Defending the Khans and analytics as they apply to Fulham FC

[snarks]

But using statistics to buy players isn't indefensible. What is indefensible is having someone at the club with no history in football exercising a supposed veto. Joka should have the final say, if it were buying (with hindsight) Jazz Richards or Luke Garbutt who were not purchased based on stats, then I could understand a veto. Conversely buying Pringle, Ream, Stearman and O'Hara based on stats wasn't successful either.

[Lighthouse]

Expecting a manager to identify players and then go out and get them without any other input while also coaching a team is just silly. So the system we have needs the communication tweaked but I really can't believe the cissy fit by our manager is causing such ruptures. If they can't sort it out get somebody who can work within the system.

[RaySmith]

Analytics !

Lots of debate on the use and worthiness of them, well they are important and here to stay but that's not really the issue we have.

Our problem is a conflict going on within the club over recruitment, a personality clash, someone over reaching his remit etc etc.

In my other sport, Cycle racing, you do not get from almost nowhere 2 tour de France winners and countless Gold medals at Worlds and Olympics without support staff identifying the talent and then maximising their ability and delivering a program towards success.

At the very least we have a problem with the individuals concerned and how the science is used not whether its right to use it. 

Yes, British cycling must use a lot of stats with its famous 'marginal gains' philosophy, whereby every eventuality is covered, every  possible advantage maximised, however small- because they all add up to the whole.

There has also been huge financial investment, from National Lottery, and Sky, in the case of road racing.

Riders also have to be totally committed to  maximising their performance based on coaches'  advice using stats as a tool, and training in a way that would cause the  average footballer to need a lie down just thinking about it - but training with a specific purpose, scientifically worked out.

Obviously, everyone involved has to work together, with the same approach towards a common goal- of team success.

But at Fulham, everyone doesn't seem to be working together with  every part, and individual,  aiding the other parts towards a common goal. There is conflict within those running the team, and this needs to be sorted out, and compromise reached.

It would be  a real shame if Fulham failed to build on such a great start to the season, after all the lean years- with an ambitious young manager with a proven track record of success, and what seems the basis for a very successful team.

[Mince n Tatties]

Dick Turpin was a pioneer.

And a Virgo I believe.

That's a coincidence so am I.  ⚽️

[bill taylors apprentice]

Analytics !

Lots of debate on the use and worthiness of them, well they are important and here to stay but that's not really the issue we have.

Our problem is a conflict going on within the club over recruitment, a personality clash, someone over reaching his remit etc etc.

In my other sport, Cycle racing, you do not get from almost nowhere 2 tour de France winners and countless Gold medals at Worlds and Olympics without support staff identifying the talent and then maximising their ability and delivering a program towards success.

At the very least we have a problem with the individuals concerned and how the science is used not whether its right to use it. 

Yes, British cycling must use a lot of stats with its famous 'marginal gains' philosophy, whereby every eventuality is covered, every  possible advantage maximised, however small- because they all add up to the whole.

There has also been huge financial investment, from National Lottery, and Sky, in the case of road racing.

Riders also have to be totally committed to  maximising their performance based on coaches'  advice using stats as a tool, and training in a way that would cause the  average footballer to need a lie down just thinking about it - but training with a specific purpose, scientifically worked out.

Obviously, everyone involved has to work together, with the same approach towards a common goal- of team success.

But at Fulham, everyone doesn't seem to be working together with  every part, and individual,  aiding the other parts towards a common goal. There is conflict within those running the team, and this needs to be sorted out, and compromise reached.

It would be  a real shame if Fulham failed to build on such a great start to the season, after all the lean years- with an ambitious young manager with a proven track record of success, and what seems the basis for a very successful team.

You have added some flesh to the bones of my argument, thanks.
Two very different sports, eg in cycling they are not having to peek every few days as in football but the theory is the same.

Whether they are technically on the board, Lamping, Macintosh etc  or just managers of their departments ie Jokanovic, Brookes, Rigg, Kline there seems to be a disconnect between these individuals.

Khan's way of operating is to employ the right people to get on with the job, supported and given their heads to get things done, but it ain't working.

Doesn't Rigg have the final say on football matters? he seems conspicuous by his absence and has been for a long time?

[Bronaldinho]

As many of you know I have a blog called 'The Craven Corner'.

I've just added the latest blog post on there discussing my thoughts and opinions of the Stats story, Kline and the latest transfer news.

thecravencorner.wordpress.com

Please feel free to take a read, and any feedback/thoughts are welcomed! :)

[Logicalman]

