Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PurpleCanary

The Management Myth - Hit or Myth?

Recommended Posts

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Making Plans"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]Apart, sometimes, from a temporary boost (a kind of dead cat bounce) after which the team''s performances revert to some sort of mean.[/quote]So, as I understand it then, if we changed our Manager now, we might perform better for a half a dozen matches, win 3 or 4 of them & then go back to normality of winning an odd game here & there, drawing a few and losing a few.Well to me that sounds like or best chance of survival because a "dead cat bounce" is better than no bounce at all and under the current incumbent the prospect of our performances improving sufficiently to win a few games in the next month is an unlikely prospect. [/quote]We could have after 10 games but didn''t and got the bounce antway.No, you completely misunderstand the results of the survey. The "Dead Cat Bounce" would have occurred irrespective of a managerial change.Take for instance Sunderland, they sacked Di Canio after taking 1 point from 5 games. That kind of form inevitably does not continue for ever and in the 15 matches since than they have picked up only 13 points which is much closer to a mean score for a relegation team. In the last 9 matches they have won once ( a rather fortunate affair playing against 10 men for 70 mins) and lost 4 times.Fulham sacked their manager on Dec 1st after 5 straight defeats. Again that form isn''t going to continue forever and there duly was an improvement win 3 wins but still 4 losses in 7 games. This is nothing more than a reversion to the mean.WBA sacked Clarke on the 14th Dec after 4 straight losses. Since then they have returned to more normal form with 3 draws and a narrow win against 10 man Newcastle. This is similar to their form before the 4 straight losses which was 3 wins, 3 draws and 1 defeat.Palace sacked Holloway on 23rd October after 7 losses in 8 games. That kind of form inevitably will change, nobody goes through a season like that. Since then they have won 4 and lost 6, a slight bounce indeed but only 1 win and 3 losses in the last 5 suggests nothing other than a return to what you would expect for a team in relegation trouble.Norwich did not sack their manager after winning only 2 of the first 10 games.  Since then 3 wins and 3 draws bring us back to a much closer to our long term mean of just over a point per game.Villa had a similar run recently of only 1 point from 5 games ( again, this doesn''t last forever) but returned to something like true long term point a game average with their victory at Sunderland.A bad run of 4 or 5 defeats on the turn does happen but there is no evidence to show that changing your manager is responsible for a reversion to the mean. It happens  irrespective of a managerial change. If you make the window of inspection small enough you can convince yourself of a bounce but it is nothing more than "reversion to the mean".[/quote]That is an accurate summation of the theory, particularly based on the evidence of a much-quoted survey in the Dutch Eredivise from 1986 to 2004. One obvious problem with that survey, going by a chart in The Numbers Game, is that it does indeed deal only with clubs that sack their manager after a run of at most just five bad games, with a control group of "similar" (not defined) clubs that didn''t sack their managers after such a run. Now almost by definition such a sacking, after just a five-game bad run, is going to fulfil the prophecy of an eventual reversion to the mean.What the Dutch study doesn''t take into account are the cases where a club has

exhibited a longer-term decline under a particular manager, and has sacked the manager for that

reason. I don''t want this to be about Norwich City and Hughton, but it is a fact that after 20 games all the numbers are worse this season. A survey that dealt with clubs that have wielded the axe in those kinds of circumstances would be a useful couter-balance to the more short-term Dutch research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vince Lombardi once said the following:

"Coaches who can outline plays on a black board are a dime a dozen. The ones who win get inside their player and motivate."

I think our team are lacking in motivation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Number 9"]Purple, its January now, time you ought to be packing your bag & getting back to uni[/quote]Do I really have to? I just can''t face the prospect of having to teach you for another term...[:P][:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing about these studies are that they don''t take into account when the manager was replaced, what spending took place, who the replacements were and last but not least had the fans turned on the manager? Surely once you lose the fan base the board tend to act pretty swift!

 

I don''t tend to buy into Hit or Myth as every sacking and team circumstance is different and has a totally unique outcome! What might be good for one team might not be for another!

 

Last we have no say in this matter, it''s down to the board to decide if they want to staick with a manager who has spent 25million with no improvement or twist by bringing in a new manager who they see as a more suitable alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Thirsty Lizard"]Purple - as you are normally so thorough in what you write I am rather surprised that you do appear to have missed out a crucial element in the research into appointing a new manager.

The conclusion of the research was actually that ON AVERAGE!!!!!!!!!!! - there is no advantage in appointing a new manager. Or in other words, aggregated over all the changes of manager that the research looked into overall there was no gain (or loss) to teams in appointing a new manager.

However an average is just that - an average! Concealed within that are any number of individual instances where a team has done better - or worse - after they have appointed a new manager. Indeed in fairly recent memory at Norwich we have two good examples of where appointing a new manager has led to a clear improvement in fortunes, namely the appointments of Nigel Worthington and Paul Lambert.

