Well, he is technically right when he says most black managers are/have been rubbish. Just like he'd be right to say most flips ended up on heads with my previous example. But to try and use that data to back up an argument is impossible due to said data having too high of a margin of error.
charlton pat...here here to that mate. ur a credit to the board. ryan...nice lesson on stats and interpretation of data. quite correct
Ponders, I don't want to hi-jack this thread because it's one of the more serious and interesting threads, not filled with inanities (Ackworth, take note!). Perhaps I should start a fresh thread on what constitutes a good or bad manager but specifically regarding CP, he has shown a good eye for players at this level. He is obviously doing something right regarding man-management. He has England, Prem and Champ experience. I can't see how he can be anything else other than a good manager. I agree some prosper at a certain level (no, I won't mention the P-word) and struggle any higher but CP has all the credentials to be not just a good manager but a great manager.
Ryan, Pat, WSW, Calydon. If you flip a coin five times and four times it lands as heads, you could say 'Based on what we know, the majority of the last five flips have been heads'. That statement would be factually true. It cannot be argued against. As things stand, regardless of the figures we are dealing with, the majority of blacks managers to date have been failures. That fact cannot be disputed. Maybe the results will change in time, but as it stands, my assumptions are correct. Surely we can agree on that? Now. Black people are people, right?. We are all people. So why say that we must have a certain number of black managers? If it happens, it happens. But drawing attention to it and making demands just highlights differences in people's skin colour. Chris Powell and Alan C could have been a couple of trained chimps for all I care. As long as they do well for Charlton, I am happy. Yesterday, Block made a comment about me not celebrating BWP's goals because he is black. Absolute tosh! I have loved and adored many black players through the years; they are Charlton players and could be aliens from outer space for all I care. Personally, I do not care how many black managers there are in the game. I do not care how many white managers there are, or Chinese, or *****lian, or Peruvians. It does not really matter at the end of the day.
With the black manager debate, Oliver Holt wasn't saying there HAS to be more black managers, he discussed how they aren't even able to get interviews. I can't remember which black player it was, but he had all of the coaching badges and passed the course with distinction. Something that Holt showed was more than most league managers, yet he wasn't able to get one interview in the past 5 years despite applying for numerous.
Maybe the chairmen/women did not want to take a chance because most black managers have been rubbish? Or, maybe, like most jobseekers nowadays, he just struggled to gain an interview?
Well I don't agree with this most black managers are rubbish assumption because what constitutes 'rubbish' and why call people 'rubbish' anyway whatever their background I think it's unnecessary to make people feel worthless. I was saying that this argument is totally irrelevant because there are so few black managers in the first place just as there are so few women in certain types of jobs and men in others. I agree with what Super is saying about the inverview process and would wonder why more are not able to get to interview. When I did some assessed football coaching not long ago, the black coach who led my sessions was very inspirational and good at motivating and it would be good to see more people of this calibre getting through. Of course in the end, people get into positions on merit but if the interview process for managers is not reflecting the background of players in the game, then more needs to be done to address it.
Of course football needs motivational and inspirational people. Colour does not come into it. If it does, then it is you that is highlighting people's differences based on the colour of their skin. As for your comment about calling people 'rubbish', you are seriously clutching at straws. You cannot be serious? We are on an internet forum.
Your original post on the subject implied that because black managers have been bad in the past, that future ones would also be bad. That's the only point I'm disputing here. If that was not the case (Which you will inevitably argue), you should never have brought up the success of past black managers and instead just said all managers should be based upon skill and nothing else. Powell said there should be more black managers. By that I think he means more black people should look at it as a possible job instead of saying "chairmen should hire more black managers". If my interpretation of his words were true, then I'd have to agree with him.
I don't have a problem with it as black football managers are under-represented in the game; there is obviously talent out there from what I've experienced in coaching so the barriers preventing this from coming through at the interview stage need to be addressed, that's my view and I stick with it. Yes we are but it doesn't mean we have to call people rubbish and say that most people of one particular ethnic origin or group in a profession are rubbish either.
As Oscar Wilde said "There are lies, damned lies and statitsics". For example, you could look at Charlton's last 4 managers (Dowie, Reed, pardew and Parky) who were all white, discuss their merits and draw certain conclusions. I certainly would not dream of drawing any conclusions, or commenting on conclusions that others might draw.
Yes, I will argue the point, Ryan. The point about BLACK managers was brought up. I said, and quite right too, that most black managers have been rubbish (or have performed poorly, for Pat's sake), but never did I say that all future black managers would be rubbish. I clearly made my statement based on the stats we have to date. Why is it okay to ringfence black people when championing them, but when their abilities are questioned, the ringfence is firmly closed? Finally, Ryan, please do not ever question what I can and cannot say. You may disagree, but it is my right to voice my opinion. Pat. My 'rubbish' comment has been aimed at Parky, Dowie, Powell last season, and Les Reed. You drew the conclusion that I use this comment solely for ethnic groups. You are deluded on that score. The flip-side is that I have regularly stated that my favourite ever Charlton player is Keith Jones. A true gentleman and a fine player. So what does that make me? A selective racist, perhaps?
I never said you can't say something. Just that what you did say was completely unnecessary and implies you believe future black managers will fail. If in your first post, you just said "Skin colour should have nothing to do with managers appointed" then fine, I'd agree with you completely. Yes, I bolded that so you can stop your "I will disregard everything you say, you defend the blacks about everything" mentality. In essence I agree with most of what you have said after that first post. However, bringing up past black managers failing, when questioning why there should be more black managers, implies that you see a link between black managers and failure. If you see a link between the two, that then means that you also believe future black managers will fail. Simple logic.
In your post of 6.35pm you clearly say that I should not bring up the past success of black managers. I will bring it up if it is moot. On more than one occasion I did say that managers are managers, regardless of their skin colour. My point about black managers having poor records was a suggestion as to why there are only a few working at this present time. Looking at the current stats, there is a link between black managers and failure. Maybe as the stats change, the situation will alter. Only time will tell. Your simple logic, which is very simple, makes assumptions that are misguided and lazy. I have already had one poster accuse me of racism and bigotry tonight. It is a little frustrating, to be honest.
I did like Parky, for what Chris Powell lacks in experience, he lacked in funds and was given the short straw to manage the club in a period of crisis, I doubt many other managers would've succeeded without more funds.
And you cannot make a proper link on such a limited basis. *shakes head* It's going to go nowhere with you, so I'm just going to stop. You're like A2C in that regard.
Actually, I retract that last thing I said about dropping it. You're the most stubborn, delusional, pretentious **** that I've ever had the displeasure of talking to. For lack of a better, more eloquent phrase....go choke on a dick.
People often make mistakes when reasoning syllogistically. For instance, from the premises some A are B, some B are C, people tend to come to a definitive conclusion that therefore some A are C. However, this does not follow according to the rules of classical logic. For instance, my old cat had four legs, my dog has four legs therefore my old cat MUST of been a dog. The error arises because first, the mood of the syllogism invoked is illicit, and second, the supposition of the middle term is variable between that of the middle term in the major premise, and that of the middle term in the minor premise (not all four legged animals are by necessity of logic the same.. ie dogs). Determining the validity of a syllogism involves determining the distribution of each term in each statement, meaning whether all members of that term are accounted for. source - (1) AllHell (2) Wiki
