Found this quote on Twitter. Searched for it and found it in this article. Ranieri seems to blame everything but himself for his problems while at Fulham.
Article that the quote was lifted from:
https://www.football-italia.net/145260/ranieri-players-must-fight-samp (https://www.football-italia.net/145260/ranieri-players-must-fight-samp)
"Sampdoria are not Fulham. Don't forget, Fulham were a newly-promoted club with players who had never been in the Premier League. In the January transfer window, they followed the advice of algorithms. This is totally different."
So, in a nutshell all of Ranieri's problems were due to the players experiences and Tony Khan's two boxes checked for recruitment? None of it had to do with his style of play, tactics (or lack thereof) or his player selections?
It will be very interesting to see how he does with Sampdoria who are firmly rooted to the bottom of their table.
Yes, I think what Ranieri is saying about Fulham is fair comment, we all new that the players bought in were based on computer data and that they lacked premier league experience. I think all of this has now been accepted by our management and hopefully will not be repeated.
Of course Ranieri must have been aware of the situation when he took the job on.
For me, Renieri not only knew what he was getting into and how things were going to be run, but supposedly came to the Khan with a detailed plan on how he was going to run things and make Fulham successful.
He should take some of the blame for how Fulham performed due to his style of play (that did not suit the players we had)and tactics (or lack thereof.
Before SJ was even sacked Ranieri told the Khans that, in his opinion, the players in the Fulham squad were good enough to compete and survive in the PL.
I hadn't realised Ranieri had marked out Aboubakar Kamara as an essential and key member of his squad and how those incidents with the penalty, the yoga, and the security personnel conspired to wreck the Italian's genius of a plan to keep us up.
Our loss is clearly Sampdoria's gain ... but then Italian's do love eating together don't they.
We couldnt have recruited a worse fit for us at the time. Players were brought into to play out from the back with Jokanovic and he(Ranieri ) wanted pirates who could defend and with pace play on the counter. I wanted him to succeed but you didnt have to be einstein to see it was never going to work.
We wouldn't have gotten Ryan Babel without the algorithm. Long live the algorithm!
Quote from: toshes mate on October 15, 2019, 07:03:16 PM
Before SJ was even sacked Ranieri told the Khans that, in his opinion, the players in the Fulham squad were good enough to compete and survive in the PL.
I hadn't realised Ranieri had marked out Aboubakar Kamara as an essential and key member of his squad and how those incidents with the penalty, the yoga, and the security personnel conspired to wreck the Italian's genius of a plan to keep us up.
Our loss is clearly Sampdoria's gain ... but then Italian's do love eating together don't they.
Perhaps this is a heaven sent opportunity to offload Kamara and maybe even get a few quid for him?
when he joined he said very different things. but as an experienced coach he managed to make us rather worse, well very much worse. he in fact guaranteed our fate, he was a pathetic useless choice of manager. he was risk free, no risk of staying up... I did say so at the time he arrived and he exceeded my expectation of being totally useless.
Quote from: Lyle from Hangeland on October 15, 2019, 08:40:21 PM
We wouldn't have gotten Ryan Babel without the algorithm. Long live the algorithm!
Yes, he made all the difference to our season; algorithm 😂🤣😂.
Mohamed Al Fayed invested in this club by "finding managers he believed in and backing them financial", with the objective of obtaining the kinds of revenue that Manchester United enjoy and making a small profit (to be the Manchester United of the South). Fulham Fans have to accept this didn't work financial and there is no indication that any investor that wants to follow "Back the Manager Financial to make a Profit" Business Model with Fulham in the Future.
Shahid Khan bought the club with an idea of doing things differently, his ideas of differently seems to be to invest in a "MoneyBall" Business Model run by someone he trusts (which happens to be his son that knows more about football than him but not as much as someone normally in such a position). I hope he continues to try to attempt this business model pouring money in every years, because if the "Moneyball Business Model" is proven not to work, there is no indication Fulham will return to "Back the Manager Model" and its just as likely FFC goes to either "Milk the Club for Cash" Business Model (used by Mike Ashley and Ed Woodward) or "Sell the Club and Ground" to whoever wants it (note, I am extremely pessimistic about this model going well).
While I question the Khan's Model; the "Khan Plan" has some logic as one-day within the range of 3 years to 30 years algorithms will be the best way to select the best value players to buy. When that day comes, the clubs with the best algorithms will be the one able to buy the best value players and hopefully Fulham will be best positioned to be one of those clubs with the best algorithms.