The key to improvement (and it was ever thus) lies in making the right appointment. If the board is able to inject new funds into the club - over and above what went in before - for transfer fees and wages then that too will increase the chances of success.

Needless to say neither of these last two points should come as much of a surprise to anybody.[/quote]TL, if you have actually read the research (unlike me!) and it is the case that this is a typical kind of average, with many examples as it were above the line, many level, and below, then that is obviously highly relevant. But all the summaries I have seen (including that in The Numbers Game) paint the picture differently - of this being pretty much an iron law (that changing the manager makes no difference) with perhaps a very few exceptions that sinmply go to prove the law.[/quote]

Looking at the original Dutch research paper, I concluded that it was flawed:"The data consists of teams from the highest professional Dutch soccer league for 18 seasons in the period 1986-2004 present for at least 50% of all seasons."If we applied the same 50% rule to the PL, the research would be based on 17 clubs out of the 46 which are either in ( or have been in ) in PL.  In other words, it wouldn''t cover 29 of them - which happens to be the majority.  Surely, those 29 would be the ones to study rather than the 17 who tend to stay up and are, therefore, less likely to change their managers. On that basis, I wouldn''t draw any conclusions from the study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

What the Dutch study doesn''t take into account are the cases where a club has

exhibited a longer-term decline under a particular manager, and has sacked the manager for that

reason. I don''t want this to be about Norwich City and Hughton, but it is a fact that after 20 games all the numbers are worse this season. A survey that dealt with clubs that have wielded the axe in those kinds of circumstances would be a useful couter-balance to the more short-term Dutch research.
[/quote]You could make the same argument about Pardew at Newcastle, after an out performing 2011/12 when they finished 5th He had an under performing 2012/13 with a placing 5th from bottom and now he''s back on the up again. That''s about as longer term as you could ask for.Changing a manager is about rolling the dice and the desperate inevitably are pushed to roll it more often. Whatever you do you will still get as many ones as you will sixes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

What the Dutch study doesn''t take into account are the cases where a club has

exhibited a longer-term decline under a particular manager, and has sacked the manager for that

reason. I don''t want this to be about Norwich City and Hughton, but it is a fact that after 20 games all the numbers are worse this season. A survey that dealt with clubs that have wielded the axe in those kinds of circumstances would be a useful couter-balance to the more short-term Dutch research.
[/quote]You could make the same argument about Pardew at Newcastle, after an out performing 2011/12 when they finished 5th He had an under performing 2012/13 with a placing 5th from bottom and now he''s back on the up again. That''s about as longer term as you could ask for.Changing a manager is about rolling the dice and the desperate inevitably are pushed to roll it more often. Whatever you do you will still get as many ones as you will sixes.[/quote]Possibly. But the popular theory I am questioning is that you will always roll a one. That change will never be for the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

What the Dutch study doesn''t take into account are the cases where a club has

exhibited a longer-term decline under a particular manager, and has sacked the manager for that

reason. I don''t want this to be about Norwich City and Hughton, but it is a fact that after 20 games all the numbers are worse this season. A survey that dealt with clubs that have wielded the axe in those kinds of circumstances would be a useful couter-balance to the more short-term Dutch research.
[/quote]You could make the same argument about Pardew at Newcastle, after an out performing 2011/12 when they finished 5th He had an under performing 2012/13 with a placing 5th from bottom and now he''s back on the up again. That''s about as longer term as you could ask for.Changing a manager is about rolling the dice and the desperate inevitably are pushed to roll it more often. Whatever you do you will still get as many ones as you will sixes.[/quote]Possibly. But the popular theory I am questioning is that you will always roll a one. That change will never be for the better.[/quote]Change is neither good or bad, it''s just the way things are, nothing stays the same forever.I don''t think the theory says that you will always roll a one. It merely shows that change not the panacea that most people seem to believe. Having been a gambler I now the odds for rolling a dice and tossing a coin. You need an edge to win and that''s something you can''t just call up by demanding it. You can win big and you can lose big, or you can keep your money in your pocket. The choice is yours, and it''s all about calculating the risk. Do you risk keeping him or do you risk sacking him.Take calculated risks, that''s quite different from being rashGeorge S Patton (1895-1945)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Successful managers cannot exist in isolation. They require the backing of the chairman and a financially healthy set up to succeed long term. Ultimately a successful club needs a good manager and a good set of players.

 

Now ask yourself: there are two situations in which a manager joins a club. In the rarer case, the manager takes over at a successful club and inherits a good squad of players. On the average, a weaker manager is more likely to have some success in such a situation than a better manager who took over a club with a poorer squad of players. Now take the more common situation. A manager takes over a struggling club and inherits a poor squad of players. Nearly all cases of struggling clubs are due to managerial errors in the transfer market - the progressive buying of dud players who underperform. Thus squads get filled with dead wood and the new manager is then faced with the task of overhauling the squad. And this takes time and money. In nearly all cases, a new manager does appear to have a short term impact on players (maybe installing fresh starts for some, giving them more confidence), new tactics, which spur a resurgence of sorts in results. But this can only work so far as ultimately the squad lacks quality and new tactics/confidence in players can only lift performances by a smallish margin. Such clubs will still lose most games to better teams, and most teams in the league are better than the teams struggling who change manager.

