Transfer Rumours To sack or not to sack?

[humanbeingincroydon]

So, somewhat like the situation Eddie Howe finds himself in at Toontown - except he's starting from a much higher position and with even more cash - but a way off challenging for a PL title.

That's because the PL isn't a one-team league like it was when Blackburn snuck off with the title, so instead of needing one or two teams to have an off season Newcastle need something like six at this point

Sort of like how Newcastle stopped being title challengers the second the PL had a second potential title challenger in Wenger's Arsenal pop up

 

[Dier Hard]

The average tenure of a football manager is ridiculously low. That's because clubs sack them too early. It may be a results game but many things affect results other than managerial decisions. We've seen four this season...poor recruitment, injuries, bad refereeing decisions and a bizarre distribution of goals.
You should ask your newly appointed manager what their strategy is and sack them if they depart from it.

Three of those points can be attributed to managerial decisions though.

He has a say in recruitment and signs off on all deals. His guidelines for the type of player we sign is certainly on him, as that almost certainly impacts the quality of player we can target.

Injuries are down to his intense style of football along with poor squad management.

Distribution of goals are down to where we’re no longer being as effective due to players being too tired or injured to perform his demands.

 

[Roo]

I totally agree with your last point but it is still important to make decisions on statistically significant measurements. There is far too much knee jerk reaction happening throughout football.
Your point about the distribution of goals is seemingly shared by the vast majority of fans but I don't think it is right. Goals are scored and conceded quite rarely and usually by good attacking play or defensive mistakes. I can see how better coaching can improve the former or decrease the latter but I can't see what can be done to change the distribution.
Take Brennan Johnson...he has scored a few very similar goals this season but he has also missed a few from almost identical situations. If he had happened to score four of the ones he missed and missed four of the ones he scored we could have 8 more points. I don't think this is under anyone's control.

surely the better coaching (or adapted tactics) helps contribute towards the distribution? I.e, if a team defends as a unit better than the previous game, they give themselves more chance of not conceding? Maybe not in all cases, but surely the law of averages would result in better overall chance of success over a period of games perhaps?

you’re right, no one can prevent brain farts from players, that’s on the individual. But a cohesive approach/plan surely has to pay dividends?

 

[Spurlock]

I totally agree with your last point but it is still important to make decisions on statistically significant measurements. There is far too much knee jerk reaction happening throughout football.
Your point about the distribution of goals is seemingly shared by the vast majority of fans but I don't think it is right. Goals are scored and conceded quite rarely and usually by good attacking play or defensive mistakes. I can see how better coaching can improve the former or decrease the latter but I can't see what can be done to change the distribution.
Take Brennan Johnson...he has scored a few very similar goals this season but he has also missed a few from almost identical situations. If he had happened to score four of the ones he missed and missed four of the ones he scored we could have 8 more points. I don't think this is under anyone's control.

Everything seems a bit too mathematics with the way you view the game…that’s fine but in real life the game is played through emotions, moments. That’s why things like ‘form’ are a real thing and going on ‘a run of wins’ or ‘losses’. These moments affect the players confidence, that affects the game, that affects the results.

mathematical whataboutery can never explain that very important aspect of the game.

We are on a bad run due to bad decision after bad decision from someone as well as player performances

Btw I don’t want him sacked because I’m interested to see how bad this can get…sometimes things have to hit rock bottom before people wake up, maybe that’s what we need for Mr Levy to remember that we are a football club and we require some serious football thought.

 

[humanbeingincroydon]

surely the better coaching (or adapted tactics) helps contribute towards the distribution? I.e, if a team defends as a unit better than the previous game, they give themselves more chance of not conceding? Maybe not in all cases, but surely the law of averages would result in better overall chance of success over a period of games perhaps?

you’re right, no one can prevent brain farts from players, that’s on the individual. But a cohesive approach/plan surely has to pay dividends?

Depends on the coach

Under Santini the team was very good at defending, but his tactical plan went downhill after that as he hasn't worked out a way to get the ball from the back into the opponent's half let alone the opponent's net

 

[PowerSpurs]

Everything seems a bit too mathematics with the way you view the game…that’s fine but in real life the game is played through emotions, moments. That’s why things like ‘form’ are a real thing and going on ‘a run of wins’ or ‘losses’. These moments affect the players confidence, that affects the game, that affects the results.

mathematical whataboutery can never explain that very important aspect of the game.

We are on a bad run due to bad decision after bad decision from someone as well as player performances

Btw I don’t want him sacked because I’m interested to see how bad this can get…sometimes things have to hit rock bottom before people wake up, maybe that’s what we need for Mr Levy to remember that we are a football club and we require some serious football thought.

I don't view the game mathematically at all. I like the thrills and spills of football. But my thoughts about the game are driven by facts as far as possible and in all walks of life I have no time for people who misuse statistics.

 

[PowerSpurs]

Everything seems a bit too mathematics with the way you view the game…that’s fine but in real life the game is played through emotions, moments. That’s why things like ‘form’ are a real thing and going on ‘a run of wins’ or ‘losses’. These moments affect the players confidence, that affects the game, that affects the results.

mathematical whataboutery can never explain that very important aspect of the game.

We are on a bad run due to bad decision after bad decision from someone as well as player performances

Btw I don’t want him sacked because I’m interested to see how bad this can get…sometimes things have to hit rock bottom before people wake up, maybe that’s what we need for Mr Levy to remember that we are a football club and we require some serious football thought.

It's a very easy statistical check to see if bad or good 'form' affects future results due to different player confidence and there are quite a few studies in many different sports. Rather surprisingly it is a much smaller effect than people think.