Seen that way, Shahid Khan investment of £100m+ to buy the players the FFC algorithms predict, might result in the FFC algorithm will improving and gaining future success in the transfer market of maybe £100m. This is an "optimistic but sane Business Model" that might or might not work, but as a Fulham Fan this plan requires massive investment into the club that has to be good for Fulham Fans and result in some better on field performance compared to running the club down.
Although the MAF model of "Back the Manager and we will become the Manchester United of the South" was never going to work, as a fan I loved that MAF tried to achieve it and it made us a good premier league team for a while. Shahid Khan backing his son, even if its fails to deliver a profit ever, maybe very good for FFC fans too and get us to at least be a yo-yo club for a while.
Quote from: gang on October 16, 2019, 12:24:53 AM
Quote from: Lyle from Hangeland on October 15, 2019, 08:40:21 PM
We wouldn't have gotten Ryan Babel without the algorithm. Long live the algorithm!
Yes, he made all the difference to our season; algorithm 😂🤣😂.
Yes, algorithm is a word you will find in the English Dictionary between Aimless and Atrocious.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on October 16, 2019, 03:15:00 AM
Quote from: gang on October 16, 2019, 12:24:53 AM
Quote from: Lyle from Hangeland on October 15, 2019, 08:40:21 PM
We wouldn't have gotten Ryan Babel without the algorithm. Long live the algorithm!
Yes, he made all the difference to our season; algorithm 😂🤣😂.
Yes, algorithm is a word you will find in the English Dictionary between Aimless and Atrocious.
English Dictionary: Algorithm is "a set of rules to be followed to solve a problem".
The problem is "What players do we invest into in order to improve the clubs revenue (gate receipts, tv, commercial and player sales)?".
So, the algorithm is the set of rules that the club follows to by the best value players, whether that algorithm is "get a good manager and trust him" (like MAF) or that algorithm is "get a good statisitics and trust the computer " (like SK & TK).
Whatever the "algorithm" is; if the owner is required to give money to make it work, then he has to believe the "algorithm" works, otherwise he won't give his money. If we convince the owner that "trust the computer" doesn't work (which maybe easy to do), then I doubt it will convince him that "backing the Manager" is better than "giving up and reducing his losses".
Conclusion: Trust the Statistics maybe the only business model that Shahid Khan (or anyone) is willing to invest £100m+ into. If SK stops believing in the current algorithm, then the money may dry out and we will have a similar type of owner to Mike Ashley with a championship team, a smaller stadium and a more valuable football pitch.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on October 16, 2019, 03:15:00 AM
Quote from: gang on October 16, 2019, 12:24:53 AM
Quote from: Lyle from Hangeland on October 15, 2019, 08:40:21 PM
We wouldn't have gotten Ryan Babel without the algorithm. Long live the algorithm!
Yes, he made all the difference to our season; algorithm 😂🤣😂.
Yes, algorithm is a word you will find in the English Dictionary between Aimless and Atrocious.
I had a Algorithm once,the wife told me get it seen to
as I was starting to walk funny.😊
Quote from: The Rational Fan on October 16, 2019, 02:26:34 AM
Mohamed Al Fayed invested in this club by "finding managers he believed in and backing them financial", with the objective of obtaining the kinds of revenue that Manchester United enjoy and making a small profit (to be the Manchester United of the South). Fulham Fans have to accept this didn't work financial and there is no indication that any investor that wants to follow "Back the Manager Financial to make a Profit" Business Model with Fulham in the Future.
Shahid Khan bought the club with an idea of doing things differently, his ideas of differently seems to be to invest in a "MoneyBall" Business Model run by someone he trusts (which happens to be his son that knows more about football than him but not as much as someone normally in such a position). I hope he continues to try to attempt this business model pouring money in every years, because if the "Moneyball Business Model" is proven not to work, there is no indication Fulham will return to "Back the Manager Model" and its just as likely FFC goes to either "Milk the Club for Cash" Business Model (used by Mike Ashley and Ed Woodward) or "Sell the Club and Ground" to whoever wants it (note, I am extremely pessimistic about this model going well).
While I question the Khan's Model; the "Khan Plan" has some logic as one-day within the range of 3 years to 30 years algorithms will be the best way to select the best value players to buy. When that day comes, the clubs with the best algorithms will be the one able to buy the best value players and hopefully Fulham will be best positioned to be one of those clubs with the best algorithms.
Seen that way, Shahid Khan investment of £100m+ to buy the players the FFC algorithms predict, might result in the FFC algorithm will improving and gaining future success in the transfer market of maybe £100m. This is an "optimistic but sane Business Model" that might or might not work, but as a Fulham Fan this plan requires massive investment into the club that has to be good for Fulham Fans and result in some better on field performance compared to running the club down.
