BFTG- Millwall (a)

[SCIAG]

(we didn't get the lift that you normally expect from a change of manager)

No such thing. https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/so ... difference

That's a pretty terrible bit of analysis.

The thinking behind it is based on the fact that clubs average 1.3 points per game, but sack a manager when averaging about 1 point per game, yet three months later will be on about 1.3 a game again.

The assumption appears to be that the dip to 1 point per game is therefore a blip, and if clubs did nothing, they'd bounce back to 1.3 a game again.

Also, the new manager lift is generally seen as a short term thing, much less than three months stated there, when the players are trying harder to impress the new manager.


If anything, the stats there suggest that if clubs sack a manager when on 1 point per game, they'll have improved to 1.3 a game within three months.

Of course, from that you have no idea how well the clubs would have done if they'd not sacked a manager, but the assumption that they'd return to 1.3 a game again seem highly dubious.

Regression to the mean isn't an assumption, it's a well documented statistical phenomenon (some would say a statistical inevitability) across a range of fields including the form of football teams. Yes, it would be nice if this analysis actually contained a control group of clubs who go through a bad spell and don't sack their manager, but there are very few of those around these days - Bournemouth and Burnley, Morecambe, any more? Maybe you could also look at clubs who change manager in good form and whether things get better for them. But frankly the principle that bad runs of form eventually come to an end is uncontroversial, so this seems unnecessary.

Point being, there's no evidence to suggest that sacking the manager will improve results. Yes if your manager is actually holding you back (Mourinho at United) then it probably will, but that's about improving, not just changing. Situations like Coppell offering to resign when we were struggling in the PL because he thought a new manager would "get a bounce" are just stupid - no reason to think the old manager would be less likely to get a bounce if all else was equal.

[tmesis]

No such thing. https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/so ... difference

That's a pretty terrible bit of analysis.

The thinking behind it is based on the fact that clubs average 1.3 points per game, but sack a manager when averaging about 1 point per game, yet three months later will be on about 1.3 a game again.

The assumption appears to be that the dip to 1 point per game is therefore a blip, and if clubs did nothing, they'd bounce back to 1.3 a game again.

Also, the new manager lift is generally seen as a short term thing, much less than three months stated there, when the players are trying harder to impress the new manager.


If anything, the stats there suggest that if clubs sack a manager when on 1 point per game, they'll have improved to 1.3 a game within three months.

Of course, from that you have no idea how well the clubs would have done if they'd not sacked a manager, but the assumption that they'd return to 1.3 a game again seem highly dubious.

Regression to the mean isn't an assumption, it's a well documented statistical phenomenon (some would say a statistical inevitability) across a range of fields including the form of football teams. Yes, it would be nice if this analysis actually contained a control group of clubs who go through a bad spell and don't sack their manager, but there are very few of those around these days - Bournemouth and Burnley, Morecambe, any more? Maybe you could also look at clubs who change manager in good form and whether things get better for them. But frankly the principle that bad runs of form eventually come to an end is uncontroversial, so this seems unnecessary.

Point being, there's no evidence to suggest that sacking the manager will improve results. Yes if your manager is actually holding you back (Mourinho at United) then it probably will, but that's about improving, not just changing. Situations like Coppell offering to resign when we were struggling in the PL because he thought a new manager would "get a bounce" are just stupid - no reason to think the old manager would be less likely to get a bounce if all else was equal.

That would make sense if you view every downturn in results as merely a "blip" that will automatically self-correct. It's a cliche, but sometimes managers do "lose the dressing room" and that's not going to correct itself.

When players lose their respect for a manager, or no longer believe in that manager's methods, or that manager can no longer motivate that squad of players, it's not going to correct itself. It that manager's tactics have been found out an nullified, and he's unable to adapt, results will not just pick up again by themselves at a later date.

I would certainly agree that there are occasions where the sacking of a manager is rather hasty and unjustified, but the implication that pretty much all sackings are pointless because results would just correct themselves if given time, seems an incredibly shaky assumption.

[Victor Meldrew]

There has been a lot said and written about possession football in recent years.
As I see it, effective possession football as played by top teams like Barcelona, Juventus, Bayern Munich, Liverpool and Man City is so much more about not giving the ball away when passing rather than possession in the sense of holding on to the ball.

In the worst of Stam, Rodgers and Burns possession times we just passed the ball amongst ourselves mostly in our own half.
What the top clubs do is pass quickly in their own half and continue to pass and move in the opposition's half.

Unfortunately , particularly under Stam, we didn't do the"move" bit with players happy just to continue to square pass rather than accelerate forward.


Hopefully our new bloke's philosophy is more akin to a possession game as played by the top clubs and not just ball retention as per Stamball.

[sandman]

The top clubs can play passing football because they have top players.

Don't know if anyone has noticed but we don't.

[Victor Meldrew]

The top clubs can play passing football because they have top players.

Don't know if anyone has noticed but we don't.

Swansea managed it at this level.
So, what do you think the club should do with the dross that we have got?
Long ball is no good as most of the time we have midgets playing up front.
Normally a team plays to it's strengths but we don't have any strengths now that Mo is nowhere near the player that he was.