 

Good managers do make a difference. I think the real key is spotting quality players, and doing the homework on what type of person the player is. Alex Ferguson outlines this in his autobiography. Even he admits to making mistakes (Djemba Djemba, Kleberson, even Veron who he rated as a player). Compare that to Bryan Gunn or Bryan Hamilton, who upon taking charge at our club rushed out and signed half a dozen players in both cases, the majority of which were complete duds. How carefully were those signings vetted? Peter Grant was another who signed a shed load of dead wood. And it from these appointments and errors that took us a long time to recover. Compared to these guys Worthington can be considered a very good manager as he was much more successful in the transfer market, even if we did think he lost the plot towards the end (although to be fair compared to what followed we didn''t appreciate just how much the plot could be lost!).

 

So is Hughton a success or failure. At the moment he is keeping us out of the bottom 3. To some, that is success. There is no serious evidence he is buying a tonne of useless duds, although the jury is out on Van Wolfswinkle. The other signings seem okay and good enough. The main gripe is tactics / style of play. Some fans put up. Some fans cannot stand it (especially when results aren''t great). I''m convinced he''ll be here next season now regardless if we go down.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

What the Dutch study doesn''t take into account are the cases where a club has

exhibited a longer-term decline under a particular manager, and has sacked the manager for that

reason. I don''t want this to be about Norwich City and Hughton, but it is a fact that after 20 games all the numbers are worse this season. A survey that dealt with clubs that have wielded the axe in those kinds of circumstances would be a useful couter-balance to the more short-term Dutch research.
[/quote]You could make the same argument about Pardew at Newcastle, after an out performing 2011/12 when they finished 5th He had an under performing 2012/13 with a placing 5th from bottom and now he''s back on the up again. That''s about as longer term as you could ask for.Changing a manager is about rolling the dice and the desperate inevitably are pushed to roll it more often. Whatever you do you will still get as many ones as you will sixes.[/quote]Possibly. But the popular theory I am questioning is that you will always roll a one. That change will never be for the better.[/quote]Change is neither good or bad, it''s just the way things are, nothing stays the same forever.I don''t think the theory says that you will always roll a one. It merely shows that change not the panacea that most people seem to believe. Having been a gambler I now the odds for rolling a dice and tossing a coin. You need an edge to win and that''s something you can''t just call up by demanding it. You can win big and you can lose big, or you can keep your money in your pocket. The choice is yours, and it''s all about calculating the risk. Do you risk keeping him or do you risk sacking him.Take calculated risks, that''s quite different from being rashGeorge S Patton (1895-1945)[/quote]

As we discussed previously, Ricardo, it is difficult to make the argument that changing the manager will have little or no impact because, subsequently, after a manager is dismissed, there can be no record of how things will have unfolded if he had not been dismissed. Your belief appears to be that things will revert to the mean. That''s a belief but not a fact because of what I stated previously.

The CEO of a football club can decide to dismiss a manager for a host of reasons. For example, he might assess the manager doesn''t follow the objectives set out for him, or the players are unhappy and not playing for the manager or coaches, he might simply decide he has an unacceptable level of rapport with the manager.

We all have a way of putting our slant on the point we wish to make. Take you own input earlier on this thread. Regarding Steve Clarke''s dismissal you said, " WBA sacked Clarke on the 14th Dec after 4 straight losses. Since then they have returned to more normal form with 3 draws and a narrow win against 10 man Newcastle. This is similar to their form before the 4 straight losses which was 3 wins, 3 draws and 1 defeat." This is a part of the picture, presumably the part you chose to use to paint the picture to support your viewpoint regarding the mean. However, I doubt this is what was used by Jeremy Peace at WBA. If he was basing his decision on performance then he probably looked at three prior seasons of comfortable mid-table respectability. Indeed, they had improved their win percentage to once every 2.7 games last season compared to once every 2.9 games the season before that. When Peace took his decision I''m sure he looked at the whole picture this season where the win percentage had dropped off to once every 5 games, his team were having difficulty scoring goals compared to the previous season and, consequently, were one point out of a relegation spot. Possibly there were other factors occurring that we are not aware of. Regardless, he chose to roll the dice to dismiss without even replacing the permanent manager position and, so far, they seem to be doing okay with it, having secured six points in four games and instead of trailing Norwich by four points they are now one ahead.

