Hobsons Choice

You are missing the point here. The prem data shows an increase in fortune after a new manager is appointed, sure. What they don't study there is what would have happened if the manager was not sacked. And the study I posted suggests....the exact same thing would happen. Regression to the mean. New manager bounce (according to the studies) is just the new manager getting credit for what would have happened anyway.

Theoretically, yes, that's correct. I posted it originally in the DS thread. But I guess you could also argue that sacking SG would be similarly pointless. Again this is really only looking at the decision to sack a manager after a run of bad results, not looking at longer term trends, where I guess building squads and systems becomes more important.

The study I posted is not incompatible with the Premier League's findings, they just don't look at the other side of the decision- i.e sticking with the manager.

Here it is. I will also repost my summary, such as it is, as it included quotes from the study's author. Incidentally the date on the paper is 2011, not 2013, so there was some mixed info there. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10645-010-9157-y.pdf Summary: 'In 2013 a Dutch Economist did a study on exactly this. He analysed managerial turnover across 18 seasons (1986-2004) of the Dutch premier division, the Eredivisie. As well as looking at what happened to teams who sacked their manager when the going got tough, he looked at those who had faced a similar slump in form but who stood by their boss to ride out the crisis. "Changing a manager during a crisis in the season does improve the results in the short term," he says. "But this is a misleading statistic because not changing the manager would have had the same result." He found that both groups faced a similar pattern of declines and improvements in form. Chart compares relative performance of teams over time. At point "t", the manager is sacked or voluntarily departs. The analysis is based on 81 sackings, 103 voluntary departures and 212 performance dips in the Dutch football league from 1986-2004 While the research focused on Dutch football, he argues that this finding is not specific to the Netherlands. Major football leagues in Europe, including England, Germany, Italy and Spain also bore out the same conclusion - teams suffering an uncharacteristic slump in form will bounce back and return to their normal long-term position in the league, regardless of whether they replace their manager or not. So how can this be explained? It's an age-old statistical phenomenon known as regression to the mean. "In the same way that water seeks its own level, numbers and series of numbers will move towards the average, move towards the ordinary," David Sally, co-author of the football statistics book The Numbers Game, explains. "The extraordinary, numbers-wise, is followed by the ordinary; the ordinary is followed by the ordinary; the ordinary is what happens. The average is what happens more often than not." "a short term decline in performance is not a good reason to be firing your manager". "Managers and players sort in such a way that the best end up at the best clubs and the worst at the worst clubs. It is not a coincidence that Mourinho is with Chelsea and Guardiola with Bayern Munich. These clubs only attract the best managers. However, changing managers does not seem to improve the result. After releasing Villas-Boas [in March 2012] the performance of Chelsea did not improve." According to Sally [the economist], football clubs can be seen as any other business or company. Business research suggests that structural factors - such as how long it has been operating and which industry it is part of - are much more important than who the chief executive is. In money terms, around 15% profitability can be determined by the quality of the man or woman in charge and the same can be said for football managers, Sally estimates.'

Standby. Gotta trawl through my posts. Hang about.

Agree completely. Two at a push.

New manager bounce is a myth. It's been studied, and statistically there is no evidence to suggest that the same results could not be obtained by sticking with the incumbent manager. I posted the link to the study previously on here.

Not so much for the middle east.

At this stage I'm thinking the gas oven, unlit with my head in it.

Tories have banned entropy. It's like free energy. Must be taxed.

Also, regarding The Hobbit (forgive the pun), it lost me when one of the creatures made a funny aside during his own death (something like 'yep, that did it' (can't remember)). I always saw them as LOTR for kids, really, so no great loss to me.

I think that's because you watched the extended editions. I can't watch the theatrical releases now.

Kit?

I've just spoilered my post, so you might want to do the same with the quote. I get your point but there were other times when 1 on 1, when it just felt.... restrained.

Each to their own, I loved all of the original LOTR trilogy, including ROTK (god they love an acronym). I see where you are coming from with the ghost thing, but the battle at the black gate, where they are all resigned to their doom gave me the feels. I think the worst film for Deus Ex machina I've seen in a while (and it was by no means a bad film, just used the trope extensively) was Prey, which I saw last night. Good film but I personally am looking forward to at least trying the upcoming LOTR series. My expectation is, however that fan pressure will end up killing it, like star wars.

I don't really understand the criticism about the team selection yesterday. Confidence was low after the weekend, so it seems perfectly reasonable to me to try to get the first team to play through the bad form against technically weaker players, but who will give a right good go. Bring them down to earth while trying to instill confidence.

It'll be Man U away

I've read some utter b*llocks in this thread, but you win horsesh*t top trumps with that post.

Yeah, I thought it was great, really all access, and honest in a way you would not get with PL teams, because PR guys would get in the way. As an example Paul Warne of Rotherham has to select his team for a cup final, knowing that some of his seniors may need to miss out to give them the best chance of winning, but he agonises over it because he knows that for some of the players it will be their only chance ever to play at Wembley. Really felt for him. Karl Robinson of Oxford almost has a nervous breakdown because of his need to succeed, and the pressure of trying to make the playoffs. It just feels 'real' in a way that all or nothing hints at, but never fully captures.

Jesus has looked almost unplayable at times. Tremendous instincts and awareness in and outside of the box. I've been saying for decades that Arsenal have needed a top striker (I don't think Aubamayang is top class myself). Well they have one now.

I think they might. There is more about them than a streaky run. I said at the time of his appointment that Howe is a good manager, and most importantly he makes teams more than the sum of their parts. If he can unlock the talent of players like Maximin consistently (and he seems to be going gangbusters at the moment), then they will be knocking on the door. I reckon they have more chance than many of the other mid-table sides. For me they are still missing a predator up top. I'm not a huge fan of Callum Wilson myself, and if they get a top No. 9 they will be some team.

In fairness I did say 'seems'. He could club seals for all I know.

He wasn't dislikeable. He seems like a nice man. He's just an awful, awful manager.

A cover of it is also used in The Frighteners, I believe. Ended up on my playlist afterward.

Unfortunately, given that I have young kids and most of his stuff has been (as far as I understand) adult themed, I've yet to see a Jordan Peele film. I hear they are very good, and they are on the list.