RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
Not really sure I have a view. I’m probably not expecting it to happen… But then again I’m not expecting Anthropogenic Catastrophic Global Warming any time soon… Well – we live and learn. _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2011 7:03 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew Jeremy what's the view on intelligent life on other planets? We seem to be discovering a lot that potentially host life. Seems a very big place just for us. On 22/12/2011, at 5:02 PM, "Rog & Reet" wrote: Does that include the sun not getting rid of earth in approx 5 billion years? We’re getting a celestial message on Sunday morning. The tail of comet Lovejoy, is there a message in that name or what, can be seen in the south eastern sky around 4:30am. It’s a wonder the usual flips and cranks haven’t started spreading their bollix yet. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2011 4:46 PM To: <mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew I would have thought that that meant that God put it here and no one else can get rid of it… …just my reading of the text? _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2011 4:40 PM To: <mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved Psalm 93 the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved Chronicles 16:30 I think that was the objection On 22 December 2011 16:34, Jeremy Tonks < <mailto:to...@hotkey.net.au> to...@hotkey.net.au> wrote: I’m not convinced it does say that exactly? The Bible certainly gets lots of other things wrong: Eg it is naïve enough to talk about the sun going up and going down – I mean how stupid and outdated is that? _ From: <mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto: <mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2011 4:30 PM To: <mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew I stand by my analogy. It was written in the bible that the earth was at the centre of the universe. No amount of scientific evidence could have convinced the court otherwise. On 22 December 2011 16:15, Rog & Reet < <mailto:rognr...@exemail.com.au> rognr...@exemail.com.au> wrote: Oops, the perils of multi-tasking. That last line should have read. You can’t possibly be holding anything back as Galileo did, Kepler’s laws, that would have helped prove his point. From: <mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto: <mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rog & Reet Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2011 3:39 PM To: <mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew Tell us it ain’t so. You can’t possibly be holding anything back as Galileo did, Kepler’s laws, to prove his point. From: <mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto: <mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2011 2:29 PM To: <mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew Maybe it's the event of the change that itself that it detrimental. New person in, worries amongst players etc, gap when there is no manager. l feel like Galileo when he was accused of heresy for saying that the Earth went round the sun and not the other way around. I realise that the view that the manager is of enormous importance to a football team's performance is long-held and has been with you all probably since childhood (it's not written in the Bible is it Jeremy?) And I know it is hard to let go of, but all of the scientific evidence says that it's just not the case. I've not nothing to gain from proving this, as based on this, whether we keep Mick or change him makes bugger all difference. I'm just doing it in the spirit of enlightened discussion. On 22 December 2011 14:08, LEESE Matthew < <mailto:matthew.le...@rms.nsw.gov.au> matthew.le...@rms.nsw.gov.au> wrote: But I didn't think managers could have a measurable impact on results/performance? _ From: <mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:
Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
Jeremy what's the view on intelligent life on other planets? We seem to be discovering a lot that potentially host life. Seems a very big place just for us. On 22/12/2011, at 5:02 PM, "Rog & Reet" wrote: > Does that include the sun not getting rid of earth in approx 5 billion years? > > > > We’re getting a celestial message on Sunday morning. > > The tail of comet Lovejoy, is there a message in that name or what, can > be seen in the south eastern sky around 4:30am. > > It’s a wonder the usual flips and cranks haven’t started spreading their > bollix yet. > > > > > > > > From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Jeremy Tonks > Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2011 4:46 PM > To: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > > > I would have thought that that meant that God put it here and no one else can > get rid of it… > > > > …just my reading of the text? > > > > > > From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Steven Millward > Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2011 4:40 PM > To: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > > > the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved Psalm 93 > > the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved Chronicles > 16:30 > > > > I think that was the objection > > On 22 December 2011 16:34, Jeremy Tonks wrote: > > I’m not convinced it does say that exactly? > > The Bible certainly gets lots of other things wrong: > > Eg it is naïve enough to talk about the sun going up and going down – I mean > how stupid and outdated is that? > > > > > > From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Steven Millward > Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2011 4:30 PM > To: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > > > I stand by my analogy. It was written in the bible that the earth was at the > centre of the universe. No amount of scientific evidence could have > convinced the court otherwise. > > > > > > > > > On 22 December 2011 16:15, Rog & Reet wrote: > > Oops, the perils of multi-tasking. > > That last line should have read. > > > > You can’t possibly be holding anything back as Galileo did, Kepler’s laws, > that would have helped prove his point. > > > > > > > > > > From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Rog & Reet > Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2011 3:39 PM > To: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > > > Tell us it ain’t so. > > You can’t possibly be holding anything back as Galileo did, Kepler’s laws, to > prove his point. > > > > > > > > From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Steven Millward > Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2011 2:29 PM > To: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > > > Maybe it's the event of the change that itself that it detrimental. New > person in, worries amongst players etc, gap when there is no manager. > > > > l feel like Galileo when he was accused of heresy for saying that the Earth > went round the sun and not the other way around. > > > > I realise that the view that the manager is of enormous importance to a > football team's performance is long-held and has been with you all probably > since childhood (it's not written in the Bible is it Jeremy?) And I know it > is hard to let go of, but all of the scientific evidence says that it's just > not the case. > > > > I've not nothing to gain from proving this, as based on this, whether we keep > Mick or change him makes bugger all difference. I'm just doing it in the > spirit of enlightened discussion. > > > > > > > On 22 December 2011 14:08, LEESE Matthew wrote: > > > > But I didn't think managers could have a measurable impact on > results/performance? > > > > From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Steven Millward > Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2011 1:47 PM > To: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > "Overall, these results suggest that on average, a change of manager that > takes place within-seas
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 wrote: > ** > 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 wrote: > >> ** >> Do you believe that if you took Man United and replaced Ferguson with a >> manager from a non League club (a more realistic proposal than Marcus' >> month each in charge for designated fans) that Man United would still >> finish in the top 3 of the Premiership? >> >> -- >> *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On >> Behalf Of *Steven Millward >> *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 10:45 AM >> >> *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com >> *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew >> >> It might even be that managers work at local club level and even in >> some of the lower divisions in England, which is where you have seen >> results and formed opinions. My analysis is only on the Premier league >> where money is bigger. >> >> It's just that another 5m of player wages completely negates the impact >> of anything a manager at another club can do. >> >> On 20 December 2011 09:55, LEESE Matthew wrote: >> >>> ** >>> Wages are quantifiable and can therefore be used to present figures to >>> support an argument. A manager/coach's ability is less >>> tangible/quantifiable and so its difficult to present an argument for their >>> importance that is backed by numbers. The fact that they have for many >>> years been seen as such a valuable commodity by football clubs across the >>> world would suggest their (misguided?) value is greater than your numbers >>> suggest. I can't give you numbers to support that, can only point to years >>> of the football world apparently getting it wrong. >>> >>> I don't believe for a moment that at international level if each country >>> simply picked the 11 highest paid players available to them that that would >>> be the key to success. There's far more to it than that - the old 'team of >>> great individuals' - but it seems unless it is quantifiable by stats it >>> can't be true in your opinion. Everyone has different >>> views/beliefs/opinions that are shaped by different factors and experience >>> - in this instance my views are based on years of playing and watching >>> football, whereas yours are based on years of number crunching. >>> >>> -- >>> *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On >>> Behalf Of *Steven Millward >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 9:36 AM >>> >>> *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com >>> *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew >>> >>> I'm saying that the difference between a competent mamanger and a >>> great manager is very small. As most managers are competent and have their >>> coaching badges then there is little upside from having a better one in the >>> *current system*. >>> >>> If there was a salary and transfer cap then management would be more >>> important. However, if management is only 3% as important as wages then >>> having the greatest manager at Wolves would only be the same as having an >>> extra 1m on a 30m wage bill. Even if was was all of the remaining 10% then >>> it still wouldn't be a transformative factor in performance. >>>
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 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 > 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
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 wrote: > ** > Do you believe that if you took Man United and replaced Ferguson with a > manager from a non League club (a more realistic proposal than Marcus' > month each in charge for designated fans) that Man United would still > finish in the top 3 of the Premiership? > > -- > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 10:45 AM > > *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > It might even be that managers work at local club level and even in > some of the lower divisions in England, which is where you have seen > results and formed opinions. My analysis is only on the Premier league > where money is bigger. > > It's just that another 5m of player wages completely negates the impact of > anything a manager at another club can do. > > On 20 December 2011 09:55, LEESE Matthew wrote: > >> ** >> Wages are quantifiable and can therefore be used to present figures to >> support an argument. A manager/coach's ability is less >> tangible/quantifiable and so its difficult to present an argument for their >> importance that is backed by numbers. The fact that they have for many >> years been seen as such a valuable commodity by football clubs across the >> world would suggest their (misguided?) value is greater than your numbers >> suggest. I can't give you numbers to support that, can only point to years >> of the football world apparently getting it wrong. >> >> I don't believe for a moment that at international level if each country >> simply picked the 11 highest paid players available to them that that would >> be the key to success. There's far more to it than that - the old 'team of >> great individuals' - but it seems unless it is quantifiable by stats it >> can't be true in your opinion. Everyone has different >> views/beliefs/opinions that are shaped by different factors and experience >> - in this instance my views are based on years of playing and watching >> football, whereas yours are based on years of number crunching. >> >> ------ >> *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On >> Behalf Of *Steven Millward >> *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 9:36 AM >> >> *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com >> *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew >> >> I'm saying that the difference between a competent mamanger and a >> great manager is very small. As most managers are competent and have their >> coaching badges then there is little upside from having a better one in the >> *current system*. >> >> If there was a salary and transfer cap then management would be more >> important. However, if management is only 3% as important as wages then >> having the greatest manager at Wolves would only be the same as having an >> extra 1m on a 30m wage bill. Even if was was all of the remaining 10% then >> it still wouldn't be a transformative factor in performance. >> >> The average tenure of a manager now is 18 months in England. Whyis >> that? Clubs appoint managers after selecting the best one and then find >> that they haven't got it right. It looks to me like something where it's >> expected to have an impact but doesn't >> >> Managers absorb all of the negativity from fans and then are purged. >> It's a strange cultural phenomenon. >> >> >> >> On 20 December 2011 09:30, LEESE Matthew 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?