Science has it place but it gets loads of things wrong along the journey.  Even Darwin was persecuted by science before his theory (which is what it remains) was generally accepted, at least in part if not in the whole where certain things refuse to conform. But statistics isn't science, it is the use of basic mathematical formulae to progress patterns from data, as in 'who is the greatest risk to an insurance company' for example.  It cannot ever be exact but it is a tool.  That tool is nowhere near as efficient as the intuition of someone with immense experience and know how in their trade, for example your ex-footballer turned coach. That is how they manipulate tactics during a game, or bench a player with a substitute who can do a better job.  None of that is science and there is no guarantee it'll pay off.   And so we get down to rules which is what science is i.e it is gravity holding you where you are right now and, hopefully, forever even when flying through the air....   And the rules of football are simple a) it is a team sport; b) it needs players who fit together well; c) it needs defenders, midfielders and strikers but not in any strict design since 11x10x9x ... x2 formations are available; d) the efficacy of your team is its performance; e)one performance is not enough to measure (d) and probably ten performances won't be enough either unless it is truly obvious things are not well; f) the same eleven players playing under thirty different coaches will give less than thirty different performances more times than they won't being roughly average several more times than bad or good; g) an intuitive and inspired boss will get much more out of a team than any other kind of human being.  The nutshell is that the key person in any football setup is the one who uses his head and heart in such a way as to get to where he wants the team to be in the shortest possible steps, and that person will probably have never looked at statistics in his life.   Yes, have statistics as a helping hand but don't pretend they'll always deliver because that insurance risk broker has a huge claim on his hands involving the safest driver in the world who didn't see the 'bus jump out in front of him.....

You are correct in what you say in this piece, though it appears to miss one point that the original article is trying to say, imo.
Fulham, as with many other clubs, have relied on the expertise of managers/coaches/scouts. They have relied on the tried and trusted methods of the past, the human factor if you like. When you take all that on board thought, where has it got us?
We can surely blame the management team for making gross mistakes in their decisions (mine would be Felix), we can blame the FFP rules, the FA, or those that stole Woy from us, or whomever we like, but the bottom line is that footie is results-based, and that's it. Doesn't matter whose fault it is, it's the result that counts.

I firmly believe that, as was found in baseball, stats DOES provide an extra tool in the box for decision-making, not that it should be overly-used, or relied on to a higher percentage than any other decision-making process (except perhaps the tarot cards of course), but in the time Khan has been the custodian of this club, and make no mistake, he IS here for a while at least so we all need to get used to the fact he is not a variable in all this, he has made mistakes that we, as fans, believe we would not have made, and therefore to give just a smidgen of credit to him, and the team, if they are willing to encompass other forms of decision-making into the process.

From the managers recent comments, we have taken the view that Kline and his bytes have 'taken control' of all such decisions when it comes to buying/selling of players, but how certain are we that is the full story of it all?
The manager is pissed that one or more of his personal player-target purchases and sales were overruled, but all of them? I'm not so sure about that, because if it's so, then either he is a brilliant coach who has managed to get players not of his choice to play as a more uniformed unit, or Kline and his bytes have identified some players that have allowed the manager to do so, or a bit of both perhaps, and if it's the latter, then the stats have provided some worth, however small.

[nose]

Science has it place but it gets loads of things wrong along the journey.  Even Darwin was persecuted by science before his theory (which is what it remains) was generally accepted, at least in part if not in the whole where certain things refuse to conform. But statistics isn't science, it is the use of basic mathematical formulae to progress patterns from data, as in 'who is the greatest risk to an insurance company' for example.  It cannot ever be exact but it is a tool.  That tool is nowhere near as efficient as the intuition of someone with immense experience and know how in their trade, for example your ex-footballer turned coach. That is how they manipulate tactics during a game, or bench a player with a substitute who can do a better job.  None of that is science and there is no guarantee it'll pay off.   And so we get down to rules which is what science is i.e it is gravity holding you where you are right now and, hopefully, forever even when flying through the air....   And the rules of football are simple a) it is a team sport; b) it needs players who fit together well; c) it needs defenders, midfielders and strikers but not in any strict design since 11x10x9x ... x2 formations are available; d) the efficacy of your team is its performance; e)one performance is not enough to measure (d) and probably ten performances won't be enough either unless it is truly obvious things are not well; f) the same eleven players playing under thirty different coaches will give less than thirty different performances more times than they won't being roughly average several more times than bad or good; g) an intuitive and inspired boss will get much more out of a team than any other kind of human being.  The nutshell is that the key person in any football setup is the one who uses his head and heart in such a way as to get to where he wants the team to be in the shortest possible steps, and that person will probably have never looked at statistics in his life.   Yes, have statistics as a helping hand but don't pretend they'll always deliver because that insurance risk broker has a huge claim on his hands involving the safest driver in the world who didn't see the 'bus jump out in front of him.....

You are correct in what you say in this piece, though it appears to miss one point that the original article is trying to say, imo.
Fulham, as with many other clubs, have relied on the expertise of managers/coaches/scouts. They have relied on the tried and trusted methods of the past, the human factor if you like. When you take all that on board thought, where has it got us?
We can surely blame the management team for making gross mistakes in their decisions (mine would be Felix), we can blame the FFP rules, the FA, or those that stole Woy from us, or whomever we like, but the bottom line is that footie is results-based, and that's it. Doesn't matter whose fault it is, it's the result that counts.

I firmly believe that, as was found in baseball, stats DOES provide an extra tool in the box for decision-making, not that it should be overly-used, or relied on to a higher percentage than any other decision-making process (except perhaps the tarot cards of course), but in the time Khan has been the custodian of this club, and make no mistake, he IS here for a while at least so we all need to get used to the fact he is not a variable in all this, he has made mistakes that we, as fans, believe we would not have made, and therefore to give just a smidgen of credit to him, and the team, if they are willing to encompass other forms of decision-making into the process.

