I'm new, so if this comes off as condescension , I apologize.
If you haven't read the book soccernomics, do so now. It will blow your mind. Firstly, a brief summary of the book: MONEYBALL, BUT SOCCER.
Now, I don't know how much of these ideas Fulham have already in place, but it would seem that we tend to ignore some of the key tennets. We overpay for older players, and we tend to focus on big name players rather than those who actually work for the team. Secondly we hold onto players far past their prime (looking at you Riise).As we lack the budget to compete with the big clubs, we need to play smarter. We cant afford to bring in Bale and Ronaldo, but we can attempt to find people who could turn into it. We need to stop looking at players younger than 20. They have not finished developing physically, nor emotionally, and mentally. A PERFECT example of a player who was overhyped at an early age is Freddy Adu. Heck, go look at the golden ball winners of the last 4 u-17 world cups. One player (toni kroos) is world class, but he's bench warming for Bayern. Look at the u-20 and see the difference between the players who were deemed the best in the world at that age and see which ones carried that ability forward. Sure aguero messi and maybe pogba( he's too young for me to make a decision on) stand out, but what about the rest? nada. nothing. these kids are way to erratic to be spending money on, and they aren't even fully developed.
By spending more time looking at and having players who we can see their career arc more clearly we have less risk than a player who is unpolished. Instead of buying players(like Berbatov,) or loaning players (like bent) based on their past performances, we need to start looking at players who are gaining. To put it in economic terms, you don't buy stock that's dropped hoping it will come back to its previous high. You buy stocks on the basis that it will improve and you can then sell it for a profit, and reinvest.
Secondly, statistically managers don't matter. Literally, we would do just as well, or better if we sent every member of the club a sheet and had them set the line up. Look at fantasy football, in both American football and football. It's not that hard to be a good coach. However, if we do get a coach, FIND ONE WHO IS GOOD. And for the love of god, not a former player. There is no correlation between the two. Heck, hire a black woman, they've got as much statistical impact as someone like Jol or Rodgers. If we higher a new manager, make it someone who has shown to have a statistical impact. There's a couple of coaches in the lower leagues who have remarkable records for terrible teams. Finally, Khan needs to realize that this club is not a business. No sporting club ever is. Even mighty Real Madrid which is worth 3 Billion USD doesnt even register on the Financial Times 500 global list ( the lowsest is worth 19 billion USD).
Also, Soccer clubs have high moral hazard. No matter what football clubs survive. For example, look at Portsmouth. They went bankrupt and into administration. They ran out of money to pay their players, and they even said that it was likely the club would be closed for good. Yet a group of fans came in and purchased the grounds, and eventually the team. No business survives like that. In 1923 the English Football league had 88 teams spread over 4 divisions. In 2007-2008 85 of these same clubs still existed. They made it through the great depression, WWII, the thatcher recession, and countless financial hardship. Now look at businesses from the same time period. Heck look at the companies that made up the DJIA in 1923 and today. who is still there? For khan to believe fulham can be run like a business is foolish.
Some post, for your first one.
I think your description of FFC is correct but it is the FFC of Jol, which, for many reasons was so flawed.
I think in Dembele, we hit the nail on the head about as good as we ever will.
I'm interested in how the stats were worked out to say that mgr's don't matter. You then mention coaches. Are you distinguishing between coaches and managers?
Quote from: eloc on January 29, 2014, 04:25:44 PM
I'm new, so if this comes off as condescension , I apologize.
If you haven't read the book soccernomics, do so now. It will blow your mind. Firstly, a brief summary of the book: MONEYBALL, BUT SOCCER.
Now, I don't know how much of these ideas Fulham have already in place, but it would seem that we tend to ignore some of the key tennets. We overpay for older players, and we tend to focus on big name players rather than those who actually work for the team. Secondly we hold onto players far past their prime (looking at you Riise).As we lack the budget to compete with the big clubs, we need to play smarter. We cant afford to bring in Bale and Ronaldo, but we can attempt to find people who could turn into it. We need to stop looking at players younger than 20. They have not finished developing physically, nor emotionally, and mentally. A PERFECT example of a player who was overhyped at an early age is Freddy Adu. Heck, go look at the golden ball winners of the last 4 u-17 world cups. One player (toni kroos) is world class, but he's bench warming for Bayern. Look at the u-20 and see the difference between the players who were deemed the best in the world at that age and see which ones carried that ability forward. Sure aguero messi and maybe pogba( he's too young for me to make a decision on) stand out, but what about the rest? nada. nothing. these kids are way to erratic to be spending money on, and they aren't even fully developed.
By spending more time looking at and having players who we can see their career arc more clearly we have less risk than a player who is unpolished. Instead of buying players(like Berbatov,) or loaning players (like bent) based on their past performances, we need to start looking at players who are gaining. To put it in economic terms, you don't buy stock that's dropped hoping it will come back to its previous high. You buy stocks on the basis that it will improve and you can then sell it for a profit, and reinvest.
Secondly, statistically managers don't matter. Literally, we would do just as well, or better if we sent every member of the club a sheet and had them set the line up. Look at fantasy football, in both American football and football. It's not that hard to be a good coach. However, if we do get a coach, FIND ONE WHO IS GOOD. And for the love of god, not a former player. There is no correlation between the two. Heck, hire a black woman, they've got as much statistical impact as someone like Jol or Rodgers. If we higher a new manager, make it someone who has shown to have a statistical impact. There's a couple of coaches in the lower leagues who have remarkable records for terrible teams. Finally, Khan needs to realize that this club is not a business. No sporting club ever is. Even mighty Real Madrid which is worth 3 Billion USD doesnt even register on the Financial Times 500 global list ( the lowsest is worth 19 billion USD).
Also, Soccer clubs have high moral hazard. No matter what football clubs survive. For example, look at Portsmouth. They went bankrupt and into administration. They ran out of money to pay their players, and they even said that it was likely the club would be closed for good. Yet a group of fans came in and purchased the grounds, and eventually the team. No business survives like that. In 1923 the English Football league had 88 teams spread over 4 divisions. In 2007-2008 85 of these same clubs still existed. They made it through the great depression, WWII, the thatcher recession, and countless financial hardship. Now look at businesses from the same time period. Heck look at the companies that made up the DJIA in 1923 and today. who is still there? For khan to believe fulham can be run like a business is foolish.
I don't know why you needed to make the comment "looking at you Riise" it's not his fault, it is his job/career, he has a contract, he plays because he is selected to play, he does not write his name on the team sheet, if a club does not come in with an offer for him then he goes nowhere, until his contract ends.
Good post and good points. I had never thought about the u-20 u-17 risks, but it makes sense. Invest in slightly older players but still young.
Quote from: BedsFFC on January 29, 2014, 05:04:50 PM
Some post, for your first one.
I think your description of FFC is correct but it is the FFC of Jol, which, for many reasons was so flawed.
I think in Dembele, we hit the nail on the head about as good as we ever will.
I'm interested in how the stats were worked out to say that mgr's don't matter. You then mention coaches. Are you distinguishing between coaches and managers?
sorry for the wording confusion, i am speaking of whoever is setting the line ups and such. people like wenger, RM, Jol, SAF and the like. its in the book, and id post a link to an online copy, but im not sure if it violates the rules. basically the stats about managers impact say that unless the manager is exceptionally good (pep, SAF, Mou) you would be better off giving the season ticket holders a sheet and picking the most 11 popular names to start.