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 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.contec
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 wrote: > ** > Do you believe that if you took Man United and replaced Ferguson with a > manager from a non League club (a more realistic proposal than Marcus' > month each in charge for designated fans) that Man United would still > finish in the top 3 of the Premiership? > > -- > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 10:45 AM > > *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > It might even be that managers work at local club level and even in > some of the lower divisions in England, which is where you have seen > results and formed opinions. My analysis is only on the Premier league > where money is bigger. > > It's just that another 5m of player wages completely negates the impact of > anything a manager at another club can do. > > On 20 December 2011 09:55, LEESE Matthew wrote: > >> ** >> Wages are quantifiable and can therefore be used to present figures to >> support an argument. A manager/coach's ability is less >> tangible/quantifiable and so its difficult to present an argument for their >> importance that is backed by numbers. The fact that they have for many >> years been seen as such a valuable commodity by football clubs across the >> world would suggest their (misguided?) value is greater than your numbers >> suggest. I can't give you numbers to support that, can only point to years >> of the football world apparently getting it wrong. >> >> I don't believe for a moment that at international level if each country >> simply picked the 11 highest paid players available to them that that would >> be the key to success. There's far more to it than that - the old 'team of >> great individuals' - but it seems unless it is quantifiable by stats it >> can't be true in your opinion. Everyone has different >> views/beliefs/opinions that are shaped by different factors and experience >> - in this instance my views are based on years of playing and watching >> football, whereas yours are based on years of number crunching. >> >> ---------- >> *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On >> Behalf Of *Steven Millward >> *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 9:36 AM >> >> *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com >> *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew >> >> I'm saying that the difference between a competent mamanger and a >> great manager is very small. As most managers are competent and have their >> coaching badges then there is little upside from having a better one in the >> *current system*. >> >> If there was a salary and transfer cap then management would be more >> important. However, if management is only 3% as important as wages then >> having the greatest manager at Wolves would only be the same as having an >> extra 1m on a 30m wage bill. Even if was was all of the remaining 10% then >> it still wouldn't be a transformative factor in performance. >> >> The average tenure of a manager now is 18 months in England. Whyis >> that? Clubs appoint managers after selecting the best one and then find >> that they haven't got it right. It looks to me like something where it's >> expected to have an impact but doesn't >> >> Managers absorb all of the negativity from fans and then are purged. >> It's a strange cultural phenomenon. >> >> >> >> On 20 December 2011 09:30, LEESE Matthew 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 s
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<mailto: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 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 mailto: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<mailto:pcr...@contechengineering.com> Website: www.contechengineering.com<http://www.contechengineering.com/> From: nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com>] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 6:31 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto: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
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 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&
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 mailto:matthew.le...@rms.nsw.gov.au>> wrote: Wages are quantifiable and can therefore be used to present figures to support an argument. A manager/coach's ability is less tangible/quantifiable and so its difficult to present an argument for their importance that is backed by numbers. The fact that they have for many years been seen as such a valuable commodity by football clubs across the world would suggest their (misguided?) value is greater than your numbers suggest. I can't give you numbers to support that, can only point to years of the football world apparently getting it wrong. I don't believe for a moment that at international level if each country simply picked the 11 highest paid players available to them that that would be the key to success. There's far more to it than that - the old 'team of great individuals' - but it seems unless it is quantifiable by stats it can't be true in your opinion. Everyone has different views/beliefs/opinions that are shaped by different factors and experience - in this instance my views are based on years of playing and watching football, whereas yours are based on years of number crunching. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com>] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 9:36 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto: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 mailto: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> [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com>] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 9:23 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto: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 mailto:pcr...@contechengineering.com>> wrote: Morning Steve, Are you winding us up? Or do you seriously believe "There's no room t
Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Yes, so using this theory: West Brom are 8 places above where they should be Liverpool are 2 places below where they should be Same man responsible for both. Is he a good manager or a bad manager? On 20 December 2011 08:08, Morris, Lee SGT wrote: > ** > > *UNCLASSIFIED* > So using this theory, West Brom are 8 places above where they should be, > simply because they found a bloody good manager to replace the dross they > had previoulsyI rest my case. > > Again using West Brom as an example, we were just about on equal terms > when they appointed their current manager whilst we continued to battle > along with MM. > > Of course wages make a difference, as the table below shows, BUT the need > for higher quality should have been staring MM and Steve Morgan in the face > after the struggle last season...I blame Morgan for jumping the gun with > the stadium...rather than spending more on players, but I understand the > timing aspect re the economy..I blame Mick for the way we play...its > horrible sub standard stuff...I think I enjoyed the championship more. > > > > *IMPORTANT*: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence > and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If > you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the > sender and delete the email. > -- > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 05:31 > *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > I've taken my points on to Molineux Mix if anyone's interested > http://molineuxmix.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?t=66061 > > Here's some more interesting data in the table below. > > League rank is the position that the team finished in the league > Wage rank is the position forecast by wages > > You'll notice that wages are a great predicitor of league position. > 10 teams are within one position of their prediction. > 15 teams are within two positions of their prediction > 18 teams are within three positions of their prediction. > > I've sorted the table by the last column which is the difference between > the league and wage ranking. The teams at the top are the ones that > seemingly outperformed their resources. > > You'll notice all the "good" managers are near the top of the list: > Hodgson - Pulis - Redknapp - Ferguson - *McCARTHY* > > The way I see if you can say that *either* management is important and > Mick is a good manager *or* management is unimportant. > > There's no room to say that managment is important and Mick is a bad > manager because the facts don't support it. > > Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference > West Brom..11..198 > Fulham8...11.. ..3 > Stoke13...15.. ..2 > Spurs..57. ...2 > Man Utd..13... ..2 > Wolves..17...18... .1 > Blackpool...19...20... .1 > Arsenal...4.5. ...1 > Everton..7.8.. ..1 > Wigan...16...16... .0 > Newcastle..12...12 0 > Bolton...14...14.. ..0 > Chelsea..2.1.. .-1 > Birmingham.18...17 ..-1 > Man City.3.2.. .-1 > Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 > Sunderland.108 -2 > Aston villa...9.6...-3 > Blackburn...15...12... -3 > West Ham..208...-12 > > On 19 December 2011 15:03, Paul Crowe wrote: > >> Hughes’s Granny would be better than MM! >> >> >> >> Maybe we should just enlist a local Gypsy as replacement for MM, as our >> teams performance depends on luck and other dubiously explained factors, >> nothing at all to do with the Manager and his coaching skills? >> >> >> >> Paul Crowe >> >> Sales Manager - Asia Pacific >> >> >> >> ConTech (Sydney Office) >> >> >> >> PO Box 3517 >> >> Rhodes Waterside**** >> >> Rhodes NSW 2138 >> >> Tel: 02 97
