I'll forego that then and will wait for my 1/1000th of a ride in the Grand National. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of mark worrall Sent: Thursday, 5 January 2012 12:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [NSWolves] MO'N maybe the other 9 guys havent finished with her yet ? lol. On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Rog & Reet <[email protected]> wrote: And I'd like to know what happened to my 1/10th of a shag with a super model that the stats imply. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Thursday, 5 January 2012 11:39 AM
To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [NSWolves] MO'N I actually shared a link from Warwick Business School earlier in this debate that said that there is a honeymoon period after the appointment of a new manager but after that the performance of the club is no better than previously, in fact often worse. There's nothing in six games at Sunderland that makes me think any differently about the 38 years of data that I've examined and shared. That's why I'd like to look at it over a longer term. It seems silly to ignore a lifetime of information thaat says one thing and only focus on one club for a month. It's interesting that Steve Bruce took Sunderland from 16th in 2008-9 to 8th in the table by the time Marcus advocated him as being a good manager. Marcus feels able to draw very firm conclusions from short term results but over the long term feels able to completely change his mind. Again, it's why I'd like to look over the longer term. I also wonder what MON is supposed to have done in these couple of weeks that only he can do? And why do we only look at one manager when there are lots of others that fail? On 5 January 2012 10:12, Paul Crowe <[email protected]> wrote: Only thing that has changed at Sunderland in the last 4 weeks has been the appointment of Martin O'Neill. 100% fact!! Their upturn in form and results has been impressive, instantaneous and commendable. It is very hard to argue that a change of Manager has not had a massive effect in this case. Sorry, Steve your theory doesn't work with this one. Looking forward to drinking the case of beer with Elliott. Elliott, I will give you the extra to get a decent case instead of the Toohey's Red. Paul Crowe Sales Manager - Asia Pacific ConTech (Sydney Office) PO Box 3517 Rhodes Waterside Rhodes NSW 2138 Tel: 02 97396636 <tel:02%2097396636> Fax: 02 97396542 <tel:02%2097396542> Mob: 0406009562 Email: [email protected] Website: www.contechengineering.com From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Wednesday, 4 January 2012 11:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [NSWolves] MO'N Is this the same Steve Bruce you advocated as a replacement for Mick in november 2009? Or a different one? If it helps jog you memory it was the same email that you nominated gianfranco Zola as an alternative. Steve Bruce had Sunderland sixth in the league at the end of 2009 but they finished the season in tenth place. Perhaps that wad when he turned bad or perhaps that was when they sold Darren bent. Was it players or the manager? So how many places improvement can Martin oneill give Sunderland above the expectation based on wages? Maybe mon is a great manager. All I ask is that we judge over a couple of full seasons On 04/01/2012, at 10:05 PM, Marcus Chantry <[email protected]> wrote: I don't see how there is any risk from your point of view. Sunderland have never been and are unlikely to ever be a top 5 side in the premier league. But perhaps you can explain something: When Steve Bruce was in charge, Sunderland had the 8th highest wage bill in the league yet they were playing shit. Since MON took over they still have the same players and the same wage bill (8th highest in the league) and have picked up 16 points from their last 8 games. Are you suggesting that even if they had kept Steve Bruce in charge they would have had the same upturn in fortune? I don't think so. Over the past 10 years, Steve Bruce's managerial record has been in steady decline. The proof of this is that over the most recent 10 years his win % at the 3 clubs he has managed have reduced at each club from 37% to 33% to 29% at Sunderland. There is nothing there to suggest that he would have taken Sunderland to 8th in the league to match their 8th highest wage bill. Yet by some strange coincidence or anomaly, the appointment of MON has changed their fortunes dramatically. Why is that? On 04/01/2012, at 20:43 , Steven Millward wrote: I think I have made it perfectly clear that I believe that league position is almost entirely decided by players, with wages being the best way of measuring player quality. The more you spend on wages, the better the players you get and the better your position in the league. Based on the spreadsheet I shared on here a couple of weeks ago, Sunderland have the 8th highest wages in the league and I would therefore expect them to come 8th in the league. If you believe that Martin O'Neill can make a big difference as a manager then you would surely expect him to take Sunderland at least say three places higher than that wouldn't you? I know you like quoting anecdotes as evidence, such as a six game stretch, and you know that I prefer something like 25,000 games to make my case. However I propose something in between as the basis for another public bet with you Marcus. I bet you that the average league position of Sunderland over next season and the season after won't be higher than 5th. The risk is all with me as you have someone at the helm of Sunderland that you really rate and an owner that could throw even more money behind them. Their wage bill after their summer signings probably now suggests that they should finish even higher. As this is a long-term bet, I propose higher stakes. The loser will wear a t-shirt at every Wolves meeting for the rest of their lives that says "I'm thick and I know nothing about football". Are we on? On 4 January 2012 11:10, Chantrys <[email protected]> wrote: Yes very strange. Since being appointed as manager, Sunderland have won 5, drawn 1 and lost only once away to Spurs. I'm guessing that when they sacked Bruce they gave all the players a pay rise and that's why they have turned in to world beaters (nothing to do wit MON). Sent from my iPad On 04/01/2012, at 9:57, "Rog & Reet" <[email protected]> wrote: Another statistical anomaly this morning. -- 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.
