Roughly speaking, Ron, yes. More precisely, given his previous bullish pro-Hughton stance, that he felt he had to post again even if circumstances were making his argument less and less plausible. Did you read the post? I don''t think it exactly advanced his cause.This isn''t to attack Parma, whose posts I find always stimulating. I try to steer clear of personalities. I hope it came across more as a gentle ribbing.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

Time will tell whether the club were in Zugzwang. If we are relegated or we stay up and the manager stays in place to mass disgruntlement and rift, then maybe.

Should we now sign Gutierrez, it is a clear sign that the board back the manager and do not buy into the management myth. I will be proud that we have a board that wants to build long term and is not a hire-em-fire-em club and wishes to send that message to the wider football world.

This can only be demonstrated in squeaky bum times.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

Sorry, PHGM, , I don''t follow that . It is not a "clear sign " at all. And what is this "management myth" ?Please explain.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="ricardo"]It seems to me Indy that you want to talk about the semantics of attractive football more than what the data means.[/quote]The data is the data Ricardo, and in truth although I personally don''t fully agree with the methodology in the reports - I''m not even going to argue with the information they provide (in regards to this conversation anyway).Your argument about it being irrelevant whether the manager is changed

or not is absolutely fine, you may be 100% correct that there will be no

change from a pure results perspective (which is why you don''t seemingly

mind who''s in charge of the team), but if all of these things are

correct, why not look to change because of something that many fans

aren''t happy with - our style of play???Apparently it''s now some sort of crime for a fan to actually want to

be entertained by the football their team are playing, a team which fights to get a result even if it''s just to scrape a hard fought draw against a much better team, rather than being

bored witless and expecting yet another 90 minutes of disappointment

which often leads to no goals scored and 1-2 against instead...You say it doesn''t matter who the manager is in terms of results, and that results alone will save/sink a manager - fine, but why don''t you give a damn about what you''re paying to watch??????

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]You say it doesn''t matter who the manager is in terms of results, and that results alone will save/sink a manager - fine, but why don''t you give a damn about what you''re paying to watch??????[/quote]I don''t  know. Perhaps its because I''ve seen so much crap football over the years. If lack of entertainment was ever going to put me off I doubt I would ever have got past the 1960''s. Football is about winning AND losing. Both situations generate interest in equal measure and if this forum is anything to go by losing probably generates a more interesting and emotional response. If people go to football matches expecting to be continually entertained then they have chosen the wrong pastime. For me supporting NCFC is about much more than the football on show and much much more than the entertainment on offer. I know we aren''t all alike in that respect but I would still be there even if we were playing in League 2. Those who went solely for the entertainment probably fell off the wagon years ago.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="ricardo"] Football is about winning AND losing. Both situations generate interest in equal measure and if this forum is anything to go by losing probably generates a more interesting and emotional response. If people go to football matches expecting to be continually entertained then they have chosen the wrong pastime.

[/quote]Sorry, Ricardo, don''t buy that one either. Of course, you are entitled to your view/take, but to suggest that it is a generally held one is utter garbage. We''ve debated this countless times on the forum, and the answer is the same every time.Fans go to football primarily to see their team win. Preferably in an entertaining manner, but very few folk attend matches uncaring as to whether their team wins or loses.

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

Just want to add my 2 cents worth in;1) Maybe I''m different, but despite many posts to the contrary, I don''t see the football being played at Carrow Road as that dire. Can it improve? Probably. Do we need a change in manager for that to happen? Probably. However, I''m still prepared to watch it the way it is for now.2) If the lack of entertaining football is the main argument people are making for Hughton to be sacked, why is now the best time to do this? Surely if the poor football is the reason, then the best time to change manager would need to be at the end of the season. Now, if we were in the bottom 3, and one of the favs to go down, then that might be different (and a further poor run of results may change things, we all know that in this league).As they stand, apart from the old tired cliche''s about ''lack of subs'', and ''tactical negativity'', if our main aim from now is to stay up, then according to Richardo''s data, now is not the time to change manager.If things don''t change though, I''d probably support a change in the summer.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"]J2) If the lack of entertaining football is the main argument people are making for Hughton to be sacked, [/quote]There is the fundamental flaw in your argument, Theo.Whilst lack of entertainment is clearly a factor, the majority of fans who want a change feel that because the results have been so dire, we are two points off a relegation place, and there is no sign of anything improving.

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="ricardo"] Football is about winning AND losing. Both situations generate interest in equal measure and if this forum is anything to go by losing probably generates a more interesting and emotional response. If people go to football matches expecting to be continually entertained then they have chosen the wrong pastime.

[/quote]Sorry, Ricardo, don''t buy that one either. Of course, you are entitled to your view/take, but to suggest that it is a generally held one is utter garbage. We''ve debated this countless times on the forum, and the answer is the same every time.Fans go to football primarily to see their team win. Preferably in an entertaining manner, but very few folk attend matches uncaring as to whether their team wins or loses.[/quote]I suppose the difference is that I realise that in this league there will be more losses than wins and I accept that as a fact of Premiership life. It doesn''t stop me hoping for better but I''ve seen enough to know that hope seldom triumphs over experience. I go to see my team win but if they lose I know I will still be there next week.Some have already drifted away and probably more will follow but they will be back when the good times roll again. Me? I will have been here all the time.