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 wrote: > ** > Wages are quantifiable and can therefore be used to present figures to > support an argument. A manager/coach's ability is less > tangible/quantifiable and so its difficult to present an argument for their > importance that is backed by numbers. The fact that they have for many > years been seen as such a valuable commodity by football clubs across the > world would suggest their (misguided?) value is greater than your numbers > suggest. I can't give you numbers to support that, can only point to years > of the football world apparently getting it wrong. > > I don't believe for a moment that at international level if each country > simply picked the 11 highest paid players available to them that that would > be the key to success. There's far more to it than that - the old 'team of > great individuals' - but it seems unless it is quantifiable by stats it > can't be true in your opinion. Everyone has different > views/beliefs/opinions that are shaped by different factors and experience > - in this instance my views are based on years of playing and watching > football, whereas yours are based on years of number crunching. > > -- > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 9:36 AM > > *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > I'm saying that the difference between a competent mamanger and a great > manager is very small. As most managers are competent and have their > coaching badges then there is little upside from having a better one in the > *current system*. > > If there was a salary and transfer cap then management would be more > important. However, if management is only 3% as important as wages then > having the greatest manager at Wolves would only be the same as having an > extra 1m on a 30m wage bill. Even if was was all of the remaining 10% then > it still wouldn't be a transformative factor in performance. > > The average tenure of a manager now is 18 months in England. Whyis that? > Clubs appoint managers after selecting the best one and then find that they > haven't got it right. It looks to me like something where it's expected to > have an impact but doesn't > > Managers absorb all of the negativity from fans and then are purged. It's > a strange cultural phenomenon. > > > > On 20 December 2011 09:30, LEESE Matthew 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 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 Wes
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 wrote: > ** > Wages are quantifiable and can therefore be used to present figures to > support an argument. A manager/coach's ability is less > tangible/quantifiable and so its difficult to present an argument for their > importance that is backed by numbers. The fact that they have for many > years been seen as such a valuable commodity by football clubs across the > world would suggest their (misguided?) value is greater than your numbers > suggest. I can't give you numbers to support that, can only point to years > of the football world apparently getting it wrong. > > I don't believe for a moment that at international level if each country > simply picked the 11 highest paid players available to them that that would > be the key to success. There's far more to it than that - the old 'team of > great individuals' - but it seems unless it is quantifiable by stats it > can't be true in your opinion. Everyone has different > views/beliefs/opinions that are shaped by different factors and experience > - in this instance my views are based on years of playing and watching > football, whereas yours are based on years of number crunching. > > -- > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 9:36 AM > > *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > I'm saying that the difference between a competent mamanger and a great > manager is very small. As most managers are competent and have their > coaching badges then there is little upside from having a better one in the > *current system*. > > If there was a salary and transfer cap then management would be more > important. However, if management is only 3% as important as wages then > having the greatest manager at Wolves would only be the same as having an > extra 1m on a 30m wage bill. Even if was was all of the remaining 10% then > it still wouldn't be a transformative factor in performance. > > The average tenure of a manager now is 18 months in England. Whyis that? > Clubs appoint managers after selecting the best one and then find that they > haven't got it right. It looks to me like something where it's expected to > have an impact but doesn't > > Managers absorb all of the negativity from fans and then are purged. It's > a strange cultural phenomenon. > > > > On 20 December 2011 09:30, LEESE Matthew 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 >> *Su
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 mailto: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> [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com>] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 9:23 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto: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 mailto: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
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 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 wrote: > What about this season? > Sent via BlackBerry® from Telstra > From: Steven Millward > Sender: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:22:34 +1100 > To: > 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 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
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 wrote: > ** > What about this season? > Sent via BlackBerry® from Telstra > -- > *From: *Steven Millward > *Sender: *nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Date: *Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:22:34 +1100 > *To: * > *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 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
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 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 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
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 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 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
Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
What about this season? Sent via BlackBerry® from Telstra -Original Message- From: Steven Millward Sender: nswolves@googlegroups.com Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:22:34 To: 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 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 o
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 mailto: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<mailto:pcr...@contechengineering.com> Website: www.contechengineering.com<http://www.contechengineering.com/> From: nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com>] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 6:31 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto: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 th
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 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
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 mailto: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<mailto:pcr...@contechengineering.com> Website: www.contechengineering.com<http://www.contechengineering.com> From: nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com>] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 2:52 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew Hold the front page. What a scoop! On 19 December 2011 11:09, Paul Hart mailto:wholiga...@gmail
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 wrote: Hughes's Granny would be better than MM! Maybe we should just enlist a local Gypsy as replacement for MM, as our teams performance depends on luck and other dubiously explained factors, nothing at all to do with the Manager and his coaching skills? Paul Crowe Sales Manager - Asia Pacific ConTech (Sydney Office) PO Box 3517 Rhodes Waterside Rhodes NSW 2138 Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 Mob: 0406009562 Email: pcr...@contechengineering.com Website: www.contechengineering.com From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 2:52 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew Hold the front page. What a scoop! On 19 December 2011 11:09, Paul Hart wrote: I spoke to my mate last night in Penn he heard Hughes was there. Well just have to wait and see. Sent from my iPhone On 19/12/2011, at 11:05 AM, Steven Millward wrote: He dared to make a positive comment about Wolves and the filter kicked him out. I've hacked it. Where is that rumour from? On 19 December 2011 11:00, Paul Hart 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
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 wrote: Hughes's Granny would be better than MM! Maybe we should just enlist a local Gypsy as replacement for MM, as our teams performance depends on luck and other dubiously explained factors, nothing at all to do with the Manager and his coaching skills? Paul Crowe Sales Manager - Asia Pacific ConTech (Sydney Office) PO Box 3517 Rhodes Waterside Rhodes NSW 2138 Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 Mob: 0406009562 Email: pcr...@contechengineering.com Website: www.contechengineering.com From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 2:52 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew Hold the front page. What a scoop! On 19 December 2011 11:09, Paul Hart wrote: I spoke to my mate last night in Penn he heard Hughes was there. Well just have to wait and see. Sent from my iPhone On 19/12/2011, at 11:05 AM, Steven Millward wrote: He dared to make a positive comment about Wolves and the filter kicked him out. I've hacked it. Where is that rumour from? On 19 December 2011 11:00, Paul Hart 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
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 mailto: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<mailto:pcr...@contechengineering.com> Website: www.contechengineering.com<http://www.contechengineering.com> From: nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com>] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 2:52 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew Hold the front page. What a scoop! On 19 December 2011 11:09, Paul Hart mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto: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 ???
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 J _ 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 wrote: Hughes's Granny would be better than MM! Maybe we should just enlist a local Gypsy as replacement for MM, as our teams performance depends on luck and other dubiously explained factors, nothing at all to do with the Manager and his coaching skills? Paul Crowe Sales Manager - Asia Pacific ConTech (Sydney Office) PO Box 3517 Rhodes Waterside Rhodes NSW 2138 Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 Mob: 0406009562 Email: pcr...@contechengineering.com Website: www.contechengineering.com From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 2:52 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew Hold the front page. What a scoop! On 19 December 2011 11:09, Paul Hart wrote: I spoke to my mate last night in Penn he heard Hughes was there. Well just have to wait and see. Sent from my iPhone On 19/12/2011, at 11:05 AM, Steven Millward wrote: He dared to make a positive comment about Wolves and the filter kicked him out. I've hacked it. Where is that rumour from? On 19 December 2011 11:00, Paul Hart 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.
RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
I'm not going to put Sunderland in that basket for a few more weeks yet. .and the wages statistics still tell me that Sh*te will fall on their collective backsides sooner rather than later :-) _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:15 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED There lies the problem because first the Baggies and now Sunderland have nicked the obvious candidates...we have dithered too much IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:13 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] You raise good points Lee but you fail in the usual way. just who is it that is going to replace MM? _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:09 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED So using this theory, West Brom are 8 places above where they should be, simply because they found a bloody good manager to replace the dross they had previoulsyI rest my case. Again using West Brom as an example, we were just about on equal terms when they appointed their current manager whilst we continued to battle along with MM. Of course wages make a difference, as the table below shows, BUT the need for higher quality should have been staring MM and Steve Morgan in the face after the struggle last season...I blame Morgan for jumping the gun with the stadium...rather than spending more on players, but I understand the timing aspect re the economy..I blame Mick for the way we play...its horrible sub standard stuff...I think I enjoyed the championship more. IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 05:31 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew I've taken my points on to Molineux Mix if anyone's interested http://molineuxmix.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?t=66061 Here's some more interesting data in the table below. League rank is the position that the team finished in the league Wage rank is the position forecast by wages You'll notice that wages are a great predicitor of league position. 10 teams are within one position of their prediction. 15 teams are within two positions of their prediction 18 teams are within three positions of their prediction. I've sorted the table by the last column which is the difference between the league and wage ranking. The teams at the top are the ones that seemingly outperformed their resources. You'll notice all the "good" managers are near the top of the list: Hodgson - Pulis - Redknapp - Ferguson - McCARTHY The way I see if you can say that either management is important and Mick is a good manager or management is unimportant. There's no room to say that managment is important and Mick is a bad manager because the facts don't support it. Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference West Brom..11..198 Fulham8...11.. ..3 Stoke13...15.. ..2 Spurs..57. ...2 Man Utd..13... ..2 Wolves..17...18... .1 Blackpool...19...20... .1 Arsenal...4.5. ...1 Everton..7.8.. ..1 Wigan...16...16... .0 Newcastle..12...12 0 Bolton...14...14.. ..0 Chelsea..2.1.. .-1 Birmingham.18...17 ..-1 Man City.3.2.. .-1 Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 Sunderland.108 -2 Aston villa...9.6...
RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
UNCLASSIFIED There lies the problem because first the Baggies and now Sunderland have nicked the obvious candidates...we have dithered too much IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:13 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] You raise good points Lee but you fail in the usual way... just who is it that is going to replace MM? From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:09 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED So using this theory, West Brom are 8 places above where they should be, simply because they found a bloody good manager to replace the dross they had previoulsyI rest my case. Again using West Brom as an example, we were just about on equal terms when they appointed their current manager whilst we continued to battle along with MM. Of course wages make a difference, as the table below shows, BUT the need for higher quality should have been staring MM and Steve Morgan in the face after the struggle last season...I blame Morgan for jumping the gun with the stadium...rather than spending more on players, but I understand the timing aspect re the economy..I blame Mick for the way we play...its horrible sub standard stuff...I think I enjoyed the championship more. IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 05:31 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew I've taken my points on to Molineux Mix if anyone's interested http://molineuxmix.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?t=66061 Here's some more interesting data in the table below. League rank is the position that the team finished in the league Wage rank is the position forecast by wages You'll notice that wages are a great predicitor of league position. 10 teams are within one position of their prediction. 15 teams are within two positions of their prediction 18 teams are within three positions of their prediction. I've sorted the table by the last column which is the difference between the league and wage ranking. The teams at the top are the ones that seemingly outperformed their resources. You'll notice all the "good" managers are near the top of the list: Hodgson - Pulis - Redknapp - Ferguson - McCARTHY The way I see if you can say that either management is important and Mick is a good manager or management is unimportant. There's no room to say that managment is important and Mick is a bad manager because the facts don't support it. Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference West Brom..11..198 Fulham8...11.. ..3 Stoke13...15.. ..2 Spurs..57. ...2 Man Utd..13... ..2 Wolves..17...18... .1 Blackpool...19...20... .1 Arsenal...4.5. ...1 Everton..7.8.. ..1 Wigan...16...16... .0 Newcastle..12...12 0 Bolton...14...14.. ..0 Chelsea..2.1.. .-1 Birmingham.18...17 ..-1 Man City.3.2.. .-1 Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 Sunderland.108 -2 Aston villa...9.6...-3 Blackburn...15...12... -3 West Ham..208...-12 On 19 December 2011 15:03, Paul Crowe wrote: Hughes's Granny would be better than MM! Maybe we should just enlist a local Gypsy as replacement for MM, as our teams performance depends on luck and other dubiously explained factors, nothing at all to do w
RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
You raise good points Lee but you fail in the usual way. just who is it that is going to replace MM? _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:09 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED So using this theory, West Brom are 8 places above where they should be, simply because they found a bloody good manager to replace the dross they had previoulsyI rest my case. Again using West Brom as an example, we were just about on equal terms when they appointed their current manager whilst we continued to battle along with MM. Of course wages make a difference, as the table below shows, BUT the need for higher quality should have been staring MM and Steve Morgan in the face after the struggle last season...I blame Morgan for jumping the gun with the stadium...rather than spending more on players, but I understand the timing aspect re the economy..I blame Mick for the way we play...its horrible sub standard stuff...I think I enjoyed the championship more. IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 05:31 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew I've taken my points on to Molineux Mix if anyone's interested http://molineuxmix.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?t=66061 Here's some more interesting data in the table below. League rank is the position that the team finished in the league Wage rank is the position forecast by wages You'll notice that wages are a great predicitor of league position. 10 teams are within one position of their prediction. 15 teams are within two positions of their prediction 18 teams are within three positions of their prediction. I've sorted the table by the last column which is the difference between the league and wage ranking. The teams at the top are the ones that seemingly outperformed their resources. You'll notice all the "good" managers are near the top of the list: Hodgson - Pulis - Redknapp - Ferguson - McCARTHY The way I see if you can say that either management is important and Mick is a good manager or management is unimportant. There's no room to say that managment is important and Mick is a bad manager because the facts don't support it. Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference West Brom..11..198 Fulham8...11.. ..3 Stoke13...15.. ..2 Spurs..57. ...2 Man Utd..13... ..2 Wolves..17...18... .1 Blackpool...19...20... .1 Arsenal...4.5. ...1 Everton..7.8.. ..1 Wigan...16...16... .0 Newcastle..12...12 0 Bolton...14...14.. ..0 Chelsea..2.1.. .-1 Birmingham.18...17 ..-1 Man City.3.2.. .-1 Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 Sunderland.108 -2 Aston villa...9.6...-3 Blackburn...15...12... -3 West Ham..208...-12 On 19 December 2011 15:03, Paul Crowe wrote: Hughes's Granny would be better than MM! Maybe we should just enlist a local Gypsy as replacement for MM, as our teams performance depends on luck and other dubiously explained factors, nothing at all to do with the Manager and his coaching skills? Paul Crowe Sales Manager - Asia Pacific ConTech (Sydney Office) PO Box 3517 Rhodes Waterside Rhodes NSW 2138 Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 Mob: 0406009562 Email: pcr...@contechengineering.com Website: www.contechengineering.com From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 2:52 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew Hold the front page. What a scoop! On 19 December 2011 11:09, Paul Hart wrote: I spoke to my mate last night in Penn he heard Hughes was there. Well just have to wait and see. Sent from my iPhone On 19/12/2011,
RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
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 wrote: Hughes's Granny would be better than MM! Maybe we should just enlist a local Gypsy as replacement for MM, as our teams performance depends on luck and other dubiously explained factors, nothing at all to do with the Manager and his coaching skills? Paul Crowe Sales Manager - Asia Pacific ConTech (Sydney Office) PO Box 3517 Rhodes Waterside Rhodes NSW 2138 Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 Mob: 0406009562 Email: pcr...@contechengineering.com Website: www.contechengineering.com From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 2:52 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew Hold the front page. What a scoop! On 19 December 2011 11:09, Paul Hart wrote: I spoke to my mate last night in Penn he heard Hughes was there. Well just have to wait and see. Sent from my iPhone On 19/12/2011, at 11:05 AM, Steven Millward wrote: He dared to make a positive comment about Wolves and the filter kicked him out. I've hacked it. Where is that rumour from? On 19 December 2011 11:00, Paul Hart 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
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
RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
UNCLASSIFIED
So using this theory, West Brom are 8 places above where they should be,
simply because they found a bloody good manager to replace the dross
they had previoulsyI rest my case.