From the managers recent comments, we have taken the view that Kline and his bytes have 'taken control' of all such decisions when it comes to buying/selling of players, but how certain are we that is the full story of it all?
The manager is pissed that one or more of his personal player-target purchases and sales were overruled, but all of them? I'm not so sure about that, because if it's so, then either he is a brilliant coach who has managed to get players not of his choice to play as a more uniformed unit, or Kline and his bytes have identified some players that have allowed the manager to do so, or a bit of both perhaps, and if it's the latter, then the stats have provided some worth, however small.

if i were purchasing a baseball team i would go to people expert and skilled in running a baseball team and ask wha needs to be done, and then do it.

what I wouldn't do is get a person that has little knowledge of the game, ask them to dream up a set of criteria for team selection based on untried logic in the field and let them intefere with people vastly more experienced.

since our leader took over we have seen avoidable error after avoidable error, and now we are presented with what appears to be another. I trust the manager, and even if his comments were made in frustration his point was well made and anyone with a brain will realise we are still in danger from our management.

[Apprentice to the Maestro]

Science has it place but it gets loads of things wrong along the journey.  Even Darwin was persecuted by science before his theory (which is what it remains) was generally accepted, at least in part if not in the whole where certain things refuse to conform. But statistics isn't science, it is the use of basic mathematical formulae to progress patterns from data, as in 'who is the greatest risk to an insurance company' for example.  It cannot ever be exact but it is a tool.  That tool is nowhere near as efficient as the intuition of someone with immense experience and know how in their trade, for example your ex-footballer turned coach. That is how they manipulate tactics during a game, or bench a player with a substitute who can do a better job.  None of that is science and there is no guarantee it'll pay off.   And so we get down to rules which is what science is i.e it is gravity holding you where you are right now and, hopefully, forever even when flying through the air....   And the rules of football are simple a) it is a team sport; b) it needs players who fit together well; c) it needs defenders, midfielders and strikers but not in any strict design since 11x10x9x ... x2 formations are available; d) the efficacy of your team is its performance; e)one performance is not enough to measure (d) and probably ten performances won't be enough either unless it is truly obvious things are not well; f) the same eleven players playing under thirty different coaches will give less than thirty different performances more times than they won't being roughly average several more times than bad or good; g) an intuitive and inspired boss will get much more out of a team than any other kind of human being.  The nutshell is that the key person in any football setup is the one who uses his head and heart in such a way as to get to where he wants the team to be in the shortest possible steps, and that person will probably have never looked at statistics in his life.   Yes, have statistics as a helping hand but don't pretend they'll always deliver because that insurance risk broker has a huge claim on his hands involving the safest driver in the world who didn't see the 'bus jump out in front of him.....

You are correct in what you say in this piece, though it appears to miss one point that the original article is trying to say, imo.
Fulham, as with many other clubs, have relied on the expertise of managers/coaches/scouts. They have relied on the tried and trusted methods of the past, the human factor if you like. When you take all that on board thought, where has it got us?
We can surely blame the management team for making gross mistakes in their decisions (mine would be Felix), we can blame the FFP rules, the FA, or those that stole Woy from us, or whomever we like, but the bottom line is that footie is results-based, and that's it. Doesn't matter whose fault it is, it's the result that counts.

I firmly believe that, as was found in baseball, stats DOES provide an extra tool in the box for decision-making, not that it should be overly-used, or relied on to a higher percentage than any other decision-making process (except perhaps the tarot cards of course), but in the time Khan has been the custodian of this club, and make no mistake, he IS here for a while at least so we all need to get used to the fact he is not a variable in all this, he has made mistakes that we, as fans, believe we would not have made, and therefore to give just a smidgen of credit to him, and the team, if they are willing to encompass other forms of decision-making into the process.

From the managers recent comments, we have taken the view that Kline and his bytes have 'taken control' of all such decisions when it comes to buying/selling of players, but how certain are we that is the full story of it all?
The manager is pissed that one or more of his personal player-target purchases and sales were overruled, but all of them? I'm not so sure about that, because if it's so, then either he is a brilliant coach who has managed to get players not of his choice to play as a more uniformed unit, or Kline and his bytes have identified some players that have allowed the manager to do so, or a bit of both perhaps, and if it's the latter, then the stats have provided some worth, however small.

A summary of a few points from my earlier posts:

- statistics/analytics have been used for years. To claim that it is innovative is nonsense

- yes, human 'experts' make mistakes. The key is to choose experts/managers who make the fewest/least costly mistakes

- replacing the decisions of a football manager with those of a statistician/analytics person is replacing one 'expert' with another. It may appear that the second is replacing intuition with numbers and that that ought to be sounder but the choice of the statistics to be used and their interpretation is still down to a human and some statisticians are more expert than others

- analytics isn't science, despite using numbers, until it is proven to work. It is not clear that the use of Kline's analytics is even as good as you or I choosing players let alone better than an experienced manager like Jokanovic