Tony Khan holds himself accountable for unsuccessful summer

[Penfold]

There's quite an interesting post over on TiFF re stats approach by Spigs.

[toshes mate]

There was quite an entertaining, if not altogether enlightening, programme about data on BBC Four last night, which sought, among other things to show how it is possible to mathematically 'prove' that data processing can be made to fit any scenario we care to mention, especially because, for example, there are ganglia in our brains that are always involved in checking out reasoning and logic, disassembling and reassembling facts and experiences so that we can store them efficiently.  The processes of these nerve clusters appear to resemble the mathematics involved in disassembling and resolving data in information technology so that it can be properly understood and represented in digital/binary code leading to digital audio, digital video, and effectively digital data. 

What is stated right at the beginning of this process of understanding is that data is just 'stuff', a lot of it is never recorded anywhere, a lot of it is not understood, and a lot of it may be misinformation.  Stats is just another name for a record which can simply be anything written or drawn at any time past or present to record or note something.  The importance of it is another matter entirely.  As far as I can tell anyone can make a pencil mark on a piece of paper but making sense of what that pencil mark means is something entirely different.  The magic of 'stats' was known a very long time before clockwork, steam, and electricity made computers possible at some point in our future.  The problem we have in regards to TK is whether or not his computer system is better than anyone else's computer system and that will be forever moot.       

[Woolly Mammoth]

Well if I was to accept all you say, then Statistics have certainly not done Fulham any good, and that is not a statistic, that is a fact.
Statistics show, that the people who celebrate the most birthdays are the oldest.
According to a recent government survey, 3/4 of the people living in England make up 75% of the population.
Also 51% of the population are the majority.

But to rest my case and to put this to bed, there are 3 kinds of lies, there are lies, dammed lies and statistics.

Well in Gareth Southgate only trusts Statistics then here is the team selection

1. Tom Henton
2. Kieran Trippier
3. Ben Chilwell
4. Michael Keane
5. Harry Maguire
6. Declan Rice
7. Raheem Sterling
8. Ross Barkley
9. Harry Kane
10. Dele All
11. Jadon Sancho
12. Marcus Rashford

That is what you say to fit your argument.
But my point is, that you do not need statistics to show who your best players are, that list you have drawn up would have been chosen anyway by visual means. Apart from Tom Henton who is clearly a Stats choice, and he plays for Two Bob Rovers 4th XI in Division 11 of the Sunday & District Two left feet League.
However, there is a guy I would recommend called Tom Heaton who plays for Burnley that should replace him as he has been identified visually as a dam good Goalkeeper.
I don't need stats for that.

[ByTheRiver]

He doesn't though, does he? The title is totally at odds with his actual quotes.

I'll level with you all, I had just got to terms with this season and, hell, to some extent starting to look forward to next season! But this? These quotes. This scares me shitless. Absolutely pants soiled, bricking it. If he truly believes this, that he had done a good job in the last two years and that it was in someway down to him, then friends its worse than we imagined. Far, far worse.

I genuinely thought when I saw the title 'Ah, thank god, he's seen it and thought "I gave it a good go, but this is for more experienced people. I'll keep my hand in and do a bit more on of the marketing/commercial side of the club nut leave recruitment well alone". But, alas, no'.

An ego and delusion the size of a planet. Incredible. The last two years? you don' t have any claim to that success! Slav worked his cock off trying to find a way around the mess you gave him, using mostly Riggs signings, Mitro who he managed to convince you to get, and trying to set aside all of you 'work (see Djalo, Fonte, Mollo,  Madl, Sigurdsson, etc, etc, etc).

Lord above. We may need to hold on tight to each other for a bit, pals.

[The Rational Fan]

Well if I was to accept all you say, then Statistics have certainly not done Fulham any good, and that is not a statistic, that is a fact.
Statistics show, that the people who celebrate the most birthdays are the oldest.
According to a recent government survey, 3/4 of the people living in England make up 75% of the population.
Also 51% of the population are the majority.

But to rest my case and to put this to bed, there are 3 kinds of lies, there are lies, dammed lies and statistics.