Although the MAF model of "Back the Manager and we will become the Manchester United of the South" was never going to work, as a fan I loved that MAF tried to achieve it and it made us a good premier league team for a while. Shahid Khan backing his son, even if its fails to deliver a profit ever, maybe very good for FFC fans too and get us to at least be a yo-yo club for a while.
You have to rember that Khan is inhibited by FFP, unlike MAF.
I don't really see a lot of difference between them, in the way that you argue.
I think Khan backs his managers, and is prepared to spend big from his own wealth to get Fulham as successful as possible, and would spend what it takes within reason, to on players to achieve this goal.
Maybe he has a more thought out long term plan for the club as a sustainable business, but surely that is in the club's interests too. And i think he definitely wants Fulham as long term Prem club, not a yo-yo club, as we were for 13 years under MAF, of course, until he got fed up for whatever reasons. But we owe him big time, of course.
The 'algorithm' business, is surely just a new way of finding appropriate players isn't it? and we still use traditional scouting methods too, under the two tick system - so we are informed anyway.
Khan Junior has said that Scott Parker has unprecedented involvement in the search for new players, and seems to think this a good thing - so implying that Parker is fully backed.
So, I think it is Khan's urgent goal to be a long term Prem member, but sustainable also if possible, with money made from the extra attendance, and general use of the new stand facilities going towards this, and this has to be a good thing for the club.
Will an Algorithm based club ever achieve the success that Cloughie had at Forrest, I doubt it.
While there will never be another Clough there has to be room for strong individual managers with algorithms used as a supporting tool.
algorithm
/ˈalɡərɪð(ə)m/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: algorithm; plural noun: algorithms
a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer.
This is what i understand it to be. but in fact even that is not quite correct because it is not a problem solving opertion, it is a procedure that is followed by a computer or other device or even a human. you would use an algorithm to make your robot peel a potato. that would not be problem solving.
so when they buy players they use an algorithm to identify players via a series of pre determined criteria.
the algorithm has no way of assesing the true value of a player on a pitch, it just asses a batch of stats and weights those according to the programmer.
Ranieri on the other hand was just useless.
Quote from: ALG01 on October 16, 2019, 10:46:38 AM
algorithm
/ˈalɡərɪð(ə)m/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: algorithm; plural noun: algorithms
a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer.
This is what i understand it to be. but in fact even that is not quite correct because it is not a problem solving opertion, it is a procedure that is followed by a computer or other device or even a human. you would use an algorithm to make your robot peel a potato. that would not be problem solving.
so when they buy players they use an algorithm to identify players via a series of pre determined criteria.
the algorithm has no way of assesing the true value of a player on a pitch, it just asses a batch of stats and weights those according to the programmer.
Ranieri on the other hand was just useless.
Great punchline !
The big question has to be did we use an algorithm to select Ranieri.
Quote from: filham on October 16, 2019, 04:59:40 PM
The big question has to be did we use an algorithm to select Ranieri.
Exactly,
Data derived from algorithms can inform choices, but should never be the main determinant. The human side is far more important as we are dealing with flesh and blood, not robots.
So, questions like:
How will this player fit into our game-plan?
Will he settle here and find a connection with the rest of the team?
Is he playing in the brest position for him?
And so on.
But none of this is as important as the manager getting the best from the team through tactics and nurturing players.
Good managers make good players out of average ones.
Sometimes we struggle against inferior sides who are better managed, well-drilled and motivated.
Nothing to do with algorithms, which work better in the NFL as a function of how it's played.
Data derived from algorithms can inform choices, but should never be the main determinant. The human side is far more important as we are dealing with flesh and blood, not robots.
So, questions like:
How will this player fit into our game-plan?
Will he settle here and find a connection with the rest of the team?
Is he playing in the brest position for him?
And so on.
But none of this is as important as the manager getting the best from the team through tactics and nurturing players.
Good managers make good players out of average ones.
Sometimes we struggle against inferior sides who are better managed, well-drilled and motivated.
Nothing to do with algorithms, which work better in the NFL as a function of how it's played.
We used a bell curve .....( of the end variety )
Quote from: TrenteSept on October 16, 2019, 05:51:14 PM
Data derived from algorithms can inform choices, but should never be the main determinant. The human side is far more important as we are dealing with flesh and blood, not robots.
So, questions like:
How will this player fit into our game-plan?
Will he settle here and find a connection with the rest of the team?
Is he playing in the brest position for him?
And so on.
But none of this is as important as the manager getting the best from the team through tactics and nurturing players.
Good managers make good players out of average ones.
Sometimes we struggle against inferior sides who are better managed, well-drilled and motivated.
