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 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.
RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
You're in the wrong job Steve. Oh, wait a minute. Couldn't have said it better myself. In fact I couldn't have said that at all. But you are, of course, 97% correct. JT _ 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..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 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.
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 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
RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
Now Paul brings us into the other 10%. He raises the spectre of dithering administration over an extended period of time and the tendency to chop and change. I seem to remember us being within 1 or 2 places of promotion on numerous occasions in those big spending Chumpionship days. I don't think that Steven is arguing that managers have NO influence. His argument is that we spend an enormously disproportionate amount of time complaining about management when we should be sending our bottle tops to the 'buy Wolves a half decent striker' fund. _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Crowe Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:00 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew 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 88 Wolves 17 18 1 Wigan 18 16 2 Blackburn 19 12 7 Bolton20 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 1910 Swansea 12 208 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..198 Fulham8...11.. ..3 Stoke13...15.. ..2 Spurs..57. ...2 Man
RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
As I read the Molmix thread it appears that some of the great guru's teachings might be seeping into some thickish heads :-) _ 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..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 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.
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 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
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 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
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...-3
[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 :-) 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
RE: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
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 :-) _ 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:
Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
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 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
RE: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Guess what I'm reading on line at the moment Marcus. _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Chantry Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:40 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 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: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com 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: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com 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 :-) _ From: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com 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: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com 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: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com 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: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com 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
RE: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
UNCLASSIFIED Thats right, lets have our own poll then. For MM = Against MM (I'm against but only if a suitable replacement is available) Should Henry be our first choice defensive midfielder = Should we sign someone specifically to replace him (I think we need someone better in his position) I also happen to believe we desperately need another quality striker. 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 Marcus Chantry Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:40 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 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 :-) 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
[NSWolves] Climate change
This is what I was reading. it's seriously laughable - especially when you actually read the original research. The press release is a total fabrication! http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2011/28JacobsWalnut.html _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Chantry Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:40 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 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: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com 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: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com 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 :-) _ From: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com 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: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com 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: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com 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: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com nswolves@googlegroups.com
RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
Less gullible? From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rog Reet Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:54 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew Why aren't the great man's teachings seeping in on here? Would you be implying we're even thicker than MMers? From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:12 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew As I read the Molmix thread it appears that some of the great guru's teachings might be seeping into some thickish heads :) 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..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 pcr...@contechengineering.commailto: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.commailto:pcr...@contechengineering.com Website: www.contechengineering.comhttp://www.contechengineering.com From: nswolves@googlegroups.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 2:52 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.commailto: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.commailto: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.commailto: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.commailto: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
RE: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
I really loved MM and am very thankful for his hard work and what he has done for the Club but it is time for a change. I do not think he is the man to take us forward. MM out!! Don't care who the replacement is as I know the Board will choose the best person available. 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 Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:50 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED Thats right, lets have our own poll then. For MM = Against MM (I'm against but only if a suitable replacement is available) Should Henry be our first choice defensive midfielder = Should we sign someone specifically to replace him (I think we need someone better in his position) I also happen to believe we desperately need another quality striker. 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 Marcus Chantry Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:40 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 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 previoulsyI rest my case. Again using West Brom as an example, we
RE: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
For MM (come on Lee - WHO IS YOUR SUITABLE REPLACEMENT THAT HAPPENS TO BE AVAILABLE?) Don't really care but I do think we do better without him. We should shore up midfield in Jan Yes we need another quality striker. Who's coming out on loan? Is Tevez available? JT (The Tevez question was a joke Joyce) _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:50 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED Thats right, lets have our own poll then. For MM = Against MM (I'm against but only if a suitable replacement is available) Should Henry be our first choice defensive midfielder = Should we sign someone specifically to replace him (I think we need someone better in his position) I also happen to believe we desperately need another quality striker. 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 Marcus Chantry Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:40 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 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: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com 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: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com 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 :-) _ From: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com 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: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com 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: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com 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
RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
How well does the cloth cap fit, Roger? _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rog Reet Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:54 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew Why aren't the great man's teachings seeping in on here? Would you be implying we're even thicker than MMers? From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:12 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew As I read the Molmix thread it appears that some of the great guru's teachings might be seeping into some thickish heads :-) _ 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..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 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.
RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
But Mattie, he's right! _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LEESE Matthew Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:56 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew Less gullible? _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rog Reet Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:54 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew Why aren't the great man's teachings seeping in on here? Would you be implying we're even thicker than MMers? From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:12 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew As I read the Molmix thread it appears that some of the great guru's teachings might be seeping into some thickish heads :-) _ 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..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 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.
RE: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Why bother with a manager when they have so little impact on the the way the team plays and the result of games? If we got rid of Mick and all the coaching staff we should be able to use their wages to pay the wages of better players and therefore improve our results and league position. The stats support it you know. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Crowe Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:56 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] I really loved MM and am very thankful for his hard work and what he has done for the Club but it is time for a change. I do not think he is the man to take us forward. MM out!! Don't care who the replacement is as I know the Board will choose the best person available. 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.commailto:pcr...@contechengineering.com Website: www.contechengineering.comhttp://www.contechengineering.com From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:50 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED Thats right, lets have our own poll then. For MM = Against MM (I'm against but only if a suitable replacement is available) Should Henry be our first choice defensive midfielder = Should we sign someone specifically to replace him (I think we need someone better in his position) I also happen to believe we desperately need another quality striker. 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 Marcus Chantry Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:40 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 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.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:30 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.commailto: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.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:21 To: nswolves@googlegroups.commailto: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 :) From: nswolves@googlegroups.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:15 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.commailto: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
RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
So Tony Abbott according to his figures. Hang on, so's Julia Gillard. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 9:00 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew But Mattie, he's right! From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LEESE Matthew Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:56 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew Less gullible? From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rog Reet Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:54 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew Why aren't the great man's teachings seeping in on here? Would you be implying we're even thicker than MMers? From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:12 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew As I read the Molmix thread it appears that some of the great guru's teachings might be seeping into some thickish heads :) 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..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 pcr...@contechengineering.commailto: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.commailto:pcr...@contechengineering.com Website: www.contechengineering.comhttp://www.contechengineering.com From: nswolves@googlegroups.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 2:52 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.commailto: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.commailto:wholiga...@gmail.com wrote: I spoke to my mate last night in Penn he heard Hughes was there. Well just have to
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 88 Wolves 17 18 1 Wigan 18 16 2** ** Blackburn 19 12 7 Bolton20 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 1910** ** Swansea 12 208 ** ** 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..198 Fulham8...11.. ..3
Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
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 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
RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
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.commailto: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 88 Wolves 17 18 1 Wigan 18 16 2 Blackburn 19 12 7 Bolton20 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 1910 Swansea 12 208 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.commailto:pcr...@contechengineering.com Website: www.contechengineering.comhttp://www.contechengineering.com/ From: nswolves@googlegroups.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 6:31 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.commailto: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
Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
What about this season? Sent via BlackBerry® from Telstra -Original Message- From: Steven Millward millward@gmail.com Sender: nswolves@googlegroups.com Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:22:34 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Reply-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 88 Wolves 17 18 1 Wigan 18 16 2** ** Blackburn 19 12 7 Bolton20 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 1910** ** Swansea 12 208 ** ** 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
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.auwrote: ** 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.comwrote: 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 88 Wolves 17 18 1*** * Wigan 18 16 2* *** Blackburn 19 12 7 Bolton20 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 1910* *** Swansea 12 208 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
RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
It's not that strange a cultural phenomenon. the top brass cover their backsides by perpetuating the myth that the manager is to blame and that all is well within the hallowed walls of the boardroom. _ 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 88 Wolves 17 18 1 Wigan 18 16 2 Blackburn 19 12 7 Bolton20 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 1910 Swansea 12 208 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
Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
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.comwrote: 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 88 Wolves 17 18 1*** * Wigan 18 16 2* *** Blackburn 19 12 7 Bolton20 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 1910* *** Swansea 12 208 ** ** 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
Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
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 88 Wolves 17 18 1 Wigan 18 16 2 Blackburn 19 12 7 Bolton20 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 1910 Swansea 12 208 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:
RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
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.aumailto: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.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 9:23 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.commailto: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.commailto: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 88 Wolves 17 18 1 Wigan 18 16 2 Blackburn 19 12 7 Bolton20 14 6 Note: I have used your wage ranking figures from last season. Your theory just
Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
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
Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
I can't quantify the importance of a manager either. However, in statistics there is something called explanation of variance. When building a predictive model you can understand how much variance you can explain (league position) by the factors that drive it (just wages for me In pure science you can explain 100% of the vairance in a predictive model. For example, you could predict the tensile strength of an alloy with different compositions of metals going into it. There is nothing left unexplained. In human cases it's impossible to get a 100% explanation of something being caused by something else. However, in this case, 90% of the variability in league position is explained by wages. That means no more than 10% is left over to be explained by other factors . Given that a bad refereeing decision could cost a team 2 points and 3 league places, there isn't much left over to be credited to management once luck is taken out. It's the easy, and perhaps final, option to say that statistics get manipulated but they are the same stats that prove your medicine is safe and effective, or that determine safety when you fly. My earleir point is that even if I were to concede that managers have some influence on results (which I won't as I have proven that they don't) then the natural other conclusion is that Mick has outperformed expectations and so therefore must be a good manager. That's why it's a delight for me. Everyone has to accept that either managers have no influence or that Mick is a good manager. On 20 December 2011 09:55, LEESE Matthew matthew.le...@rms.nsw.gov.auwrote: ** 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.auwrote: ** 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
Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
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.
Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
ok, let's see how much you trust your statistics. How much are you willing to place on a bet that Wolves will finish exactly fourth from bottom? On 20/12/2011, at 10:20 , Steven Millward wrote: 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
Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Nothing. I showed you a table that showed that 18 of 20 teams were within 3 places of the forecast and 15 were within 2 places. There is an element of luck and other factors in this as I explained in my earlier response to Matt. It's not a perfect model but it explains 90% of variability. On 20 December 2011 10:22, Marcus Chantry chant...@iinet.net.au wrote: ok, let's see how much you trust your statistics. How much are you willing to place on a bet that Wolves will finish exactly fourth from bottom? On 20/12/2011, at 10:20 , Steven Millward wrote: 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
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.auwrote: ** 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.auwrote: ** 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.comwrote: 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
Re: [NSWolves] Climate change
Yeah, its generally called 'Climate Change' now, because the scientists and statiticians who were previously calling it 'Global Warming' couldnt explain why temperatures have been going down in recent years, and so rather than reconsider their own belief system, changed its name instead. On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Jeremy Tonks to...@hotkey.net.au wrote: ** ** ** ** ** ** ** This is what I was reading… it’s seriously laughable – especially when you actually read the original research. The press release is a total fabrication! ** ** http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2011/28JacobsWalnut.html -- *From:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** [mailto:**nswolves@googlegroups.com* *] *On Behalf Of *Marcus Chantry *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:40 AM *To:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] ** ** 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 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 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 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 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 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] ** **
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 lee.mor...@defence.gov.auwrote: ** *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 pcr...@contechengineering.comwrote: 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
RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
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.aumailto: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.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 9:36 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.commailto: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.aumailto: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.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 9:23 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.commailto: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.commailto: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
RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
Steve, It is not my gut feel. I was using your figures from last season and also applied them to the season so far. I am not convinced, please send me your Professor's spreadsheet so I can study your claims? Thanks in advance Dopameine Deficient Crowe 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 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 88 Wolves 17 18 1 Wigan 18 16 2 Blackburn 19 12 7 Bolton20 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 1910 Swansea 12 208 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 http://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 -
RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
If you can't back up your claims with numbers Paul they can only be one of two things - gut feel or voodoo. Which is it? From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Crowe Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 2:30 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew Steve, It is not my gut feel. I was using your figures from last season and also applied them to the season so far. I am not convinced, please send me your Professor's spreadsheet so I can study your claims? Thanks in advance Dopameine Deficient Crowe 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.commailto:pcr...@contechengineering.com Website: www.contechengineering.comhttp://www.contechengineering.com 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.commailto: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 88 Wolves 17 18 1 Wigan 18 16 2 Blackburn 19 12 7 Bolton20 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 1910 Swansea 12 208 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.commailto:pcr...@contechengineering.com Website: www.contechengineering.comhttp://www.contechengineering.com/ From: nswolves@googlegroups.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 6:31 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.commailto: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
RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages
I'm sure if you applied the same to manager/coach wages over the lifetime of the Premiership you would see a high correlation between the teams that have spent the most on these wages and league position, proving that (assuming the better the manager/coach the more their value in a free market) having a decent manager and coaching staff is all important as it directly correlates to success in the league? From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 2:36 PM To: nswolves Subject: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages Here's the wages data that Paul Crowe asked for, It's more or less the same as the data I have already shared. West Ham is an outlier and linear regression is not robust so you get a stronger r-squared when you take it out. God knows what happened to them last season -- Boo! Thick Mick Out. 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.
RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages
Jeremy - can you find out what happened to West Ham last season please. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 2:36 PM To: nswolves Subject: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages Here's the wages data that Paul Crowe asked for, It's more or less the same as the data I have already shared. West Ham is an outlier and linear regression is not robust so you get a stronger r-squared when you take it out. God knows what happened to them last season -- Boo! Thick Mick Out. 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.
Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
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.auwrote: ** 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.auwrote: ** 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.auwrote: ** 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.comwrote: 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
RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
Voodoo then. However, I have backed them up with Steve's figures, 2 anomaly's from last season and at least 4 anomaly's so far this season. Not very conclusive at all! 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 LEESE Matthew Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 2:35 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew If you can't back up your claims with numbers Paul they can only be one of two things - gut feel or voodoo. Which is it? _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Crowe Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 2:30 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew Steve, It is not my gut feel. I was using your figures from last season and also applied them to the season so far. I am not convinced, please send me your Professor's spreadsheet so I can study your claims? Thanks in advance Dopameine Deficient Crowe 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 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 88 Wolves 17 18 1 Wigan 18 16 2 Blackburn 19 12 7 Bolton20 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 1910 Swansea 12 208 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 http://www.contechengineering.com/ From:
Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
This is the equivalent of trying to prove that smoking isn't bad for you by claiming that your grandfather smoked sixty a day and lived to be 100. We're not talking about Mick being a non-league manager. He is competent and experienced. Also if we got rid of him we're not replacing him with Ferguson. By the way the data in my spreadsheet is one year only and doesn't have the same level of significance as the author of Soccernomics found after looking at much more data. It's he that I quoted 90% being explained by wages. He's spend far more time on it than I have On 20 December 2011 14:05, LEESE Matthew matthew.le...@rms.nsw.gov.auwrote: ** 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.auwrote: ** 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.auwrote: ** 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
RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages
Thanks Steve but this is only for last season, what about previous seasons? 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: mailto:pcr...@contechengineering.com pcr...@contechengineering.com Website: http://www.contechengineering.com www.contechengineering.com From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 2:36 PM To: nswolves Subject: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages Here's the wages data that Paul Crowe asked for, It's more or less the same as the data I have already shared. West Ham is an outlier and linear regression is not robust so you get a stronger r-squared when you take it out. God knows what happened to them last season -- Boo! Thick Mick Out. -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
Anomolies are to be expected. It's part of life. Most things in life follow what is called a normal distribution, often known as the bell curve. You get a lot of cases around the average and then a few outliers. The outliers could be caused by a range of factors but it's perfectly reasonable to expect it. The shorter the timeframe the more chance of variance to the normal distribution, as I explained with my coin toss example earlier. Maybe Marcus can get an actuary to look at it. On 20 December 2011 14:58, Paul Crowe pcr...@contechengineering.com wrote: Voodoo then. However, I have backed them up with Steve’s figures, 2 anomaly’s from last season and at least 4 anomaly’s so far this season.*** * ** ** Not very conclusive at all! ** ** 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 *LEESE Matthew *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 2:35 PM *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew ** ** If you can't back up your claims with numbers Paul they can only be one of two things - gut feel or voodoo. Which is it? ** ** -- *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Paul Crowe *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 2:30 PM *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew Steve, ** ** It is not my gut feel. I was using your figures from last season and also applied them to the season so far. ** ** I am not convinced, please send me your Professor’s spreadsheet so I can study your claims? ** ** Thanks in advance ** ** Dopameine Deficient Crowe ** ** 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 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 88 Wolves 17 18 1 Wigan 18 16 2** ** Blackburn 19 12 7 Bolton20 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
Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
Because if teams started doing it thyen it would be represented in the figures. However they don't so it seems that all premier league managers have similar levels of skill On 20 December 2011 15:00, LEESE Matthew matthew.le...@rms.nsw.gov.auwrote: ** But if 90% of it were explained by manager's wages, where does that leave your figures? -- *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Steven Millward *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 2:59 PM *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew This is the equivalent of trying to prove that smoking isn't bad for you by claiming that your grandfather smoked sixty a day and lived to be 100. We're not talking about Mick being a non-league manager. He is competent and experienced. Also if we got rid of him we're not replacing him with Ferguson. By the way the data in my spreadsheet is one year only and doesn't have the same level of significance as the author of Soccernomics found after looking at much more data. It's he that I quoted 90% being explained by wages. He's spend far more time on it than I have On 20 December 2011 14:05, LEESE Matthew matthew.le...@rms.nsw.gov.auwrote: ** 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.auwrote: ** 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.auwrote: ** 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
RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages
Dear Steve, I found these figures on the web from Deloitte's annual football report for season 2009 to 2010, the season before your figures. Results as follows: Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference Burnley. .18..191 Fulham12...11.. ..-1 Stoke11...14.. ..3 Spurs..57. ...2 Man Utd..23... ..1 Wolves..18...15... .3 Blackpool...19...20... .1 Arsenal...3.5. ...2 Everton..8.8.. ..0 Wigan...16...15... .-1 Hull City..19...16 -3 Bolton...13...14.. ..1 Chelsea..1.1.. .0 Birmingham.17...9 ..8 Man City.5.2.. .-3 Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 Sunderland.108 -2 Aston villa...9.6...-3 Blackburn...15...12... -3 West Ham..1710...-7 Compared to your results for last season 2010 to 2011: 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 Ok, pretty similar results. The 2 x anomaly's for 2009 to 2010 being Birmingham and West Ham. Interesting that West Ham went up 2 x places in terms of the wage table for last season compared to the previous year but ended up finishing bottom and were relegated. Pity Deloitte do not publish their reports. Anybody have the figures for the season 2008 to 2009? Still not convinced Manager's have no effect whatsoever and that 90% of team performance is directly attributed to wage bill spend. 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: mailto:pcr...@contechengineering.com pcr...@contechengineering.com Website: http://www.contechengineering.com www.contechengineering.com From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 2:36 PM To: nswolves Subject: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages Here's the wages data that Paul Crowe asked for, It's more or less the same as the data I have already shared. West Ham is an outlier and linear regression is not robust so you get a stronger r-squared when you take it out. God knows what happened to them last season -- Boo! Thick Mick Out. -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
FW: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages
Sorry I got the results for the Wolves the wrong way round and I did not delete Blackpool, corrected table below. Dear Steve, I found these figures on the web from Deloitte's annual football report for season 2009 to 2010, the season before your figures. Results as follows: Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference Burnley. .18..191 Fulham12...11.. ..-1 Stoke11...14.. ..3 Spurs..57. ...2 Man Utd..23... ..1 Wolves..15...18... .3 Arsenal...3.5. ...2 Everton..8.8.. ..0 Wigan...16...15... .-1 Hull City..19...16 -3 Bolton...13...14.. ..1 Chelsea..1.1.. .0 Birmingham.17...9 ..8 Man City.5.2.. .-3 Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 Sunderland.108 -2 Aston villa...9.6...-3 Blackburn...15...12... -3 West Ham..1710...-7 Note: No results were given to Deloitte by Portsmouth Compared to your results for last season 2010 to 2011: 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 Ok, pretty similar results. The 2 x anomaly's for 2009 to 2010 being Birmingham and West Ham. Interesting that West Ham went up 2 x places in terms of the wage table for last season compared to the previous year but ended up finishing bottom and were relegated. Pity Deloitte do not publish their reports. Anybody have the figures for the season 2008 to 2009? Still not convinced Manager's have no effect whatsoever and that 90% of team performance is directly attributed to wage bill spend. 