 

[PowerSpurs]

surely the better coaching (or adapted tactics) helps contribute towards the distribution? I.e, if a team defends as a unit better than the previous game, they give themselves more chance of not conceding? Maybe not in all cases, but surely the law of averages would result in better overall chance of success over a period of games perhaps?

you’re right, no one can prevent brain farts from players, that’s on the individual. But a cohesive approach/plan surely has to pay dividends?

I can't see any evidence that it does. The law of averages doesn't exist as is demonstrated by the fact that we are in the bottom half with a massive positive goal difference while West Ham are above us with a massive negative one. Do you think West Ham are deliberately losing many matches heavily and making up for that by winning a few by a single goal?
I couldn't even imagine a style of playing that would get that outcome except by chance.
And I wasn't talking about brainfarts, although the same argument applies. Mistakes are going to be random* as well as moments of brilliance.
*there will be more on average against better teams that put us under more pressure of course. Ange can make the number of mistakes fewer by better tactics, training or team selection but he has almost no control over when the remaining ones happen.

 

[The RDBD]

I don’t just get the support for Ange. There’s not one metric that shows he’s doing well.

Either we reach season end or Ange is gone.
And then will I show you exactly what the numbers
have been telling me all season (actual and predictive) .

 

[KingHotspur]

Either we reach season end or Ange is gone.
And then will I show you exactly what the numbers
have been telling me all season (actual and predictive) .

The board must be banking on the club going on a good run in the league. I don’t see it happening though

 

[KingHotspur]

But my thoughts about the game are driven by facts as far as possible and in all walks of life I have no time for people who misuse statistics.

But you deliberately choose to ignore and misuse important statistics to back your narrative

 

[The RDBD]

The board must be banking on the club going on a good run in the league. I don’t see it happening though

1. 75 pts is the most that can now be taken,
It would be good enough for a top 4 finish most seasons.

2. Choose what pts you believe 4th will finish with come May.


The difference between #1 and #2 is the margin
of error that you have given Spurs.

 

[KingHotspur]

1. 75 pts is the most that can now be taken,
It would be good enough for a top 4 finish most seasons.

2. Choose what pts you believe 4th will finish with come May.


The difference between #1 and #2 is the margin
of error that you have given Spurs.

I’d take 45 points right now. With all the injuries dodgy tactics and poor form, I struggle to see where the club picks up many wins.

 

[Citizen Kane.]

I can't see any evidence that it does. The law of averages doesn't exist as is demonstrated by the fact that we are in the bottom half with a massive positive goal difference while West Ham are above us with a massive negative one. Do you think West Ham are deliberately losing many matches heavily and making up for that by winning a few by a single goal?
I couldn't even imagine a style of playing that would get that outcome except by chance.
And I wasn't talking about brainfarts, although the same argument applies. Mistakes are going to be random* as well as moments of brilliance.
*there will be more on average against better teams that put us under more pressure of course. Ange can make the number of mistakes fewer by better tactics, training or team selection but he has almost no control over when the remaining ones happen.

I think you need to broaden your imagination then.

West Ham don't have the quality to compete with the stronger sides, and have on more than one occasion this season effectively thrown the towel in before kick off in those games, suffering extremely heavy defeats as a result.

They've lost by 3 or more goals to: Arsenal, Chelsea, Forest, City, Liverpool and us.

Instead, they focus what little quality they have in securing wins against teams immediately around them in the league. Many of these wins are quite narrow, as they aren't a very good team at all.

They've beaten Ipswich, Soton, Wolves, Fulham, United and Palace.

Their win at Newcastle is literally the only result they've had all season that reads as a complete surprise.

This fully explains how and why they are above us. It also explains their goal difference. And it also demonstrates that football is far more controllable than you think it is.

 

[The RDBD]

I think you need to broaden your imagination then.

West Ham don't have the quality to compete with the stronger sides, and have on more than one occasion this season effectively thrown the towel in before kick off in those games, suffering extremely heavy defeats as a result.

They've lost by 3 or more goals to: Arsenal, Chelsea, Forest, City, Liverpool and us.

Instead, they focus what little quality they have in securing wins against teams immediately around them in the league. Many of these wins are quite narrow, as they aren't a very good team at all.

They've beaten Ipswich, Soton, Wolves, Fulham, United and Palace.

Their win at Newcastle is literally the only result they've had all season that reads as a complete surprise.

This fully explains how and why they are above us. It also explains their goal difference. And it also demonstrates that football is far more controllable than you think it is.

Also add late late stage Wenger era to your analysis.
Their bullying of all but the usual suspects
(who tended to spank them) was key to them
annually keeping their precious CL slot.

For lower ambitions, the results calculus makes it
easy to plot a course (I have long given you all
the various traits for doing so to finish PL top 4) .

 

[PowerSpurs]

But you deliberately choose to ignore and misuse important statistics to back your narrative

Give me an example.

 

[KingHotspur]

Give me an example.

You ignore results and focus on the goal difference for one example

you ignore the league table for another.

 

[PowerSpurs]

You ignore results and focus on the goal difference for one example

you ignore the league table for another.

I haven't ignored either. It's just that neither is significant enough to make decisions.

 

[KingHotspur]

I haven't ignored either. It's just that neither is significant enough to make decisions.

Results and league table aren’t significant enough to make decisions?

 

[PowerSpurs]

Results and league table aren’t significant enough to make decisions?

You need well over a hundred results to get a statistically significant judgement on a manager.