Nothing to do with algorithms, which work better in the NFL as a function of how it's played.
ahiw a player can fit into game plan is used by all the team. A lot of data can show how a player performs in formations, positions and individual players.
Quote from: filham on October 16, 2019, 04:59:40 PM
The big question has to be did we use an algorithm to select Ranieri.
No
Quote from: filham on October 16, 2019, 10:41:07 AM
Will an Algorithm based club ever achieve the success that Cloughie had at Forrest, I doubt it.
While there will never be another Clough there has to be room for strong individual managers with algorithms used as a supporting tool.
Brian Clough had an algorithm, it was in his head. One rule he followed was find players with skill and problems that would improve if they focused on football more. He loved players with skill, problems (like gaming) and a desire to overcome them.
For those that think an algorithm is always run by a computer, let me remind you the word algorithm predates the computer by about a 1000 years. An algorithm is a set of rules one follows to solve a problem and traditional has been performed in someone's head (eg the managers head).
Quote from: RaySmith on October 16, 2019, 08:21:47 AM
You have to rember that Khan is inhibited by FFP, unlike MAF.
I don't really see a lot of difference between them, in the way that you argue.
I think Khan backs his managers, and is prepared to spend big from his own wealth to get Fulham as successful as possible, and would spend what it takes within reason, to on players to achieve this goal.
Maybe he has a more thought out long term plan for the club as a sustainable business, but surely that is in the club's interests too. And i think he definitely wants Fulham as long term Prem club, not a yo-yo club, as we were for 13 years under MAF, of course, until he got fed up for whatever reasons. But we owe him big time, of course.
The 'algorithm' business, is surely just a new way of finding appropriate players isn't it? and we still use traditional scouting methods too, under the two tick system - so we are informed anyway.
Khan Junior has said that Scott Parker has unprecedented involvement in the search for new players, and seems to think this a good thing - so implying that Parker is fully backed.
So, I think it is Khan's urgent goal to be a long term Prem member, but sustainable also if possible, with money made from the extra attendance, and general use of the new stand facilities going towards this, and this has to be a good thing for the club.
Spot On, the biggest difference is FFP when considering player inflation we spent the equivalent of £205m the summer we got promoted to the premier league under MAF and the team we already had the year before was pretty good with most of the players staying.
The big difference is "The Khans" are not going to trust the manager to select purchases, using statistics, scouts and TK to select. The Khans give the Manager the players that the recruitment department recommend, every team in premier league except Manchester United follow this model.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on October 17, 2019, 12:18:11 AM
Brian Clough had an algorithm, it was in his head. One rule he followed was find players with skill and problems that would improve if they focused on football more. He loved players with skill, problems (like gaming) and a desire to overcome them.
For those that think an algorithm is always run by a computer, let me remind you the word algorithm predates the computer by about a 1000 years. An algorithm is a set of rules one follows to solve a problem and traditional has been performed in someone's head (eg the managers head).
All algorithms ever used by computers (even much hyped and so called 'machine learning') originate in a human being's mind. If Clough had an algorithm then I am pretty sure a super computer would have its work cut out understanding it even if a coder could code it.
We have algorithms for standing up, another for making tea, and yet another for writing something on social media. We tend to adapt our algorithms very much on the fly something a computer has absolutely no means of doing despite silicon valley hype. For a computer to act 'on the fly' requires an 'on the fly' command written into its code and of course that means it is no longer 'on the fly'. But there are cases where our natural ability to adapt things to taste can and will be be disciplined out of us out of necessity. For example military breeding and transition to conformity enables collectives to be relatively certain how each unit will behave. This also has rich pickings outside the military where companies and corporate interests can manipulate behaviors and market. It is also used, to a lesser and modest, degree in breeding or producing successful sports people and teams.
Clough was definitely human, and of his time -sadly we will never see a manager like him again. He wouldn't be allowed today.
Impulsive -signing players he saw could really make a difference, like Dave Mackay, above his Chairman's head for his unfashionable, mid table , second division Derby side. No-one could have predicted the success he had with that side. Then repeating that success with equally unfashionable Forest.
Driven,partly, it's claimed, by a career ending injury caused by an over the top tackle, early in his pro career, which also may have given him a lifelong aversion to dirty play, that made him tell the Leeds side he'd newly become manager of 'you can take all your medals and cups and throw them in the bin, because you won them through cheating.'
He also manhandled Forest fans who'd run onto the pitch.
That he ended up up a sad alcoholic, like so many 'characters' from the game in those days, seems somehow inevitable, and something that would never happen to a computer!
