Depends on him having a certain level of competence but yes, United should finish third, plus or minus a couple of spots
On 20 December 2011 14:05, LEESE Matthew <matthew.le...@rms.nsw.gov.au>wrote: > ** > Do you believe that if you took Man United and replaced Ferguson with a > manager from a non League club (a more realistic proposal than Marcus' > month each in charge for designated fans) that Man United would still > finish in the top 3 of the Premiership? > > ------------------------------ > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 10:45 AM > > *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > It might even be that managers work at local club level and even in > some of the lower divisions in England, which is where you have seen > results and formed opinions. My analysis is only on the Premier league > where money is bigger. > > It's just that another 5m of player wages completely negates the impact of > anything a manager at another club can do. > > On 20 December 2011 09:55, LEESE Matthew <matthew.le...@rms.nsw.gov.au>wrote: > >> ** >> Wages are quantifiable and can therefore be used to present figures to >> support an argument. A manager/coach's ability is less >> tangible/quantifiable and so its difficult to present an argument for their >> importance that is backed by numbers. The fact that they have for many >> years been seen as such a valuable commodity by football clubs across the >> world would suggest their (misguided?) value is greater than your numbers >> suggest. I can't give you numbers to support that, can only point to years >> of the football world apparently getting it wrong. >> >> I don't believe for a moment that at international level if each country >> simply picked the 11 highest paid players available to them that that would >> be the key to success. There's far more to it than that - the old 'team of >> great individuals' - but it seems unless it is quantifiable by stats it >> can't be true in your opinion. Everyone has different >> views/beliefs/opinions that are shaped by different factors and experience >> - in this instance my views are based on years of playing and watching >> football, whereas yours are based on years of number crunching. >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On >> Behalf Of *Steven Millward >> *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 9:36 AM >> >> *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com >> *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew >> >> I'm saying that the difference between a competent mamanger and a >> great manager is very small. As most managers are competent and have their >> coaching badges then there is little upside from having a better one in the >> *current system*. >> >> If there was a salary and transfer cap then management would be more >> important. However, if management is only 3% as important as wages then >> having the greatest manager at Wolves would only be the same as having an >> extra 1m on a 30m wage bill. Even if was was all of the remaining 10% then >> it still wouldn't be a transformative factor in performance. >> >> The average tenure of a manager now is 18 months in England. Whyis >> that? Clubs appoint managers after selecting the best one and then find >> that they haven't got it right. It looks to me like something where it's >> expected to have an impact but doesn't >> >> Managers absorb all of the negativity from fans and then are purged. >> It's a strange cultural phenomenon. >> >> >> >> On 20 December 2011 09:30, LEESE Matthew <matthew.le...@rms.nsw.gov.au>wrote: >> >>> ** >>> If managers/coaches have so little impact on the success of a football >>> team why do clubs across the world, at all levels of the game, put so much >>> importance on them and strive to appoint the best available? Are you saying >>> that the collective world of football administration is wrong and should be >>> listening to a professor of economics? >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On >>> Behalf Of *Steven Millward >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 9:23 AM >>> >>> *To:* 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. >>> >>> [image: Logo] >>> >>> Before printing, please consider the environment >>> >>> IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachment to it are intended only >>> to be read or used by the named addressee. It is confidential and may >>> contain legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is >>> waived or lost by any mistaken transmission to you. Roads and Maritime >>> Services (RMS) is not responsible for any unauthorised alterations to this >>> e-mail or attachment to it. Views expressed in this message are those of >>> the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of RMS. If you >>> receive this e-mail in error, please immediately delete it from your system >>> and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or use any part of this >>> e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. >>> >>> -- >>> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >>> >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >> >> [image: Logo] >> >> Before printing, please consider the environment >> >> IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachment to it are intended only >> to be read or used by the named addressee. It is confidential and may >> contain legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is >> waived or lost by any mistaken transmission to you. Roads and Maritime >> Services (RMS) is not responsible for any unauthorised alterations to this >> e-mail or attachment to it. Views expressed in this message are those of >> the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of RMS. If you >> receive this e-mail in error, please immediately delete it from your system >> and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or use any part of this >> e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >> > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > [image: Logo] > > Before printing, please consider the environment > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachment to it are intended only > to be read or used by the named addressee. It is confidential and may > contain legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is > waived or lost by any mistaken transmission to you. Roads and Maritime > Services (RMS) is not responsible for any unauthorised alterations to this > e-mail or attachment to it. Views expressed in this message are those of > the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of RMS. If you > receive this e-mail in error, please immediately delete it from your system > and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or use any part of this > e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