Well in Gareth Southgate only trusts Statistics then here is the team selection

That is what you say to fit your argument.
But my point is, that you do not need statistics to show who your best players are, that list you have drawn up would have been chosen anyway by visual means. Apart from Tom Henton who is clearly a Stats choice, and he plays for Two Bob Rovers 4th XI in Division 11 of the Sunday & District Two left feet League.
However, there is a guy I would recommend called Tom Heaton who plays for Burnley that should replace him as he has been identified visually as a dam good Goalkeeper.
I don't need stats for that.

If you one of the gifted few that can tell the difference between a player i) standing still, ii) walking, iii) running or iv) sprinting just by looking at player, then you don't need stats. You may realise some people in recruitment may or may not have such advanced skills as that, so they need stats.

In addition, stats can be really useful to determining which games a player play well or badly (for example Ryan Sessegnon plays well against Tottenham-A, Cardiff-A, Southampton- H, Lecesieter-H, Wolves-H as sub and Huddersfield-H as sub).

[filham]

The two box ticking exercise is mythological to the extent of being tokenism as in covering the backs of those involved.  Who knows whether there have been pieces of paper with ticks in two boxes, and who actually made the ticks, and whether or not they were signed?  Given that so many signings were made in a panic during the last hours of windows then who is to say if those ticks appeared before or after a deal was done.

The bottom line is that when a transfer or loan fails the system behind it fails at the same time and whether or not a ticked box or two was behind that failure is semantic to say the least.

Sensibility says you strive toward the development of a system that works and judge your success by reducing failures.  That simply has not happened.

I think I may well believe you when  you say that the 2 ticks system is a myth, I am beginning to think that the system may actually be one based on to influence the signings you have to program the computer or get the ear of T.Khan.

[ALG01]

I just get the impression that whatever TK says (and does) will not be enough for some people as long as he remains connected to the club.

Frankly I would rather he were here if it means continued investment. MJG did a survey on views of success rates on transfers and IIRC we are bang average in that.

Not every purchase will be a success but the number of  "I never want to see xxxx in the shirt again" posts following a couple of bad performances has featured heavily on these boards for people who have turned out alright or started to put in better subsequent performances. True they have also applied to players who never came good, but is our success rate so much worse than under MAF? - I don't think so.

Yes, you describe my view. I am seeing it soley through the dual vision glasses of my personal observation/experience AND my business hat.

Business: Under MAF we were very successful and there was a clear strategy in place that when it was going wrong was modified. He did not ssimply repeat the same errors over and over as does the current owner and son. I cannot comment on MJGs analysis but can comment on what is happening here. What we have done in the transfer market since the arrival of the Khan's is nowhere near good enough and what happened last summer and this January was negligent and suicidal. I am pleased for them that they have £100M to throw away so needlessly. My business head says the errors represent a repeating pattern of getting recruitment wrong and that 95% guaranteed failure this season when with that level of investemt we should have comfortably been able to survive.

Personal Observation: Since the Khan's arrived there has been very much good intent and fine words. But clearly they have made massive errors from day one. Not bringing in a Kegan style figure to assist and in my memory Hoddle was available and may have wanted the opportunity, to be a proper so called DoF. I do not accept oyur purchasing/loans has been par for the course or average and do not know how that assessment is possible. What I do know we is we got too many loan players, too many players of the wrong sort in the wrong positions, Slav screamed from the beginning that the transfer policy was killing us, and it was. I have never heard a manager so critical of his employers before (OK Clough was more so). There is no defence of what has happened. I can cope with their many errors but not that they make the same ones over and over. And even if it was a shame what happened in summer, the lack of activity in January was unforgivable, they have clearly given up on the season, and shown zero leadership.

It was pathetic to hear the reports of TK's words. It was delusional and surely he must know that if he was not called Khan he would have been long gone. I am happy to have son of as part of the management team, but not in charge of football matters for which he spectacularly unqualified and proving how wiothout doubt how much that is hurting us now.

What excuses will he make next season? Under TK Saha, Boa, Fina Horsefield, coleman McBride, Duff Davies aschwartzer nd many other fine players would never have signed for us. Nobody expects perfection, that is impossible, but I do expect them to learn, and they don't.

[Statto]

MJG did a survey on views of success rates on transfers and IIRC we are bang average in that.

