Steven Gerrard

[nick76]

8 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.'

 

Dutch league? But says this is common for other leagues.  Yet other prove him wrong.

The studies shown before we’re about the English leagues and the PL data link was shown on the last page on this thread.  

[nick76]

3 minutes 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?

 

and thus he takes Villa back to norm for a bit and then suddenly makes them worse over the season.  It basically says he can’t keep them on average and taken then below average.  So it shows that Gerrard isn’t even doing an average job if you overlay the conclusion to Gerrard’s stats.  He gets them back to normal and regresses over time below normal.

[Hobsons Choice]

1 minute ago, nick76 said:

Dutch league? But says this is common for other leagues.  Yet other prove him wrong.

The studies shown before we’re about the English leagues and the PL data link was shown on the last page on this thread.  

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. 

[Thug]

1 minute ago, HKP90 said:

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. 

Absolutely correct.  Smith should not have been sacked for his 5 consecutive defeats.  The case for sacking him because of the results over the previous 30 Matches had credence.

Sacking Gerrard for the first 3 games this season again is pointless.

Sacking him for the complete lack of progress over the previous 30 matches is as warranted as the Smith sacking.

[Hobsons Choice]

4 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

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. 

I guess you could argue that, sure. It's important not to prescribe undue meaning to statistics. They are very useful, but only tell you a very specific thing.  

[Hobsons Choice]

2 minutes ago, Thug said:

Absolutely correct.  Smith should not have been sacked for his 5 consecutive defeats.  The case for sacking him because of the results over the previous 30 Matches had credence.

Sacking Gerrard for the first 3 games this season again is pointless.

Sacking him for the complete lack of progress over the previous 30 matches is as warranted as the Smith sacking.

Yep, 100%. Changing a manager should only ever be done when looking at long term direction of the club, and never because of a run of games. 

[Thug]

Just now, HKP90 said:

I guess you could argue that, sure. It's important not to prescribe undue meaning to statistics. They are very useful, but only tell you a very specific thing.  

To be fair to @nick76 , that’s exactly what your study is telling us.  That statistically, we would have had that uplift in points due to a natural bounce.  So Gerrard’s PPG is skewed to the positive by taking over a club in poor form.

[Hobsons Choice]

Just now, Thug said:

To be fair to @nick76 , that’s exactly what your study is telling us.  That statistically, we would have had that uplift in points due to a natural bounce.  So Gerrard’s PPG is skewed to the positive by taking over a club in poor form.

Indeed. I was just pointing out that any new manager bounce we would hope to get from changing manager now is similarly false. 

Edited August 24, 2022 by HKP90

[nick76]

5 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

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. 

Yeah but the new manager bounce gets an immediate back to the norm whereas the old manager it can’t be said about hence why it’s called a new manager bounce.  It’s like a jump start back to running normally that might not have happened in the near future with the old manager.  Maybe it should be called a new manager jump start.  Sadly we’ve regressed back to old ways since.  It just shows neither manager was getting enough out of these players.

[Peter Griffin]

Just now, HKP90 said:

I guess you could argue that, sure. It's important not to prescribe undue meaning to statistics. They are very useful, but only tell you a very specific thing.  

I agree. The key statistic is ppg. Gerrard's ppg is not as big an improvement as we were all expecting. The key question, how long do we give him to get the improvement.

[Thug]

1 minute ago, HKP90 said:

Indeed

Thanks for the study.  Great food for thought.

[Hobsons Choice]

1 minute ago, nick76 said:

Yeah but the new manager bounce gets an immediate back to the norm whereas the old manager it can’t be said about hence why it’s called a new manager bounce.  It’s like a jump start back to running normally that might not have happened in the near future with the old manager.  Maybe it should be called a new manager jump start.  Sadly we’ve regressed back to old ways since.  It just shows neither manager was getting enough out of these players.

No, the stats suggest it would happen anyway over the same time period. Again, by all means look to change manager, but do it because of long term progress, not short term results. 

[nick76]

I think we are all saying the same thing just a different way of getting there.

[Hobsons Choice]

2 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

I agree. The key statistic is ppg. Gerrard's ppg is not as big an improvement as we were all expecting. The key question, how long do we give him to get the improvement.

That is the million dollar question. 

[It's Your Round]

7 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

I agree. The key statistic is ppg. Gerrard's ppg is not as big an improvement as we were all expecting. The key question, how long do we give him to get the improvement.

Until Friday. 

[penguin]

13 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.'

 

Is this not limited to analysing a "crisis situation" though i.e. a big deviation in form over a small time period?

"a short term decline in performance is not a good reason to be firing your manager".  I wouldn't disagree with this conclusion, a knee-jerk reactionary sacking based on short term form.

