Manager v luck etc

Millsy
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 10022
Joined: 16 Jul 2004 18:36
Location: Running from The Left

Re: Manager v luck etc

by Millsy » 11 Oct 2019 13:23

stealthpapes
URZZZZ
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?


You raise an interesting point. 46 would normally be a small number but then when you consider that's 4,140 minutes and let's say (total guess) incidents per minute (pass, tackle, run, shot) being 10 per minute, and each of these could be lucky or unlucky that's over 40,000 football incidents over a season, a very small proportion of which would be lucky or unlucky. Looking at it that way it's probably right to say luck tends to even out.

And this must be the case because generally good teams do well and crap teams don't.

BUT of course it does play a part in the course of a season AND my opening post isn't just about this sort of luck but the much broader picture (injuries, momentum, mood, investment etc) which is a different sort of luck, as I describe in another post above.

Royalwaster
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3599
Joined: 13 Jul 2004 13:32

Re: Manager v luck etc

by Royalwaster » 11 Oct 2019 14:09

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.


Luck is probably a bit too 'random' but yes good fortune etc. that is unlikely to be replicated in the long-term. We were 'fortunate' for example that we got a loan keeper who made some amazing saves and gave us several draws / wins we'd otherwise have not got ... it makes me think of that season in which Suarez at Liverpool just couldn't stop scoring goals. That Liverpool team was so average, but they almost won the league ... unlike the current Liverpool team and manager. I also agree that a lot in football is about momentum - string a few wins together and the confidence that generates alone can turn a mediocre team into a very strong team. We did it under McD and I remember Crystal Palace doing it under Dowie a few years before that - look at Dowie after that season everyone thought he was a great manager ... well it didn't last did it!?

Snowball
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 20679
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 18:35

Re: Manager v luck etc

by Snowball » 11 Oct 2019 14:35

Not directly debating this but it reminds me of a long time ago


I was a Rediffusion engineer (after coming out of the RAF) and I used to go and
watch Newport County train (in a random park, they had no facilities)

It was the era where we were coming good.

We had come fifth the season before, and this season we were "flying"
with lots of 1-0 and 0-1 wins = top of the league.

I was talking to Steve Aizlewood after one session and said something
on the lines of how much better we were, but I couldn't see exactly why.

He replied that we were playing a LOT worse but everything was going in,
our keeper was making a few more saves, other teams were backing off
etc. It's ALL down to luck (so far) he said.

========================================

The other thing about luck or bad luck is it can change mind-sets.

How often do we say "That striker just needs one to go in off his knee
and then watch him go."?

Play so-so but sneak a lucky win, then do it again twice and you have 9 points -
are top of the league. You start to believe, work harder, run longer, while your
opponents may be beaten before they step on the pitch

The reverse is also true.


One question. Had we never signed Virginia, just that one thing, how much
higher would morale have been? How many more points would we have had?

Snowball
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 20679
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 18:35

Re: Manager v luck etc

by Snowball » 11 Oct 2019 14:35

Royalwaster
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.


Luck is probably a bit too 'random' but yes good fortune etc. that is unlikely to be replicated in the long-term. We were 'fortunate' for example that we got a loan keeper who made some amazing saves and gave us several draws / wins we'd otherwise have not got ... it makes me think of that season in which Suarez at Liverpool just couldn't stop scoring goals. That Liverpool team was so average, but they almost won the league ... unlike the current Liverpool team and manager. I also agree that a lot in football is about momentum - string a few wins together and the confidence that generates alone can turn a mediocre team into a very strong team. We did it under McD and I remember Crystal Palace doing it under Dowie a few years before that - look at Dowie after that season everyone thought he was a great manager ... well it didn't last did it!?


We were typing at the same time!

User avatar
Lower West
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 4915
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 11:35
Location: Admiring Clem Morfuni at Work

Re: Manager v luck etc

by Lower West » 11 Oct 2019 14:50

2 world wars, 1 world cup
It's MAINLY about luck, circumstance, momentum, investment, injuries and the players themselves.



A good manager will organise the resources he has available at his disposable into a cohesive unit. That plays to it's collective strengths. Will recruit the players with a winning mentality.

Might not be a great team. However after every game the fans will know that every player has given their all.

Was in Cornwall a few week back and ended up in the same hotel as Billy Bonds. Amongst other things we chatted about was footballers today. His take was that there is no longer the loyalty or commitments to managers or clubs from players. Players are predominantly mercenary, in it for the money. Badge kissing is for the media,
Last edited by Lower West on 11 Oct 2019 14:52, edited 1 time in total.


User avatar
John Smith
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 4717
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 23:47
Location: Astronauts The New Conquistadors

Re: Manager v luck etc

by John Smith » 11 Oct 2019 14:51

stealthpapes
URZZZZ 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.

Oh dear oh dear stealthpapes. Been drinking this lunchtime to come out with that complete and utter drivel?