The other point I would make ( I think someone else has already made it using different words ) is that "the mean" is only "mean"ingful to history. It generally has no place in the board rooms of a business as the future objectives whether that business be football, selling toothpaste, detergent or chewing gum. Indeed top management will remove middle managers who appear to be preoccupied with "the mean" because they realize such behavior usually results in going backwards.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I stated a part of my input incorrectly Ricardo. What I meant to write was "Your belief appears to be that things will revert to the mean even if no management dismissal had taken place."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="YankeeCanary"]I stated a part of my input incorrectly Ricardo. What I meant to write was "Your belief appears to be that things will revert to the mean even if no management dismissal had taken place."[/quote]Which indeed they do.Dice rolling is exactly that. You can have no assurance that you will roll more sixes than ones. All you can be certain of is that you will eventually roll an equal number of each. If all the Premier clubs sacked their nonperforming managers you would expect them all to have better managers but since they cannot logically all win more games than they did before they eventually land up in the same place. It''s why teams are continually recycling those nonperforming managers in the hope of something better yet most of the appointees are nothing more than failures at a previous club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the moment I won''t get too involved in this debate, I may later but on a larger note this is showing the truth in the danger of statistics and people trying to interpret in depth studies without actually getting past the summary and headline details. I''ve not read the detail of the report yet, but if it is a serious statistical study then they will have taken measures to counter the majority of factors that can be quantified and making rash statments such as Mustard with his "They only used teams that have been in the division for 50% of 18 years so we can''t trust it" (paraphrased). If you dig a little bit deeper and think about it then you would realise that whilst this would indeed limit the sample set in the premiership quite considerably, in a division such as the Eredivise this isn''t as much of a limitation as one would think, for example there is only 1 team definitely relegated and promoted wach season with another entering a relegation play off and the division is onyl 18 teams large, also the relative strength of the second division in Holland is pretty weak so over the last twenty seasons (I know not the same sample as the study used) there have been 16 teams in the Eredivise for 10 or more seasons, of the current membership of the divison 14 of them have been in it for 10 or more seasons (77%) so and another has been in it for 9. So to dismiss a study based on an assumption made from a limitation that they have placed (understandably so as well) is to take a false position and not give the statisticians the credit that they deserve.

 

On a more practical level, I do actually think that this study makes sense and I can see sense in it''s findings, the results over a long enough period will revert to a standard and any bounce will be cancelled out, the real trick is defining the period of judgement, if, as Sunderland last year, you only need a bounce to gain a couple of results in a short period then you don''t particularly care that over a sample size a season long you still have relegation form then change manager, if on the other hand you are interested in providing an improvement long term and true progression of a club then changing manager is unlikely (note, unlikely, not definitely) to provide the desired effect without other external stimulus, such as a change in financial circumstances (either an increased investment or a reduction of liabilities) or a change in the conditions around the club or other competing clubs (such as a relegation) and these changes in external stimulus should likely have an impact on the performance of the incumbant manager as much as the incoming one, the leverage they gain from it will be defined by the quality of manager...

 

On a personal level, I think we should stick with Hughton for this season, unless we need to paper over the cracks towards the end of it and dead cat bounce out of the relegation zone and potentially reasses in the summer and look for a Southampton style change to leverage improved conditions of being debt free and increased finances thanks to the BT deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="cornish sam"]I got more involved than intended :)[/quote]You are not alone in owning up to that Sam. Mrs Ricardo will have my dinner in the bin if I linger much longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]I stated a part of my input incorrectly Ricardo. What I meant to write was "Your belief appears to be that things will revert to the mean even if no management dismissal had taken place."[/quote]Which indeed they do.Dice rolling is exactly that. You can have no assurance that you will roll more sixes than ones. All you can be certain of is that you will eventually roll an equal number of each. If all the Premier clubs sacked their nonperforming managers you would expect them all to have better managers but since they cannot logically all win more games than they did before they eventually land up in the same place. It''s why teams are continually recycling those nonperforming managers in the hope of something better yet most of the appointees are nothing more than failures at a previous club.[/quote]

My point in my broader message was that neither you nor I can tell how WBA would have  fared for the remainder of this season under Steve Clarke. Or do you think you can? His boss made the decision to dismiss, probably for some of the reasons I cited.With respect to your response on most of the new management appointees are nothing more than failures at a previous club, as a matter of interest, just by running down the list of the twenty clubs in the Premiership, how many of the total managers who are new to their position this season would you regard as being failures at their immediate previous club?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would certainly never advocate not ever changing manager but the reality is most of the time it does not work as finance is the largest driver of pposition. Numerous clubs a similar size to Norwich keeping changing their manager and still remain in the championship. Clubs generally revert to their mean position as finance is a far larger driver of a clubs Position than player selection, tactics or substitutions.

If we drop into the relegation zone then a change of manager may well make sense based on the short term bounce effect theory but on an objective basis CH outperformed last season compared to the clubs relative finances and is also this season. Fergie and Moyes are the only 2 managers who have consistently outperformed the clubs finances so unless you could get one of these 2 managers you would be mad to change an outperforming mgr if you are a CEO on a million to stay in the premier league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''d just like to say that I have just spent the best part of twenty minutes reading the most articulate, reasoned debate I have had the pleasure of on this board!!

