Keep Calm and Don't panic!

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
PowerSpurs

PowerSpurs

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2011
13,616
7,882
113
Oxford
No not another thread about our poor start to the season!

You often see complaints on this forum from all fans, not just ours, that the manager doesn't change things quickly enough when things are going badly in a match.

I've posted a few times that I think that is wrong - Football is a game where a slight edge in performance takes a long time to work because goals are so infrequent. You probably have the ball around 100 times during a match so scoring one in every 50 times would be a good result. That means there will be many times when three quarters of the match goes by with no goals even if you have chosen exactly the right team and exactly the right tactics. This is not a good reason to change tactics or personnel. Why should inferior tactics or players work better? There is no need to change either just because they've not succeeded so far.

There is an article in the Independent today that reports results of research that checks if managers' substituitions have generally got a positive or negative effect.

Surprise surprise, changes make things worse! Just another example of things which are 'obvious' to fans and the manager is right all along, and indeed probably the manager makes too many changes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...how-to-rescue-a-game-when-losing-9854650.html
 
I have always said that the manager is essentially a negative influence. This is why I complain about people like AVB and Pochettino with their systems. A team is 11 men with different skills and perhaps more important, different mental abilities. The managers job in my view is to select the best blend put them in their best positions, explain the job, point out the qualities or lack of them in the opposition and then let them get on with it. What a manager needs more than anything is a player 'a captain' on the pitch who is capable of reading what is happening and chose the correct course AND galvanise the rest of the team.

Redknapp did this and Ledley often helped him. I think we found stats at the time which suggested the far better performance with King playing and that was not just down to his his defensive skills it indicated his influence on the rest of the team. Just think of all the great teams in history and I think you will find that they all have a very significant captain. The manager has to create this situation and then let it alone to work.
 
Statistics can often be interpreted to prove a spurious point.

Substituitions are made for a variety of reasons. There are a number which are undoubtedly sensible, but are probably not going to positively affect the outcome. For example, the 'keeper is sent off so an outfield player is replaced by the substitute 'keeper. The ten man team probably won't win anyway. Or Ronaldo does down injured and can't carry on so he is substituted. It's less likely that the replacement will affect the outcome of a game as often as Ronaldo. Many substituitions are for injuries and are therefore beyond the control of the manager.

The analysis may have been more useful if it looked at tactical substituitions - although that in itself would involve many assumptions about the reasons for the change. Changing formation or style of play, fresh legs etc might all have a potential effect on the game, but there are so many other variables. The substituition may have been inspired but it might not have changed the outcome because the opposition 'keeper made a world class save or the ref dropped a clanger or due to bad luck etc etc.

Lies, damn lies and statistics in my view.
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
Statistics can often be interpreted to prove a spurious point.

Substituitions are made for a variety of reasons. There are a number which are undoubtedly sensible, but are probably not going to positively affect the outcome. For example, the 'keeper is sent off so an outfield player is replaced by the substitute 'keeper. The ten man team probably won't win anyway. Or Ronaldo does down injured and can't carry on so he is substituted. It's less likely that the replacement will affect the outcome of a game as often as Ronaldo. Many substituitions are for injuries and are therefore beyond the control of the manager.

The analysis may have been more useful if it looked at tactical substituitions - although that in itself would involve many assumptions about the reasons for the change. Changing formation or style of play, fresh legs etc might all have a potential effect on the game, but there are so many other variables. The substituition may have been inspired but it might not have changed the outcome because the opposition 'keeper made a world class save or the ref dropped a clanger or due to bad luck etc etc.

Lies, damn lies and statistics in my view.
Click to expand...

I think you are underestimating the sophistication of this research. The full paper isn't available as far as I can see but the authors' comments indicate they have tested specific decisions by the manager such as bringing on an extra striker. There also seem to be enough matches in the data to average out the other random effects you mention. Bringing on an additional striker when you are losing a match unexpectedly versus an inferior team apparently costs 0.3 goals and 0.3 points compared to doing nothing!
 
Spurf said:
I have always said that the manager is essentially a negative influence. This is why I complain about people like AVB and Pochettino with their systems. A team is 11 men with different skills and perhaps more important, different mental abilities. The managers job in my view is to select the best blend put them in their best positions, explain the job, point out the qualities or lack of them in the opposition and then let them get on with it. What a manager needs more than anything is a player 'a captain' on the pitch who is capable of reading what is happening and chose the correct course AND galvanise the rest of the team.

Redknapp did this and Ledley often helped him. I think we found stats at the time which suggested the far better performance with King playing and that was not just down to his his defensive skills it indicated his influence on the rest of the team. Just think of all the great teams in history and I think you will find that they all have a very significant captain. The manager has to create this situation and then let it alone to work.
Click to expand...

There's considerable literature demonstrating a parallel point in tennis. People try to improve their strokes by controlling what they do with their conscious brain. It fails because no one plays with their conscious brain. They play with their bodies, which benefit not from conscious direction, but lack of it. Not thinking allows the body to get on with the task of playing in as comfortable a way as possible.

Of course, there are exceptions. One conscious thought, if it is the right one, and one the body has not "learned", can help. But it's so difficult to keep the exceptions from turning into "paralysis by analysis" that most people are better most of the time thinking as little as possible and relaxing as much as possible.
 
I'm wondering how they found any examples to counter their hypothesis, as nobody who's losing a game that they're expected to win fails to make attacking subs.
 
Good players playing well - that's what a manager should aim for. It really is very simple as objectives go. And the "playing well" bit has less to do with formations and tactics than it does to do with confidence in themselves and those around them, faith that the simple instructions they've been given will work, sheer effort etc.

I have no doubt that complicated tactical set-ups and formation diagrams might be able to help. But they will count for exactly bugger all if all the stuff I just mentioned isn't there.
 
lennypops said:
Good players playing well - that's what a manager should aim for. It really is very simple as objectives go. And the "playing well" bit has less to do with formations and tactics than it does to do with confidence in themselves and those around them, faith that the simple instructions they've been given will work, sheer effort etc.

I have no doubt that complicated tactical set-ups and formation diagrams might be able to help. But they will count for exactly bugger all if all the stuff I just mentioned isn't there.
Click to expand...

I agree with the last paragraph but there are other things that matter these days too: in particular physical condition and preparation. Someone at the club needs to be able to get that to a high standard or we will start with a disadvantage over those that do. High performing teams in other sports leave no stone unturned in looking to eliminate drags on performance and science comes into it a lot. Nicholson was reputedly one of the first UK managers to take notice of such things
 
O.Spurcat said:
I am a lot calmer now I know Bongani Khumalo is back in training.
Click to expand...

I know, right? The wait is over!

(If I were someone wanting to investigate fraud/corruption in the Premier League this transfer/continued employment would be one of the first things I'd investigate. I mean what IS going on with that? Did Levy owe some South African gangsters money or something?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back