Ranieri and Transfers.

[toshes mate]

This is really all that needs to be said regarding our transfer system I believe. All clubs use analytics nowadays, and basically no manager is heavily responsible for player recruiting. Of course there are varying degrees of involvement for different managers in different set ups, and also varying degrees of reliance on analytics, but to think that our system is that different from most clubs is, frankly, quite ridiculous.

That Kline was a bad egg that disrupted the harmony within the club does not change the above. 

Most football clubs do not have the son of their owner in charge of 'analytics' (whatever you think that means), recruitment policy and delivery, which makes, in my books, FFC a special case.  We are not 'all clubs', we are a unique football club which has similarities with every other football clubs in that it plays competitive games, holds registration of players, has supporters, a ground etc., etc.     

You are correct in that most clubs do not have the son of the owner in charge of recruitment. I am not at all convinced that Khan Jr. is the right person for that position. However, that is a problem with the man, not the system.

'Analytics' is supposed to refer to the dreaded 'Money ball' methods that is supposedly used by Tony (and with Kline in charge previously). This is of course used to some extent by all professional football clubs in addition to traditional scouting. In case that was unclear.

I think it is a problem with both the man and the system since TK uses his own (with Kline) system of selection which is the reason he tries to push it so hard on the Club.  I don't expect you to understand why that is a serious flaw in the whole set or take my word for it, but the evidence is clearly there that it is a serious deficiency which needs to be corrected.

What evidence is clearly there? Is it the fact that we have failed so far in the PL?

The evidence is about life under the Khans.
Every season under them divides into fractional periods driven by big changes to either head coaches/managers or to playing staff.  There have been few periods of consolidation or settlement toward an upward trend.   Even our successful last season was almost patently one of two halves, a familiar pattern no matter who has been in charge of the team.  That to me is indicative of a problem at the top of the Club where decision makers have to have everybody onside. We keep repeating the same routine without ever figuring out where the problem of seasonal inconsistency really lies and that suggests there hasn't been much co-ordination of effort or drive to cohesion behind the scenes in the upper echelons where it should really show its mettle.  Good leadership starts at the top and filters down to the minnions because the goal becomes simplified and everybody pulls in the same direction or is very conspicuous because they are not pulling the right way.  The divided opinion as to where the fault with this season lies demonstrates that the Club has a big problem about leadership.  If Ranieri can change that then he would certainly be a godsend. 

[Neutral Zone Ultra]

This is really all that needs to be said regarding our transfer system I believe. All clubs use analytics nowadays, and basically no manager is heavily responsible for player recruiting. Of course there are varying degrees of involvement for different managers in different set ups, and also varying degrees of reliance on analytics, but to think that our system is that different from most clubs is, frankly, quite ridiculous.

That Kline was a bad egg that disrupted the harmony within the club does not change the above. 

Most football clubs do not have the son of their owner in charge of 'analytics' (whatever you think that means), recruitment policy and delivery, which makes, in my books, FFC a special case.  We are not 'all clubs', we are a unique football club which has similarities with every other football clubs in that it plays competitive games, holds registration of players, has supporters, a ground etc., etc.     

You are correct in that most clubs do not have the son of the owner in charge of recruitment. I am not at all convinced that Khan Jr. is the right person for that position. However, that is a problem with the man, not the system.

'Analytics' is supposed to refer to the dreaded 'Money ball' methods that is supposedly used by Tony (and with Kline in charge previously). This is of course used to some extent by all professional football clubs in addition to traditional scouting. In case that was unclear.

I think it is a problem with both the man and the system since TK uses his own (with Kline) system of selection which is the reason he tries to push it so hard on the Club.  I don't expect you to understand why that is a serious flaw in the whole set or take my word for it, but the evidence is clearly there that it is a serious deficiency which needs to be corrected.

What evidence is clearly there? Is it the fact that we have failed so far in the PL?

