See you're trying to discredit me by the absurd. The last bastion of a scoundrel.
I say there is a need for a manager to do the things that managers do, but that beyond a certain level of competence and experience there is very little difference in the influence they have on performance. We need a manager. My analysis says that Mick is a good one. We should focus on something that is of more importance than this superstitious nonsense. On 20 December 2011 10:05, Marcus Chantry <chant...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > you are correct that insurance is very heavily dependant on statistics for > assessing and pricing for risks. However, I am not an actuary and my role > for the best part of 17 years has been to challenge actuaries to ensure > that my products are affordable and sustainable, in effect disproving many > of the stats that they use to paint a certain doom & gloom picture. > Actuaries can make stats tell whatever story they want them to, but they > are very conservative by nature and only assess the stats that they think > help their argument. Sound familiar Steve? > > Let's think outside the square and devise a system whereby each season > ticket holder is given a one month tenure as team selector. This does away > with the need to have a manager and coaching staff but leaves one person > that can be blamed each month depending on performances (over which they've > clearly had no effect one). Save money and remove the unnecessary > managerial merry-go-round. > > > On 20/12/2011, at 09:30 , Steven Millward wrote: > > Interesting point of view from someone that works in insurance, an > industry that is entirely based on the statistical pricing of risk. > > Please take the stats I have presented and make them support your agenda. > I can send you the spreadsheet if you want to have a go. > > I understand it must be confronting to have long held belief destroyed in > front of your eyes. I suppose you can always rely on "faith" and ignore > the facts > > On 20 December 2011 08:40, Marcus Chantry <chant...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > >> Stats can be made to support any agenda that a person wants to push. >> Climate Change is the perfect example of how both sides can manipulate >> statistics to support their own agenda. >> >> >> On 20/12/2011, at 08:36 , Jeremy Tonks wrote: >> >> ************** >> >> You’ve missed the point Lee ;)**** >> >> ** ** >> >> How much is he being paid?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I’m not sure 1 game without him this season gives us any statistical >> validity?!**** >> >> I think I’d like to see which games he missed (as in opponents) as well.* >> *** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** [mailto:**nswolves@googlegroups.com >> **] *On Behalf Of *Morris, Lee SGT >> *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:30 AM >> *To:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** >> *Subject:* [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *UNCLASSIFIED***** >> >> Whilst on the subject of statistics, did anyone else see the Karl Henry >> stats on Mol Mix?**** >> >> **** >> >> Are these stats too much of a coincidence????**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> *2010-2011 - With Karl Henry* >> P28 ( + 1 sub ) >> W7 ( 21 points ) >> D6 ( 6 points ) >> L16 >> Pts: 27**** >> >> **** >> >> *2010-2011 - Without Karl Henry** >> *P9 >> W4 ( 12 points ) >> D1 ( 1 point ) >> L4 >> Pts: 13 points >> >> >> *2011-2012 - With Karl Henry* >> P 14 >> W3 ( 9 points ) >> D2 ( 2 points ) >> L9 >> Pts: 11 >> >> *2011-2012 - Without Karl Henry* >> P1 >> W1 ( 3 points ) >> Pts: 3**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> *IMPORTANT*: This email remains the property of the Department of >> Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act >> 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to >> contact the sender and delete the email.**** >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** [mailto:**nswolves@googlegroups.com >> **] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Tonks >> *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:21 >> *To:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** >> *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] >> [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]**** >> >> I’m not going to put **Sunderland** in that basket for a few more weeks >> yet…**** >> >> …and the wages statistics still tell me that Sh*te will fall on their >> collective backsides sooner rather than later J**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** [mailto:**nswolves@googlegroups.com >> **] *On Behalf Of *Morris, Lee SGT >> *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:15 AM >> *To:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** >> *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] >> [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *UNCLASSIFIED***** >> >> There lies the problem because first the Baggies and now **Sunderland**have >> nicked the obvious candidates...we have dithered too much.... >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> *IMPORTANT*: This email remains the property of the Department of >> Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act >> 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to >> contact the sender and delete the email.**** >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** [mailto:**nswolves@googlegroups.com >> **] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Tonks >> *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:13 >> *To:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** >> *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] >> [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]**** >> >> You raise good points Lee but you fail in the usual way… just who is it >> that is going to replace MM?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** [mailto:**nswolves@googlegroups.com >> **] *On Behalf Of *Morris, Lee SGT >> *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:09 AM >> *To:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** >> *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] >> [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *UNCLASSIFIED***** >> >> So using this theory, West Brom are 8 places above where they should be, >> simply because they found a bloody good manager to replace the dross they >> had previoulsy....I rest my case.**** >> >> **** >> >> Again using **West Brom** as an example, we were just about on equal >> terms when they appointed their current manager whilst we continued to >> battle along with MM.**** >> >> **** >> >> Of course wages make a difference, as the table below shows, BUT the need >> for higher quality should have been staring MM and Steve Morgan in the face >> after the struggle last season...I blame Morgan for jumping the gun with >> the stadium...rather than spending more on players, but I understand the >> timing aspect re the economy......I blame Mick for the way we play...its >> horrible sub standard stuff...I think I enjoyed the championship more.*** >> * >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> *IMPORTANT*: This email remains the property of the Department of >> Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act >> 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to >> contact the sender and delete the email.**** >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** [mailto:**nswolves@googlegroups.com >> **] *On Behalf Of *Steven Millward >> *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 05:31 >> *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. >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >> ************** >> >> >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >> > > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