Not every purchase will be a success but the number of  "I never want to see xxxx in the shirt again" posts following a couple of bad performances has featured heavily on these boards for people who have turned out alright or started to put in better subsequent performances. True they have also applied to players who never came good, but is our success rate so much worse than under MAF? - I don't think so.

Facts can be spun different ways to suit a particular agenda, which is especially easy when using subjective, vague criteria like fans' "views" (from a limited, predetermined range of options, no doubt) on Twitter. I tried to use a more objective metric, the number of appearances in games we'd won, to measure the success of our signings, and it didn't reflect well on TK, but I'll admit that approach still wasn't without its flaws. However, looking at TK's track record and having regard to fees paid, I don't think anyone, under any reasonable analysis, can say it's not terrible. Something like 75% of the budget in 2016 going on Jozabed, Sigurdsson and Kebano, then substantially the entire budget in 2017 going on Fonte and Kamara. That is poor relative to any reasonable benchmark. And those are the two years TK claims were a success!

[Woolly Mammoth]

Well if I was to accept all you say, then Statistics have certainly not done Fulham any good, and that is not a statistic, that is a fact.
Statistics show, that the people who celebrate the most birthdays are the oldest.
According to a recent government survey, 3/4 of the people living in England make up 75% of the population.
Also 51% of the population are the majority.

But to rest my case and to put this to bed, there are 3 kinds of lies, there are lies, dammed lies and statistics.

Well in Gareth Southgate only trusts Statistics then here is the team selection

That is what you say to fit your argument.
But my point is, that you do not need statistics to show who your best players are, that list you have drawn up would have been chosen anyway by visual means. Apart from Tom Henton who is clearly a Stats choice, and he plays for Two Bob Rovers 4th XI in Division 11 of the Sunday & District Two left feet League.
However, there is a guy I would recommend called Tom Heaton who plays for Burnley that should replace him as he has been identified visually as a dam good Goalkeeper.
I don't need stats for that.

If you one of the gifted few that can tell the difference between a player i) standing still, ii) walking, iii) running or iv) sprinting just by looking at player, then you don't need stats. You may realise some people in recruitment may or may not have such advanced skills as that, so they need stats.

In addition, stats can be really useful to determining which games a player play well or badly (for example Ryan Sessegnon plays well against Tottenham-A, Cardiff-A, Southampton- H, Lecesieter-H, Wolves-H as sub and Huddersfield-H as sub).

I am not sure you really understand this issue. Football is not played on a computer.
The best way to watch a player, is to see how he performs away from the comfort zone of his home ground. That's is when you really see what he is made of. His body language, his application, how he reacts when he is having a bad game, does he hide, and stand next to an opponent so his team mates cannot past to him, because he does not want the ball. I could draw up a long list of reasons to watch a player, and how he responds to adversity, or otherwise. Reading your posts I get the impression you have never played football competively long enough to understand what myself and many others on here are saying.

[ALG01]

Well if I was to accept all you say, then Statistics have certainly not done Fulham any good, and that is not a statistic, that is a fact.
Statistics show, that the people who celebrate the most birthdays are the oldest.
According to a recent government survey, 3/4 of the people living in England make up 75% of the population.
Also 51% of the population are the majority.

But to rest my case and to put this to bed, there are 3 kinds of lies, there are lies, dammed lies and statistics.

Well in Gareth Southgate only trusts Statistics then here is the team selection

That is what you say to fit your argument.
But my point is, that you do not need statistics to show who your best players are, that list you have drawn up would have been chosen anyway by visual means. Apart from Tom Henton who is clearly a Stats choice, and he plays for Two Bob Rovers 4th XI in Division 11 of the Sunday & District Two left feet League.
However, there is a guy I would recommend called Tom Heaton who plays for Burnley that should replace him as he has been identified visually as a dam good Goalkeeper.
I don't need stats for that.

If you one of the gifted few that can tell the difference between a player i) standing still, ii) walking, iii) running or iv) sprinting just by looking at player, then you don't need stats. You may realise some people in recruitment may or may not have such advanced skills as that, so they need stats.

In addition, stats can be really useful to determining which games a player play well or badly (for example Ryan Sessegnon plays well against Tottenham-A, Cardiff-A, Southampton- H, Lecesieter-H, Wolves-H as sub and Huddersfield-H as sub).