But I'm not making a point against use of computers, or the use of algorithms in the modern game- they are a fact of life, and a very useful tool. The game is a lot better today in terms of performance levels, fitness, training, equipment etc., and modern technology helps in every aspect of this.
Society and football have changed a lot, for the better in many ways, and you'll never see the characters who graced the game, and certainly Fulham, in the past - especially not with the power of the media and social media, that monitors and judges every aspect of behaviour, and minutely examines and calls out every weakness or fault, on and off the pitch, and in some ways that is good, but modern football certainly lacks something compered to the past - soul and heart maybe.
Excellent summary about Cloughie, RaySmith.
I'd ask anyone on here what would be their first rule about being a professional football club manager both out of curiosity and as a sense of my inability to know how you would begin to tackle such an issue via a series of algorithms e.g. Since as it may rain tomorrow but everything else is much less certain, where on earth do I start to be a football manager?
In his defence we absolutely failed to improve our defence in that January window and it was ultimately our demise.
Tony Khan signed Havard Nordveit.
Quote from: toshes mate on October 17, 2019, 11:31:34 AM
Excellent summary about Cloughie, RaySmith.
I'd ask anyone on here what would be their first rule about being a professional football club manager both out of curiosity and as a sense of my inability to know how you would begin to tackle such an issue via a series of algorithms e.g. Since as it may rain tomorrow but everything else is much less certain, where on earth do I start to be a football manager?
Maybe being open minded is an important trait in this day an age. I don't think as an owner I would want someone with the attitude of my way or the highway. Yes you can have principles and beliefs, but no one is perfect and new approache, ideas and suggestions are all things he would need I believe.
Maybe being open minded is an important trait in this day an age. I don't think as an owner I would want someone with the attitude of my way or the highway. Yes you can have principles and beliefs, but no one is perfect and new approache, ideas and suggestions are all things he would need I believe.
So very , very true - dogma invariably leads to demise ( in any walk of life )
Quote from: MJG on October 17, 2019, 03:40:21 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on October 17, 2019, 11:31:34 AM
Excellent summary about Cloughie, RaySmith.
I'd ask anyone on here what would be their first rule about being a professional football club manager both out of curiosity and as a sense of my inability to know how you would begin to tackle such an issue via a series of algorithms e.g. Since as it may rain tomorrow but everything else is much less certain, where on earth do I start to be a football manager?
Maybe being open minded is an important trait in this day an age. I don't think as an owner I would want someone with the attitude of my way or the highway. Yes you can have principles and beliefs, but no one is perfect and new approache, ideas and suggestions are all things he would need I believe.
I think there is much evidence that by the time you get to be an owner of something, or in an unmerited high position to influence others, you are much less likely to have an open mind. Most of the influences around us these days are people with lots of money and perhaps the open mind would ask where that is heading in the hope there are an array of possible answers to reflect upon. Perhaps the dogma is about money and power or boith.
Quote from: toshes mate on October 18, 2019, 05:40:26 AM
I think there is much evidence that by the time you get to be an owner of something, or in an unmerited high position to influence others, you are much less likely to have an open mind. Most of the influences around us these days are people with lots of money and perhaps the open mind would ask where that is heading in the hope there are an array of possible answers to reflect upon. Perhaps the dogma is about money and power or boith.
Shahid Khan's ownership is totally merited, SK success in "Bumper Bars" matches that of Brian Clough in "Football" both taking second division national companies to be one of the best in the world. In a capitalist system, someone that succeeds in one industry (like bumper bars) is entitled to invest their profits into another industry (like football). Lets not forget that Fulham has made 35 years straight of financial losses, maybe its about time someone that has made 35 years of enormous financial profits runs the club.
Shahid Khan bought "Flex-N-Gate" in 1980 with $16,000 of his own money and to build it to become worth around $9,000,000,000. Fulham FC invest more money in Richard Money (£47k) than SK did to build a company big enough to buy every player in the Premier League (£7B). Its no different to Alex Ferguson investing in race horse using the money from his success in football. Shahid Khan created the most defect free bumper bars and hopes to use similar methods to do the same in football.
Shahid Khan genius was to use statistics like careful measurement of bumpers, algorithms like SIX SIGMA and computers to make better "Bumper Bars" in the 1980's and 90s. Now, FFC need many millions of pounds of investment to get this club succesful and "The Khans" are prepared to invest their money based on the assumption that statistics, algorithms and computers will revolutionize football in the 2020's like it did in bumper bars of the 1980's. All Investment is good for fans so DON"T LOOK A GIFT HORSE IN THE MOUTH.
