Scientifically Judging a New Manager
- Thread starter taricco
- Start date
CowInAComa
Well-Known Member
- Aug 31, 2012
- 7,293
- 18,237
How about we judge it on quality of football. Quality meaning pleasing on the eye and also actually effective.
And maybe actually achieving something. Which we would have to agree, with a champions league campaign is Harry.
Just for once could we not be less than the sum of our parts.
- Thread starter
- #43
Exactly. If you read the original post, I've tried to combine the two - fluency of football and actual results. E.g. AVB got the results without achieving the style of football required, which really hurt him in the end. I think Harry got both for most of his time with us. However, we've got to find a way to judge new managers on the slow development of both of these things.
Everlasting Seconds
Well-Known Member
- Jan 9, 2014
- 14,914
- 26,616
I'm not advocating having a strategy with emphasis on draws, obviously. I'm simply saying that win % doesn't enclose the full story.
Yes, a draw provides one point, but there is more to it. A draw means that one of the possible three points is lost into nothingness. It's better that a grand total of two points is divided amongst you and your opposition, rather than the opposition gaining all three points. Maybe one could be looking at win % + draw %?
Everlasting Seconds
Well-Known Member
- Jan 9, 2014
- 14,914
- 26,616
What is "quality of football" though? I'm a simple mind, when Spurs wins, I'm entertained. Simple as that.
- Thread starter
- #46
Hmmm. I don't think its that simple. If a team is playing with a poor style it puts a lot more pressure on the manager. Sure, it's fine when they get the results, but as soon as they don't, the knives come out much quicker (look at AVB). Style of football is important for the fans at Spurs.
Everlasting Seconds
Well-Known Member
- Jan 9, 2014
- 14,914
- 26,616
Well, I wasn't speaking on everybody else's behalf. Merely pointing out that quality can be difficult to assess or agree upon.
sickboy_se
Well-Known Member
- Jan 29, 2011
- 114
- 266
I really appreciate the effort but don't see much 'scientific' in it though. A simple win % expectation isn't nearly enough to make it scientific. And as mentioned before in the thread, there's too many variables, most importantly, who are we playing and who is available to play for us and what physical form are they in. And especially such a small sample size as five games the other variables has a huge impact. There's just way to few data points to draw any conclusions at all. I don't think you should look at win % on any sample smaller than a whole season to reduce impact of other variables. So any manager that's been here shorter than a full season shouldn't actually be compared to anyone else at all stats-wise because you're just fooling yourself one way or another. It's not comparable on so few data points and amount of other variables.
And then the playing style attribute you have there is just way too subjective. No way of objectively evaluating.
Only way to evaluate a new manager imo is to have a look on the pitch. Do you like what you see? Are you seeing any improvement on individuals and/or as a team. Do you appreciate the style of play trying to be implemented? If yes, then you're happy with the new manager. If no, then perhaps no. Some will agree, others won't.
And then the playing style attribute you have there is just way too subjective. No way of objectively evaluating.
Only way to evaluate a new manager imo is to have a look on the pitch. Do you like what you see? Are you seeing any improvement on individuals and/or as a team. Do you appreciate the style of play trying to be implemented? If yes, then you're happy with the new manager. If no, then perhaps no. Some will agree, others won't.
Kendall
Well-Known Member
- Feb 8, 2007
- 38,502
- 11,933
I don't mind the odd grind out, but I like to see something repeatable. Playing dire football and eventually scraping goals off ones arse on 75 mins or a questionable penalty on the hour isn't really what I like to get tued into on a regular basis.
SpurSince57
Well-Known Member
- Jan 20, 2006
- 45,213
- 8,229
SlickMongoose
Copacetic
- Feb 27, 2005
- 6,258
- 5,043
Which begs the question, will Sherwood's PPG record ever be beaten?
Everlasting Seconds
Well-Known Member
- Jan 9, 2014
- 14,914
- 26,616
Using only one parameter isn't sufficient. Just as win % alone doesn't describe the full picture, PPG can be misleading. For instance, the season before the last, the number of draws throughout the league decreased heavily, meaning that the total amount of points distributed went up. Has the manager with x PPG while total points increased done as good of a job as the manager with x PPG when there were generally fewer points distributed?
I'd suggest a table looking something like:
win %, draw %, PPG, Table position, Goals scored/conceded.
Min. requirement
Coach A
Coach B
Coach C
Not unlike the link provided by Spurssince57.
Last edited:
This is like a government meeting, lots of talk and very little action. Why don't you @taricco ignore some of the criticism and just go ahead with your methodology and then let people criticise after..rather than letting it hold you back? People criticise the science, yet don't appreciate how flimsy many assumptions used in the legal & science fields are. Like with all data & stats it's not looking to provide the answer to a question but to help reinforce or to test a theory to see how it stacks up against non quantifiable opinion. Once you have a system in place you can use this to test to see if the theory has any merit, with the obvious discussion that follows.
Which brings me onto my next point... how are you getting on with my plot?
Which brings me onto my next point... how are you getting on with my plot?