The evidence is about life under the Khans.
Every season under them divides into fractional periods driven by big changes to either head coaches/managers or to playing staff.  There have been few periods of consolidation or settlement toward an upward trend.   Even our successful last season was almost patently one of two halves, a familiar pattern no matter who has been in charge of the team.  That to me is indicative of a problem at the top of the Club where decision makers have to have everybody onside. We keep repeating the same routine without ever figuring out where the problem of seasonal inconsistency really lies and that suggests there hasn't been much co-ordination of effort or drive to cohesion behind the scenes in the upper echelons where it should really show its mettle.  Good leadership starts at the top and filters down to the minnions because the goal becomes simplified and everybody pulls in the same direction or is very conspicuous because they are not pulling the right way.  The divided opinion as to where the fault with this season lies demonstrates that the Club has a big problem about leadership.  If Ranieri can change that then he would certainly be a godsend.

Changes in personnel don't necessarily signify instability. Watford have got through 9 managers in the past 5 years and they have been on a steady upward trend since.

[MJG]

This is really all that needs to be said regarding our transfer system I believe. All clubs use analytics nowadays, and basically no manager is heavily responsible for player recruiting. Of course there are varying degrees of involvement for different managers in different set ups, and also varying degrees of reliance on analytics, but to think that our system is that different from most clubs is, frankly, quite ridiculous.

That Kline was a bad egg that disrupted the harmony within the club does not change the above. 

Most football clubs do not have the son of their owner in charge of 'analytics' (whatever you think that means), recruitment policy and delivery, which makes, in my books, FFC a special case.  We are not 'all clubs', we are a unique football club which has similarities with every other football clubs in that it plays competitive games, holds registration of players, has supporters, a ground etc., etc.     

You are correct in that most clubs do not have the son of the owner in charge of recruitment. I am not at all convinced that Khan Jr. is the right person for that position. However, that is a problem with the man, not the system.

'Analytics' is supposed to refer to the dreaded 'Money ball' methods that is supposedly used by Tony (and with Kline in charge previously). This is of course used to some extent by all professional football clubs in addition to traditional scouting. In case that was unclear.

I think it is a problem with both the man and the system since TK uses his own (with Kline) system of selection which is the reason he tries to push it so hard on the Club.  I don't expect you to understand why that is a serious flaw in the whole set or take my word for it, but the evidence is clearly there that it is a serious deficiency which needs to be corrected.

What evidence is clearly there? Is it the fact that we have failed so far in the PL?

The evidence is about life under the Khans.
Every season under them divides into fractional periods driven by big changes to either head coaches/managers or to playing staff.  There have been few periods of consolidation or settlement toward an upward trend.   Even our successful last season was almost patently one of two halves, a familiar pattern no matter who has been in charge of the team.  That to me is indicative of a problem at the top of the Club where decision makers have to have everybody onside. We keep repeating the same routine without ever figuring out where the problem of seasonal inconsistency really lies and that suggests there hasn't been much co-ordination of effort or drive to cohesion behind the scenes in the upper echelons where it should really show its mettle.  Good leadership starts at the top and filters down to the minnions because the goal becomes simplified and everybody pulls in the same direction or is very conspicuous because they are not pulling the right way.  The divided opinion as to where the fault with this season lies demonstrates that the Club has a big problem about leadership.  If Ranieri can change that then he would certainly be a godsend.

Changes in personnel don't necessarily signify instability. Watford have got through 9 managers in the past 5 years and they have been on a steady upward trend since.

The 2nd half season syndrome is also something I think we cant rule out is down to Joka.

Watford first 8 games 8 points and included 4 losses in a row
Watford first 17 games 27pts
Watford last 18 game 42 pts

Tel Aviv Firs 8 games 16 pts
Tel Aviv Last 8 games 19 pts

Fulham 15/16
First 11 games 10 Pts
Last 11 games 14 Pts

Fulham 16/17
First 23 games 36 Pts
Last 23 games 44 Pts

Fulham 17/18
First 23 games 32 Pts
Last 23 games 56 Pts

[Sting of the North]