User avatar
Lower West
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 4915
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 11:35
Location: Admiring Clem Morfuni at Work

Re: Manager v luck etc

by Lower West » 11 Oct 2019 14:51

Deleted
Last edited by Lower West on 11 Oct 2019 14:52, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
John Smith
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 4717
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 23:47
Location: Astronauts The New Conquistadors

Re: Manager v luck etc

by John Smith » 11 Oct 2019 14:52

Lower West Was in Cornwall a few week back and ended up in the same hotel as Billy Bonds. Amongst other things we chatted about footballers today. His take was that there is no longer the loyalty or commitments to managers or clubs from players. Players are predominantly mercenary, in it for the money. Badge kissing is for the media,

Didn't need Billy Bonds to tell you that - I could have told you that

User avatar
Lower West
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 4915
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 11:35
Location: Admiring Clem Morfuni at Work

Re: Manager v luck etc

by Lower West » 11 Oct 2019 14:54

John Smith
Lower West Was in Cornwall a few week back and ended up in the same hotel as Billy Bonds. Amongst other things we chatted about footballers today. His take was that there is no longer the loyalty or commitments to managers or clubs from players. Players are predominantly mercenary, in it for the money. Badge kissing is for the media,

Didn't need Billy Bonds to tell you that - I could have told you that


Went to his testimonial back in 1978 against Spurs. Great player. Few of his calibre today.


User avatar
stealthpapes
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7531
Joined: 05 Jun 2013 13:25
Location: proverbs 26:11

Re: Manager v luck etc

by stealthpapes » 11 Oct 2019 14:58

John Smith
stealthpapes
URZZZZ 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.

Oh dear oh dear stealthpapes. Been drinking this lunchtime to come out with that complete and utter drivel?


What do you think is wrong with it?

User avatar
stealthpapes
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7531
Joined: 05 Jun 2013 13:25
Location: proverbs 26:11

Re: Manager v luck etc

by stealthpapes » 11 Oct 2019 15:02

URZZZZ
stealthpapes
URZZZZ
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


Of course.

I can't see how anyone would disagree with the basic ideas here but the main point was to make you think about the game and the assumptions that are often taken for granted.

Millsy
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 10022
Joined: 16 Jul 2004 18:36
Location: Running from The Left

Re: Manager v luck etc

by Millsy » 11 Oct 2019 16:14

stealthpapes
John Smith
stealthpapes
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.

Oh dear oh dear stealthpapes. Been drinking this lunchtime to come out with that complete and utter drivel?


What do you think is wrong with it?


Involves brain cells.

User avatar
leon
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 29043
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:18
Location: Hips, Lips, Tits, Power

Re: Manager v luck etc

by leon » 11 Oct 2019 17:55

stealthpapes
John Smith
stealthpapes
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.

Oh dear oh dear stealthpapes. Been drinking this lunchtime to come out with that complete and utter drivel?


What do you think is wrong with it?


It makes me very sleepy in the afternoon.


User avatar
stealthpapes
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7531
Joined: 05 Jun 2013 13:25
Location: proverbs 26:11

Re: Manager v luck etc

by stealthpapes » 11 Oct 2019 19:54

Soz Leon think that's the rohypnol tbh

SCIAG
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6362
Joined: 17 Jun 2008 17:43
Location: Liburd for England

Re: Manager v luck etc

by SCIAG » 11 Oct 2019 20:57

I'm not as knowledgeable about football as I used to be, but doesn't one of those "Freakonomics but for football" books (The Numbers Game, Why England Lose, etc.) make a good stab at quantifying the degree to which luck affects football matches?

Regardless, the impact of luck is why I think any manager who isn't clearly incompetent, or guilty of gross misconduct, should be given at least a year. The only sackings I'd have made in the last ten years were Rodgers (on the grounds of incompetence), Clarke (on the grounds that speaking to Fulham destroyed morale), and maybe McDermott the first time (on the grounds that a better manager would have kept us up - but we only got up in the first place because of McDermott and I hate it when managers are victims of their own success). Managers have a role, but the current trend of essentially holding them responsible for everything while players and directors wash their hands is stupid.

User avatar
leon
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 29043
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:18
Location: Hips, Lips, Tits, Power

Re: Manager v luck etc

by leon » 11 Oct 2019 22:24

SCIAG I'm not as knowledgeable about football as I used to be, but doesn't one of those "Freakonomics but for football" books (The Numbers Game, Why England Lose, etc.) make a good stab at quantifying the degree to which luck affects football matches?

Regardless, the impact of luck is why I think any manager who isn't clearly incompetent, or guilty of gross misconduct, should be given at least a year. The only sackings I'd have made in the last ten years were Rodgers (on the grounds of incompetence), Clarke (on the grounds that speaking to Fulham destroyed morale), and maybe McDermott the first time (on the grounds that a better manager would have kept us up - but we only got up in the first place because of McDermott and I hate it when managers are victims of their own success). Managers have a role, but the current trend of essentially holding them responsible for everything while players and directors wash their hands is stupid.