Quote from: alfie on January 29, 2014, 05:18:09 PM
Quote from: eloc on January 29, 2014, 04:25:44 PM
I'm new, so if this comes off as condescension , I apologize.
If you haven't read the book soccernomics, do so now. It will blow your mind. Firstly, a brief summary of the book: MONEYBALL, BUT SOCCER.
Now, I don't know how much of these ideas Fulham have already in place, but it would seem that we tend to ignore some of the key tennets. We overpay for older players, and we tend to focus on big name players rather than those who actually work for the team. Secondly we hold onto players far past their prime (looking at you Riise).As we lack the budget to compete with the big clubs, we need to play smarter. We cant afford to bring in Bale and Ronaldo, but we can attempt to find people who could turn into it. We need to stop looking at players younger than 20. They have not finished developing physically, nor emotionally, and mentally. A PERFECT example of a player who was overhyped at an early age is Freddy Adu. Heck, go look at the golden ball winners of the last 4 u-17 world cups. One player (toni kroos) is world class, but he's bench warming for Bayern. Look at the u-20 and see the difference between the players who were deemed the best in the world at that age and see which ones carried that ability forward. Sure aguero messi and maybe pogba( he's too young for me to make a decision on) stand out, but what about the rest? nada. nothing. these kids are way to erratic to be spending money on, and they aren't even fully developed.
By spending more time looking at and having players who we can see their career arc more clearly we have less risk than a player who is unpolished. Instead of buying players(like Berbatov,) or loaning players (like bent) based on their past performances, we need to start looking at players who are gaining. To put it in economic terms, you don't buy stock that's dropped hoping it will come back to its previous high. You buy stocks on the basis that it will improve and you can then sell it for a profit, and reinvest.
Secondly, statistically managers don't matter. Literally, we would do just as well, or better if we sent every member of the club a sheet and had them set the line up. Look at fantasy football, in both American football and football. It's not that hard to be a good coach. However, if we do get a coach, FIND ONE WHO IS GOOD. And for the love of god, not a former player. There is no correlation between the two. Heck, hire a black woman, they've got as much statistical impact as someone like Jol or Rodgers. If we higher a new manager, make it someone who has shown to have a statistical impact. There's a couple of coaches in the lower leagues who have remarkable records for terrible teams. Finally, Khan needs to realize that this club is not a business. No sporting club ever is. Even mighty Real Madrid which is worth 3 Billion USD doesnt even register on the Financial Times 500 global list ( the lowsest is worth 19 billion USD).
Also, Soccer clubs have high moral hazard. No matter what football clubs survive. For example, look at Portsmouth. They went bankrupt and into administration. They ran out of money to pay their players, and they even said that it was likely the club would be closed for good. Yet a group of fans came in and purchased the grounds, and eventually the team. No business survives like that. In 1923 the English Football league had 88 teams spread over 4 divisions. In 2007-2008 85 of these same clubs still existed. They made it through the great depression, WWII, the thatcher recession, and countless financial hardship. Now look at businesses from the same time period. Heck look at the companies that made up the DJIA in 1923 and today. who is still there? For khan to believe fulham can be run like a business is foolish.
I don't know why you needed to make the comment "looking at you Riise" it's not his fault, it is his job/career, he has a contract, he plays because he is selected to play, he does not write his name on the team sheet, if a club does not come in with an offer for him then he goes nowhere, until his contract ends.
in terms of riise, im speaking of ever bringing him here in the first place. we brought in a player who was past his prime, and expected top tier performance. its what happened with berbs. we are gambling on a player who has been good, hoping that he still has some in the tank. rather we should be spending money on players who have proven some ability but havent yet peaked. then we can sell them and reinvest in the squad
Quote from: Drake44444 on January 29, 2014, 05:35:38 PM
Good post and good points. I had never thought about the u-20 u-17 risks, but it makes sense. Invest in slightly older players but still young.
my point exactly. how many times has a kid been dubbed "the next pele/messi/maradona/rooney" and 5 years later he is no where near as good?
Quote from: eloc on January 29, 2014, 06:56:22 PM
Quote from: alfie on January 29, 2014, 05:18:09 PM
Quote from: eloc on January 29, 2014, 04:25:44 PM
I'm new, so if this comes off as condescension , I apologize.
If you haven't read the book soccernomics, do so now. It will blow your mind. Firstly, a brief summary of the book: MONEYBALL, BUT SOCCER.
Now, I don't know how much of these ideas Fulham have already in place, but it would seem that we tend to ignore some of the key tennets. We overpay for older players, and we tend to focus on big name players rather than those who actually work for the team. Secondly we hold onto players far past their prime (looking at you Riise).As we lack the budget to compete with the big clubs, we need to play smarter. We cant afford to bring in Bale and Ronaldo, but we can attempt to find people who could turn into it. We need to stop looking at players younger than 20. They have not finished developing physically, nor emotionally, and mentally. A PERFECT example of a player who was overhyped at an early age is Freddy Adu. Heck, go look at the golden ball winners of the last 4 u-17 world cups. One player (toni kroos) is world class, but he's bench warming for Bayern. Look at the u-20 and see the difference between the players who were deemed the best in the world at that age and see which ones carried that ability forward. Sure aguero messi and maybe pogba( he's too young for me to make a decision on) stand out, but what about the rest? nada. nothing. these kids are way to erratic to be spending money on, and they aren't even fully developed.
By spending more time looking at and having players who we can see their career arc more clearly we have less risk than a player who is unpolished. Instead of buying players(like Berbatov,) or loaning players (like bent) based on their past performances, we need to start looking at players who are gaining. To put it in economic terms, you don't buy stock that's dropped hoping it will come back to its previous high. You buy stocks on the basis that it will improve and you can then sell it for a profit, and reinvest.
Secondly, statistically managers don't matter. Literally, we would do just as well, or better if we sent every member of the club a sheet and had them set the line up. Look at fantasy football, in both American football and football. It's not that hard to be a good coach. However, if we do get a coach, FIND ONE WHO IS GOOD. And for the love of god, not a former player. There is no correlation between the two. Heck, hire a black woman, they've got as much statistical impact as someone like Jol or Rodgers. If we higher a new manager, make it someone who has shown to have a statistical impact. There's a couple of coaches in the lower leagues who have remarkable records for terrible teams. Finally, Khan needs to realize that this club is not a business. No sporting club ever is. Even mighty Real Madrid which is worth 3 Billion USD doesnt even register on the Financial Times 500 global list ( the lowsest is worth 19 billion USD).
Also, Soccer clubs have high moral hazard. No matter what football clubs survive. For example, look at Portsmouth. They went bankrupt and into administration. They ran out of money to pay their players, and they even said that it was likely the club would be closed for good. Yet a group of fans came in and purchased the grounds, and eventually the team. No business survives like that. In 1923 the English Football league had 88 teams spread over 4 divisions. In 2007-2008 85 of these same clubs still existed. They made it through the great depression, WWII, the thatcher recession, and countless financial hardship. Now look at businesses from the same time period. Heck look at the companies that made up the DJIA in 1923 and today. who is still there? For khan to believe fulham can be run like a business is foolish.