I am not sure you really understand this issue. Football is not played on a computer.
The best way to watch a player, is to see how he performs away from the comfort zone of his home ground. That's is when you really see what he is made of. His body language, his application, how he reacts when he is having a bad game, does he hide, and stand next to an opponent so his team mates cannot past to him, because he does not want the ball. I could draw up a long list of reasons to watch a player, and how he responds to adversity, or otherwise. Reading your posts I get the impression you have never played football competively long enough to understand what myself and many others on here are saying.

As I am fond of saying, but very few on here bother to take into account, I am very well qualified at stats and use such information as part of my job on a daily basis.
The usage that recruitment teams seem to make of stats based data is a recipe for disaster because in the words of the chant to many referees 'you don't know what you're doing.'

Stats might draw your attention to a player that has slipped under the radar but that is might and without actually watching that plaer for a good few games there is no way to make an assessment. Your review, Woolly, is sensible and clearly correct . where stats can be extremely useful is once having identified a couple of players  using a more traditional approach it can offer some assistance in determining the more subtle difference. For instances distance covered during a game. That is relevant to every player no matter what team in what division. Numbber of shots, blocks or tackles may mislead because if you play for a top team or bottom team will affect the results.

To use stats based analysis as the primary identifier of players is absolutely ridiculous and whilst I am sure there are a few examples where it found a gem it will fail more than succeed. I do happen to know wat is statistically relevant and what is not because I have studied the subject, and what is happening in football, for transfer purposes is of very third order benifit.

[Oakeshott]

"surely he must know that if he was not called Khan he would have been long gone"

Deeper than that. If he was not called Khan he'd never have got the job in the first place. Wholly lacking in relevant knowledge and experience.

[General]

I mean - this was the least he could do after ballsing things up and telling fans to go to hell, then signing duds...

He's not good enough. Simply put - if his dad was not the owner (TK says he's a co-owner - laughable as the only way this is true is because of his dad's money, not his own success), he would not be still in the role.

This was the least he could and had to do to restore some sort of tangible working relationship at the club and restore some sort of productive working relationship between himself and others.

He lauded players, then either brought in replacements for them (seri/Cairney, Anguissa/Mcdonald, Babel/Schurrle - Sessegnon etc..) and then when the signings he supposedly brought in didn't work he, when all is lost and not before, he finally and probably reluctantly took responsibility in the softest way possible, when he realised his ego wasn't being appreciated by others and actually wasn't very good at doing what was supposed to do. As a person and professional he has to do a lot more proactively for the clubs success to earn his stripes.

Saying he had two good years before this year, when he's been at the club a lot longer than that - and when the aim of those two years was to get into the premiership and stay in the league (which he ultimately has failed at spectacularly), is a complete and utter waste of column inches/space and point.. It's just papering over the cracks, which makes me wonder if he's actually taking any of this seriously or to heart.

This isn't something you can act your way through the stages of - he's not that good. He either has to put genuine effort and focus into the club full time, or be replaced.

[filham]

Well if I was to accept all you say, then Statistics have certainly not done Fulham any good, and that is not a statistic, that is a fact.
Statistics show, that the people who celebrate the most birthdays are the oldest.
According to a recent government survey, 3/4 of the people living in England make up 75% of the population.
Also 51% of the population are the majority.

But to rest my case and to put this to bed, there are 3 kinds of lies, there are lies, dammed lies and statistics.

Well in Gareth Southgate only trusts Statistics then here is the team selection

That is what you say to fit your argument.
But my point is, that you do not need statistics to show who your best players are, that list you have drawn up would have been chosen anyway by visual means. Apart from Tom Henton who is clearly a Stats choice, and he plays for Two Bob Rovers 4th XI in Division 11 of the Sunday & District Two left feet League.
However, there is a guy I would recommend called Tom Heaton who plays for Burnley that should replace him as he has been identified visually as a dam good Goalkeeper.
I don't need stats for that.

If you one of the gifted few that can tell the difference between a player i) standing still, ii) walking, iii) running or iv) sprinting just by looking at player, then you don't need stats. You may realise some people in recruitment may or may not have such advanced skills as that, so they need stats.

