Manager v luck etc

[Millsy]

Seriously, we get all so wound up about managers, stats, records etc etc.

When you think about it most managers have good spells and shit spells, often with the same club. Even the Special (needs) One. That's why our history shows that when we just pick total randomers with no managerial experience (McGhee, Gooding & Quinn, Parjudas, McDermott, Stam) they perform just as well if not better than experienced managers with glowing CVs.

It's MAINLY about luck, circumstance, momentum, investment, injuries and the players themselves.

Obviously you can have particularly good or bad managers that can help or hinder but I'm at the point now having seen so many managers that i just think it's more to do with things outside manager choice.

Bring in my grandma, I don't care anymore. Any change will be good.

[stealthpapes]

Football is stochastic, so yes, luck does play a part. Even on the simple fact that you play teams one at a time and can get runs of solid teams, runs of mediocre teams, etc.

However, in the long term, managers or management structures can clearly make a significant difference. Key bit is long term.

[Royalwaster]

I was thinking about this the other day too - how some managers somehow get a reputation for being good just due to a bit of luck - that can come in the form of a particular strikers suddenly having a hot streak; I personally think Jaap Stam was lucky in that sense in his first season and has since then returned to the mean ... good managers can do it with different teams and in different circumstances; however much I hate him you have got to say that Warnock knows how to take teams out of the Championship - he is inept though in keeping teams in the Premiership; Allardyce however you hate him is also good at keeping teams up ...

[Pepe the Horseman]

"The harder I work, the luckier I get." - Craig Beazley.

[URZZZZ]

Luck can not explain a teams fortune/misfortune over a season. Perhaps over certain games in a season, but certainly not through the entire season

Success is primarily based on hard work, structure and balance and ability. Luck does come into it, but it’s not an overriding factor

Take Liverpool. They work extremely hard, they play the same formation every game and have players who can make a difference. For sure, they get their luck but anyone who simply equates their success because “they’re lucky” are talking nonsense

FTR we weren’t lucky under Stam. It’s a nonsense comment. We had luck on a few games but people who attribute our 3rd place finish primarily to just luck have no idea

[Old Man Andrews]

FTR we weren’t lucky under Stam. It’s a nonsense comment. We had luck on a few games but people who attribute our 3rd place finish primarily to just luck have no idea

We were lucky under Stam..... I do wonder if you've ever seen us play live at times Urzzz.

[URZZZZ]

FTR we weren’t lucky under Stam. It’s a nonsense comment. We had luck on a few games but people who attribute our 3rd place finish primarily to just luck have no idea

We were lucky under Stam..... I do wonder if you've ever seen us play live at times Urzzz.

It’s just such a lazy comment. I’d expect it from someone like you to be fair judging by your usual opinions, but it’s so untrue. If you think luck can accumulate 85 points, then you need to start watching another sport

[Old Man Andrews]

FTR we weren’t lucky under Stam. It’s a nonsense comment. We had luck on a few games but people who attribute our 3rd place finish primarily to just luck have no idea

We were lucky under Stam..... I do wonder if you've ever seen us play live at times Urzzz.

It’s just such a lazy comment. I’d expect it from someone like you to be fair judging by your usual opinions, but it’s so untrue. If you think luck can accumulate 85 points, then you need to start watching another sport

We were very lucky over the course of the season yes, you just don't understand football well enough to realise that. We actually weren't very good the majority of the time and were let off the hook massivley in a lot of the games.

Like I said clearly you didn't go to many games that season.....

[stealthpapes]

Luck can not explain a teams fortune/misfortune over a season.

Stop you there.

It depends - solely - on whether the length of the season is enough for the games played to be a decent, statistically relevant sample.

[stealthpapes]

Once we've got that out of the way, there's enough data out there to be able to estimate the contributions of skill and of luck to football matches.

I think I've got a decent book that goes into it, explains how it comes to the answer. Give me a day.

[Hound]

I'm not sure how Stam was lucky tbh. We had a good keeper who made plenty of good saves and a clinical striker. Its not like we got loads of dodgy decisions or anything like that.

We were rigid, dull and ultimately found out. But not lucky

[Victor Meldrew]

"The harder I work, the luckier I get." - Craig Beazley.

Same goes for Gary Player.
I think this is more relevant to individuals' sport.
Famously the likes of Clough and Coppell didn't put in the hours physically at training etc. but considered themselves to be good delegators and team selectors.

I do feel that some people are lucky in life and others unlucky but as far as team sports are concerned, with so many people involved, luck only plays a very small part in success or otherwise.

[URZZZZ]

We were lucky under Stam..... I do wonder if you've ever seen us play live at times Urzzz.

It’s just such a lazy comment. I’d expect it from someone like you to be fair judging by your usual opinions, but it’s so untrue. If you think luck can accumulate 85 points, then you need to start watching another sport

We were very lucky over the course of the season yes, you just don't understand football well enough to realise that. We actually weren't very good the majority of the time and were let off the hook massivley in a lot of the games.

Like I said clearly you didn't go to many games that season.....

Good vs effective? You don’t need to be “good” to win games of football. I never claimed we were good by the way

Let off the hook? Provide examples and I’ll concede it to you. Otherwise shut up and stop talking drivel

[URZZZZ]

Once we've got that out of the way, there's enough data out there to be able to estimate the contributions of skill and of luck to football matches.

I think I've got a decent book that goes into it, explains how it comes to the answer. Give me a day.

Well, luck of course plays a part, there’s no denying that. Goalkeeper errors, bad referee decisions, ricochets etc etc...