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: mailto:pcr...@contechengineering.com pcr...@contechengineering.com Website: http://www.contechengineering.com www.contechengineering.com -- Boo! Thick Mick Out. ---BeginMessage--- Dear Steve, I found these figures on the web from Deloitte's annual football report for season 2009 to 2010, the season before your figures. Results as follows: Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference Burnley. .18..191 Fulham12...11.. ..-1 Stoke11...14.. ..3 Spurs..57. ...2 Man Utd..23... ..1 Wolves..18...15... .3 Blackpool...19...20... .1 Arsenal...3.5. ...2 Everton..8.8.. ..0 Wigan...16...15... .-1 Hull City..19...16 -3 Bolton...13...14.. ..1 Chelsea..1.1.. .0 Birmingham.17...9 ..8 Man City.5.2.. .-3 Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 Sunderland.108 -2 Aston
Re: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages
I'll shout it this time so it gets heard: I'VE ONLY GOT DATA FOR ONE SEASON. THE AUTHOR OF SOCCERNOMICS HAS DONE ANALYSIS ON MORE YEARS OF DATA On 20 December 2011 14:59, Paul Crowe pcr...@contechengineering.com wrote: Thanks Steve but this is only for last season, what about previous seasons? ** ** 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 2:36 PM *To:* nswolves *Subject:* [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages ** ** Here's the wages data that Paul Crowe asked for, It's more or less the same as the data I have already shared. West Ham is an outlier and linear regression is not robust so you get a stronger r-squared when you take it out. God knows what happened to them last season -- Boo! Thick Mick Out. -- Boo! Thick Mick Out. -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
Re: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages
But you have to admit, there is a very strong relationship. Don't worry about the anomolies. They aren't important. Bear in mind also that wages are not a perfect analogue for player quality, which is the real determinant of league position. A great players can join a club on 30k a week but he is really worth 50k a week. This is especially true for youth players where value and negotiating position are weaker. I know it's a hard thing to trust, but stats can genuinely identify the amount of varaibility that is explained by a factor. You might not agree that managers account for about 3% of final position but you're surely changing your mind about the importance of a manager? On 20 December 2011 16:14, Paul Crowe pcr...@contechengineering.com wrote: Dear Steve, ** ** I found these figures on the web from Deloitte’s annual football report for season 2009 to 2010, the season before your figures. Results as follows: ** ** Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference Burnley. .18..191 Fulham12...11.. ..-1 Stoke11...14.. ..3 Spurs..57. ...2 Man Utd..23... ..1 Wolves..18...15... .3 Blackpool...19...20... .1 Arsenal...3.5. ...2 Everton..8.8.. ..0 Wigan...16...15... .-1 Hull City..19...16 -3 Bolton...13...14.. ..1 Chelsea..1.1.. .0 Birmingham.17...9 ..8 Man City.5.2.. .-3 Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 Sunderland.108 -2 Aston villa...9.6...-3 Blackburn...15...12... -3 West Ham..1710...-7 Compared to your results for last season 2010 to 2011: ** ** 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 ** ** Ok, pretty similar results. The 2 x anomaly’s for 2009 to 2010 being Birmingham and West Ham. Interesting that West Ham went up 2 x places in terms of the wage table for last season compared to the previous year but ended up finishing bottom and were relegated. Pity Deloitte do not publish their reports. Anybody have the figures for the season 2008 to 2009? Still not convinced Manager’s have no effect whatsoever and that 90% of team performance is directly attributed to wage bill spend. 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 2:36 PM *To:* nswolves *Subject:* [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages ** ** Here's the wages data that Paul Crowe asked for, It's more or less the same as the data I have already shared. West Ham is an outlier and linear regression is not robust so you get a stronger r-squared when you take it out. God knows what happened to them last season -- Boo! Thick Mick Out. -- Boo! Thick Mick Out. -- Boo! Thick Mick
RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages
I think they got relegated. _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LEESE Matthew Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 2:46 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages Jeremy - can you find out what happened to West Ham last season please. _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 2:36 PM To: nswolves Subject: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages Here's the wages data that Paul Crowe asked for, It's more or less the same as the data I have already shared. West Ham is an outlier and linear regression is not robust so you get a stronger r-squared when you take it out. God knows what happened to them last season -- Boo! Thick Mick Out. Logo http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/images/permanent/RMS_Email_Logo.png 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.