But I wouldn't say that scenario even fits current situation. Sackings can, and I would argue a large proportion of them, occur due to a gradual degradation of results and performances or significant investment into the squad is not mirrored by increased performance not just panic over an undefined small period of negative form deviation.

I wouldn't deny a big part of the "bounce" is a regression to the mean but not solely back to previous results but to the ability of the squad, to which I and many others believe we are significantly underperforming and have been for quite some time. It certainly doesn't prove the "new manager bounce is a myth" for me but interesting nonetheless.

[Thug]

Just now, Peter Griffin said:

I agree. The key statistic is ppg. Gerrard's ppg is not as big an improvement as we were all expecting. The key question, how long do we give him to get the improvement.

The PPG is important, but performances go a long way to mitigating.

I think if we were playing well, but not getting the points on the board, I’d be more forgiving because I could see some positives momentum.

In that run to Smith getting sacked, we played Wolves off the park fof 80 minutes. Total control before we capitulated in a freakish way.  The following two games were a total shambles, but before that we were ok.

The Bournemouth and palace games have honestly been as bad as I can remember us.

The first half against Everton was very good, the second was god awful.

I hate watching us right now.  We’re insistent on an appalling tactic that doesn’t suit our players, and we’re incapable of adjusting in-game.

The Bolton game was a nice and welcome win, but let’s face it, it was no great performance.

I sincerely hope that Gerrard starts to win games and ends up being our manager for the next 20 seasons.

But losing to West Ham should be the final straw

[Hobsons Choice]

1 minute ago, penguin said:

Is this not limited to analysing a "crisis situation" though i.e. a big deviation in form over a small time period?

"a short term decline in performance is not a good reason to be firing your manager".  I wouldn't disagree with this conclusion, a knee-jerk reactionary sacking based on short term form.

But I wouldn't say that scenario even fits current situation. Sackings can, and I would argue a large proportion of them, occur due to a gradual degradation of results and performances or significant investment into the squad is not mirrored by increased performance not just panic over an undefined small period of negative form deviation.

I wouldn't deny a big part of the "bounce" is a regression to the mean but not solely back to previous results but to the ability of the squad, to which I and many others believe we are significantly underperforming and have been for quite some time. It certainly doesn't prove the "new manager bounce is a myth" for me but interesting nonetheless.

Fair point. No individual club's decision to sack or stick by a manager is made in a vacuum, there are always many factors. I think the attempt to normalise/control the data is reasonable personally, but nothing is ever perfect. Point is, if you took a poll (and I'm sure someone on here did) of whether SG should be sacked before the start of the season (just 3 games ago), I doubt it would be 90% like now. That suggests, regardless of whether they justify the decision by saying 'football has been garbage for months and months', and perhaps not even consciously, part of the swing to that opinion now is based on short term factors. 

[DaveAV1]

3 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

I guess you could argue that, sure. It's important not to prescribe undue meaning to statistics. They are very useful, but only tell you a very specific thing.  

I agree with this, stats are an important tool but have to be used correctly including being in the right context. For example this season after 4 games, in all competitions we have a 50% win ratio. Add to that, in the league we are above Man U, Liverpool, Leicester, Wolves and West Ham. So what’s the problem?

Cherry picking stats can be used to prove almost anything. In the wrong hands they can be very dangerous. Clubs these days, including ours, have armies of data analysts wading through data and trying to read the figures as accurately and relatively to the particular subject they are being tasked to analyse. Fans conclusions based on fairly basic, easily found on the internet, data are as hit and miss as our midfield. Even expert data analysis can’t be used in isolation, actually watching football with an experienced and knowledgeable eye still has a huge roll to play. Hopefully. 

[Thug]

6 minutes ago, penguin said:

Is this not limited to analysing a "crisis situation" though i.e. a big deviation in form over a small time period?

"a short term decline in performance is not a good reason to be firing your manager".  I wouldn't disagree with this conclusion, a knee-jerk reactionary sacking based on short term form.

But I wouldn't say that scenario even fits current situation. Sackings can, and I would argue a large proportion of them, occur due to a gradual degradation of results and performances or significant investment into the squad is not mirrored by increased performance not just panic over an undefined small period of negative form deviation.

I wouldn't deny a big part of the "bounce" is a regression to the mean but not solely back to previous results but to the ability of the squad, to which I and many others believe we are significantly underperforming and have been for quite some time. It certainly doesn't prove the "new manager bounce is a myth" for me but interesting nonetheless.

Yes.  It depends on the timeframe in question. And as you rightly point out, this study is performed in a very specific crisis situation.

Im assuming the x-axis is games.  So 5 games pre and post sacking.

By the very nature of the term ‘bounce’ I suppose it has to be a short time-frame.

What this study shows to me, is the presence of a bounce is undisputed.  It just takes the credit away from the new manager.  Which was my point all along.