Look chaps I've got a football coaching ticket and I'm packed ready to lead the charge for 60 k a year and your input we could lead the boys back to glory !
We are Wolves Sent from my iPhone On 20/12/2011, at 9:41 AM, Steven Millward <millward....@gmail.com> wrote: > As I said: > > There is random error when you look at football over a short term due to > refereeing decision, who plays who etc. > > If you get 20 friends and ask them to toss coins 15 times, some people will > have more than 10 heads and some people will have fewer than 5 heads. Over a > larger number of throws it will balance itself out. > > Humans are pattern-seeking. Are brains are wired to find patterns as it's > important for our survival. When we find them they are reinforced by the > released of dopameine which makes us happy. It's helped our species survive > by telling us which foods or animals to eat and avoid. It's how we learn. > > However, it's also the same physical process that gets people addicted to > gambling. People beleive that they have discovered a "system" because they > do certain things or press buttons in a certain order. > > It obviously happens in football too. People think that certain things are > true but their brains are not very good at making an objective judgement. > Statistical analysis helps us to serparate truth from fiction. > > On 20 December 2011 09:32, paul <pcr...@contechengineering.com> wrote: > What about this season? > Sent via BlackBerry® from Telstra > From: Steven Millward <millward....@gmail.com> > Sender: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:22:34 +1100 > To: <nswolves@googlegroups.com> > ReplyTo: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > Yes but Paul, a professor of economics did the analysis over 20 years and > found an even stronger relationship. The facts are there. If you have > similarly strong facts to dispute it then please share them but your gut feel > doesn't count. > > Mick outperformed resources, hence Wolves are in the top half of that table. > > There is random error when you look at football over a short term due to > refereeing decision, who plays who etc. > > The fact that there are only two anomolies shows how strong the relationship > is > > > > On 20 December 2011 08:00, Paul Crowe <pcr...@contechengineering.com> wrote: > Morning Steve, > > > > Are you winding us up? Or do you seriously believe “There's no room to say > that management is important and Mick is a bad manager because the facts > don't support it”. > > > > Even in your listed figures for last season there are some major anomaly’s > like West Brom (difference 8) and West Ham (difference 12). The reason the > Baggies are doing well is because they changed their Manager mid-last season > and now have a good one. The reason West Ham went down is because they had a > bad Manager and persevered with him. > > > > Look at West Ham now, they changed their Manager and are doing very well in > the Chump League with the majority of Player’s who were relegated. > > > > If you look at the teams around us this season, your table would read: > > > > > > Team League Rank Wage Rank Difference > > Sunderland 16 8 8 > > Wolves 17 18 1 > > Wigan 18 16 2 > > Blackburn 19 12 7 > > Bolton 20 14 6 > > > > Note: I have used your wage ranking figures from last season. > > > > Your theory just doesn’t stack up. Also if you throw in Norwich (current > Difference 10) and Swansea (current Difference 8) for this season, who > arguably have a lower wage structure than us, then your theory starts to fall > apart! Granted the season still has a long way to go but I bet you a carton > of beer both these teams will finish above us. Hope you like Elliott’s > Toohey’s Red. > > > > > > Norwich 9 19 10 > > Swansea 12 20 8 > > > > My theory is that the reason teams like Norwich and Swansea are doing better > than us is because they are trying to play attractive attacking football, are > coached well and have a better Manager. > > > > The Manager is in charge of the coaching staff and determines the tactics for > his team, to advocate this has no bearing on results and the position of your > team in the League is pure bunkum! > > > > Another one to leave you with, why back in the 90’s and early 00’s, when we > were the top wage payer’s in the Championship, did it take us so long to get > promoted? > > > > Regards > > > > Paul. > > > > Paul Crowe > > Sales Manager - Asia Pacific > > > > ConTech (Sydney Office) > > > > PO Box 3517 > > Rhodes Waterside > > Rhodes NSW 2138 > > Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 > > Mob: 0406009562 > > Email: pcr...@contechengineering.com > > Website: www.contechengineering.com > > > > From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Steven Millward > > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 6:31 AM > To: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > > I've taken my points on to Molineux Mix if anyone's interested > http://molineuxmix.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?t=66061 > > Here's some more interesting data in the table below. > > League rank is the position that the team finished in the league > Wage rank is the position forecast by wages > > You'll notice that wages are a great predicitor of league position. > 10 teams are within one position of their prediction. > 15 teams are within two positions of their prediction > 18 teams are within three positions of their prediction. > > I've sorted the table by the last column which is the difference between the > league and wage ranking. The teams at the top are the ones that seemingly > outperformed their resources. > > You'll notice all the "good" managers are near the top of the list: > Hodgson - Pulis - Redknapp - Ferguson - McCARTHY > > The way I see if you can say that either management is important and Mick is > a good manager or management is unimportant. > > There's no room to say that managment is important and Mick is a bad manager > because the facts don't support it. > > Team..........League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference > West Brom..........11..............19................8 > Fulham................8...............11.......... ......3 > Stoke................13...............15.......... ......2 > Spurs..................5................7......... .......2 > Man Utd..............1................3............... ..2 > Wolves..............17...............18........... .....1 > Blackpool...........19...............20........... .....1 > Arsenal...............4.................5......... .......1 > Everton..............7.................8.......... ......1 > Wigan...............16...............16........... .....0 > Newcastle..........12...............12............ ....0 > Bolton...............14...............14.......... ......0 > Chelsea..............2.................1.......... .....-1 > Birmingham.........18...............17............ ..-1 > Man City.............3.................2.............. .-1 > Liverpool.............6.................4......... ......-2 > Sunderland.........10................8............ ....-2 > Aston villa...........9.................6...............-3 > Blackburn...........15...............12........... ....-3 > West Ham..........20................8...............-12 > > On 19 December 2011 15:03, Paul Crowe <pcr...@contechengineering.com> wrote: > > Hughes’s Granny would be better than MM! > > > > Maybe we should just enlist a local Gypsy as replacement for MM, as our > teams performance depends on luck and other dubiously explained factors, > nothing at all to do with the Manager and his coaching skills? > > > > Paul Crowe > > Sales Manager - Asia Pacific > > > > ConTech (Sydney Office) > > > > PO Box 3517 > > Rhodes Waterside > > Rhodes NSW 2138 > > Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 > > Mob: 0406009562 > > Email: pcr...@contechengineering.com > > Website: www.contechengineering.com > > > > From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Steven Millward > Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 2:52 PM > > > To: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > > > Hold the front page. What a scoop! > > On 19 December 2011 11:09, Paul Hart <wholiga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I spoke to my mate last night in Penn he heard Hughes was there. > > > > Well just have to wait and see. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 19/12/2011, at 11:05 AM, Steven Millward <millward....@gmail.com> wrote: > > He dared to make a positive comment about Wolves and the filter kicked him > out. I've hacked it. > > Where is that rumour from? > > On 19 December 2011 11:00, Paul Hart <wholiga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Why were you bannned Matthew ? > Did you dare to ask for the head of MM > > Has anybody else heard the rumour > That Mark Hughes was at the Stoke > game ??? > > > Sent from my iPhone > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