I don't know why you needed to make the comment "looking at you Riise" it's not his fault, it is his job/career, he has a contract, he plays because he is selected to play, he does not write his name on the team sheet, if a club does not come in with an offer for him then he goes nowhere, until his contract ends.
in terms of riise, im speaking of ever bringing him here in the first place. we brought in a player who was past his prime, and expected top tier performance. its what happened with berbs. we are gambling on a player who has been good, hoping that he still has some in the tank. rather we should be spending money on players who have proven some ability but havent yet peaked. then we can sell them and reinvest in the squad
OK i understand but you actually said "
Secondly we hold on to players far past their prime (looking at you Riise)"
According to those guidelines we should not have bought Smalling, Burn, or Murphy to name just three.
It's good have an airing for the last of the three points, which you'd like to imagine is appreciated by Khan.
The first point overstates, as there will always be many exceptions, such as the three just mentioned. But as a broad truth, there is something in it.
I am sceptical of the second point, at any rate if you substitute `coach' for `manager.' What happens on the training pitch can make a massive difference. Anyone who has watched Fulham over the period can vouch for the fact that the best times invariably coincided with good coaching in place -- Dave Sexton (the 1966 Great Escape), Bill Taylor (FA Cup Final), Ray Harford (MacDonald's fine team), Damiano (Tigana's fine team) and of course Roy Hodgson. He was admittedly the only one called `Manager.' Except for the Tigana era it certainly wasn't money that made the difference from surrounding dross seasons -- so unless just pure coincidence, it was the work of these guys. That they all did well at other clubs too tends to confirm it.
Welcome aboard Eloc! That's one heck of a good first post to kick it off to!
This is actually a really interesting subject, and I would absolutely love to have that 'stats over name' model come to football, but the question is whether it could work. I've seen Moneyball, but I've not read Soccernomics. The model for the baseball was a real gamble, but it's incredible how many teams started to adopt it later.
It would definitely be an interesting test to see if it could work in football. It'll probably be worth us adopting it if we end up playing Brentford next season.
You can't overlook the fact though that buying a player who is proven but still young is next to impossible for a club like Fulham. Just looking around the league names that would jump out are Shaw, Barkley, Morrison even someone the like of Shelvey, any of those barring a contract expiring or such is going to cost probably around £10million and if the player is any less proven then you're starting to go much more back into the gamble territory like a Berahino or maybe Wisdom at Liverpool, Nathan Redmond who all look good now but so did plenty of others like Jeffers and Bentley. It much, much better economically to sign 10, 16-18 year olds for a few hundred thousand euros each to add to your home grown talent than spend £5,6,7,8 million on one 20-23 year old because it only takes one or two gems like a Smalling to develop and you have a huge margin for profit and much less risk.
I'm not saying there's nothing in the research, it makes sense, but in terms of what's practical for clubs with very tight profit margins and without the American style wealth distribution it is far too big a risk to wait and sign developed players consistently. Another difference that comes to mind is the nature of Baseball. The skillset in Baseball is mostly closed, you stand still wait for the ball and hit it. Of course the batter and pitcher change but there are no other big variables in terms of tactics or movement. Football like a sport like baseball is all about the movement and system. In the case of football fitting in correctly is much more important to success so I don't think you can as easily compare and use statistics.
I think it's quite clear that managers do make a difference. Look at Old Trafford and look at Fulham pre and post Hodgson.
For this mindset to be implemented into a football club there must be complete cohesion between the chairman, the manager, the coaching staff, the players and the fans - and unfortunately the state of the premier league makes this extremely difficult to implement for clubs. Some chairmen invest much of their finance into a club, so it is easy to see that a 'long term project' (such as what Southampton implemented a few years back) may not be so appealing.
There is so much chop and change now that the game only allows established managers to apply their 'soccernomics' initiative to the team. For me only four managers could do this:
Arsene Wenger
Mauricio Pochettino
Manuel Pelligrini
Roberto Martinez
I can only ever think of one man who was ever in this position with Fulham - Roy. Maybe if he stayed a bit longer more would have been invested in the future of Fulham but in hindsight it really was what killed our club, as MAF would have certainly been an advocate of our own 'long term plan'.
Hodgson did a wonderful job for us but in a long career he never stayed anywhere for more than two or three years.
He's always been about the now not the future. He brought through no youngsters and took in quite a few loanees.
Quote from: b+w geezer on January 30, 2014, 11:35:51 AM
It's good have an airing for the last of the three points, which you'd like to imagine is appreciated by Khan.
The first point overstates, as there will always be many exceptions, such as the three just mentioned. But as a broad truth, there is something in it.
I am sceptical of the second point, at any rate if you substitute `coach' for `manager.' What happens on the training pitch can make a massive difference. Anyone who has watched Fulham over the period can vouch for the fact that the best times invariably coincided with good coaching in place -- Dave Sexton (the 1966 Great Escape), Bill Taylor (FA Cup Final), Ray Harford (MacDonald's fine team), Damiano (Tigana's fine team) and of course Roy Hodgson. He was admittedly the only one called `Manager.' Except for the Tigana era it certainly wasn't money that made the difference from surrounding dross seasons -- so unless just pure coincidence, it was the work of these guys. That they all did well at other clubs too tends to confirm it.
sorry for the extremely late reply. your examples of managers illustrate my point however. those men are of very very small portion of the total number of managers. i agree the man running the training session can make all the difference, but those kinds of managers are few and far between
Quote from: eloc on April 14, 2014, 06:13:44 PM
Quote from: b+w geezer on January 30, 2014, 11:35:51 AM
It's good have an airing for the last of the three points, which you'd like to imagine is appreciated by Khan.
The first point overstates, as there will always be many exceptions, such as the three just mentioned. But as a broad truth, there is something in it.
I am sceptical of the second point, at any rate if you substitute `coach' for `manager.' What happens on the training pitch can make a massive difference. Anyone who has watched Fulham over the period can vouch for the fact that the best times invariably coincided with good coaching in place -- Dave Sexton (the 1966 Great Escape), Bill Taylor (FA Cup Final), Ray Harford (MacDonald's fine team), Damiano (Tigana's fine team) and of course Roy Hodgson. He was admittedly the only one called `Manager.' Except for the Tigana era it certainly wasn't money that made the difference from surrounding dross seasons -- so unless just pure coincidence, it was the work of these guys. That they all did well at other clubs too tends to confirm it.
sorry for the extremely late reply. your examples of managers illustrate my point however. those men are of very very small portion of the total number of managers. i agree the man running the training session can make all the difference, but those kinds of managers are few and far between
I'll respond a bit more quickly! Yes, they were all out the ordinary, but on the other hand we have had them for 20-25% or so of our time over the past half century, and those times were the good ones. So as a differentiator between the good and the bad times, these people do fit the description, and they do contradict the notion that you or I, or a random member of the public, would have done as well. If that is indeed what the book says then, unlike the other two main points you report, it's a highly dubious one.
Quote from: b+w geezer on April 14, 2014, 06:44:30 PM
Quote from: eloc on April 14, 2014, 06:13:44 PM
Quote from: b+w geezer on January 30, 2014, 11:35:51 AM
It's good have an airing for the last of the three points, which you'd like to imagine is appreciated by Khan.
The first point overstates, as there will always be many exceptions, such as the three just mentioned. But as a broad truth, there is something in it.
