sunderland ditch martin o'neill...

[ShelfSide18]

found it: well worth a read.

According to Sue Bridgewater, who runs the football management course at Warwick University, the average tenure of those dismissed fell from 3.12 years in 1992-93 to 1.36 in 2009-10. Sacking has become as frequent as the weekly shop. But a fundamental question is rarely asked: does getting rid of a manager actually improve performance?

Punters certainly believe so. Sporting Bet's Mark O'Haire confirms they usually see an increase in betting on sides with new managers. The idea certainly sounds logical; enticing even. A new man comes in, provides a Wada-compliant injection of fizz and fight, results improve. The theory even has a name: new manager syndrome.

There is one problem. The evidence doesn't back it up.

John Goddard, a professor of financial economics at the University of Bangor, and his co-author Stephen Dobson, of the University of Hull, tested the theory by using statistical models and regression analysis on a database with 40 years of Premier League and Football Leagueinformation. Their conclusion was startling.
Sacking a manager is, on average, more harmful to a team's performance in the short term than doing nothing...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2013/mar/17/manager-sacking-reading-premier-league

This is dealt with in the excellent book Soccernomics, excellent book if you like this sort of thing.

Anyway, glad to see another football dinosaur got rid of. Sunderland are an atrocity to watch.

 

[Sum Monsterism]

That doesn't mean very much though, does it? Everyone was in full agreement that sacking McDermott wasn't going to improve Reading's fortunes, as they were pretty much doing as well as could be expected, given their resources. But Sunderland are a club who should be pushing for European positions, but O'Neill has them with only one win in 2013 and rapidly dropping into the relegation zone. They should be doing far better than achieving one win in 14 games, and clearly the chairman believes he can bring someone in who is capable of producing a better return in the final 7 games.

huh? It's not o'neill or mcdermott specific mate, just an article on the mistaken belief that the new man is always gonna do a better job.

go suck an (easter) egg

and I'd have to ask why you think "But Sunderland are a club who should be pushing for European position" ..?

 

[Spursking]

The board members need to ask different questions to the managers they hire. You need to have a manager who knows what a good team is. If not, you will fail all the time.

 

[Legacy]

huh? It's not o'neill or mcdermott specific mate, just an article on the mistaken belief that the new man is always gonna do a better job.

go suck an (easter) egg

and I'd have to ask why you think "But Sunderland are a club who should be pushing for European position" ..?

"When the data was churned and crunched and spat out, they found that while appointing a new manager did, on average, lead to an improvement in his first 13 games, it was marginally less than the control group."

So on average, a new manager did lead to an improvement anyway.

Why should Sunderland be pushing for a European position? They've got a big stadium, spent a lot of money over the last few years and had a manager who was supposedly one of the best around at getting a team to be worth more than the sum of its parts.

 

[Sum Monsterism]

"When the data was churned and crunched and spat out, they found that while appointing a new manager did, on average, lead to an improvement in his first 13 games, it was marginally less than the control group."

So on average, a new manager did lead to an improvement anyway.

Why should Sunderland be pushing for a European position? They've got a big stadium, spent a lot of money over the last few years and had a manager who was supposedly one of the best around at getting a team to be worth more than the sum of its parts.

from the article proper:

"Sacking a manager is, on average, more harmful to a team's performance in the short term than doing nothing."

so we're reading the same article and coming away with opposing ideas. strange.

 

[Legacy]

from the article proper:

"Sacking a manager is, on average, more harmful to a team's performance in the short term than doing nothing."

so we're reading the same article and coming away with opposing ideas. strange.

Based on the results achieved by clubs who didn't sack their manager in their chosen control group. Clubs who did sack their manager actually did achieve better results in the first 13 games under a new manager. Says so right in the article.

 

[ripley]

Ok, if he signed him, he did well there, but that was pure luck, then. He does not have a sense for what a good team is. He can appearantly sign a good player then, but you need to make a team out of it. One good player is not enough.

So if someone you don't like does something you agree with, it's luck???
It's nice that you can be a big person and give credit where credit is due...

 

[nailsy]

The BBC are saying that Di Canio is going to have talks with Sunderland....http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21990117

 

[Danners9]

he played yesterday didn't he?

came on as a sub, looked clumsy. He was on loan to Sheff Wed for Feb and the beginning of March, 6 apps and 1 goal.

 

[dontcallme]

came on as a sub, looked clumsy. He was on loan to Sheff Wed for Feb and the beginning of March, 6 apps and 1 goal.

We should get him on loan. Will bring back the nostalgia for Andy Booth.

 

[Dare!]

Now confirmed that Di Canio's the new Head Coach.

Interesting that David Miliband's stepped down from his role as non-executive chairman because of Di Canio's "past political statements". Respect for that.

 

[felmani26]

Well Di Canio will definitely add spice to proceedings up in the North East and will make their dugout a fascinating watch but this could be a masterstroke or an unmitigated disaster.

It'll be fun watching regardless.

 

[Marty]

Well Di Canio will definitely add spice to proceedings up in the North East and will make their dugout a ascinating watch but this could be a masterstroke or an unmitigated disaster.

It'll be fun watching regardless.

This, more than anything else.

This is going to be fun. Can't believe they gave him a contract beyond the end of this season.

 

[Spursking]

So if someone you don't like does something you agree with, it's luck???
It's nice that you can be a big person and give credit where credit is due...

I can give credit to a person where the credit is due, but in this case, he hasn't done a very good overall as a manager. It is strange that he has actually been an England manager. The same with a lot of other England managers.
The fact is that he isn't a very good manager.

 

[branchie]

Interim Manager anyone?

 

[nightgoat]

he played yesterday didn't he?

15 minutes. And that's with their first choice striker injured. Prior to Fletcher's injury, Wickham had played about 25 minutes of league football for Sunderland this year.

 

[Marty]

David Miliband was vice-chairman and non-executive director at the club. He's now resigned because of Di Canio's past political statements.

The shit's hit the fan and he hasn't even started yet!

 

[Woland]

Reports state that Sunderland will be looking for 11 wingers in the summer. All will play on the far right.

 

[teok]

Paolo Di Canio, sunderland manager? I did nazi that coming.

 

[Sum Monsterism]

Paolo Di Canio, sunderland manager? I did nazi that coming.

**groan**