Again using West Brom as an example, we were just about on equal terms
when they appointed their current manager whilst we continued to battle
along with MM.
Of course wages make a difference, as the table below shows, BUT the
need for higher quality should have been staring MM and Steve Morgan in
the face after the struggle last season...I blame Morgan for jumping the
gun with the stadium...rather than spending more on players, but I
understand the timing aspect re the economy..I blame Mick for the
way we play...its horrible sub standard stuff...I think I enjoyed the
championship more.
IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence
and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914.
If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact
the sender and delete the email.
From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Steven Millward
Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 05:31
To: nswolves@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
I've taken my points on to Molineux Mix if anyone's interested
http://molineuxmix.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?t=66061
Here's some more interesting data in the table below.
League rank is the position that the team finished in the league
Wage rank is the position forecast by wages
You'll notice that wages are a great predicitor of league position.
10 teams are within one position of their prediction.
15 teams are within two positions of their prediction
18 teams are within three positions of their prediction.
I've sorted the table by the last column which is the difference between
the league and wage ranking. The teams at the top are the ones that
seemingly outperformed their resources.
You'll notice all the "good" managers are near the top of the list:
Hodgson - Pulis - Redknapp - Ferguson - McCARTHY
The way I see if you can say that either management is important and
Mick is a good manager or management is unimportant.
There's no room to say that managment is important and Mick is a bad
manager because the facts don't support it.
Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference
West Brom..11..198
Fulham8...11.. ..3
Stoke13...15.. ..2
Spurs..57. ...2
Man Utd..13... ..2
Wolves..17...18... .1
Blackpool...19...20... .1
Arsenal...4.5. ...1
Everton..7.8.. ..1
Wigan...16...16... .0
Newcastle..12...12 0
Bolton...14...14.. ..0
Chelsea..2.1.. .-1
Birmingham.18...17 ..-1
Man City.3.2.. .-1
Liverpool.6.4. ..-2
Sunderland.108 -2
Aston villa...9.6...-3
Blackburn...15...12... -3
West Ham..208...-12
On 19 December 2011 15:03, Paul Crowe
wrote:
Hughes's Granny would be better than MM!
Maybe we should just enlist a local Gypsy as replacement for
MM, as our teams performance depends on luck and other dubiously
explained factors, nothing at all to do with the Manager and his
coaching skills?
Paul Crowe
Sales Manager - Asia Pacific
ConTech (Sydney Office)
PO Box 3517
Rhodes Waterside
Rhodes NSW 2138
Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542
Mob: 0406009562
Email: pcr...@contechengineering.com
Website: www.contechengineering.com
From: nswolves@googlegroups.com
[mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward
Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 2:52 PM
To: nswolves@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
Hold the front page. What a scoop!
On 19 December 2011 11:09, Paul Hart
wrote:
I spoke to my mate last night in Penn he heard Hughes was there.
Well just have to wait and see.
Sent from my iPhone
On 19/12/2011, at 11:05 AM, Steven Millward
wrote:
He dared to make a positive comment abou
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 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.
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 wrote: Hughes's Granny would be better than MM! Maybe we should just enlist a local Gypsy as replacement for MM, as our teams performance depends on luck and other dubiously explained factors, nothing at all to do with the Manager and his coaching skills? Paul Crowe Sales Manager - Asia Pacific ConTech (Sydney Office) PO Box 3517 Rhodes Waterside Rhodes NSW 2138 Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 Mob: 0406009562 Email: pcr...@contechengineering.com Website: www.contechengineering.com From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 2:52 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew Hold the front page. What a scoop! On 19 December 2011 11:09, Paul Hart wrote: I spoke to my mate last night in Penn he heard Hughes was there. Well just have to wait and see. Sent from my iPhone On 19/12/2011, at 11:05 AM, Steven Millward wrote: He dared to make a positive comment about Wolves and the filter kicked him out. I've hacked it. Where is that rumour from? On 19 December 2011 11:00, Paul Hart 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
I've taken my points on to Molineux Mix if anyone's interested http://molineuxmix.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?t=66061 Here's some more interesting data in the table below. League rank is the position that the team finished in the league Wage rank is the position forecast by wages You'll notice that wages are a great predicitor of league position. 10 teams are within one position of their prediction. 15 teams are within two positions of their prediction 18 teams are within three positions of their prediction. I've sorted the table by the last column which is the difference between the league and wage ranking. The teams at the top are the ones that seemingly outperformed their resources. You'll notice all the "good" managers are near the top of the list: Hodgson - Pulis - Redknapp - Ferguson - *McCARTHY* The way I see if you can say that *either* management is important and Mick is a good manager *or* management is unimportant. There's no room to say that managment is important and Mick is a bad manager because the facts don't support it. Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference West Brom..11..198 Fulham8...11.. ..3 Stoke13...15.. ..2 Spurs..57. ...2 Man Utd..13... ..2 Wolves..17...18... .1 Blackpool...19...20... .1 Arsenal...4.5. ...1 Everton..7.8.. ..1 Wigan...16...16... .0 Newcastle..12...12 0 Bolton...14...14.. ..0 Chelsea..2.1.. .-1 Birmingham.18...17 ..-1 Man City.3.2.. .-1 Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 Sunderland.108 -2 Aston villa...9.6...-3 Blackburn...15...12... -3 West Ham..208...-12 On 19 December 2011 15:03, Paul Crowe wrote: > Hughes’s Granny would be better than MM! > > ** ** > > Maybe we should just enlist a local Gypsy as replacement for MM, as our > teams performance depends on luck and other dubiously explained factors, > nothing at all to do with the Manager and his coaching skills? > > ** ** > > Paul Crowe > > Sales Manager - Asia Pacific > > > > ConTech (Sydney Office) > > > > PO Box 3517 > > Rhodes Waterside > > Rhodes NSW 2138 > > Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 > > Mob: 0406009562 > > Email: pcr...@contechengineering.com > > Website: www.contechengineering.com > > ** ** > > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Monday, 19 December 2011 2:52 PM > > *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > ** ** > > Hold the front page. What a scoop! > > On 19 December 2011 11:09, Paul Hart wrote: > > I spoke to my mate last night in Penn he heard Hughes was there. > > ** ** > > Well just have to wait and see. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 19/12/2011, at 11:05 AM, Steven Millward > wrote: > > He dared to make a positive comment about Wolves and the filter kicked him > out. I've hacked it. > > Where is that rumour from? > > On 19 December 2011 11:00, Paul Hart 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'll have the new age plod on your case Paul for calling numerology "dubiously explained factors". From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Crowe Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 3:03 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew Hughes's Granny would be better than MM! Maybe we should just enlist a local Gypsy as replacement for MM, as our teams performance depends on luck and other dubiously explained factors, nothing at all to do with the Manager and his coaching skills? Paul Crowe Sales Manager - Asia Pacific ConTech (Sydney Office) PO Box 3517 Rhodes Waterside Rhodes NSW 2138 Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 Mob: 0406009562 Email: pcr...@contechengineering.com Website: www.contechengineering.com From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 2:52 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew Hold the front page. What a scoop! On 19 December 2011 11:09, Paul Hart wrote: I spoke to my mate last night in Penn he heard Hughes was there. Well just have to wait and see. Sent from my iPhone On 19/12/2011, at 11:05 AM, Steven Millward wrote: He dared to make a positive comment about Wolves and the filter kicked him out. I've hacked it. Where is that rumour from? On 19 December 2011 11:00, Paul Hart 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