I am sceptical of the second point, at any rate if you substitute `coach' for `manager.' What happens on the training pitch can make a massive difference. Anyone who has watched Fulham over the period can vouch for the fact that the best times invariably coincided with good coaching in place -- Dave Sexton (the 1966 Great Escape), Bill Taylor (FA Cup Final), Ray Harford (MacDonald's fine team), Damiano (Tigana's fine team) and of course Roy Hodgson. He was admittedly the only one called `Manager.' Except for the Tigana era it certainly wasn't money that made the difference from surrounding dross seasons -- so unless just pure coincidence, it was the work of these guys. That they all did well at other clubs too tends to confirm it.
sorry for the extremely late reply. your examples of managers illustrate my point however. those men are of very very small portion of the total number of managers. i agree the man running the training session can make all the difference, but those kinds of managers are few and far between
I'll respond a bit more quickly! Yes, they were all out the ordinary, but on the other hand we have had them for 20-25% or so of our time over the past half century, and those times were the good ones. So as a differentiator between the good and the bad times, these people do fit the description, and they do contradict the notion that you or I, or a random member of the public, would have done as well. If that is indeed what the book says then, unlike the other two main points you report, it's a highly dubious one.
fulham is one club out of many, and like you said they only represent 20-25% of the clubs history. its not you or i individually that the book and i am talking about, its the collective idea that is as good as or better than any other manager, save the few exceptions
Quote from: deeffc on January 30, 2014, 01:40:19 PM
You can't overlook the fact though that buying a player who is proven but still young is next to impossible for a club like Fulham. Just looking around the league names that would jump out are Shaw, Barkley, Morrison even someone the like of Shelvey, any of those barring a contract expiring or such is going to cost probably around £10million and if the player is any less proven then you're starting to go much more back into the gamble territory like a Berahino or maybe Wisdom at Liverpool, Nathan Redmond who all look good now but so did plenty of others like Jeffers and Bentley. It much, much better economically to sign 10, 16-18 year olds for a few hundred thousand euros each to add to your home grown talent than spend £5,6,7,8 million on one 20-23 year old because it only takes one or two gems like a Smalling to develop and you have a huge margin for profit and much less risk.
I'm not saying there's nothing in the research, it makes sense, but in terms of what's practical for clubs with very tight profit margins and without the American style wealth distribution it is far too big a risk to wait and sign developed players consistently. Another difference that comes to mind is the nature of Baseball. The skillset in Baseball is mostly closed, you stand still wait for the ball and hit it. Of course the batter and pitcher change but there are no other big variables in terms of tactics or movement. Football like a sport like baseball is all about the movement and system. In the case of football fitting in correctly is much more important to success so I don't think you can as easily compare and use statistics.
I think it's quite clear that managers do make a difference. Look at Old Trafford and look at Fulham pre and post Hodgson.
If baseball is a closed skill, static sport, then football is just 22 men running around on a pitch chasing a ball. there are huge variables in baseball, just like in soccer. you alter your defensive stance(shifting basemen and outfielders left/right/closer/deeper) depending on the batter, and the situation. just like in football, you adjust and shift your team to your opponent, based upon who has the ball, and the situation. barkley and shaw are very young (20 and 18 respectively). their bodies and minds are still growing. Once again its another cherry picking situation. How many other kids have gone through the academies with those same kids and look where they stand. we cant even name them( or at least i cant) they represent a minuscule fraction of the total players southampton and everton put through their academies. bringing in young players is a lot like prospecting for oil. you drill hundreds of wells in the hopes of striking it rich. only problem is, you dont know which well is the one, or how long it will take you to find it. same thing with young players. Having one good player can make you a lot of money and cover the costs of the other failed players, but their is never any guarantee that it will happen with regularity. For every gem, there are tens of thousands of duds.
I think the overall stats on a long run across a vast amount of clubs would show little impact by the manager. Not really surprising as the game is (happily) still run like a collection of clubs rather than real businesses, its hardly full of trained business professionals and the examples of local business owners taking over the board rooms and making total cock-ups is endless (Richards at Sheff Wed being a classic). In fact its run in the main by professional footballers who have spent their formative years on the field and you are lucky if they transition to actually be a trained FIFA coach let alone have any commercial nouse - I mean seriously, listen to them being interviewed week in, week out - how many would you let run a car wash let alone a multi million pound business? There is a transition happening where the money is now too high stakes and the business owners like Khan will have an impact by selecting people who can manage the various inputs: player talent, training and development of skills, development of tactics, match day dynamics ( selection, adjustment of tactics, subs), income, promotion, fan development and retention, ancillary revenue (stores, hospitality, sponsors), staff management and development...the list goes on. They will select teams of executives who will include former players but the days when SAF controls everything are gone.
The former players who are smart and develop themselves will prosper while those that don't will not and the role of the non former player football industry professionals will increase.
On a more micro level I think the b+w geezer points about the training field are spot on. Teams even in the premiership with all the money that is at stake do not train dramatically different than teams in the 2nd division. Jol's regime was marked by the piss-poor training. It never ceases to amaze me that some teams just do not do situational drills - Mourinho does, Hodgson did - its still skills, cones and corners at most training grounds each week and I wonder at Motspur whose great idea the short corners were....
Great post eloc
Quote from: YoungsBitter on April 14, 2014, 07:30:40 PM
I think the overall stats on a long run across a vast amount of clubs would show little impact by the manager. Not really surprising as the game is (happily) still run like a collection of clubs rather than real businesses, its hardly full of trained business professionals and the examples of local business owners taking over the board rooms and making total cock-ups is endless (Richards at Sheff Wed being a classic). In fact its run in the main by professional footballers who have spent their formative years on the field and you are lucky if they transition to actually be a trained FIFA coach let alone have any commercial nouse - I mean seriously, listen to them being interviewed week in, week out - how many would you let run a car wash let alone a multi million pound business? There is a transition happening where the money is now too high stakes and the business owners like Khan will have an impact by selecting people who can manage the various inputs: player talent, training and development of skills, development of tactics, match day dynamics ( selection, adjustment of tactics, subs), income, promotion, fan development and retention, ancillary revenue (stores, hospitality, sponsors), staff management and development...the list goes on. They will select teams of executives who will include former players but the days when SAF controls everything are gone.
The former players who are smart and develop themselves will prosper while those that don't will not and the role of the non former player football industry professionals will increase.
On a more micro level I think the b+w geezer points about the training field are spot on. Teams even in the premiership with all the money that is at stake do not train dramatically different than teams in the 2nd division. Jol's regime was marked by the piss-poor training. It never ceases to amaze me that some teams just do not do situational drills - Mourinho does, Hodgson did - its still skills, cones and corners at most training grounds each week and I wonder at Motspur whose great idea the short corners were....
i think youre spot on about the training, the point im trying to get to is that on the whole, most coaches/managers (i dont fully understand the difference in football) have little to no impact positively, but can very easily wreck a team. the worst thing a manager does in my opinion is the regime changes, both in player and staff. theres a lot to be said for having a stable coaching staff and squad. getting rid of a player or coach just because your predecessor brought him in is silly at best, artificially limiting yourself at worst.
