Transfer Rumours To sack or not to sack?

  • 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!

Should we sack Ange now?


  • Total voters
    31
  • Poll closed .
Changed my mind to sack him after the first 38 mins v Everton. This has been unacceptable with no sign of it ever changing, I will be staggered if we get a result out of this game as I type at the 40 mins mark.
 
I've finally voted yes.

I really wanted it to work for him, and I think the real blame must be directed at Levy who is leading this club into the wilderness having sold us a vision of the promised land.

But rarely have I seen a manager who makes it as hard to get behind him as Ange. He takes a difficult situation and makes it ten times harder with nonsense decisions and tactics.
 
Proved how?

Just plucking 100 games out of thin air doesn’t prove anything.
There are well proven statistical techniques that tell you how much data you need to be confident that it proves something. They are the opposite of plucking games out of thin air.
 
The fans were chanting Levy Out, Ange will be gone soon enough imo.

Nothing is more certain. Levy's not risking this gravy train derailing for anybody...certainly not one of the chumps.

A fresh new chump installed, a couple of cheap loan deals and it's off to work out how much to charge customers to watch us play Ryan Reynolds FC in a Category A game next season.
 
You need well over a hundred results to get a statistically significant judgement on a manager.

can you let the hierarchy at Man United know about this? They’ll be in league 1 before we know it.
 
Why 100 games? Why not 38 (full season) why not 200? Why not 50?
Because that's how statistics work. The more data you have the more sure you become. I think his calculated number was 95% confidence so there is still a 1 in 20 chance of being wrong even with that many games.
 
Because that's how statistics work. The more data you have the more sure you become. I think his calculated number was 95% confidence so there is still a 1 in 20 chance of being wrong even with that many games.

I’m well aware of how statistics work. What I’m saying is why 100 games? Why not say 200, 500 or 1000 games?
 
I’m well aware of how statistics work. What I’m saying is why 100 games? Why not say 200, 500 or 1000 games?

Statistical robustness for a basic "unit measure"
(such as manager win % ) can require at least
100 data items (changes in data value beyond that
will by definition only cause at worst a 1% change
in the measure value) .

Statistical significance is the point at which
whatever the values for the data items are, they
cannot be deemed to have possibly occurred by chance.

Notably you can have measures whose
robustness stabiilises very quickly on a small
data set, but are not yet statistically significant.