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"]J2) If the lack of entertaining football is the main argument people are making for Hughton to be sacked, [/quote]There is the fundamental flaw in your argument, Theo.Whilst lack of entertainment is clearly a factor, the majority of fans who want a change feel that because the results have been so dire, we are two points off a relegation place, and there is no sign of anything improving.[/quote]Is it though? Reading this thread, I beg to differ. Plus, Richardo''s data is suggesting that there is a good chance it would make no difference.You say that we''re 2 points off the relegation places. But half the Premier League is within 4 points. With the fine margin''s we''re speaking of, shouldn''t it be a case of better the devil you know?

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]Some have already drifted away and probably more will follow but they will be back when the good times roll again. Me? I will have been here all the time.[/quote]Me too Ricardo. Season ticket holder for over 30 yrs (yes, I know you''ll say you''ve been longer), and seen the vast majority of home games in that time. Seen some shocking stuff, too.But, every time I go, I am looking for Norwich to win, or at least give it a good go.Maybe you are different, and you are perfectly entitled to be, but I repeat that I''m confident that I''m in the majority, and you are in a tiny minority.

[ricardo 7,395]

Maybe so Reg, but being in a minority has never bothered me much. I was in all those minorities back in the day when gates were under 13k. Not much entertainment on show in those days either but we made up for the lack of it with something called hope. I have found it a great comfort through the lean timess.

It''s not lack of entertainment that kills you, it''s the loss of hope. Thankfully I''m immune to that now.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="ricardo"].

It''s not lack of entertainment that kills you, it''s the loss of hope. Thankfully I''m immune to that now.[/quote]Just as well, Rick.If it''s hope you crave, then you''ve come to the right place.Because , over the next 4 months ,you are going to find yourself clinging to a lot of it as a NCFC supporter.

[ricardo 7,395]

Nothing new there Reg.

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

To save people trawling through all five pages, not to mention a long thread I started a while ago, this is what I hope is a fair summation.Firstly, there are academic studies that seem to show sacking managers never work, in particular because of a natural regression to some kind of mean. In particular one of Dutch football, which purports to prove this, with any oddities being painted as the exceptions that prove the rule. The problem is that the survey essentially takes clubs that have been performing at a certain (acceptable) level, which then suffer a four or five game slump, panic, sack the manager, and find their results pick up back to the earlier level. With a control group of clubs that don''t panic and whose results also recover. The Dutch explanation is that the blip was just that - a blip.Apparently there are surveys from other countries, but it is not at all clear that they do anything but look at the same kind of narrow situation examined in The Netherlands. Which makes sense, because an academic study has to be rigorous, and sackings that don''t fit into a neat and easily computated pattern can''t be analysed.Which would be fine, if most sackings were knee-jerk reactions like that. But, despite the myth of the trigger-happy board, they are not. Not one of the five so far in the Premier League (given that Holloway resigned) fits the Dutch pattern. What have been painted as exceptions are nothing of the kind. They all stem from problems that are deep-seated and/or long-term. It is the Dutch short-termism that is the exception. As shown by:Fulham finished 9th on 52 points in Jol''s first season, but dropped to 12th and - more worryingly - 43 points last season, and were very much in the relegation zone this before he was sacked. If Fulham had a "mean" to guide them it was the 52 point figure. A drop of nine points was alarming enough, but the board must have feared the slide was carrying on.A similar situation at West Brom, with Clarke having an excellent first half to last season, before a sharp falling away, which carried on into this.At Palace the admirable - if unusual sight - of a manager simply admitting he wasn''t up to the job.At Sunderland a total breakdown of any kind of confidence in the manager, for well-publicised reasons. And ditto at Cardiff.Not a kneejerk blip sacking amongst them. But impossible to fit into any kind of survey, which is why this really not very useful at all Dutch study has filled a vacuum and been paid far more reverence than it deserves.This is not to say sackings always work. But they can, under certain circumstances. I would list them as these:1) The sacking has to be a solution to some kind of deep-seated/long-term problem, as exampled above.2) The switch (with the target lined up) has to be made early enough for the new man to work to make a difference. Almost certainly this would mean before the January transfer window, and so with half a season to go.3) The successor has to look to be markedly better than the predecessor. This doesn''t necessarily mean intrinsically better, but under the circumstances likely in practice to produce markedly better results for the remainder of the season. A rough guide would be that if there are, say, six or seven levels of managerial competence/incompetence, then the new man should seem to be two levels above the man sacked. This might only mean getting a club back to where it should have been, and it might not mean avoiding relegation.As to the five cases this season all tick the first box. I think all just about tick the second. Only Sunderland and Palace tick the third. And both have picked up, and not just over four games. They look on track to finish with the kind of points total they always should have achieved - ie their mean -  which they almost certainly would not have reached if they had stayed with di Canio and Holloway respectively.As for Norwich City, we - I would argue - tick box one, but not two or - as far as I know - three.