Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Yes, so using this theory: West Brom are 8 places above where they should be Liverpool are 2 places below where they should be Same man responsible for both. Is he a good manager or a bad manager? On 20 December 2011 08:08, Morris, Lee SGT wrote: > ** > > *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 previoulsyI 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..198 > Fulham8...11.. ..3 > Stoke13...15.. ..2 > Spurs..57. ...2 > Man Utd..13... ..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.108 -2 > Aston villa...9.6...-3 > Blackburn...15...12... -3 > West Ham..208...-12 > > On 19 December 2011 15:03, Paul Crowe 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
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 :-) _ 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 previoulsyI 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..198 Fulham8...11.. ..3 Stoke13...15.. ..2 Spurs..57. ...2 Man Utd..13... ..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.108 -2 Aston villa...9.6...
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 previoulsyI 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..198 Fulham8...11.. ..3 Stoke13...15.. ..2 Spurs..57. ...2 Man Utd..13... ..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.108 -2 Aston villa...9.6...-3 Blackburn...15...12... -3 West Ham..208...-12 On 19 December 2011 15:03, Paul Crowe 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 w
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 previoulsyI 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..198 Fulham8...11.. ..3 Stoke13...15.. ..2 Spurs..57. ...2 Man Utd..13... ..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.108 -2 Aston villa...9.6...-3 Blackburn...15...12... -3 West Ham..208...-12 On 19 December 2011 15:03, Paul Crowe 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 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,
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 previoulsyI 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..198 Fulham8...11.. ..3 Stoke13...15.. ..2 Spurs..57. ...2 Man Utd..13... ..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.108 -2 Aston villa...9.6...-3 Blackburn...15...12... -3 West Ham..208...-12 On 19 December 2011 15:03, Paul Crowe 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 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 wrote: He dared to make a positive comment about Wolves and the filter kicked him out. I've hacked it.