Quote from: toshes mate on October 18, 2019, 05:40:26 AM
Quote from: MJG on October 17, 2019, 03:40:21 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on October 17, 2019, 11:31:34 AM
Excellent summary about Cloughie, RaySmith.
I'd ask anyone on here what would be their first rule about being a professional football club manager both out of curiosity and as a sense of my inability to know how you would begin to tackle such an issue via a series of algorithms e.g. Since as it may rain tomorrow but everything else is much less certain, where on earth do I start to be a football manager?
Maybe being open minded is an important trait in this day an age. I don't think as an owner I would want someone with the attitude of my way or the highway. Yes you can have principles and beliefs, but no one is perfect and new approache, ideas and suggestions are all things he would need I believe.
I think there is much evidence that by the time you get to be an owner of something, or in an unmerited high position to influence others, you are much less likely to have an open mind. Most of the influences around us these days are people with lots of money and perhaps the open mind would ask where that is heading in the hope there are an array of possible answers to reflect upon. Perhaps the dogma is about money and power or boith.
I wasn't talking about an owner being open minded.... You asked what would someone want from a manager.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on October 18, 2019, 07:04:46 AM
Quote from: toshes mate on October 18, 2019, 05:40:26 AM
I think there is much evidence that by the time you get to be an owner of something, or in an unmerited high position to influence others, you are much less likely to have an open mind. Most of the influences around us these days are people with lots of money and perhaps the open mind would ask where that is heading in the hope there are an array of possible answers to reflect upon. Perhaps the dogma is about money and power or boith.
Shahid Khan's ownership is totally merited, SK success in "Bumper Bars" matches that of Brian Clough in "Football" both taking second division national companies to be one of the best in the world. In a capitalist system, someone that succeeds in one industry (like bumper bars) is entitled to invest their profits into another industry (like football). Lets not forget that Fulham has made 35 years straight of financial losses, maybe its about time someone that has made 35 years of enormous financial profits runs the club.
Shahid Khan bought "Flex-N-Gate" in 1980 with $16,000 of his own money and to build it to become worth around $9,000,000,000. Fulham FC invest more money in Richard Money (£47k) than SK did to build a company big enough to buy every player in the Premier League (£7B). Its no different to Alex Ferguson investing in race horse using the money from his success in football. Shahid Khan created the most defect free bumper bars and hopes to use similar methods to do the same in football.
Shahid Khan genius was to use statistics like careful measurement of bumpers, algorithms like SIX SIGMA and computers to make better "Bumper Bars" in the 1980's and 90s. Now, FFC need many millions of pounds of investment to get this club succesful and "The Khans" are prepared to invest their money based on the assumption that statistics, algorithms and computers will revolutionize football in the 2020's like it did in bumper bars of the 1980's. All Investment is good for fans so DON"T LOOK A GIFT HORSE IN THE MOUTH.
Err, if you know anything about quality process improvement you would know that 6 sigma is not an algorithm.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on October 17, 2019, 12:18:11 AM
Quote from: filham on October 16, 2019, 10:41:07 AM
Will an Algorithm based club ever achieve the success that Cloughie had at Forrest, I doubt it.
While there will never be another Clough there has to be room for strong individual managers with algorithms used as a supporting tool.
Brian Clough had an algorithm, it was in his head. One rule he followed was find players with skill and problems that would improve if they focused on football more. He loved players with skill, problems (like gaming) and a desire to overcome them.
For those that think an algorithm is always run by a computer, let me remind you the word algorithm predates the computer by about a 1000 years. An algorithm is a set of rules one follows to solve a problem and traditional has been performed in someone's head (eg the managers head).
Preach it. You would think the enlightened city folk that are Fulham fans would know this. I grew up in the country and even I know this. Read it in a book.
My response to the open/closed mind suggestion was intended to point up the fact that it is perfectly possible to have an open and closed mind at the same time. As an example a person may totally believe there is a higher power (i.e. 'closed mind') without having pre-conceived ideas of what that higher power is (i.e. 'open mind'). In fact the narrowing and broadening of mind from open to closed, and back to open, tends to be the self-confirming bias in all of us unless we fight to keep it open about everything and run the risk of never making our minds up or settling for anything.
The Rational Fan expresses his mind's eye about Khan Snr up the thread by recalling all those things that confirm his point of reference, just as I could tell him ten things about Khan Snr that either, a) he chose to leave out of his piece, or b) he doesn't know. Have either of us a closed or an open mind or are we just expressing confirmatory opinion?
It's impossible to start an algorithm to breed a football manager when you know the question posed is going to be impossible to answer truthfully – ever.