What evidence is clearly there? Is it the fact that we have failed so far in the PL?
[/quote]
The evidence is about life under the Khans.
Every season under them divides into fractional periods driven by big changes to either head coaches/managers or to playing staff.  There have been few periods of consolidation or settlement toward an upward trend.   Even our successful last season was almost patently one of two halves, a familiar pattern no matter who has been in charge of the team.  That to me is indicative of a problem at the top of the Club where decision makers have to have everybody onside. We keep repeating the same routine without ever figuring out where the problem of seasonal inconsistency really lies and that suggests there hasn't been much co-ordination of effort or drive to cohesion behind the scenes in the upper echelons where it should really show its mettle.  Good leadership starts at the top and filters down to the minnions because the goal becomes simplified and everybody pulls in the same direction or is very conspicuous because they are not pulling the right way.  The divided opinion as to where the fault with this season lies demonstrates that the Club has a big problem about leadership.  If Ranieri can change that then he would certainly be a godsend.
[/quote]

Is this really true? At all? All seasons before Joka were as far as I remember on a steady downward spiral, regardless of who was in charge. The thing with seasons of two halves were basically just the last two seasons, with Joka in the Championship. I haven't checked though, and maybe it was the same each season...

[MJG]

What evidence is clearly there? Is it the fact that we have failed so far in the PL?

The evidence is about life under the Khans.
Every season under them divides into fractional periods driven by big changes to either head coaches/managers or to playing staff.  There have been few periods of consolidation or settlement toward an upward trend.   Even our successful last season was almost patently one of two halves, a familiar pattern no matter who has been in charge of the team.  That to me is indicative of a problem at the top of the Club where decision makers have to have everybody onside. We keep repeating the same routine without ever figuring out where the problem of seasonal inconsistency really lies and that suggests there hasn't been much co-ordination of effort or drive to cohesion behind the scenes in the upper echelons where it should really show its mettle.  Good leadership starts at the top and filters down to the minnions because the goal becomes simplified and everybody pulls in the same direction or is very conspicuous because they are not pulling the right way.  The divided opinion as to where the fault with this season lies demonstrates that the Club has a big problem about leadership.  If Ranieri can change that then he would certainly be a godsend.
[/quote]

Is this really true? At all? All seasons before Joka were as far as I remember on a steady downward spiral, regardless of who was in charge. The thing with seasons of two halves were basically just the last two seasons, with Joka in the Championship. I haven't checked though, and maybe it was the same each season...
[/quote]
Fulham 13/14
First 19 games 16 Pts
Last 19 games 16 Pts

Fulham 14/15
First 23 games 28 Pts
Last 23 games 24 Pts

Fulham 15/16
First 23 games 24 Pts
Last 23 games 27 Pts

Fulham 16/17
First 23 games 36 Pts
Last 23 games 44 Pts

Fulham 17/18
First 23 games 32 Pts
Last 23 games 56 Pts

[MJG]

For balance the 5 seasons before Khans took over
Fulham 12/13
First 19 games 21 Pts
Last 19 games 22 Pts

Fulham 11/12
First 19 games 32 Pts
Last 19 games 20 Pts

Fulham 10/11
First 19 games 19 Pts
Last 19 games 30 Pts

Fulham 09/10
First 19 games 27 Pts
Last 19 games 19 Pts

Fulham 08/09
First 19 games 26 Pts
Last 19 games 27 Pts

[Sting of the North]

What evidence is clearly there? Is it the fact that we have failed so far in the PL?

The evidence is about life under the Khans.
Every season under them divides into fractional periods driven by big changes to either head coaches/managers or to playing staff.  There have been few periods of consolidation or settlement toward an upward trend.   Even our successful last season was almost patently one of two halves, a familiar pattern no matter who has been in charge of the team.  That to me is indicative of a problem at the top of the Club where decision makers have to have everybody onside. We keep repeating the same routine without ever figuring out where the problem of seasonal inconsistency really lies and that suggests there hasn't been much co-ordination of effort or drive to cohesion behind the scenes in the upper echelons where it should really show its mettle.  Good leadership starts at the top and filters down to the minnions because the goal becomes simplified and everybody pulls in the same direction or is very conspicuous because they are not pulling the right way.  The divided opinion as to where the fault with this season lies demonstrates that the Club has a big problem about leadership.  If Ranieri can change that then he would certainly be a godsend.

