I repeat you insisted that statistics showed a replacement for Wenger would not do as well in the PL. I countered that rubbish by saying if you relied on immediate previous data, Arsenal would have won 4 titles during the last 8 years..... Since those posts you have never explained the point you made. I also pointed out that many replacement managers do far better than those they succeeded. over to you.
I'll add to this: How many replacement managers in the past 3 years have taken the club backwards ? I can't think of many, probably only Hodgson at Liverpool but he wasn't even given a season so ... who knows how they would've turned out. You can't argue that King Kenny didn't make a massive differece, and again you can't argue that Hodgson didn't make a big difference at Fulham. Then you have Pardew at Newcastle, Allardyce at West Ham, Hughes at Fulham, Mancini at Citeh ... etc etc
Kean? AVB? Hughes? How many games? Kenny - They are still **** after spending shed loads. Allardyce - Championship.
Hothead : I wasn't going to bother with FACTS - but thank you for evidence instead of unsubstantiated rubbish.
Magic Man, if I had the time or inclination I could go through all the managerial transfers during the past 3 years and there would be far more managers that turned things around than those that didn't. Very few managerial changes end up taking the club backwards.
Kean I will accept, AVB I won't. He has been tasked with changing the cloub totally and rebuilding it so of course that will take time. Hughes took Fulham forward. Allardyce has taken West Ham to the top of the table and they should be promoted. Hughton took Newcastle straight back to the Premiership. Kenny's team is above us AND in a final. Progress from Hodgson I think you can agree.
So if Man City win the league and sack Mancini anyway, you would put all your money on the next manager finishing better than 1st?
The difference between statistics in high school an statistics in the real world is that when you use statistics to justify an investment or a business decision, you must represent those statistics fairly and be more moderate in your claims. I realise that this is a forum and being right is secondary to winning the argument, but my moderate claim that "But replacing him is statistically far more likely to result in us finishing out of the top 4, than in it." Is not saying catagorically that something will happen based on statistics. This is how statistics are used. I'll maintain my assertion that this shows a lack of understanding of statistics on your part, and how they are used in the real world. As Wenger has a perfect record of finishing in the top 4, my claim is not very hard to make. Winning 4 out of 8 as a certainty is not a conclusion that someone who works with statistics for a living would come to, because it is not . Now please stop this attack on me,because it is totally without merit. I will admit I was rude, but if you will be rude to me then you have got to expect it to be handed back.
me? rude to you? Did I say you were rubbish, or just your views? anyway - I maintain a replacement has every chance of doing better than Wenger. I'm waving a white flag - don't shoot.
I think the point is that your moderate view was an opinion and had nothing to do with stats, which in no way can be used to support the claim you made - in the real world. Yes it was jumped upon, but only because you continued with your stats argument and denegrated other people for not knowing a subject that you clearly dont understand yourself.
Now you are making me feel like 'the man in the iron mask' (who remembers that the first time around?).
Now he was an imposter - I get that all the time on other sites too. People like to pretend they are me. All the adulation is sometimes overwhelming.