Agree 100% about the whole sale chopping and changing being totally counter productive. In a well managed club Meulensteen would have only been coach, we woudl not brought on the two idiots Wilkins and Curbs and when Magath arrived he should have been manager to RM's coach but thats not what happened.
Most US professional sports split the coaching role from the (general) manager role, usually game/tactical vs strategic with the player recruitment being the coach saying I need more of X and the GM trading or recruiting to get more X. In football the Manager generally has a bunch of assistants called coaches and scouts and he calls the shots on both tactical and strategic hence my contention that the stats would show little long term correlation between managers and success as it is a rare beast that can get both right long term. I think we will see football at the high end move to the US model and that is present at many clubs with the Director of Football role altho that seems to be mainly long term strategic recruitment. I think the argument that anyone off the street could do a better job does not stack up tho, rather that we need to have better management processes in football to avoid the errors we have seen at Fulham. I agree that our recruitment under Jol was very poor and focused on over the hill and expensive names without an overall plan to integrate those into a younger developing squad, in fact like everything under Jol it was all a bit mickey mouse, not thought through and short term focused (partly due to Fayed needing to cash out and Ali Mac doing what he was told). If you throw in to the mix the issue of agents being tied to Managers then the recruitment gets even more skewed.
I hope Magath does stay as he at least seems to understand the work needing to be done on the training field but I dont see him as some golden bullet to solve all our problems, even if we do stay up. He has his blind spots - like leaving Diarra on 20 minutes longer than necesary, his tinkering with ever changing squad - and we have yet to see the wheeler dealer nature that made would have made Harry Redknap blush.
Welcome aboard eloc, great first post, and great discussion following.
I agree with all the points you make, but as deeffc pointed out, for a club like Fulham, the waiting game for a 'proven' youngster isn't really on, for the moment they are proven, they get snapped up by clubs with both a better reputation and deeper pockets, that are bound to turn the young heads. As you said yourself, Kroos, bench-warming for BM, as so many of those players will find themselves, or loaned out perhaps.
So, what do we do? We either buy players that are nearing or just past their sell-by date, or we chance the youngsters who are happy to stay at the Cottage. I agree neither of those two options include the likes of Bent or Berbatov, those were simply examples of a manager without a plan, believing that experience out classes everything else, without realizing that some players are just too far past the expiry date.
I see that Felix looked upon experience over youth for the Norwich game, and it worked (perhaps just, but we came away with the three points), though I still believe that unless/until you do start putting those youngsters, like Burn, in the starting 11, then their being proven is simply postponed rather than harvested in good time.
Quote from: eloc on April 14, 2014, 06:55:39 PM
fulham is one club out of many, and like you said they only represent 20-25% of the clubs history. its not you or i individually that the book and i am talking about, its the collective idea that is as good as or better than any other manager, save the few exceptions
Don't follow that at all, sorry. Have read the above several times now and simply can't make sense of it.
To reiterate...if the book is suggesting that most managers/coaches of football teams are mediocre and don't make a difference, that's plausible. However, senior pro football by definition hires managers and coaches who, like the players themselves, are reckoned exceptional, and that is presumably the world that this book is actually discussing.
Within that world of what should uniformly be people who know what they are doing, the Fulham experience has been that some produce much better results than others at similar budget. I'm doubtful it's much different at other pro football clubs and so if the book does doubt that, I in turn am sceptical about that aspect of the book.
Quote from: Logicalman on April 14, 2014, 08:27:27 PM
Welcome aboard eloc, great first post, and great discussion following.
I agree with all the points you make, but as deeffc pointed out, for a club like Fulham, the waiting game for a 'proven' youngster isn't really on, for the moment they are proven, they get snapped up by clubs with both a better reputation and deeper pockets, that are bound to turn the young heads. As you said yourself, Kroos, bench-warming for BM, as so many of those players will find themselves, or loaned out perhaps.
So, what do we do? We either buy players that are nearing or just past their sell-by date, or we chance the youngsters who are happy to stay at the Cottage. I agree neither of those two options include the likes of Bent or Berbatov, those were simply examples of a manager without a plan, believing that experience out classes everything else, without realizing that some players are just too far past the expiry date.
I see that Felix looked upon experience over youth for the Norwich game, and it worked (perhaps just, but we came away with the three points), though I still believe that unless/until you do start putting those youngsters, like Burn, in the starting 11, then their being proven is simply postponed rather than harvested in good time.
the trajectory of players is much harder to predict from an early point in a players career. and there are plenty of players who are young in other leagues that just need to be brought into a new team or system before they take off. my biggest concern, as well is as the books, is that bringing in very young (under 22) players is very very risky. look at the mvps of the younger world cups and see where they are, look at the older youth world cups and its a closer representation of actual ability.
Quote from: b+w geezer on April 15, 2014, 12:42:19 AM
Quote from: eloc on April 14, 2014, 06:55:39 PM
fulham is one club out of many, and like you said they only represent 20-25% of the clubs history. its not you or i individually that the book and i am talking about, its the collective idea that is as good as or better than any other manager, save the few exceptions
Don't follow that at all, sorry. Have read the above several times now and simply can't make sense of it.
To reiterate...if the book is suggesting that most managers/coaches of football teams are mediocre and don't make a difference, that's plausible. However, senior pro football by definition hires managers and coaches who, like the players themselves, are reckoned exceptional, and that is presumably the world that this book is actually discussing.
Within that world of what should uniformly be people who know what they are doing, the Fulham experience has been that some produce much better results than others at similar budget. I'm doubtful it's much different at other pro football clubs and so if the book does doubt that, I in turn am sceptical about that aspect of the book.
basically it boils down to the concept of averages. if you are playing in a fantasy football league youre doing the same job as other BPL managers, but without the paycheck. what im saying concerning managers is that if youre managing a team like Real or bayern, or city, its not hard to compete with teams around your wage level. a trained squirrel could do the same. we do the same when we discuss line-ups and tactics here on this board. it does however take a special person to push a team to excell.
Perhaps irrelevant, but comparing the manager/coach system in another business.
I'm GM of an events company, my job is to make sure the business runs as smoothly as possible, sales and marketing do their jobs, finances (including making sure everyone gets paid), HR and all other Depts are 'OK' and generally motivating everyone.
However it's the 'coaches' the Production Manager, Operations Manager and Warehouse Manager who make the operation tick, they work with the crews, schedule trucks, personnel, loading and unloading, shipping/receiving etc etc
I see my job as the "Manager' more as a father figure (or in my case a grandfather figure) and overseeing the company (eg Alistair McIntosh'ish') The 'coaches' are the heads of department who do everything that is needed to get the actual live events 'done'
To a great degree I let them get on with it, even their own hiring and firing (I don't advocate that in a football environment)
The point of all of this (and there is one) is that many businesses are similar to mine.
There is no need for a manager to become too involved in the live events (the actual matches}
In a nutshell (my opinion) coaches are more important than managers regarding on field tactics, selection and as long as they are supported by a good manager (me ???) results should be good.
Quote from: Drake44444 on January 29, 2014, 05:35:38 PM
Good post and good points. I had never thought about the u-20 u-17 risks, but it makes sense. Invest in slightly older players but still young.
