Steven Gerrard

[Chindie]

Humping a League 1 side with a nearly full strength team doesn't change anything. And we made hard work of that even.

Gerrard is pony. Bin him.

[Thug]

Oh and another for comparison sake for the same period that got Smith the sack… 8 months.

All very interesting stuff.

[tomsky_11]

21 minutes ago, Thug said:

And here’s another from January 1st 2022.  After the new manager bounce wore off, and Smiths ideas were starting to be replaced by Gerrards…

I feel this "new manager bounce" is getting a lttile overplayed. Our shape and tactics we completely different day one under Gerrard and mirrored a lot of what had been said about his time at Rangers, both from external analysis and from the likes of Beale himself.

[Thug]

1 minute ago, tomsky_11 said:

I feel this "new manager bounce" is getting a lttile overplayed. Our shape and tactics we completely different day one under Gerrard and mirrored a lot of what had been said about his time at Rangers, both from external analysis and from the likes of Beale himself.

We got a new manager and got some decent results for the first few games.

We have been utter dogshit since.

It’s about as classic an example of new manager bounce you will ever witness.

[Hobsons Choice]

3 minutes ago, Thug said:

We got a new manager and got some decent results for the first few games.

We have been utter dogshit since.

It’s about as classic an example of new manager bounce you will ever witness.

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.

[penguin]

4 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

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.

Do you have a link to save us trawling through your post history?

The Premier League seem to think the data suggests otherwise:

https://www.premierleague.com/news/2347230

Quote

History shows the fabled "new manager bounce" is real.

In the four complete campaigns since the start of 2017/18, there were 26 managerial changes in the Premier League.

In 20 of those cases, more than three-quarters, the new man averaged more points per match (ppm) in his first five matches in charge than the team’s average that season before his appointment.

In nine cases, or 35 per cent, the incoming manager instantly doubled the previous points average or did even better than that

 

[Thug]

1 minute ago, HKP90 said:

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.

Can I get a link to that please?

would be an interesting read with regards to the perspective.

I think that it would go without saying that the presence of a new manager would increase the effort put in by players in an attempt to impress.  It’s just normal human psychology. That would naturally wear off and things return to baseline.

[tomsky_11]

1 minute ago, Thug said:

We got a new manager and got some decent results for the first few games.

How many games is a few? Our results in our second set of 9 games were as good as the first 9. 13 points. We had 9 points from our final run of 9 which included playing 3 of the top 4 plus a relegation threatened side twice while our season was basically done. If we are going to write good results off as clichéd "new manager bounce", despite clearly implemented tactical changes from day one that are down to no one other than the manager and coaching staff, then I can just as easily use a cliché and write the late season form off as a team "on the beach"

7 minutes ago, Thug said:

It’s about as classic an example of new manager bounce you will ever witness.

Why are Smith's ideas relevant when the shape and tactics were so different day one?

[Thug]

1 minute ago, penguin said:

Do you have a link to save us trawling through your post history?

The Premier League seem to think the data suggests otherwise:

https://www.premierleague.com/news/2347230

 

Which would make perfect sense.

I suspect that the study @HKP90 is referring to has had its results misinterpreted.

Would be interesting to read it.

[Hobsons Choice]

9 minutes ago, Thug said:

Can I get a link to that please?

would be an interesting read with regards to the perspective.

I think that it would go without saying that the presence of a new manager would increase the effort put in by players in an attempt to impress.  It’s just normal human psychology. That would naturally wear off and things return to baseline.

Standby. Gotta trawl through my posts. Hang about. 

[Thug]

2 minutes ago, tomsky_11 said:

How many games is a few? Our results in our second set of 9 games were as good as the first 9. 13 points. We had 9 points from our final run of 9 which included playing 3 of the top 4 plus a relegation threatened side twice while our season was basically done. If we are going to write good results off as clichéd "new manager bounce", despite clearly implemented tactical changes from day one that are down to no one other than the manager and coaching staff, then I can just as easily use a cliché and write the late season form off as a team "on the beach"

Why are Smith's ideas relevant when the shape and tactics were so different day one?

Because you don’t unlearn things in a day or a week.

1 year on, we’re worse than we’ve ever been.  We’re predictable, error prone, and scared to have the ball.

We are absolutely no better than where smith had us.

And I believe keeping Smith would have had us in a similar position to where we are now.

Swapping Smith for Gerrard has been a completely pointless exercise that has wasted a year of progression.

[Thug]

1 minute ago, HKP90 said:

Standby. Gotta trawl through my posts. Hang about. 

Lol enjoy!

[nick76]

Just now, HKP90 said:

Standby. Gotta trawl through my posts. Hang about. 

I’d be interested as well as this has been discussed before on this forum over the last year and a number of studies posted that confirms the new manager is a thing and often not sustained by the managers.

[Hobsons Choice]

21 minutes ago, Thug said:

Can I get a link to that please?

would be an interesting read with regards to the perspective.

I think that it would go without saying that the presence of a new manager would increase the effort put in by players in an attempt to impress.  It’s just normal human psychology. That would naturally wear off and things return to baseline.

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.'

 

Edited August 24, 2022 by HKP90

[Thug]

5 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

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.'

 

Ok, so what that study shows is that there is indeed a bounce, but not necessarily due to the new manager, but a nutural bounce following poor form.

So Gerrard can’t even take credit for the bounce - Because statistically, keeping Smith in charge would’ve yielded the same results?

 

[viivvaa66]

1 hour ago, Zhan_Zhuang said:

With the game Luiz added the supports and fluidity we desperately needed, he must start games now.

I believe this is why Gerrard played mostly his preferred starting XI. If he also have included players like Sanson, Archer and others, he would have been faced with a lot of questions why they aren’t in our starting XI. It have been said on here a for a long time that not including Luiz is insane and make the team a lot worse, yesterday was just an other confirmation that Luiz, should be in the team and that Gerrard do not know what he is doing.

[Hobsons Choice]

27 minutes ago, Thug said:

Which would make perfect sense.

I suspect that the study @HKP90 is referring to has had its results misinterpreted.

Would be interesting to read it.

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.  

[Thug]

Just now, HKP90 said:

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.  

Yes. Agreed.

[Hobsons Choice]

1 minute ago, Thug said:

Ok, so what that study shows is that there is indeed a bounce, but not necessarily due to the new manager, but a nutural bounce following poor form.

So Gerrard can’t even take credit for the bounce - Because statistically, keeping Smith in charge would’ve yielded the same results?

 

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. 

[Peter Griffin]

4 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

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.'

 

That study suggest that the uplift in points aka 'new manager bounce' was going to happen regardless of whether the manager was sacked or not. So basically, Deano would have got that uplift in points too. I think the point being debated here is that the uplift in points skews Gerrard's PPG and people are attributing this to 'New Manager Bounce' as opposed to Gerrard's management. The bottom line is that during his time at Villa the ppg from Gerrard is only a slight bit better than the same number of games under Deano. Gerrard has brought in Digne, Chambers, Phil, Kamara, Carlos, Olsen and Ludwig. I believe people are wanting to see an improvement on where Deano left us as opposed to the status quo.