My best guess as a starting point for developing an algorithm would be the qualities required to be a football manager and how they can be quantified. That one of those qualities would be the ability to thrive with any owner could be high on the list, but, again, how do you quantify it?
Is this the same Claudio that had said upon signing that he came a number of times to watch, said we had the makings of a very decent side and he knew exactly where our weaknesses in defence were hence why he was so confident we'd stay up?
Clutching at straws here buddy. You just didn't have a clue.
Quote from: toshes mate on October 20, 2019, 10:42:24 AM
My response to the open/closed mind suggestion was intended to point up the fact that it is perfectly possible to have an open and closed mind at the same time. As an example a person may totally believe there is a higher power (i.e. 'closed mind') without having pre-conceived ideas of what that higher power is (i.e. 'open mind'). In fact the narrowing and broadening of mind from open to closed, and back to open, tends to be the self-confirming bias in all of us unless we fight to keep it open about everything and run the risk of never making our minds up or settling for anything.
The Rational Fan expresses his mind's eye about Khan Snr up the thread by recalling all those things that confirm his point of reference, just as I could tell him ten things about Khan Snr that either, a) he chose to leave out of his piece, or b) he doesn't know. Have either of us a closed or an open mind or are we just expressing confirmatory opinion?
It's impossible to start an algorithm to breed a football manager when you know the question posed is going to be impossible to answer truthfully – ever.
My best guess as a starting point for developing an algorithm would be the qualities required to be a football manager and how they can be quantified. That one of those qualities would be the ability to thrive with any owner could be high on the list, but, again, how do you quantify it?
I don't actually form my view and then find facts to confirm that view, i do the opposite. I find what "I think" are the important facts and that forms my viewpoint. Of course, different facts are important to you. I would note my perspective is a bit different to those fans that think "things couldn't get worse than this", for me such logic could only be possible for someone that wasn't a Fulham fan in the late 1980s.
For me, our two most important things qwe need from our owner are a) we need an owner that can pour money into the club (unlike Mike Ashley) and b) we need an owner happy to lose money (unlike the Glazers). For me, spending money wisely is a distant third as long as our owner keeps backing our DOF with more money.
Tony Khan's mistakes costs less for SK than season ticket does to a minimum wage earner, hope it continues. Tony Khan has apologises to the fans about wasting 100m, but I doubt his dad even requires an apology as its only £100m (which is about what SK saved by not having Tony Khan as CEO of FlexNGate).
Quote from: The Rational Fan on October 20, 2019, 11:01:34 PM
I don't actually form my view and then find facts to confirm that view, i do the opposite. I find what "I think" are the important facts and that forms my viewpoint. Of course, different facts are important to you. I would note my perspective is a bit different to those fans that think "things couldn't get worse than this", for me such logic could only be possible for someone that wasn't a Fulham fan in the late 1980s.
For me, our two most important things qwe need from our owner are a) we need an owner that can pour money into the club (unlike Mike Ashley) and b) we need an owner happy to lose money (unlike the Glazers). For me, spending money wisely is a distant third as long as our owner keeps backing our DOF with more money.
Tony Khan's mistakes costs less for SK than season ticket does to a minimum wage earner, hope it continues. Tony Khan has apologises to the fans about wasting 100m, but I doubt his dad even requires an apology as its only £100m (which is about what SK saved by not having Tony Khan as CEO of FlexNGate).
Your history on FOF is available on here for all to judge, TRF, as in mine and everybody else and we are all, to a greater or lesser degree, self confirming. It's okay. It's human. There are well known psychological reasons for it happening and it is almost impossible not to do without lying to yourself or being in denial. It is also why science and scientists traditionally require its many theories to be tested to destruction since only then does our knowledge truly progress. Sadly we are a little short of really good scientists these days and have gotten a little bit twisted in our ideas of how we can make life better for all.
It really doesn't matter which era you are born in because, whilst the fashions and trimmings change, the basic rules of life are the same - things happen, you cannot always stop them, the guys who said they'd help you were lying, empires fall and are replaced, new cycles begin, and you try to survive. There is an ice age coming but, whilst it is somewhat overdue according to our current expertise and understanding of natural cycles and the natural order of things, it may be many thousands of years before it arrives and does its work, and, during that time, something else, including things we haven't thought of, could happen. Khan's ownership of FFC occurred via a complex series of events embracing three centuries and if just one event had gone differently who knows what may have happened to the Club?
Quote from: toshes mate on October 21, 2019, 08:23:20 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on October 20, 2019, 11:01:34 PM
I don't actually form my view and then find facts to confirm that view, i do the opposite. I find what "I think" are the important facts and that forms my viewpoint. Of course, different facts are important to you. I would note my perspective is a bit different to those fans that think "things couldn't get worse than this", for me such logic could only be possible for someone that wasn't a Fulham fan in the late 1980s.