This was the Keegan approach at Newcastle, scrapped the reserves and academies only running an enlarged first team squad intent on attracting and buying quality players. The project ended up with them getting relegated after a number of managerial changes, reliant on spotting and buying good players . This worked OK last year for Newcastle but once players start to attract attention from other clubs it acts as a distraction to players and agents who start manouvering to leave the club for better contracts and form goes out the window as we can see with Newcastle in the 2nd half of this season.
Quote from: GloucesterWhite on January 30, 2014, 09:02:14 AM
According to those guidelines we should not have bought Smalling, Burn, or Murphy to name just three.
Quote from: GloucesterWhite on January 30, 2014, 09:02:14 AM
According to those guidelines we should not have bought Smalling, Burn, or Murphy to name just three.
YOu could then add Hangeland, Davies, Duff, Gera?, Zamora, Bullard?, Diairra, Reither etc to the list too
I deemed the book flawed to the extreme.
The author's go to money player of all time was Darren Bent. And more games are own or lost on luck?!?
Bent had some glorious money chances for us this season - and blew them. As for luck? Sorry , but I stopped reading the book at that juncture. Any sportsman in any field will tell you "the harder I work, the luckier I get."
In my opinion, the theory that managers or coaches don't make a difference is so wrong-headed that it beggars belief. Great managers and coaches might be very hard to find (as in the business world) but the difference between success and failure lies in the choice of a club's manager and coach.
Nogood "we should carry on searching for that Holy Grail too, isit" Boyo
I was enjoying this thread. Good subject, even if I didn't agree with some of the conclusions.
Nogood "thread-slayer, isit" Boyo
Oh dear, and I'm regulated to the top of the page again.
Nogood "singin' 'top the page, top the page, top the page, isit" Boyo
Managing a fantasy football team doesn't make you a good coach nor does it even begin to give you an understanding of how teams in real life scheme.
If managers don't matter then why are Man Utd not going to qualify for the Champions League this year?
Quote from: MasterHaynes on April 15, 2014, 07:59:58 AM
Quote from: Drake44444 on January 29, 2014, 05:35:38 PM
Good post and good points. I had never thought about the u-20 u-17 risks, but it makes sense. Invest in slightly older players but still young.
This was the Keegan approach at Newcastle, scrapped the reserves and academies only running an enlarged first team squad intent on attracting and buying quality players. The project ended up with them getting relegated after a number of managerial changes, reliant on spotting and buying good players . This worked OK last year for Newcastle but once players start to attract attention from other clubs it acts as a distraction to players and agents who start manouvering to leave the club for better contracts and form goes out the window as we can see with Newcastle in the 2nd half of this season.
keegan at newcastle is an anomaly. im not saying the club should scrap a youth academy. but when looking for first team players, anyone under 22 is too young in my opinion and shouldnt be risked.
Quote from: westcliff white on April 15, 2014, 08:13:15 AM
Quote from: GloucesterWhite on January 30, 2014, 09:02:14 AM
According to those guidelines we should not have bought Smalling, Burn, or Murphy to name just three.
Quote from: GloucesterWhite on January 30, 2014, 09:02:14 AM
According to those guidelines we should not have bought Smalling, Burn, or Murphy to name just three.
YOu could then add Hangeland, Davies, Duff, Gera?, Zamora, Bullard?, Diairra, Reither etc to the list too
i think youre missing the point...
Quote from: NogoodBoyo on April 15, 2014, 02:16:10 PM
I deemed the book flawed to the extreme.
The author's go to money player of all time was Darren Bent. And more games are own or lost on luck?!?
Bent had some glorious money chances for us this season - and blew them. As for luck? Sorry , but I stopped reading the book at that juncture. Any sportsman in any field will tell you "the harder I work, the luckier I get."
In my opinion, the theory that managers or coaches don't make a difference is so wrong-headed that it beggars belief. Great managers and coaches might be very hard to find (as in the business world) but the difference between success and failure lies in the choice of a club's manager and coach.
Nogood "we should carry on searching for that Holy Grail too, isit" Boyo
which author? me or the actual book author? and managers dont make that great of a difference, in overall impact.
fantastic book to read, but doesn't really apply in this situation
Quote from: Putney on April 15, 2014, 09:12:32 PM
Managing a fantasy football team doesn't make you a good coach nor does it even begin to give you an understanding of how teams in real life scheme.
If managers don't matter then why are Man Utd not going to qualify for the Champions League this year?
1. new manager, new coaches, new philosophy. moyes is having to deal with an entirely new team and integrate new coaches and old players into a new system. cherry picking one team doesnt make your point, it just makes you look ignorant.
2. the same reason barcelona are not in the lead, a stagnant older squad that is on the decline.
3. its SAF, mate. managers dont come better.
being a football player doesnt make you a better coach. my point in saying that is that if some bloke can hop on his computer and pluck eleven guys and put them into a line up, why do we pay someone to do the same? there was a team in the lower leagues that had all their season ticket holders submit a lineup before a match and they club plugged in the 11 most popular players. they ended up getting promotion the season they did it. they performed better than EVERY other club in their league, and every club had a manager/coach.
What about all the other promoted clubs that used conventional managers and coaches? If it's a numbers game as the authors' book implied, then that example of the one club in the one club is not even worthy of mention.
Nogood "no good, isit" Boyo
If I ask you to recommend me a restaurant in your home city and you respond that most are of low quality, then I believe you but you have been of little use.
Similarly, it's not much help to pro football owners to tell them that managers make no difference in general; that only the best ones do. It's the best ones they want to hire!
That exceptional managers alone are exceptional, while indeed believeable, is as useful as that restaurant advice. Signs that would help you to spot an exceptional manager of the future, before rival owners snapped him up -- you'd want to read that.
When you say managers don't make a difference what powers are you linking to a manager?
If you're talking a baseball managers powers like Charlie Manuel when at the Phillies I'd agree. Tinkering with the line up, bull pen management, shift defense, matching right and lefties. Most knowledgeable fans could do that. The coaching is mostly skills coaching again most decent ex hitters/ pitchers could do that.
For football the Manager (in many clubs) is a combination of a baseball GM in that he selects the talent, plus he runs the training, and the bits by omission you really underplay are the man management aspect and the tactics (both planned and reactive). These are huge parts of football and light years away of bringing the 3 baseman up the line situationally to stymie a bunt or a suicide squeeze.
A good manager is worth 10 to 20pc of a season's points total (you'd have seen that if we had Jol and Felix doing a full season and comparing results) even if he had the same players...imagine what that would look like a baseball WAR stat. If you add in the influence most have on player acquisitions and exits I'd say 20 per cent to 33 per cent in the long run.
I infer that you may agree with the player acquisition/ exit impact but you, wrongly, don't link that to a manager's role. It's still a key part of most Manager's responsibilities especially in English professional football.
By 'you' I mean the book and your (supportive) representation of it.
Bit of a long and dry read but to précis it's a statistical analysis that concludes that there are patently good and bad managers who have a material impact on expected points per game of their team, respectively, positively and negatively.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21649480.2013.768829#/doi/full/10.1080/21649480.2012.751957 (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21649480.2013.768829#/doi/full/10.1080/21649480.2012.751957)
Regarding the signing of younger players versus older players, it's very difficult to definitely say that doing one is better than another across the board. It all depends on the resources available to the club, the desirability of the club to potential players, the pool of players available and how those players are valued. The key Moneyball concept isn't that teams should follow a prescription of X, Y and Z and religiously do that, it's that a team should be doing an analysis looking for undervalued assets, then exploit that market inefficiency where possible.