Hats off to all the contributors and not a name called in a single post!!!! The less mature of those who may have taken time to read this take note!!

Yea I know ''binner''

OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

We all have a way of putting our slant on the point we wish to make. Take you own input earlier on this thread. Regarding Steve Clarke''s dismissal you said, " WBA sacked Clarke on the 14th Dec after 4 straight losses. Since then they have returned to more normal form with 3 draws and a narrow win against 10 man Newcastle. This is similar to their form before the 4 straight losses which was 3 wins, 3 draws and 1 defeat." This is a part of the picture, presumably the part you chose to use to paint the picture to support your viewpoint regarding the mean. However, I doubt this is what was used by Jeremy Peace at WBA. If he was basing his decision on performance then he probably looked at three prior seasons of comfortable mid-table respectability. Indeed, they had improved their win percentage to once every 2.7 games last season compared to once every 2.9 games the season before that. When Peace took his decision I''m sure he looked at the whole picture this season where the win percentage had dropped off to once every 5 games, his team were having difficulty scoring goals compared to the previous season and, consequently, were one point out of a relegation spot. Possibly there were other factors occurring that we are not aware of. Regardless, he chose to roll the dice to dismiss without even replacing the permanent manager position and, so far, they seem to be doing okay with it, having secured six points in four games and instead of trailing Norwich by four points they are now one ahead.

[/quote]Yankee, I think WBA may well be a good example of a decision taken not because of a short run of bad form but based on a longer-term assessment. I read quite a bit on the sacking, including stuff from the WBA correspondent of the Birmingham Mail, and there was a strong feeling that Clarke''s early much-praised success last season was in part due to him living off Hodgson''s achievements. After that - the second half of last season and all of this - the picture was less attractive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]I stated a part of my input incorrectly Ricardo. What I meant to write was "Your belief appears to be that things will revert to the mean even if no management dismissal had taken place."[/quote]Which indeed they do.Dice rolling is exactly that. You can have no assurance that you will roll more sixes than ones. All you can be certain of is that you will eventually roll an equal number of each. If all the Premier clubs sacked their nonperforming managers you would expect them all to have better managers but since they cannot logically all win more games than they did before they eventually land up in the same place. It''s why teams are continually recycling those nonperforming managers in the hope of something better yet most of the appointees are nothing more than failures at a previous club.[/quote]

My point in my broader message was that neither you nor I can tell how WBA would have  fared for the remainder of this season under Steve Clarke. Or do you think you can? His boss made the decision to dismiss, probably for some of the reasons I cited.With respect to your response on most of the new management appointees are nothing more than failures at a previous club, as a matter of interest, just by running down the list of the twenty clubs in the Premiership, how many of the total managers who are new to their position this season would you regard as being failures at their immediate previous club? [/quote]You make my point for me, we can''t tell how he would have fared the rest of the season anymore than we can tell whether it would have been better or worse than his successor. Dice throwing is exactly what it is, a risk with as much chance of failure as of success. Which turns out to be the same outcome as having not acted at all if you use the study that says comparable clubs who do nothing have the same outcome.As for rolling through the rest of the Premier clubs you and I both know it''s a pointless exercise. The top clubs change their managers (Man U excepted) more often than most people change their wallpaper. They more or less finish up in the same positions. The top managers do the rounds of the top clubs and are recycled almost as often as the managers of lower clubs.Harry succeeds for a while at Spurs then fails at QPR. Mark Hughes fails at Man C and QPR and has so far achieved moderate success at Stoke. Martin Jol has been recycled a few times usually ending in failure. Pullis has moderate success at Stoke but they sacked him for the same reasons many think our Board should adopt with Hughton. Now he''s turning Palace into the new Stoke, regardless of his reputation hes 4/0 Fav to be relegated. Sunderland go through managers at such a rate it''s hard to keep up, yet no discernible improvement from their long term mean. Who knows if Poyet can change that, the signs aren''t good. For Sunderland read Villa, he kept them up but they don''t like his style and still bumble along outside the big seven where they think they should rightfully be.Only with Southampton could you argue that it''s been an improvement and even then a lot of it is down to an enormous spending spree funded by people with far deeper pockets than Delia and MWJ. In any event  since sacking Adkins on Jan 13th last year they have won 47 points a whole 7 points more than Chris Hughton has won in the same time period with NCFC. It just shows what you have to spend for such a marginal return. Who''d a believed it[;)] Spin the wheel and it goes round and round and ends up who knows where. The only certainty is that it does go round and round, just like all those managers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]
There is a thesis, backed by academic research, of The Management Myth. Which attempts to demolish the commonly-held idea that changing a manager can improve a team''s performance.
[/quote]A huge essay and backed up by what? The research which proved, if you sack a manager whilst on a short turn downturn in results (previous 4 games) there will be little difference in the following 4 results.Utterly meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]
There is a thesis, backed by academic research, of The Management Myth. Which attempts to demolish the commonly-held idea that changing a manager can improve a team''s performance.
[/quote]A huge essay and backed up by what? The research which proved, if you sack a manager whilst on a short turn downturn in results (previous 4 games) there will be little difference in the following 4 results.Utterly meaningless.[/quote]No, oh dear, this is becoming wearisome. It doesn''t say that at all. For the last time, what it shows is a return to more normal form as opposed to the short term downturn in form is not affected by changing your manager.So far 5 of the strugglers have changed. By the laws of logic they won''t all survive. Those that do ( and at least 2 must) may well put it down to the managerial change, those that don''t will tell you it made no difference.By inference some of those that didn''t swap their manager will be subject to the same possibilities of relegation and come to the same conclusions about their actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