Is this really true? At all? All seasons before Joka were as far as I remember on a steady downward spiral, regardless of who was in charge. The thing with seasons of two halves were basically just the last two seasons, with Joka in the Championship. I haven't checked though, and maybe it was the same each season...
[/quote]
Fulham 13/14
First 19 games 16 Pts
Last 19 games 16 Pts

Fulham 14/15
First 23 games 28 Pts
Last 23 games 24 Pts

Fulham 15/16
First 23 games 24 Pts
Last 23 games 27 Pts

Fulham 16/17
First 23 games 36 Pts
Last 23 games 44 Pts

Fulham 17/18
First 23 games 32 Pts
Last 23 games 56 Pts
[/quote]

Thanks MJG! So, it is in fact not correct to say that Fulham has had seasons of two halves under the Khans then.

[MJG]

Over last ten full seasons we have had ...
3 First half of the seasons out score the second half,
6 out score the first half and one season the same in both halfs.

261 points to 285 points

[Neil D]

And I think most of these players could still prove to be good buys.

If you were a journo, dictating your piece over the phone to me (as in the old days), I would have written this down as 'And I think most of these players could still prove to be goodbyes'.

[Twig]

And I think most of these players could still prove to be good buys.

If you were a journo, dictating your piece over the phone to me (as in the old days), I would have written this down as 'And I think most of these players could still prove to be goodbyes'.

Lol

[toshes mate]

Statistics can be presented in any number of ways and can be made to appear to substantiate or refute an argument.   People who use statistics as a part of their life should know that.

There is a very simple way of demonstrating what I claim about the Khans if anyone cares to look for it.  The clue is you don't simply divide a season into two sets of twenty three games.  It is the exact same record set used by MJG but designed to show the fragmented periods of contrast.  It works for SJ's record at Watford too showing how consistent his record is.  Any of you can find it if you want to.

[Lighthouse]

One can also be so loyal to one side of a debate that any evidence or proof to the contrary will simply not bother one because they are now so plugged into their side. Which has always been my argument against democracy. Tell enough people enough times that Person or People A are to blame and if one goes along with it for long enough the views will not be altered. Just Human Nature.

[toshes mate]

One can also be so loyal to one side of a debate that any evidence or proof to the contrary will simply not bother one because they are now so plugged into their side. Which has always been my argument against democracy. Tell enough people enough times that Person or People A are to blame and if one goes along with it for long enough the views will not be altered. Just Human Nature.

A human nature everybody on here has.  You can dig deep or you can tread lightly.  It is understanding the significance of what you find that is the point at which we may all suffer from prior prejudices.

[Sting of the North]

Statistics can be presented in any number of ways and can be made to appear to substantiate or refute an argument.   People who use statistics as a part of their life should know that.

There is a very simple way of demonstrating what I claim about the Khans if anyone cares to look for it.  The clue is you don't simply divide a season into two sets of twenty three games.  It is the exact same record set used by MJG but designed to show the fragmented periods of contrast.  It works for SJ's record at Watford too showing how consistent his record is.  Any of you can find it if you want to.

Wouldn't it then be easier for you to present said evidence in order to support your conclusion?

[toshes mate]

Statistics can be presented in any number of ways and can be made to appear to substantiate or refute an argument.   People who use statistics as a part of their life should know that.

There is a very simple way of demonstrating what I claim about the Khans if anyone cares to look for it.  The clue is you don't simply divide a season into two sets of twenty three games.  It is the exact same record set used by MJG but designed to show the fragmented periods of contrast.  It works for SJ's record at Watford too showing how consistent his record is.  Any of you can find it if you want to.

Wouldn't it then be easier for you to present said evidence in order to support your conclusion?

I had considered it and that was my original intention when I started the hard work to produce the evidence,  not haviing a ready made source of data.  Then I read all the responses and thought 'what the hell'.  Anyone can throw out data and make it look good (my stuff looks awful since it is hand written), but to reveal something significant takes a lot of hard work and not flippancy.