He chooses the players. Players and agents know their value and managers know how good players are and bid what they think a player is worth, both in transfer values and personal wages for the player. It's almost a perfect expression of capitalism. Therefore if you have more more money to spend on wages you get better players. It's a free market where money explains 90% of the variation in league position. That means final league position can be almost completely explained and forecast by wage bill. The last 10% is other stuff including manager skill Morgan and Moxey set a wage cap for our club and we have the fourth lowest wages in the division. Therefore we have the fourth worst players and we are fourth worst in the league table. Beautifully simple isn't it? Like something out of a science textbook. On 19 December 2011 15:15, Chantrys wrote: > And who chose the players? And you reckon Mick has eff all to do with our > performances. > > Sent from my iPad > > On 19/12/2011, at 15:06, Steven Millward wrote: > > Get Freddy back. > > Not dubiously explained factors. Just quality of players being the main > factor. > > On 19 December 2011 15:03, Paul Crowe wrote: > >> Hughes’s Granny would be better than MM! >> >> ** ** >> >> Maybe we should just enlist a local Gypsy as replacement for MM, as our >> teams performance depends on luck and other dubiously explained factors, >> nothing at all to do with the Manager and his coaching skills? >> >> ** ** >> >> Paul Crowe >> >> Sales Manager - Asia Pacific >> >> >> >> ConTech (Sydney Office) >> >> >> >> PO Box 3517 >> >> Rhodes Waterside >> >> Rhodes NSW 2138 >> >> Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 >> >> Mob: 0406009562 >> >> Email: pcr...@contechengineering.com >> >> Website: www.contechengineering.com**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On >> Behalf Of *Steven Millward >> *Sent:* Monday, 19 December 2011 2:52 PM >> >> *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com >> *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew >> >> ** ** >> >> Hold the front page. What a scoop! >> >> On 19 December 2011 11:09, Paul Hart wrote: >> >> I spoke to my mate last night in Penn he heard Hughes was there. >> >> ** ** >> >> Well just have to wait and see. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> On 19/12/2011, at 11:05 AM, Steven Millward >> wrote: >> >> He dared to make a positive comment about Wolves and the filter kicked >> him out. I've hacked it. >> >> Where is that rumour from? >> >> On 19 December 2011 11:00, Paul Hart 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.
Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
And who chose the players? And you reckon Mick has eff all to do with our performances. Sent from my iPad On 19/12/2011, at 15:06, Steven Millward wrote: > Get Freddy back. > > Not dubiously explained factors. Just quality of players being the main > factor. > > On 19 December 2011 15:03, Paul Crowe wrote: > Hughes’s Granny would be better than MM! > > > > Maybe we should just enlist a local Gypsy as replacement for MM, as our > teams performance depends on luck and other dubiously explained factors, > nothing at all to do with the Manager and his coaching skills? > > > > Paul Crowe > > Sales Manager - Asia Pacific > > > > ConTech (Sydney Office) > > > > PO Box 3517 > > Rhodes Waterside > > Rhodes NSW 2138 > > Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 > > Mob: 0406009562 > > Email: pcr...@contechengineering.com > > Website: www.contechengineering.com > > > > From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Steven Millward > Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 2:52 PM > > > To: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > > Hold the front page. What a scoop! > > On 19 December 2011 11:09, Paul Hart wrote: > > I spoke to my mate last night in Penn he heard Hughes was there. > > > > Well just have to wait and see. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 19/12/2011, at 11:05 AM, Steven Millward wrote: > > He dared to make a positive comment about Wolves and the filter kicked him > out. I've hacked it. > > Where is that rumour from? > > On 19 December 2011 11:00, Paul Hart 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
Get Freddy back. Not dubiously explained factors. Just quality of players being the main factor. On 19 December 2011 15:03, Paul Crowe wrote: > Hughes’s Granny would be better than MM! > > ** ** > > Maybe we should just enlist a local Gypsy as replacement for MM, as our > teams performance depends on luck and other dubiously explained factors, > nothing at all to do with the Manager and his coaching skills? > > ** ** > > Paul Crowe > > Sales Manager - Asia Pacific > > > > ConTech (Sydney Office) > > > > PO Box 3517 > > Rhodes Waterside > > Rhodes NSW 2138 > > Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 > > Mob: 0406009562 > > Email: pcr...@contechengineering.com > > Website: www.contechengineering.com > > ** ** > > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Monday, 19 December 2011 2:52 PM > > *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > ** ** > > Hold the front page. What a scoop! > > On 19 December 2011 11:09, Paul Hart wrote: > > I spoke to my mate last night in Penn he heard Hughes was there. > > ** ** > > Well just have to wait and see. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 19/12/2011, at 11:05 AM, Steven Millward > wrote: > > He dared to make a positive comment about Wolves and the filter kicked him > out. I've hacked it. > > Where is that rumour from? > > On 19 December 2011 11:00, Paul Hart 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
Hughes's Granny would be better than MM! Maybe we should just enlist a local Gypsy as replacement for MM, as our teams performance depends on luck and other dubiously explained factors, nothing at all to do with the Manager and his coaching skills? Paul Crowe Sales Manager - Asia Pacific ConTech (Sydney Office) PO Box 3517 Rhodes Waterside Rhodes NSW 2138 Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 Mob: 0406009562 Email: pcr...@contechengineering.com Website: www.contechengineering.com From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 2:52 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew Hold the front page. What a scoop! On 19 December 2011 11:09, Paul Hart wrote: I spoke to my mate last night in Penn he heard Hughes was there. Well just have to wait and see. Sent from my iPhone On 19/12/2011, at 11:05 AM, Steven Millward wrote: He dared to make a positive comment about Wolves and the filter kicked him out. I've hacked it. Where is that rumour from? On 19 December 2011 11:00, Paul Hart 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.
Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
Hold the front page. What a scoop! On 19 December 2011 11:09, Paul Hart wrote: > I spoke to my mate last night in Penn he heard Hughes was there. > > Well just have to wait and see. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 19/12/2011, at 11:05 AM, Steven Millward > wrote: > > He dared to make a positive comment about Wolves and the filter kicked him > out. I've hacked it. > > Where is that rumour from? > > On 19 December 2011 11:00, Paul Hart 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.
Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2009/12/16/fact-or-fiction-myths-in-football/ I've seen this before but I can't find the other links. I believe it applies to other sports too such as basketball in the US. Humans look for patterns and tend to see what they want to see. You would most likely have thought you were in form and have attached everything good you did to that Regarding management: - Hodgson, who is supposedly a good manager was terrible with Liverpool. He was "good" at Fulham but only after spending huge sums on players and wages. Everyone who says he's good never explains why he was rubbish at Liverpool. - Dalgleish seemed to improve Liverpool. They have the fourth highest wage bill in the league but they are sixth at the moment. Underperformance by my thinking. The only thing that happened was to turn one good striker into two good ones by converting Torres into Carroll and Suarez. Nice business, but not really football coaching. We also know that he was "good" at Blackburn but recall that they were spending money like water on the best players in the world back when five million was a transfer record. He also took Newcastle from 4th to 2nd to 14th and got sacked for it. He's basically won trophies with teams that should be winning trophies (much like Fergusson and Wenger) - Redknapp got Southampton relegated after nearly thirty years in the top flight, although he seems to overperform with Spurs at the moment. - Macleish got Birmingham relegated but is doing OK at Villa. If he was a bad manager he's be taking Villa down too? - Coyle was great at Burnley and is now rubbish with Bolton - Steve McClaren is reckoned to be one of the most overperforming managers but look what happens when he has no money. My point is that managers become the totems that everything that happens at the club gets attached too. If he buys a lot of new players and the team does better it's because of the manager. But in reality it's almost entirely because of money. On 19 December 2011 11:45, LEESE Matthew wrote: > ** > I'm intrigued by player form having been proven to not exist. I felt I've > had some periods of form over the years (OK, once) and have seen what I > assumed to be this in other players, both professional and ones I've played > with. When a player has a particularly fruitful period that is above his > normal recognised levels, what is this put down to? In my case it could > probably be linked to drinking less beer in the main but there have been > other times where I don't think I've done anything differently, but have > felt I've hit a bit of 'form'. > > -- > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *paul > *Sent:* Monday, 19 December 2011 11:38 AM > *To:* Nsw Wolves > > *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > I would contend that you have no idea what your talking about! > We have all played football at various levels and know how it should be > played. Wolves are not playing or trying to play good football, end of. MM > out! > Sent via BlackBerry® from Telstra > -- > *From: *Steven Millward > *Sender: *nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Date: *Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:31:42 +1100 > *To: * > *ReplyTo: *nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject: *Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > I have to confess I get frustrated by the apparent lack of logic that's > applied to football support. There are many people on here have excellent > analytical abilities and yet it gets unused in the face of what seems more > like superstition and knee jerk emotion. Rog for example applies a great > deal of analysis to backing horses. Marcus works in insurance, where > actuaries are the backbone of the business and are some of the highest paid > statisticians in any profession. > > I took it upon myself to analyse wages versus position last season and > found a correlation stronger than I have ever found in 15 years of > analysing business problems and relationships. I then found that someone > more skilled than me had already done it, which is why I'm going to read > his book. > > The example you give below seems to fall in the superstition camp. We all > form qualitative assessments of managers and how good they are. I would > contend that none of us know what we are talking about when it comes to > assessing managers, and in any case they have little impact on league > position. > > You also mention "form". Player form has been proven not to exist, in > football and any other game. Another superstition based on humans being > pattern seeking and never s
Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
So Doyle isn't in a poor run of form... He's just $hite. Now I understand. Sent from my iPhone On 19/12/2011, at 11:45 AM, LEESE Matthew wrote: > I'm intrigued by player form having been proven to not exist. I felt I've had > some periods of form over the years (OK, once) and have seen what I assumed > to be this in other players, both professional and ones I've played with. > When a player has a particularly fruitful period that is above his normal > recognised levels, what is this put down to? In my case it could probably be > linked to drinking less beer in the main but there have been other times > where I don't think I've done anything differently, but have felt I've hit a > bit of 'form'. > > From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of paul > Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 11:38 AM > To: Nsw Wolves > Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > I would contend that you have no idea what your talking about! > We have all played football at various levels and know how it should be > played. Wolves are not playing or trying to play good football, end of. MM > out! > Sent via BlackBerry® from Telstra > From: Steven Millward > Sender: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:31:42 +1100 > To: > ReplyTo: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > I have to confess I get frustrated by the apparent lack of logic that's > applied to football support. There are many people on here have excellent > analytical abilities and yet it gets unused in the face of what seems more > like superstition and knee jerk emotion. Rog for example applies a great > deal of analysis to backing horses. Marcus works in insurance, where > actuaries are the backbone of the business and are some of the highest paid > statisticians in any profession. > > I took it upon myself to analyse wages versus position last season and found > a correlation stronger than I have ever found in 15 years of analysing > business problems and relationships. I then found that someone more skilled > than me had already done it, which is why I'm going to read his book. > > The example you give below seems to fall in the superstition camp. We all > form qualitative assessments of managers and how good they are. I would > contend that none of us know what we are talking about when it comes to > assessing managers, and in any case they have little impact on league > position. > > You also mention "form". Player form has been proven not to exist, in > football and any other game. Another superstition based on humans being > pattern seeking and never seeking to rigourously justify it. > > I guess this is how most superstitions start. > > > > > On 19 December 2011 11:10, LEESE Matthew wrote: > > The conspiracy theorist in me thought my 'ban' was down to my movement away > from the pro-Mick camp but then realised if that were the case the list would > have 2 active posters. Gave it some more (reasoned) thought and worked out it > was probably down to the fact our email addresses have just been changed at > work and so I was likely not recognised by the server. Shame, I'd fired off a > couple of super witty responses to comments last week that never got through. > > Mark Hughes eh? Interesting one. I had an interesting converstaion with > Elliot on Saturday (really, I did!) about how I wouldn't mind Bolton's poor > form continuing and getting Owen Coyle at Molineux. I had no answer to his > very sound argument that it is pretty ridiculous to be saying 'Not happy with > our current manager, would like to swap him for the one that's currently got > his team bottom of the league'. Despite my extra sobriety now compared to > Saturday, I still don't have an answer, but I do quite like him and > particularly the style of football he gets his teams playing. > > > -Original Message- > From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Paul Hart > Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 11:00 AM > To: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Subject: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > > 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. > > Before printing, please consider theenvironment > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachment to it are intended only to > be read or used by the named addres
RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
I'm also intrigued by the notion that managers have little impact on league position. A couple of recent examples would be Redknapp at Spurs and Dalglish at Liverpool who both took over teams that were around the relegation places and with the same squad as their pre-decessors had them finish in the top 8 the same season (before they had chance to invest in, and change the playing staff). From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LEESE Matthew Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 11:45 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew I'm intrigued by player form having been proven to not exist. I felt I've had some periods of form over the years (OK, once) and have seen what I assumed to be this in other players, both professional and ones I've played with. When a player has a particularly fruitful period that is above his normal recognised levels, what is this put down to? In my case it could probably be linked to drinking less beer in the main but there have been other times where I don't think I've done anything differently, but have felt I've hit a bit of 'form'. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of paul Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 11:38 AM To: Nsw Wolves Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew I would contend that you have no idea what your talking about! We have all played football at various levels and know how it should be played. Wolves are not playing or trying to play good football, end of. MM out! Sent via BlackBerry(r) from Telstra From: Steven Millward Sender: nswolves@googlegroups.com Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:31:42 +1100 To: ReplyTo: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew I have to confess I get frustrated by the apparent lack of logic that's applied to football support. There are many people on here have excellent analytical abilities and yet it gets unused in the face of what seems more like superstition and knee jerk emotion. Rog for example applies a great deal of analysis to backing horses. Marcus works in insurance, where actuaries are the backbone of the business and are some of the highest paid statisticians in any profession. I took it upon myself to analyse wages versus position last season and found a correlation stronger than I have ever found in 15 years of analysing business problems and relationships. I then found that someone more skilled than me had already done it, which is why I'm going to read his book. The example you give below seems to fall in the superstition camp. We all form qualitative assessments of managers and how good they are. I would contend that none of us know what we are talking about when it comes to assessing managers, and in any case they have little impact on league position. You also mention "form". Player form has been proven not to exist, in football and any other game. Another superstition based on humans being pattern seeking and never seeking to rigourously justify it. I guess this is how most superstitions start. On 19 December 2011 11:10, LEESE Matthew mailto:matthew.le...@rms.nsw.gov.au>> wrote: The conspiracy theorist in me thought my 'ban' was down to my movement away from the pro-Mick camp but then realised if that were the case the list would have 2 active posters. Gave it some more (reasoned) thought and worked out it was probably down to the fact our email addresses have just been changed at work and so I was likely not recognised by the server. Shame, I'd fired off a couple of super witty responses to comments last week that never got through. Mark Hughes eh? Interesting one. I had an interesting converstaion with Elliot on Saturday (really, I did!) about how I wouldn't mind Bolton's poor form continuing and getting Owen Coyle at Molineux. I had no answer to his very sound argument that it is pretty ridiculous to be saying 'Not happy with our current manager, would like to swap him for the one that's currently got his team bottom of the league'. Despite my extra sobriety now compared to Saturday, I still don't have an answer, but I do quite like him and particularly the style of football he gets his teams playing. -Original Message- From: nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com>] On Behalf Of Paul Hart Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 11:00 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> Subject: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew 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 ???
RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
I'm intrigued by player form having been proven to not exist. I felt I've had some periods of form over the years (OK, once) and have seen what I assumed to be this in other players, both professional and ones I've played with. When a player has a particularly fruitful period that is above his normal recognised levels, what is this put down to? In my case it could probably be linked to drinking less beer in the main but there have been other times where I don't think I've done anything differently, but have felt I've hit a bit of 'form'. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of paul Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 11:38 AM To: Nsw Wolves Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew I would contend that you have no idea what your talking about! We have all played football at various levels and know how it should be played. Wolves are not playing or trying to play good football, end of. MM out! Sent via BlackBerry(r) from Telstra From: Steven Millward Sender: nswolves@googlegroups.com Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:31:42 +1100 To: ReplyTo: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew I have to confess I get frustrated by the apparent lack of logic that's applied to football support. There are many people on here have excellent analytical abilities and yet it gets unused in the face of what seems more like superstition and knee jerk emotion. Rog for example applies a great deal of analysis to backing horses. Marcus works in insurance, where actuaries are the backbone of the business and are some of the highest paid statisticians in any profession. I took it upon myself to analyse wages versus position last season and found a correlation stronger than I have ever found in 15 years of analysing business problems and relationships. I then found that someone more skilled than me had already done it, which is why I'm going to read his book. The example you give below seems to fall in the superstition camp. We all form qualitative assessments of managers and how good they are. I would contend that none of us know what we are talking about when it comes to assessing managers, and in any case they have little impact on league position. You also mention "form". Player form has been proven not to exist, in football and any other game. Another superstition based on humans being pattern seeking and never seeking to rigourously justify it. I guess this is how most superstitions start. On 19 December 2011 11:10, LEESE Matthew mailto:matthew.le...@rms.nsw.gov.au>> wrote: The conspiracy theorist in me thought my 'ban' was down to my movement away from the pro-Mick camp but then realised if that were the case the list would have 2 active posters. Gave it some more (reasoned) thought and worked out it was probably down to the fact our email addresses have just been changed at work and so I was likely not recognised by the server. Shame, I'd fired off a couple of super witty responses to comments last week that never got through. Mark Hughes eh? Interesting one. I had an interesting converstaion with Elliot on Saturday (really, I did!) about how I wouldn't mind Bolton's poor form continuing and getting Owen Coyle at Molineux. I had no answer to his very sound argument that it is pretty ridiculous to be saying 'Not happy with our current manager, would like to swap him for the one that's currently got his team bottom of the league'. Despite my extra sobriety now compared to Saturday, I still don't have an answer, but I do quite like him and particularly the style of football he gets his teams playing. -Original Message- From: nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com>] On Behalf Of Paul Hart Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 11:00 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> Subject: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew 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. 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
Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
I would contend that you have no idea what your talking about! We have all played football at various levels and know how it should be played. Wolves are not playing or trying to play good football, end of. MM out! Sent via BlackBerry® from Telstra -Original Message- From: Steven Millward Sender: nswolves@googlegroups.com Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:31:42 To: Reply-To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew I have to confess I get frustrated by the apparent lack of logic that's applied to football support. There are many people on here have excellent analytical abilities and yet it gets unused in the face of what seems more like superstition and knee jerk emotion. Rog for example applies a great deal of analysis to backing horses. Marcus works in insurance, where actuaries are the backbone of the business and are some of the highest paid statisticians in any profession. I took it upon myself to analyse wages versus position last season and found a correlation stronger than I have ever found in 15 years of analysing business problems and relationships. I then found that someone more skilled than me had already done it, which is why I'm going to read his book. The example you give below seems to fall in the superstition camp. We all form qualitative assessments of managers and how good they are. I would contend that none of us know what we are talking about when it comes to assessing managers, and in any case they have little impact on league position. You also mention "form". Player form has been proven not to exist, in football and any other game. Another superstition based on humans being pattern seeking and never seeking to rigourously justify it. I guess this is how most superstitions start. On 19 December 2011 11:10, LEESE Matthew wrote: > > The conspiracy theorist in me thought my 'ban' was down to my movement > away from the pro-Mick camp but then realised if that were the case the > list would have 2 active posters. Gave it some more (reasoned) thought and > worked out it was probably down to the fact our email addresses have just > been changed at work and so I was likely not recognised by the server. > Shame, I'd fired off a couple of super witty responses to comments last > week that never got through. > > Mark Hughes eh? Interesting one. I had an interesting converstaion with > Elliot on Saturday (really, I did!) about how I wouldn't mind Bolton's poor > form continuing and getting Owen Coyle at Molineux. I had no answer to his > very sound argument that it is pretty ridiculous to be saying 'Not happy > with our current manager, would like to swap him for the one that's > currently got his team bottom of the league'. Despite my extra sobriety now > compared to Saturday, I still don't have an answer, but I do quite like him > and particularly the style of football he gets his teams playing. > > > -Original Message- > From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On > Behalf Of Paul Hart > Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 11:00 AM > To: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Subject: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > > 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. > > 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. -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
I have to confess I get frustrated by the apparent lack of logic that's applied to football support. There are many people on here have excellent analytical abilities and yet it gets unused in the face of what seems more like superstition and knee jerk emotion. Rog for example applies a great deal of analysis to backing horses. Marcus works in insurance, where actuaries are the backbone of the business and are some of the highest paid statisticians in any profession. I took it upon myself to analyse wages versus position last season and found a correlation stronger than I have ever found in 15 years of analysing business problems and relationships. I then found that someone more skilled than me had already done it, which is why I'm going to read his book. The example you give below seems to fall in the superstition camp. We all form qualitative assessments of managers and how good they are. I would contend that none of us know what we are talking about when it comes to assessing managers, and in any case they have little impact on league position. You also mention "form". Player form has been proven not to exist, in football and any other game. Another superstition based on humans being pattern seeking and never seeking to rigourously justify it. I guess this is how most superstitions start. On 19 December 2011 11:10, LEESE Matthew wrote: > > The conspiracy theorist in me thought my 'ban' was down to my movement > away from the pro-Mick camp but then realised if that were the case the > list would have 2 active posters. Gave it some more (reasoned) thought and > worked out it was probably down to the fact our email addresses have just > been changed at work and so I was likely not recognised by the server. > Shame, I'd fired off a couple of super witty responses to comments last > week that never got through. > > Mark Hughes eh? Interesting one. I had an interesting converstaion with > Elliot on Saturday (really, I did!) about how I wouldn't mind Bolton's poor > form continuing and getting Owen Coyle at Molineux. I had no answer to his > very sound argument that it is pretty ridiculous to be saying 'Not happy > with our current manager, would like to swap him for the one that's > currently got his team bottom of the league'. Despite my extra sobriety now > compared to Saturday, I still don't have an answer, but I do quite like him > and particularly the style of football he gets his teams playing. > > > -Original Message- > From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On > Behalf Of Paul Hart > Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 11:00 AM > To: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Subject: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > > 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. > > 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.
RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
The conspiracy theorist in me thought my 'ban' was down to my movement away from the pro-Mick camp but then realised if that were the case the list would have 2 active posters. Gave it some more (reasoned) thought and worked out it was probably down to the fact our email addresses have just been changed at work and so I was likely not recognised by the server. Shame, I'd fired off a couple of super witty responses to comments last week that never got through. Mark Hughes eh? Interesting one. I had an interesting converstaion with Elliot on Saturday (really, I did!) about how I wouldn't mind Bolton's poor form continuing and getting Owen Coyle at Molineux. I had no answer to his very sound argument that it is pretty ridiculous to be saying 'Not happy with our current manager, would like to swap him for the one that's currently got his team bottom of the league'. Despite my extra sobriety now compared to Saturday, I still don't have an answer, but I do quite like him and particularly the style of football he gets his teams playing. -Original Message- From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Hart Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 11:00 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew 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. 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
I spoke to my mate last night in Penn he heard Hughes was there. Well just have to wait and see. Sent from my iPhone On 19/12/2011, at 11:05 AM, Steven Millward wrote: > He dared to make a positive comment about Wolves and the filter kicked him > out. I've hacked it. > > Where is that rumour from? > > On 19 December 2011 11:00, Paul Hart 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.
Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew
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 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.