We all have a way of putting our slant on the point we wish to make. Take you own input earlier on this thread. Regarding Steve Clarke''s dismissal you said, " WBA sacked Clarke on the 14th Dec after 4 straight losses. Since then they have returned to more normal form with 3 draws and a narrow win against 10 man Newcastle. This is similar to their form before the 4 straight losses which was 3 wins, 3 draws and 1 defeat." This is a part of the picture, presumably the part you chose to use to paint the picture to support your viewpoint regarding the mean. However, I doubt this is what was used by Jeremy Peace at WBA. If he was basing his decision on performance then he probably looked at three prior seasons of comfortable mid-table respectability. Indeed, they had improved their win percentage to once every 2.7 games last season compared to once every 2.9 games the season before that. When Peace took his decision I''m sure he looked at the whole picture this season where the win percentage had dropped off to once every 5 games, his team were having difficulty scoring goals compared to the previous season and, consequently, were one point out of a relegation spot. Possibly there were other factors occurring that we are not aware of. Regardless, he chose to roll the dice to dismiss without even replacing the permanent manager position and, so far, they seem to be doing okay with it, having secured six points in four games and instead of trailing Norwich by four points they are now one ahead.

[/quote]Yankee, I think WBA may well be a good example of a decision taken not because of a short run of bad form but based on a longer-term assessment. I read quite a bit on the sacking, including stuff from the WBA correspondent of the Birmingham Mail, and there was a strong feeling that Clarke''s early much-praised success last season was in part due to him living off Hodgson''s achievements. After that - the second half of last season and all of this - the picture was less attractive. [/quote]

Purple, I hope you were not thinking I believed that WBA were going through a short run of bad form. I was pointing out the opposite. I rather suspect that was what Ricardo was suggesting, i.e. things would have returned to normal even if Clarke was not dismissed. Obviously the WBA board did not believe that.It is worth noting, however, ( and to your point ) that last season WBA achieved 33 points in the first half and only 24 points during the second half. Interesting that their poor second half was just a whisker short of what many would have said was our good first half. Further, to the thought that Clarke was living off Hodgson''s achievements, some might say there is a parallel there in terms of why Hughton might have enjoyed success in the early part part of his tenure during the first half of last season by living off Lambert''s achievements. Some might say that, Purple, but I couldn''t possibly comment. [:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

We all have a way of putting our slant on the point we wish to make. Take you own input earlier on this thread. Regarding Steve Clarke''s dismissal you said, " WBA sacked Clarke on the 14th Dec after 4 straight losses. Since then they have returned to more normal form with 3 draws and a narrow win against 10 man Newcastle. This is similar to their form before the 4 straight losses which was 3 wins, 3 draws and 1 defeat." This is a part of the picture, presumably the part you chose to use to paint the picture to support your viewpoint regarding the mean. However, I doubt this is what was used by Jeremy Peace at WBA. If he was basing his decision on performance then he probably looked at three prior seasons of comfortable mid-table respectability. Indeed, they had improved their win percentage to once every 2.7 games last season compared to once every 2.9 games the season before that. When Peace took his decision I''m sure he looked at the whole picture this season where the win percentage had dropped off to once every 5 games, his team were having difficulty scoring goals compared to the previous season and, consequently, were one point out of a relegation spot. Possibly there were other factors occurring that we are not aware of. Regardless, he chose to roll the dice to dismiss without even replacing the permanent manager position and, so far, they seem to be doing okay with it, having secured six points in four games and instead of trailing Norwich by four points they are now one ahead.

