The Management Myth - Hit or Myth?

[Mello Yello 2,294]

I see damage limitation at Cardiff has been wheeled out by ''The Tantamount to a travesty''......OGS is now the manager and let''s see if the disgruntled Cardiff support remember Malky six games from now?

 

 

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"]

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....

 

[/quote]They do it because they are human beings and human beings are notoriously bad at calculating the odds. It''s why bookies win and punters fall for the idea that is pushed to them that they can all be winners, they can''t but they don''t want to believe it. They are seduced by "it could be you". They have no idea what odds of 14 million to one really means. For most of us it means waiting beyond the end of time space and the Universe before our numbers come up.When the fans are clamoring for a change it''s easier to push the button and spin the wheel than to stand by your man. This being so, means that the managerial wheel will always be turning.Human nature is not going to change. We hope by doing something rather than nothing, things will get better. Mostly they won''t or would have done anyway regardless of what action was taken. I think we''d need more than one pint GPB old pal[:D]

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"]

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....

 

[/quote]

They do it because they are human beings and human beings are notoriously bad at calculating the odds. It''s why bookies win and punters fall for the idea that is pushed to them that they can all be winners, they can''t but they don''t want to believe it. They are seduced by "it could be you". They have no idea what odds of 14 million to one really means. For most of us it means waiting beyond the end of time space and the Universe before our numbers come up.

When the fans are clamoring for a change it''s easier to push the button and spin the wheel than to stand by your man. This being so, means that the managerial wheel will always be turning.

Human nature is not going to change. We hope by doing something rather than nothing, things will get better. Mostly they won''t or would have done anyway regardless of what action was taken.

I think we''d need more than one pint GPB old pal[:D]
[/quote]

 

Hell yes Ricardo my friend. I would absolutely love a chat about all things NCFC and add in a pinch of ethereal I''d be there like a shot. I still owe you the pint of Peroni I promised you last year, on account of us staying up!

 

Cheers me ol '' mucker.

 

GPB

 

[:)]  

[cornish sam 953]

I think that it''s not just a case of them misjudging their ability to predict the odds but as much a belief that they are finding that progression, that ephemeral next step up the ladder towards their vision. The only club that seem to have been able to do that us Southampton, everything you read about them and their progression talks about the singular objective and project as outlined by cortese and everyone has bought into that vision and is pulling in that direction. We all derided the ruthless dismissal of Atkins at the time bit it has been proven to be an astute move and a progression towards their goal. Admittedly though they are in an almost unique position, being backed by the funds of a billionaire who isn''t going to get bored or pull out because he''s dead and his friend (cortese) is continuing his aims and the trustees know that he will just walk away as soon as they try to stop him; so here there are multiple external stimuli added to the fact that the manager was not sacked due to bad performance, more that he was just a stepping stone in the same way as NC FC may be for the likes of fer and rvw...

At wba they think they are doing the same, bit actually as Ricardo points out, they have mistaken an above average period as being the new normal, much ad ridsdale did at Leeds and gaydemark at Pompey...

For the teams that are suffering a slump (or return to mean or even just an expectation of instant success) there is also the element of those that are used to having total control finding out that, despite the millions they''ve thrown, they actually have none, so out of desperation they change the only thing they can, the manager...

[cornish sam 953]

Oh, and as an aside, referencing purple/parma; I think the issue here is that contrary to popular opinion, we have changed styles this season. Last season was built on a strong 4-4-1-1 with a compressed defence and midfield affording little room for maneuver for the attacking team, hence a tight defensive record. This season Hughton has tried to get us to play a 4-2-3-1 with inverted wingers which we don''t have,(only pilks really is up to the task on his day) but because they are on their wrong side it not only means that the attack is conpomised but also they are further forward and instinctively defending the wrong way which exacerbates the defensive problems we''ve had this season so we score less and concede more, thankfully lots of those goals have come in a few matches so our situation isn''t as bad as the goal difference implies...

[cornish sam 953]

(ignore my spelling errors, I''m tryng to post from a smartphone for the first time)

[cornish sam 953]

And now it''s put a bloody smiley in the title! I''m going to bed...

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]

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.[/quote]

Come on Ricardo, the narrow window is yours. If you can figure out what reality is and how things work I''m sure Peace is savvy enough to match your wits. WBA are a well managed club. What undoubtedly led to Clarke''s dismissal is what I indicated earlier supported by what Purple had to say. Following a comfortable promotion to the Premiership during the 09/10 season Peace had seen his club finish comfortably in mid-table for three seasons. However, following the poor second half last season and being one point away from the relegation spot this season he had seen enough. This is the reality that Peace saw. Not your narrow window.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

----------------ricardo---------

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.

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

The data only follows the 4 matches before and after hiring a new manager.... completely, utterly meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

As for managers making no difference. I guess you would have no worries about Hughton being sacked then right? unless of course a different manager can actually make a difference.

Everyone realises there are no guarantees of course. It could be the playing squad assembled by the previous manager was not good enough. The new manager could be worse, or any number of other reasons.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

--------------------ricardo---------------

They do it because they are human beings and human beings are notoriously bad at calculating the odds.

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

Deary me... We would still have Peter Grant, Glenn Roeder or Brian Gunn here with you in charge. Embarrassing.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]WBA are a well managed club. What undoubtedly led to Clarke''s dismissal is what I indicated earlier supported by what Purple had to say. Following a comfortable promotion to the Premiership during the 09/10 season Peace had seen his club finish comfortably in mid-table for three seasons. However, following the poor second half last season and being one point away from the relegation spot this season he had seen enough. This is the reality that Peace saw.[/quote]

I think this is a key point. Just to give some background, I started hearing pundits talking about "regressing to the mean" and how this meant changing managers never worked, with the book The Numbers Game being namechecked. Now, this book is not total tosh, but quite a lot of it is, and the sections on changing managers need to be read very carefully, because they lack rigour, and are contradictory.In particular their case for "regressing to the mean" meaning that changing managers never works ("It is an expensive illusion.") is based on two charts. One is for hitting in baseball. A sport unfamiliar to me but I think it is the American name for what we call Dwile Flonking. Anyway, of marginal relevance to the sacking of football managers. The superficially more interesting second, of Dutch Eredivisie sackings, purports to show that clubs who enjoy a revival after a sacking would have done anyway if they hadn''t made the change. The argument being that the slump that prompted change was temporary. "An extraordinary period of poor performance is just that; extraordinary. It will autocorrect."But this is entirely based on clubs that wield the axe after a run of just four or five games. And on the highly questionable assumption that the slump is just temporary. What one might call the Five Game Slump Syndrome, or FGSS. But how often is FGSS the only or even the major reason for a sacking?  What if  the slump doesn''t look like it is going to end, because of deeper-seated problems? Such as, as Yankee says, with West Brom. There were long-term doubts, stretching back to last season, about Clarke. And of the four teams below Norwich that have made a change it isn''t clear that FGSS was the major factor with any of them.Fulham looks the likeliest, but at Cardiff there were well-publicised issues away from the pitch central to the management switch. and the same applies at Sunderland with di Canio. At Palace it was Holloway who wanted to quit and the chairman who tried to make him stay. It is true that none of those sides was doing well, but there is nothing to suggest they were simply in a temporary slump that would rectify itself, and nothing to suggest the respective chairmen were being short-sighted in their decision-making.