But I just cannot possibly see how it can correspond to explaining how well/poorly a team does over 46 games

If you can provide the data to reject that claim, then I’ll concede the point but from where I’m standing, I don’t see how it’s possible

[From Despair To Where?]

I don't really hold much sway with the whole luck thing. Better teams generate "luck" by controlling games and applying pressure, forcing the opponent into taking risks.

Luck can play a part in individual games but not in the overall standard that a team is capable of achieving.

Under Stam, we were pretty good at keeping it tight, maintaing posession and making teams work harder for the ball. The obvious problem, particularly in the season we finished 3rd, was that when it went wrong, the wheels would fall off completely. In the following season, we lost key players and it all went to shit.

[Millsy]

Thanks for the comments - good discussion!

I feel people are focussing on luck but was just ONE of the factors I listed in addition to circumstance, momentum, investment, injuries and the players themselves (unless of course you want to lump then all in under luck and that's fine, but then you have to accept that luck isn't just the odd penalty decision going your way anymore but something far more substantial)

Take all of these factors and you can get two very different situations.

Eg

Managing a team in a season where luckily opposition teams have their best players injured more often than usual, lucky deflections and ref decisions tend to go your way (LUCK) plus great positivity at the club with happy players perhaps new dads, newly married, enthusiastic good vibe and new owners who are supportive and positive as they are new and happy, the right youth players are ready and at your disposal and passionate to go (CIRCUMSTANCE) plus you've just had a couple of lucky wins on the trot which feeds into the mood above and everyone feels like they're on a roll and are motivated (MOMENTUM) , the owners are in a position where they are INVESTING lots and bringing in loans and permanents as you need them, there are no INJURIES to key players, and the PLAYERS happen to really be all hitting form at the same time and engaging with training..

VERSUS

Managing a team in a season where it just so happens a lot of the teams you are playing have their top players in form, deflections, crucial penalty and ref decisions just shittily don't go your way, There's general negativity at the club with players left out in the cold, or deaths in the family, home stresses, owners not being too happy with a bad vibe and palpable antagonism higher in the establishment, no youth players ready, a couple of unlucky defeats and the media are on everyone's back and confidence plummets which feeds into training, so awful momentum, plus there is no investment available for new players, you have a bizarre number of injuries to key players and the players you do have are all just in a shit patch of form and not engaging with training.

The same manager in both those situations will have vastly different outcomes. Luck (in terms of deflections, penalties etc) is only ONE SMALL aspect.

OF COURSE you make your own luck and depending on your capabilities and personality you may be more likely to mitigate some of the above factors but sometimes it's just not so easy and putting aside the likes of Klopp, Fergie etc MOST managers I'd say are far far more susceptible to all these factors than we think about.

[stealthpapes]

Once we've got that out of the way, there's enough data out there to be able to estimate the contributions of skill and of luck to football matches.

I think I've got a decent book that goes into it, explains how it comes to the answer. Give me a day.

Well, luck of course plays a part, there’s no denying that. Goalkeeper errors, bad referee decisions, ricochets etc etc...

But I just cannot possibly see how it can correspond to explaining how well/poorly a team does over 46 games

If you can provide the data to reject that claim, then I’ll concede the point but from where I’m standing, I don’t see how it’s possible

My first point was, basically - how do you know 46 games is a big enough sample. Is it just a gut feeling? Is it just the way things have always been done? By what number of games do you think you've achieved a big enough sample?

As said in the second post, I'll have a look in the bookshelves tonight and see what I can find.

In any given game, there has to be a 'typical' value for the effects of random chance on the result of that game. It probably changes with the level as well (I can see it increasing as the teams quality get worse or more equal over the whole league). It almost certainly comes with error bars.

But its there, and once we've all accepted that, its a very different debate, wouldn't you agree?

[Hound]

Gomes had a fair share of 'luck' personally last year. The two key games for him were Ipswich (a) - where they missed an absolute sitter in the last min, and Wigan (h) where we played really poorly and came out with 3 points - partly due to Wigan utterly switching off on a drop ball I think it was.

[PistolPete]

Luck plays a part, but anyone who knows backgammon realises it's about mitigating for luck.

Was Gomes lucky? At the start, yes; arguably, very. This season, no; arguably very unlucky.

[URZZZZ]

Once we've got that out of the way, there's enough data out there to be able to estimate the contributions of skill and of luck to football matches.

I think I've got a decent book that goes into it, explains how it comes to the answer. Give me a day.

Well, luck of course plays a part, there’s no denying that. Goalkeeper errors, bad referee decisions, ricochets etc etc...

But I just cannot possibly see how it can correspond to explaining how well/poorly a team does over 46 games

If you can provide the data to reject that claim, then I’ll concede the point but from where I’m standing, I don’t see how it’s possible

My first point was, basically - how do you know 46 games is a big enough sample. Is it just a gut feeling? Is it just the way things have always been done? By what number of games do you think you've achieved a big enough sample?

As said in the second post, I'll have a look in the bookshelves tonight and see what I can find.

In any given game, there has to be a 'typical' value for the effects of random chance on the result of that game. It probably changes with the level as well (I can see it increasing as the teams quality get worse or more equal over the whole league). It almost certainly comes with error bars.

But its there, and once we've all accepted that, its a very different debate, wouldn't you agree?

My gut feeling has always worked on 10 games as a figure to start analysing properly into things. By that logic, 46 games is more than enough for me

I do agree with your principle. The extent to which we both agree is inevitable different though