In addition, stats can be really useful to determining which games a player play well or badly (for example Ryan Sessegnon plays well against Tottenham-A, Cardiff-A, Southampton- H, Lecesieter-H, Wolves-H as sub and Huddersfield-H as sub).

I am not sure you really understand this issue. Football is not played on a computer.
The best way to watch a player, is to see how he performs away from the comfort zone of his home ground. That's is when you really see what he is made of. His body language, his application, how he reacts when he is having a bad game, does he hide, and stand next to an opponent so his team mates cannot past to him, because he does not want the ball. I could draw up a long list of reasons to watch a player, and how he responds to adversity, or otherwise. Reading your posts I get the impression you have never played football competively long enough to understand what myself and many others on here are saying.

As I am fond of saying, but very few on here bother to take into account, I am very well qualified at stats and use such information as part of my job on a daily basis.
The usage that recruitment teams seem to make of stats based data is a recipe for disaster because in the words of the chant to many referees 'you don't know what you're doing.'

Stats might draw your attention to a player that has slipped under the radar but that is might and without actually watching that plaer for a good few games there is no way to make an assessment. Your review, Woolly, is sensible and clearly correct . where stats can be extremely useful is once having identified a couple of players  using a more traditional approach it can offer some assistance in determining the more subtle difference. For instances distance covered during a game. That is relevant to every player no matter what team in what division. Numbber of shots, blocks or tackles may mislead because if you play for a top team or bottom team will affect the results.

To use stats based analysis as the primary identifier of players is absolutely ridiculous and whilst I am sure there are a few examples where it found a gem it will fail more than succeed. I do happen to know wat is statistically relevant and what is not because I have studied the subject, and what is happening in football, for transfer purposes is of very third order benifit.

I agree with your every word ALGO1, what you say is to me basic common sense and I just can't understand why anyone should think otherwise.

[Jims Dentist]

Me too ALG01.

[bill taylors apprentice]

Amongst the hysterical nonsense spouted by some on this thread my favourite has be the comment saying Joka was a poor appointment, feckless and mismanaged the team and that Parker is the same.   It's so obvious as to why this is nonsense I won't even go into it.

As you are obviously equipped to comprehend English, if not its finer points and subtleties, the appointments and sackings of head coaches or managers are attempts by owners to get results, would you agree? 

Out of all the appointments made by the Khans is is noteworthy that only Jokanovic, out of all their attempts to recruit able operators, achieved a points per game record of more than that necessary to prevent relegation issues being a feature of their reign (i.e. better than one point per game). 

The subtlety in that simple fact is that in eight attempts to recruit managers (caretakers included) only one appointment has worked.  If that failure to recruit success at that level is extrapolated to playing staff then it may suggest where the true failures of the Khan era has been.  Perhaps the madness of FFC is in having far too many supporters who seem too frightened to turn on their wealthy but inept owners as the source of the problems we have encountered throughout their reign.

This really sums it all up for me!

[davew]

After he reads this thread and many others he will have learned a lot of things and will come back wiser and stronger and more knowledgeable at the start of the next window and this time next year we will all take the credit on educating him on Fulham being promoted again, but then we will wake up!

[The Rational Fan]

MJG did a survey on views of success rates on transfers and IIRC we are bang average in that.

Not every purchase will be a success but the number of  "I never want to see xxxx in the shirt again" posts following a couple of bad performances has featured heavily on these boards for people who have turned out alright or started to put in better subsequent performances. True they have also applied to players who never came good, but is our success rate so much worse than under MAF? - I don't think so.

Facts can be spun different ways to suit a particular agenda, which is especially easy when using subjective, vague criteria like fans' "views" (from a limited, predetermined range of options, no doubt) on Twitter. I tried to use a more objective metric, the number of appearances in games we'd won, to measure the success of our signings, and it didn't reflect well on TK, but I'll admit that approach still wasn't without its flaws. However, looking at TK's track record and having regard to fees paid, I don't think anyone, under any reasonable analysis, can say it's not terrible. Something like 75% of the budget in 2016 going on Jozabed, Sigurdsson and Kebano, then substantially the entire budget in 2017 going on Fonte and Kamara. That is poor relative to any reasonable benchmark. And those are the two years TK claims were a success!