To put it another way, a 20 year old is almost certainly a safer bet than a 17 year old. That's almost impossible to dispute. That doesn't tell us where the value is. If 50% of 20 year olds pan out, and an average 20 year old costs 1 million, while 25% of 17 year olds turn out but an average 17 year old costs 250,000, then signing 4 17 year olds is the better way to spend 1 million pounds. Plug in different figures and that conclusion may change.
Then factor in how good an academy is. A top academy with the latest training techniques may be able to improve youngster outcomes by 5 or 10%. I can't prove this but my guess is that expenditures on coaching 17 year old players increase outcomes more than expenditures on 20 year olds, simply because 17 year olds are more variable. Also, a club that established a reputation as having an excellent academy may be able to sign younger players for a lower cost if potential signings start to view your team's academy as providing value in the form of increased future earnings because they can expect to become a better player.
A 25 year old is an even safer bet than a 20 year old. If you're Manchester City and have virtually unlimited resources, you sign all the best finished products because there's no reason to waste time on players who might become good when you can sign players who already are good. By contrast a poor team may have no choice but to sign young, high variance players and hope they pan out because that's all they can afford.
So, I agree that a stats-based look at what types of player to sign is a good thing, and that 30+ year old players who are highly likely to decline aren't usually a great way to spend money (unless they are cheap or free... Berba may have been a reasonable risk for what we paid). I also agree that it's smart to look at trends across the sport to see broadly where inefficiencies are. At the same time, there are also a whole lot of team-specific variables that need to be taken into account before one can say that a particular course of action would benefit Fulham.
Quote from: b+w geezer on April 18, 2014, 08:06:05 AM
If I ask you to recommend me a restaurant in your home city and you respond that most are of low quality, then I believe you but you have been of little use.
Similarly, it's not much help to pro football owners to tell them that managers make no difference in general; that only the best ones do. It's the best ones they want to hire!
That exceptional managers alone are exceptional, while indeed believeable, is as useful as that restaurant advice. Signs that would help you to spot an exceptional manager of the future, before rival owners snapped him up -- you'd want to read that.
the resturant example for what im trying to say is this: one person who is an expert in grading restaurants is more often than not, the same quality as a large group of regular people reviewing a bunch of restaurants. its why things like yelp, or urbanspoon exist. managers are all well and good, but if you can achieve similar success without the extra cost, why would you waste the money?
Quote from: GB4FFC on April 18, 2014, 10:23:05 PM
Regarding the signing of younger players versus older players, it's very difficult to definitely say that doing one is better than another across the board. It all depends on the resources available to the club, the desirability of the club to potential players, the pool of players available and how those players are valued. The key Moneyball concept isn't that teams should follow a prescription of X, Y and Z and religiously do that, it's that a team should be doing an analysis looking for undervalued assets, then exploit that market inefficiency where possible.
To put it another way, a 20 year old is almost certainly a safer bet than a 17 year old. That's almost impossible to dispute. That doesn't tell us where the value is. If 50% of 20 year olds pan out, and an average 20 year old costs 1 million, while 25% of 17 year olds turn out but an average 17 year old costs 250,000, then signing 4 17 year olds is the better way to spend 1 million pounds. Plug in different figures and that conclusion may change.
Then factor in how good an academy is. A top academy with the latest training techniques may be able to improve youngster outcomes by 5 or 10%. I can't prove this but my guess is that expenditures on coaching 17 year old players increase outcomes more than expenditures on 20 year olds, simply because 17 year olds are more variable. Also, a club that established a reputation as having an excellent academy may be able to sign younger players for a lower cost if potential signings start to view your team's academy as providing value in the form of increased future earnings because they can expect to become a better player.
A 25 year old is an even safer bet than a 20 year old. If you're Manchester City and have virtually unlimited resources, you sign all the best finished products because there's no reason to waste time on players who might become good when you can sign players who already are good. By contrast a poor team may have no choice but to sign young, high variance players and hope they pan out because that's all they can afford.
So, I agree that a stats-based look at what types of player to sign is a good thing, and that 30+ year old players who are highly likely to decline aren't usually a great way to spend money (unless they are cheap or free... Berba may have been a reasonable risk for what we paid). I also agree that it's smart to look at trends across the sport to see broadly where inefficiencies are. At the same time, there are also a whole lot of team-specific variables that need to be taken into account before one can say that a particular course of action would benefit Fulham.
your assuming though that the 4 17 year olds are going to pan out all the same as the 1 20 year old. young players are extremely volatile. and there are plenty of market inefficiencies left to be exploited. fulham can offer a lot to players provided they stay in the premier league. they can raid the "lesser" leagues i.e. portugal, netherlands, belgium, switzerland and the like. fulham is entirely capable of this. liverpool has taken a lot of players from outside the big 5 leagues and turned them into title contenders. chelski does this, but they tend to take the cream of the crop from the lesser teams in the big leagues.
Quote from: NogoodBoyo on April 17, 2014, 06:23:01 PM
What about all the other promoted clubs that used conventional managers and coaches? If it's a numbers game as the authors' book implied, then that example of the one club in the one club is not even worthy of mention.
Nogood "no good, isit" Boyo
it worth mentioning because its the only instance of it happening in a professional league, as far as i know. it may be a fluke. but whats to say its not? the biggest predictor of a clubs success according to the book is not manager or transfer fees paid, its wages spent. on the whole, the more you pay your players the better you do. dont take that as meaning we should pay our players more and that will magically improve the club. the wages are reflective of the players quality. basically the average player who is paid 80K a week is better than the average player who is paid 40K.
Quote from: WayneKerrins on April 18, 2014, 12:10:36 PM
When you say managers don't make a difference what powers are you linking to a manager?
If you're talking a baseball managers powers like Charlie Manuel when at the Phillies I'd agree. Tinkering with the line up, bull pen management, shift defense, matching right and lefties. Most knowledgeable fans could do that. The coaching is mostly skills coaching again most decent ex hitters/ pitchers could do that.
For football the Manager (in many clubs) is a combination of a baseball GM in that he selects the talent, plus he runs the training, and the bits by omission you really underplay are the man management aspect and the tactics (both planned and reactive). These are huge parts of football and light years away of bringing the 3 baseman up the line situationally to stymie a bunt or a suicide squeeze.
A good manager is worth 10 to 20pc of a season's points total (you'd have seen that if we had Jol and Felix doing a full season and comparing results) even if he had the same players...imagine what that would look like a baseball WAR stat. If you add in the influence most have on player acquisitions and exits I'd say 20 per cent to 33 per cent in the long run.
I infer that you may agree with the player acquisition/ exit impact but you, wrongly, don't link that to a manager's role. It's still a key part of most Manager's responsibilities especially in English professional football.
By 'you' I mean the book and your (supportive) representation of it.
im linking all those powers to a manager. you dont need to be an ex-player to see that messi and ronaldo are lightyears better than rodders and berba. a group of fans can figure that out. skill coaching doesnt necessarily require experience playing. wenger has done pretty well for a lad who played 56 games his whole career. being a good player doesnt mean your a good coach. its really how much you study the game, which has led to the idea that crappy players make good coaches because they spend most of their time watching football. transfers are of a similar vein. while everyone can see that our team would be better with ronaldo, i would argue that most of us fans could come up with a list of transfer targets similar to or better than, what a manager would. a manager is one person who only has 24 hours in a day. sure he has scouts. but why not utilize your entire fanbase? the cottage holds roughly 30K. thats 30K sets of eyeballs watching the game, 30K brains analyzing and processing the game around them. it seems almost foolish to ignore the vast wealth of input available.