For me, our two most important things qwe need from our owner are a) we need an owner that can pour money into the club (unlike Mike Ashley) and b) we need an owner happy to lose money (unlike the Glazers). For me, spending money wisely is a distant third as long as our owner keeps backing our DOF with more money.
Tony Khan's mistakes costs less for SK than season ticket does to a minimum wage earner, hope it continues. Tony Khan has apologises to the fans about wasting 100m, but I doubt his dad even requires an apology as its only £100m (which is about what SK saved by not having Tony Khan as CEO of FlexNGate).
Your history on FOF is available on here for all to judge, TRF, as in mine and everybody else and we are all, to a greater or lesser degree, self confirming. It's okay. It's human. There are well known psychological reasons for it happening and it is almost impossible not to do without lying to yourself or being in denial. It is also why science and scientists traditionally require its many theories to be tested to destruction since only then does our knowledge truly progress. Sadly we are a little short of really good scientists these days and have gotten a little bit twisted in our ideas of how we can make life better for all.
It really doesn't matter which era you are born in because, whilst the fashions and trimmings change, the basic rules of life are the same - things happen, you cannot always stop them, the guys who said they'd help you were lying, empires fall and are replaced, new cycles begin, and you try to survive. There is an ice age coming but, whilst it is somewhat overdue according to our current expertise and understanding of natural cycles and the natural order of things, it may be many thousands of years before it arrives and does its work, and, during that time, something else, including things we haven't thought of, could happen. Khan's ownership of FFC occurred via a complex series of events embracing three centuries and if just one event had gone differently who knows what may have happened to the Club?
"Self confirming bias" is a real, but over diagnosed condition. When MAF bought FFC, a large minority of fans thought this was a bad thing, most of them changed their minds after he proved worthy disproving "self confirming bias".
If "Tony Khan" steps down, then I think it will be only a couple of seasons before "self-confirming bias" is overtaken with the evidence. If TK steps down and things go as bad as I imagine, no about of "self-confirming bias" would get in the way of fans agreeing in retrospect it was a bad decision.
Self confirming bias doesn't mean that one cannot change their minds. It just means that one tend to see and look for evidence that supports what you already believe to a larger or lesser extent. Since this, as most things, is not binary it doesn't mean that it cannot change based on future "evidence". Hence, one possibly changing their mind after future additional circumstances doesn't exclude the possibility that they largely support their current stance with the evidence that most fit into that stance whilst often conveniently ignoring other evidence.
I believe that we all do this, at least to a degree.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I thought confirmation bias was literally the definition of one framing evidence (or specifically omitting evidence that counters) found to suit a preconceived opinion? So with that in mind, anyone that is doing confirmation bias won't change their opinion by definition? Otherwise its not confirmation bias if that makes sense?
Self confirming bias, as S-O-T-N explains eloquently above, is the state of knowing that at some reference point(s) your bias will be shown to be more likely to be true without being proven to be true. The fact that it cannot be proven to be true or false is the reason why it is referred to as a bias and not referred to as an obsessive misapprehension of fact which can be shown to be patently absurd.
Just to throw in a very controversial instance of confirmation bias that can be observed by all of us right now is climate change and what is actually causing it. Lot's of theories but absolutely no sign of proof just yet.
As written before, all people (most likely) are victims of their own confirmation bias because our minds are basically never blank when faced with any given situation. The definition of confirmation bias is that you favour "evidence" that supports your bias, meaning that you are also more likely to ignore or write off "evidence" that goes against your bias. Doing this as one point in time does not in any way mean that one cannot change that opinion later because our minds evolve and we constantly access new information. It is of course more likely for a strong bias to be more resistant to change.
I was digging into the idea of half-truths which are taken to be truths by preconception and are just as dangerous as their corollary of the other half-truth. Science has traditionally been very open minded about theories until they are proven or destroyed and replaced either with a now known law (which may still be incomplete or even misconstrued) or a new theory which must also be proven or destroyed.
It is interesting to note that Chinese and Middle Eastern astrologers/astronomers seemed to have discovered that the Earth orbited the Sun many hundreds of years before Galileo announced the same much to his personal cost. Many an observer before Galileo may have also figured this out and a) were not prepared to face the consequences of their knowledge; b) never thought it was a disputable fact; c) never lived to tell the tale or all the other several possibilities. Stonehenge is an example of the perfect observatory for Sun and Moon cycles and phases and suggest our ancestors may have known much more than we give them credit for.