[/quote]Yankee, I think WBA may well be a good example of a decision taken not because of a short run of bad form but based on a longer-term assessment. I read quite a bit on the sacking, including stuff from the WBA correspondent of the Birmingham Mail, and there was a strong feeling that Clarke''s early much-praised success last season was in part due to him living off Hodgson''s achievements. After that - the second half of last season and all of this - the picture was less attractive. [/quote]

Purple, I hope you were not thinking I believed that WBA were going through a short run of bad form. I was pointing out the opposite. I rather suspect that was what Ricardo was suggesting, i.e. things would have returned to normal even if Clarke was not dismissed. Obviously the WBA board did not believe that.It is worth noting, however, ( and to your point ) that last season WBA achieved 33 points in the first half and only 24 points during the second half. Interesting that their poor second half was just a whisker short of what many would have said was our good first half. Further, to the thought that Clarke was living off Hodgson''s achievements, some might say there is a parallel there in terms of why Hughton might have enjoyed success in the early part part of his tenure during the first half of last season by living off Lambert''s achievements. Some might say that, Purple, but I couldn''t possibly comment. [:D] [/quote]Er sorry to have to correct you Yankee old mate, but WBA''s second half of the season was much worse than that and much worse than ours. The finished on 49 points, 33 in the first half and only 16 in the second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

We all have a way of putting our slant on the point we wish to make. Take you own input earlier on this thread. Regarding Steve Clarke''s dismissal you said, " WBA sacked Clarke on the 14th Dec after 4 straight losses. Since then they have returned to more normal form with 3 draws and a narrow win against 10 man Newcastle. This is similar to their form before the 4 straight losses which was 3 wins, 3 draws and 1 defeat." This is a part of the picture, presumably the part you chose to use to paint the picture to support your viewpoint regarding the mean. However, I doubt this is what was used by Jeremy Peace at WBA. If he was basing his decision on performance then he probably looked at three prior seasons of comfortable mid-table respectability. Indeed, they had improved their win percentage to once every 2.7 games last season compared to once every 2.9 games the season before that. When Peace took his decision I''m sure he looked at the whole picture this season where the win percentage had dropped off to once every 5 games, his team were having difficulty scoring goals compared to the previous season and, consequently, were one point out of a relegation spot. Possibly there were other factors occurring that we are not aware of. Regardless, he chose to roll the dice to dismiss without even replacing the permanent manager position and, so far, they seem to be doing okay with it, having secured six points in four games and instead of trailing Norwich by four points they are now one ahead.

[/quote]Yankee, I think WBA may well be a good example of a decision taken not because of a short run of bad form but based on a longer-term assessment. I read quite a bit on the sacking, including stuff from the WBA correspondent of the Birmingham Mail, and there was a strong feeling that Clarke''s early much-praised success last season was in part due to him living off Hodgson''s achievements. After that - the second half of last season and all of this - the picture was less attractive. [/quote]

Purple, I hope you were not thinking I believed that WBA were going through a short run of bad form. I was pointing out the opposite. I rather suspect that was what Ricardo was suggesting, i.e. things would have returned to normal even if Clarke was not dismissed. Obviously the WBA board did not believe that.It is worth noting, however, ( and to your point ) that last season WBA achieved 33 points in the first half and only 24 points during the second half. Interesting that their poor second half was just a whisker short of what many would have said was our good first half. Further, to the thought that Clarke was living off Hodgson''s achievements, some might say there is a parallel there in terms of why Hughton might have enjoyed success in the early part part of his tenure during the first half of last season by living off Lambert''s achievements. Some might say that, Purple, but I couldn''t possibly comment. [:D] [/quote]Er sorry to have to correct you Yankee old mate, but WBA''s second half of the season was much worse than that and much worse than ours. The finished on 49 points, 33 in the first half and only 16 in the second.[/quote]

Don''t be sorry, Ricardo. I stand corrected , particularly now you are making my point for me  [:D] on whether they would have been better off or not to remain with Clarke. Of course, there''s a way to go but they have certainly made strides against our recent tally. I wonder if Jeremy Peace believes in the dead cat bounce. He''s probably trying to think through the impossibility of enticing Hodgson back when the World Cup is just around the corner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="YankeeCanary"]Purple, I hope you were not thinking I believed that WBA were going through a short run of bad form. I was pointing out the opposite. I rather suspect that was what Ricardo was suggesting, i.e. things would have returned to normal even if Clarke was not dismissed. Obviously the WBA board did not believe that.It is worth noting, however, ( and to your point ) that last season WBA achieved 33 points in the first half and only 24 points during the second half. Interesting that their poor second half was just a whisker short of what many would have said was our good first half. Further, to the thought that Clarke was living off Hodgson''s achievements, some might say there is a parallel there in terms of why Hughton might have enjoyed success in the early part part of his tenure during the first half of last season by living off Lambert''s achievements. Some might say that, Purple, but I couldn''t possibly comment. [:D] [/quote]No. I wasn''t thinking that at all. I know you were pointing out the opposite. And accordingly I was using it as an example of a sacking that has longer-term roots than a short run of losses. And it is the kind of sacking that I suspect is not covered by this much-quoted but little-read Dutch research. As to your last point I wouldn''t dream of commenting on your lack of comment...Actually I don''t believe that is the case. I think that would be to do Hughton a disservice. I buy into Parma''s multi-syllabic argument (or at least give it house room) that Hughton has been trying to play a different, more sophisticated kind of football. One that might work better in the long run. What I don''t believe for one moment is that Hughton, despite having more than a season and a half to work in, has got anywhere succeeding in this ambition. We have lost that attacking drive without gaining defensive stability. Parma is seeing what he would like to see rather than the reality being produced on the pitch. The figures do not lie. We are scoring fewer and letting in more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