You underplay the tactical side of football management by the width of the Atlantic
Quote from: WayneKerrins on April 21, 2014, 11:14:18 PM
You underplay the tactical side of football management by the width of the Atlantic
Care to explain, or are you merely content with making hyperbolic riffraff?
You penultimate post was essentially a whole lot of nothing: it didn't really address any of the points in the post you quoted. To me it merited a succint reply.
Address the points and I'll be happy to respond to your argumentation.
i dont see how i did not respond appropriately to the post? he asked which attributes i ascribed to a manager, and those which i did not. he asked about tactics and i adressed them i thought, by illustrating that the fans are just as capable of watching the game as the manager, and that as an entire fanbase we are as good as, or better than an individual manager.
perhaps you are question whether or not i think that fans can or should handle in game tactics. in short, i think they can, but it would take too much effort to effectively implement it. most fans of any team watchinig any game, as a whole would be able to see general concepts and the overall momentum of a game.
for an example, we (we being the fans on this board and others like it) can see that fulham has a huge problem defending corners and set pieces. i would argue that is an almost universal point among fulham fans. if you implemented a fan based managerial/coaching system, then the coaches who run the training sessions for the team would take the overall inputs and figure out what the team needs to work on for the following week.
A kind if anarcho syndicalist approach?
Maybe we wire up all season ticket holders and we vote (real time) on corner drills, who takes free kicks and peno s and what formation change is needed at half time, plus substitutions...
A bit wacky but would be a laugh and interesting to watch and absolutely would be a notch up from most of the decisions the buffoon Jol made.
I would suggest you look at the TIFF forum because the opinions of quite a few on there make Lawrie Sanchez look like a managerial maestro.
Quote from: eloc on April 21, 2014, 07:49:33 PM
managers are all well and good, but if you can achieve similar success without the extra cost, why would you waste the money?
The particular suggestion that the book makes about how to manage football teams is therefore what? Don't appoint a manager, save the salary? Or is that your suggestion rather than the book's?
Quote from: eloc on April 23, 2014, 07:27:55 PM
for an example, we (we being the fans on this board and others like it) can see that fulham has a huge problem defending corners and set pieces. i would argue that is an almost universal point among fulham fans. if you implemented a fan based managerial/coaching system, then the coaches who run the training sessions for the team would take the overall inputs and figure out what the team needs to work on for the following week.
Quite right - who needs training and expertise from professionals.
All that's needed is for the supporters to scream
DEFEND BETTER YOU MUPPETS..
Quote from: eloc on April 23, 2014, 07:27:55 PM
for an example, we (we being the fans on this board and others like it) can see that fulham has a huge problem defending corners and set pieces. i would argue that is an almost universal point among fulham fans. if you implemented a fan based managerial/coaching system, then the coaches who run the training sessions for the team would take the overall inputs and figure out what the team needs to work on for the following week.
Some of you may remember this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyFootballClub (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyFootballClub)
'Own The Club, Pick the Team'
Was never going to be allowed by those who administrated it, Mr Will (I'm going to make money writing a book about this one day) Brooks. Or by those club people. Took the money but did not allow the fans to do what it said on the tin.
Quote from: b+w geezer on April 23, 2014, 11:07:01 PM
Quote from: eloc on April 21, 2014, 07:49:33 PM
managers are all well and good, but if you can achieve similar success without the extra cost, why would you waste the money?
The particular suggestion that the book makes about how to manage football teams is therefore what? Don't appoint a manager, save the salary? Or is that your suggestion rather than the book's?
not appointing a manager and saving the salary is my own suggestion. we need the money, and were spending money on coaches we dont really need, nor are they a part of the club. the books point is that most managers are as effective as the fans. i would say the point of the book is that if you are going to hire a manager, find one who performs better than the average
Quote from: MJG on April 24, 2014, 10:29:19 AM
Quote from: eloc on April 23, 2014, 07:27:55 PM
for an example, we (we being the fans on this board and others like it) can see that fulham has a huge problem defending corners and set pieces. i would argue that is an almost universal point among fulham fans. if you implemented a fan based managerial/coaching system, then the coaches who run the training sessions for the team would take the overall inputs and figure out what the team needs to work on for the following week.
Some of you may remember this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyFootballClub (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyFootballClub)
'Own The Club, Pick the Team'
Was never going to be allowed by those who administrated it, Mr Will (I'm going to make money writing a book about this one day) Brooks. Or by those club people. Took the money but did not allow the fans to do what it said on the tin.
that was with a very small club (ebbsfleet) with a fanbase that was more than likely larger than the actual fanbase of ebbsfleet(32,000) members at its peak.
Quote from: WayneKerrins on April 23, 2014, 10:38:14 PM
A kind if anarcho syndicalist approach?
Maybe we wire up all season ticket holders and we vote (real time) on corner drills, who takes free kicks and peno s and what formation change is needed at half time, plus substitutions...
A bit wacky but would be a laugh and interesting to watch and absolutely would be a notch up from most of the decisions the buffoon Jol made.
I would suggest you look at the TIFF forum because the opinions of quite a few on there make Lawrie Sanchez look like a managerial maestro.
whats TIFF?
and yeah ideally thats what i would want in a perfect world.
Quote from: eloc on April 25, 2014, 12:07:01 AM
Quote from: WayneKerrins on April 23, 2014, 10:38:14 PM
A kind if anarcho syndicalist approach?
Maybe we wire up all season ticket holders and we vote (real time) on corner drills, who takes free kicks and peno s and what formation change is needed at half time, plus substitutions...
A bit wacky but would be a laugh and interesting to watch and absolutely would be a notch up from most of the decisions the buffoon Jol made.
I would suggest you look at the TIFF forum because the opinions of quite a few on there make Lawrie Sanchez look like a managerial maestro.
whats TIFF?
and yeah ideally thats what i would want in a perfect world.
Google The independent Fulham Forum or TFI fulham. Pre dates this by a decade or so. Some of us frequent both.. this board has a lower fool quotient.
went and checked it out. damn that place is ancient. have seen layout design like that since the late 90's.
I heard a programme on Radio 4 a while ago, with an expert from the Office of National Statistics. He confirmed that they had done quite a bit of research on this topic, and found that indeed, with a tiny minority of exceptions, it really doesn't matter who picks the teams - they would have an equal chance of success. That is not to say that coaching can't assist. Clearly it can.
Quote from: SadOldGit on May 07, 2014, 02:45:34 PM
I heard a programme on Radio 4 a while ago, with an expert from the Office of National Statistics. He confirmed that they had done quite a bit of research on this topic, and found that indeed, with a tiny minority of exceptions, it really doesn't matter who picks the teams - they would have an equal chance of success. That is not to say that coaching can't assist. Clearly it can.
i agree that coaching can assist a team. I'm just very skeptical about paying someone a bunch of money if they havent shown that they are capable of beating the average.