That’s some weird reasoning - theres only 2 reasons to sack a manager?

SCIAG
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6362
Joined: 17 Jun 2008 17:43
Location: Liburd for England

Re: Manager v luck etc

by SCIAG » 11 Oct 2019 22:39

leon
SCIAG I'm not as knowledgeable about football as I used to be, but doesn't one of those "Freakonomics but for football" books (The Numbers Game, Why England Lose, etc.) make a good stab at quantifying the degree to which luck affects football matches?

Regardless, the impact of luck is why I think any manager who isn't clearly incompetent, or guilty of gross misconduct, should be given at least a year. The only sackings I'd have made in the last ten years were Rodgers (on the grounds of incompetence), Clarke (on the grounds that speaking to Fulham destroyed morale), and maybe McDermott the first time (on the grounds that a better manager would have kept us up - but we only got up in the first place because of McDermott and I hate it when managers are victims of their own success). Managers have a role, but the current trend of essentially holding them responsible for everything while players and directors wash their hands is stupid.


That’s some weird reasoning - theres only 2 reasons to sack a manager?

Not sure I understand what you're getting at. Are you saying that my observation that I'd only sack someone if they weren't good enough or if they did something bad is a truism? Because if so, fair enough - I guess what I'm saying is I would just set quite a high standard for what constitutes "incompetence".

If on the other hand you're disagreeing with me, and would be happy to sack a manager for reasons other than misconduct or getting us relegated (maybe just because we think someone else can do a better job) then again, fair enough, your opinion. Personally I probably wouldn't go there. I think clubs underestimate the negative impact that the upheaval of bringing in a new manager can cause. I'd want us to nearly always appoint managers with strong connections to the club, and try to develop our coaches into future managers, Anfield Bootroom style. If they keep us in this division and solvent then they've done their job. But that's me being idealistic rather than necessarily what would actually work.

User avatar
leon
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 29043
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:18
Location: Hips, Lips, Tits, Power

Re: Manager v luck etc

by leon » 11 Oct 2019 23:24

SCIAG
leon
SCIAG I'm not as knowledgeable about football as I used to be, but doesn't one of those "Freakonomics but for football" books (The Numbers Game, Why England Lose, etc.) make a good stab at quantifying the degree to which luck affects football matches?

Regardless, the impact of luck is why I think any manager who isn't clearly incompetent, or guilty of gross misconduct, should be given at least a year. The only sackings I'd have made in the last ten years were Rodgers (on the grounds of incompetence), Clarke (on the grounds that speaking to Fulham destroyed morale), and maybe McDermott the first time (on the grounds that a better manager would have kept us up - but we only got up in the first place because of McDermott and I hate it when managers are victims of their own success). Managers have a role, but the current trend of essentially holding them responsible for everything while players and directors wash their hands is stupid.


That’s some weird reasoning - theres only 2 reasons to sack a manager?

Not sure I understand what you're getting at. Are you saying that my observation that I'd only sack someone if they weren't good enough or if they did something bad is a truism? Because if so, fair enough - I guess what I'm saying is I would just set quite a high standard for what constitutes "incompetence".

If on the other hand you're disagreeing with me, and would be happy to sack a manager for reasons other than misconduct or getting us relegated (maybe just because we think someone else can do a better job) then again, fair enough, your opinion. Personally I probably wouldn't go there. I think clubs underestimate the negative impact that the upheaval of bringing in a new manager can cause. I'd want us to nearly always appoint managers with strong connections to the club, and try to develop our coaches into future managers, Anfield Bootroom style. If they keep us in this division and solvent then they've done their job. But that's me being idealistic rather than necessarily what would actually work.


I was questioning your point yes.

It was either a bit like saying I’d only sack a manager that required sacking or saying there are only two reasons to sack a manager- they are incompetent (ie totally unfit to do their job) or they have committed an act of gross misconduct (eg bumming Kingsley Royal)

Either way I was struggling with it tbh.

User avatar
stealthpapes
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7531
Joined: 05 Jun 2013 13:25
Location: proverbs 26:11

Re: Manager v luck etc

by stealthpapes » 12 Oct 2019 11:07

URZZZZ
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


Hi URZZZ

This topic is covered in detail in Chapter 1 of The Numbers Game (ISBN-10: 9780241963623) and there's a few academic papers on the topic. A bit busy this weekend but there's some nice examples in the chapter.

I also recalled this Economist article, Managers in football matter much less than most fans think.


image upload

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 39387
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: Manager v luck etc

by Snowflake Royal » 12 Oct 2019 11:38

URZZZZ
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

I'd argue goalkeeper errors aren't luck. Good keepers make fewer errors. Simple as.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Linden Jones' Tash, Royal Ginger, Sutekh, WestYorksRoyal, windermereROYAL and 416 guests

It is currently 28 Mar 2024 09:43