We all have a way of putting our slant on the point we wish to make. Take you own input earlier on this thread. Regarding Steve Clarke''s dismissal you said, " WBA sacked Clarke on the 14th Dec after 4 straight losses. Since then they have returned to more normal form with 3 draws and a narrow win against 10 man Newcastle. This is similar to their form before the 4 straight losses which was 3 wins, 3 draws and 1 defeat." This is a part of the picture, presumably the part you chose to use to paint the picture to support your viewpoint regarding the mean. However, I doubt this is what was used by Jeremy Peace at WBA. If he was basing his decision on performance then he probably looked at three prior seasons of comfortable mid-table respectability. Indeed, they had improved their win percentage to once every 2.7 games last season compared to once every 2.9 games the season before that. When Peace took his decision I''m sure he looked at the whole picture this season where the win percentage had dropped off to once every 5 games, his team were having difficulty scoring goals compared to the previous season and, consequently, were one point out of a relegation spot. Possibly there were other factors occurring that we are not aware of. Regardless, he chose to roll the dice to dismiss without even replacing the permanent manager position and, so far, they seem to be doing okay with it, having secured six points in four games and instead of trailing Norwich by four points they are now one ahead.

[/quote]Yankee, I think WBA may well be a good example of a decision taken not because of a short run of bad form but based on a longer-term assessment. I read quite a bit on the sacking, including stuff from the WBA correspondent of the Birmingham Mail, and there was a strong feeling that Clarke''s early much-praised success last season was in part due to him living off Hodgson''s achievements. After that - the second half of last season and all of this - the picture was less attractive. [/quote]

Purple, I hope you were not thinking I believed that WBA were going through a short run of bad form. I was pointing out the opposite. I rather suspect that was what Ricardo was suggesting, i.e. things would have returned to normal even if Clarke was not dismissed. Obviously the WBA board did not believe that.It is worth noting, however, ( and to your point ) that last season WBA achieved 33 points in the first half and only 24 points during the second half. Interesting that their poor second half was just a whisker short of what many would have said was our good first half. Further, to the thought that Clarke was living off Hodgson''s achievements, some might say there is a parallel there in terms of why Hughton might have enjoyed success in the early part part of his tenure during the first half of last season by living off Lambert''s achievements. Some might say that, Purple, but I couldn''t possibly comment. [:D] [/quote]Er sorry to have to correct you Yankee old mate, but WBA''s second half of the season was much worse than that and much worse than ours. The finished on 49 points, 33 in the first half and only 16 in the second.[/quote]

Don''t be sorry, Ricardo. I stand corrected , particularly now you are making my point for me  [:D] on whether they would have been better off or not to remain with Clarke. Of course, there''s a way to go but they have certainly made strides against our recent tally. I wonder if Jeremy Peace believes in the dead cat bounce. He''s probably trying to think through the impossibility of enticing Hodgson back when the World Cup is just around the corner.[/quote]Ha Ha Ha, I just knew you''d fall into that trap. Once again looking at things through a narrow window. I''m afraid the same fault apply''s to Jeremy Peace, he thought WBA''s first half of the season points average of 1.7 was the new reality. Of course it wasn''t and he had no right to expect it to continue it was just the natural movement above the line of the long term expected mean. The second half of the season and the first part of this season is just a reversion to the mean WBA will never be a 1.7 ave team, even Lokaku couldn''t get them there on a permanent basis that was Liverpool, Everton territory last season.No team goes through the season with an continuous identical points average, the fixture list negates that with periods where you meet stronger clubs and the clustering''s of homes and away''s against those clubs. NCFC''s much vaunted 10 game streak was another case of a clustering of good results above the line and may fans were seduced by this. It''s unsurprising that fan''s and Chairman alike begin to think they''ve found a new reality for their club and just as unsurprising when they want a scapegoat to blame when the inevitable bad result clustering begins.There is no way out of this trap without billionaire backing, the evidence is staring you in the face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, there is a danger of disappearing up your own anuses here.

 

 

Far far away in a reality far from Norwich , what is being suggested is that if this study is proven to be correct , then no club would ever sack it manager . In fact to take the argument on , and using language that has already been used, only those controlling interests in a football club that are “desperate” would change their manager. For to do so, is merely rolling a dice.

 

Change the manager or not, what will be, will be. We are what we are.

 

So why do Football Clubs change their managers? All they need,  is to read this study to realise that they need not bother. And save themselves a stack of cash.  

 

But still , highly intelligent, highly successful multi millionaire and  multi talented people change their decision makers. Why not read this study? It’s all you need to do.

 

I’m guessing that far more successful, far more worldly wise people than us will still try and make changes in the fact of adversity. But this is only a hunch.   

 

PS I’d love to chat this through over a pint....

 

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...