As a Fan, we just want recruitment to get better. If one side wins the futile argument to prove Tony Khan has "failed three years in a row" or "suceeded two out of three years", then it won't necessarily help Fulham. And from my perspective both views are biased as 16/17 recruits delivered value and most of the later recruits are yet to deliver their value (especially 17/18 recruits with Cisse and Christie being the only two from that group currently in the squad).

The "History of the Premier League" shows that the clubs (like WBA and other yo-yos) that come back up are the ones that believe in and stick with their team, rather than swap and change them. If you look at our performance against Liverpool, we are better than any team in the Championship. If we play as well as we did against Brighton, we will be breaking records in the Championship.

As for improving our recruitment, I think its worth acknowleging that are recruits below £2.1m ( Button, Odoi, McDonald, Johasen, Atiye, Babel and many of the juniors) have been exceptional good since Tony Khan has arrived and I thought the loans of 2017/18 were pretty good too, while bigger value signings seem to be a major problem.

But as long as we don't sell Mitrovoic, it should be a while before we make another big value signging. Of course, if we do sell Mitrovoic we will have to have a big value signing to replace him, which is likely our "Road to Ruin". I would point out that even if the Khans and AM select a new DoF (probably still a below average DoF for footballing brains), selling and replacing Mitrovoic will still probably lead to the "Road to Ruin".

The current squad is good enough for the Championship: as we have a lot of the Championship Squad of 17/18, bought another Championship Squad in the summer of 2018, we are good at buying a few cheaper players <2.1m for any gaps and we are good at getting loan players.  049:gif

[The Rational Fan]

forced the Khans hand in having to then go out and spend instead of building gradually over those 2 years with premier league ready players.

Without wishing to go off on a tangent or repeat things already said on other threads, all those loan players, except perhaps Targett, were available to buy (or even re-loan) in the summer if we wanted to keep them longer. So to me it seems immaterial whether they were on loan or permanent. I suspect TK just didn't think Kalas, Piazon and Norwood were good enough. In which case, if they'd been on permanent contracts, I suspect he'd have sold them or loaned them out as he did with Button and Johansen.

That is fact is damning because we had two homegrown spots in the first half of the season not used, that Kalas and Norwood plus maybe piazon could of filled. We have lost a lot of games after leading, even after making subsitutes and surely a horrible bench on some games has contributed to that.

While Tony Khan is at faults, I think for those players previously at the club that we failed to re-hire, the blame should rest with everyone of the football staff that didn't point it out. I personally think Kalas would have made an enomous difference this year in the battle to achieve 17th, and I wouldn't be surprised if Norwood take Sheffield United to 17th Place.

Which brings me make to one root cause of the problem, expecting too much too soon. We should have been aiming for 16th-17th place this season and purchases should have been done accordingly. And, if you want to come 17th then players like Schullre are not the ones you should be loaning. We don't know what options in the world Tony Khan had available, except for a few of the players at Fulham last season (maybe not Fredricks or Targett) but a number of the rest.

We changed the team more than we had to from the 25th May to 9th August, lets hope everyone learnt there lessons. Keep the old players until they aren't getting game time, then sell them. Kalas as a Loan was an absolute no brain with Ream and Mawson injured, Odoi suspended and Chambers/MLM only at the club 4 weeks collectively.

Fans cannot teach the DoF to recruit well, but fans can make the DoF wary of selling players that can deliver. Besides, if he doesn't sell the good players, buys a lot of players (like 7 per window) with a low success rate (e.g. 30% are PL) and we'll still do ok.

[Cambridge Pete]

OK he has not been a roaring success. However, from what he said it appears that he is learning (lets hope thats true). Having worked for a number of US multi-nationals senior executives accepting blame is a very rare and brave thing (as it is everywhere). I admire him for accepting his culpability. As to some of the higher profile failures every club has them, haven't we got a £22million player from Liverpool on a short term free transfer and yet Klopp and his team are rightly lauded.. We must accept that we are not going to see TK fired, unless SK decides to sell up and we could then find ourselves back with owners like Bulstrode and Marler Estates.None of us have enjoyed this season but in over sixty years of watching Fulham it is nowhere near as bad as some seasons past. Keep supporting and COYW

[Statto]

accepting blame is a very rare and brave thing (as it is everywhere). I admire him for accepting his culpability.

But if you read the notes, that's not what he's done here.