[Sting of the North]

Statistics can be presented in any number of ways and can be made to appear to substantiate or refute an argument.   People who use statistics as a part of their life should know that.

There is a very simple way of demonstrating what I claim about the Khans if anyone cares to look for it.  The clue is you don't simply divide a season into two sets of twenty three games.  It is the exact same record set used by MJG but designed to show the fragmented periods of contrast.  It works for SJ's record at Watford too showing how consistent his record is.  Any of you can find it if you want to.

Wouldn't it then be easier for you to present said evidence in order to support your conclusion?

I had considered it and that was my original intention when I started the hard work to produce the evidence,  not haviing a ready made source of data.  Then I read all the responses and thought 'what the hell'.  Anyone can throw out data and make it look good (my stuff looks awful since it is hand written), but to reveal something significant takes a lot of hard work and not flippancy.

Fair enough, but then you might also have to accept that it does weaken the perception of you argument. Rightly or wrongly, that is just the way it is.

[toshes mate]

Statistics can be presented in any number of ways and can be made to appear to substantiate or refute an argument.   People who use statistics as a part of their life should know that.

There is a very simple way of demonstrating what I claim about the Khans if anyone cares to look for it.  The clue is you don't simply divide a season into two sets of twenty three games.  It is the exact same record set used by MJG but designed to show the fragmented periods of contrast.  It works for SJ's record at Watford too showing how consistent his record is.  Any of you can find it if you want to.

Wouldn't it then be easier for you to present said evidence in order to support your conclusion?

I had considered it and that was my original intention when I started the hard work to produce the evidence,  not haviing a ready made source of data.  Then I read all the responses and thought 'what the hell'.  Anyone can throw out data and make it look good (my stuff looks awful since it is hand written), but to reveal something significant takes a lot of hard work and not flippancy.

Fair enough, but then you might also have to accept that it does weaken the perception of you argument. Rightly or wrongly, that is just the way it is.

I have never been less than philosophical about life.  There are no winners and losers just participants.   

[Statto]

The 2nd half season syndrome is also something I think we cant rule out is down to Joka.

Watford first 8 games 8 points and included 4 losses in a row
Watford first 17 games 27pts
Watford last 18 game 42 pts

Tel Aviv Firs 8 games 16 pts
Tel Aviv Last 8 games 19 pts

Fulham 15/16
First 11 games 10 Pts
Last 11 games 14 Pts

Fulham 16/17
First 23 games 36 Pts
Last 23 games 44 Pts

Fulham 17/18
First 23 games 32 Pts
Last 23 games 56 Pts

He was only at Watford for one year, joining in October, so a new manager meeting new players after the season has started. Personally I would expect a delayed impact in those circumstances.

Tel Aviv the difference is negligible.

At Fulham, him coming in coincides with Tony Khan taking control of transfers from Rigg.

I think these stats are useful to look at but not conclusive proof of anything, although I appreciate that's not what you're saying.

As it happens I do accept that Jokanovic had a particularly distinctive tactical style which many players needed time to adapt to. But for me that is all the more reason to let him bring in his own people, who he knows suit that style, and of course to get them in early in pre-season. In other words Tony Khan could have mitigated any 'Joka effect' but instead he has aggravated it.

[Lighthouse]

One can also be so loyal to one side of a debate that any evidence or proof to the contrary will simply not bother one because they are now so plugged into their side. Which has always been my argument against democracy. Tell enough people enough times that Person or People A are to blame and if one goes along with it for long enough the views will not be altered. Just Human Nature.

A human nature everybody on here has.  You can dig deep or you can tread lightly.  It is understanding the significance of what you find that is the point at which we may all suffer from prior prejudices.

' Single mindedness is all very well in cows and baboons. In an animal claiming to belong to the same species as Shakespeare it is simply disgraceful' - Aldous Huxley

[toshes mate]

Only one person has ever called me 'single-minded' in my life and that was on this very forum by Devonffc.  "It's always the ones who know the least about you who judge you the most." (Anon)