It's all so depressing but if we go with a passing/possession game maybe we will do a Barnsley and play that way at the lower level next season in readiness for when we get back up to the Championship.

[Snowflake Royal]

Passing football is not a bad thing. It can certainly be done. But like any football style you have to get it right for it to be effective and it's harder to get right, but with bigger rewards.

The point is, we couldn't do it under Stam and the focus was all wrong. Too many managers and players focus on the passing and patience bit being most important, when in actual fact it's the decision making and still trying to score.

Our players have spent ages showing they aren't smart enough or brave enough for it. You've only got to watch their passing in a game to see it's all soft, bobbly, aimless and behind players to see that. And now Gomes has come in and said he wants to do all the things Stam did badly to put us in trouble and Clement started undoing to fix us.

[Jack Celliers]

Both look very harsh red cards to me.

Both looked absolutely nailed on to me.

Blackett jumps into a challenge, both feet off the ground clearly endangering the other player. That's a red all day long and has been for years.

Bacuna deliberately stands on the player on the floor. It's much more subtle, but it's prolonged with no effort to avoid it or stop. It's not really dangerous, but if an official sees it chances are you're a off. Maybe that sort of thing should be a yellow, but it isn't.

Blackett's right leg is folded back behind him. If any player did it to us sure we'd be shouting off, but i've seen many like that not given.

I can't see a red card offence from Bacuna at all. Wasn't there a VAR version of that happening to Neymar in the World Cup with no action taken? Treading on somebody's not violent conduct.

[sandman]

Swansea and a few others are the exception rather than the rule. It works for them and their club. That doesn't necessarily mean it suits Reading.

I'm not anti passing football. If you have the players to play it and you play it in the right areas, aka the opposition's half, with pace and intent then it can be effective.

I want to see a Reading team play like a Reading team. Young hungry players playing with pace and using width, looking to get the ball forward quickly. That doesn't necessarily mean lumping it in the air to a target man. Although if we needed to on the odd occasion then Meite is hardly a "midget".

[Westwood52]

Had another look at the two red card offences.


My initial reaction to Tyler's on Sky Sports straight after it happened, was that it was a straight red. My Son disagreed.

Looked at it again & after careful consideration, I don't think it was. Yes Tyler "left the ground"-however by the time he reached the ground , he was not in immediate contact with the player, with both feet. I accept the Ref has to make an time sensitive decision on what happened-however as they walk towards the incident-he needs to give careful consideration as to what he has seen with his own eyes, interpret it, and then reach a "confident" decision, that they are all but certain in their decision. It seemed to me that the Ref made his mind up in an instant; with no room for any doubt whatsoever. That said I think we are wasting our time appealing.

Bacuna's is an even more complex situation-which I believe the "lino" called, not the Ref.To me it looked clumsy, and there was enough entanglement to argue that in trying to step over the Milwall player; secondary contact was inevitable. Once again the Lino could not reach an almost absolute decision that it was a straight red. Once again, I feel he was reaching a decision based on a gut instinct , rather than an almost absolute certainty. Only Bacuna knows if he absolutely intended to tread on the player. Its interesting that Dim felt it was accidental, yet Mick the ex pro called it straight away as a deliberate stamp. I for one from seeing it; once again could not be sure.


Surely the Officials have to be 99% sure before calling a straight red ?

Remember our three penalty shouts last week. I was too far away to call the first, & the second was clearly not a pen. The third however was a pen; yet if the Ref felt in an instant, that he could not be 99% sure(I am not sure what the Ref crossing his arms, is meant to convey-absolute conclusion on their part that they are absolutely right ? ); then he cannot call it as a pen & equally the same certainties have to apply with red cards.

Penalties & red cards; are just too important during a game-such that the Official has to be almost certain that they are making the right call.

Unfortunately the standard of reffing is not great-certainly at Championship level.Win , lose or draw; after a game , when I have commented , on those rare occassions when we have had in my opinion had a good ref (maybe once or twice a season)-everyone else has countered, by saying that he was lucky, not to have had any tough calls.

[Pepe the Horseman]

Had another look at the two red card offences.


My initial reaction to Tyler's on Sky Sports straight after it happened, was that it was a straight red. My Son disagreed.

Looked at it again & after careful consideration, I don't think it was. Yes Tyler "left the ground"-however by the time he reached the ground , he was not in immediate contact with the player, with both feet. I accept the Ref has to make an time sensitive decision on what happened-however as they walk towards the incident-he needs to give careful consideration as to what he has seen with his own eyes, interpret it, and then reach a "confident" decision, that they are all but certain in their decision. It seemed to me that the Ref made his mind up in an instant; with no room for any doubt whatsoever. That said I think we are wasting our time appealing.

Bacuna's is an even more complex situation-which I believe the "lino" called, not the Ref.To me it looked clumsy, and there was enough entanglement to argue that in trying to step over the Milwall player; secondary contact was inevitable. Once again the Lino could not reach an almost absolute decision that it was a straight red. Once again, I feel he was reaching a decision based on a gut instinct , rather than an almost absolute certainty. Only Bacuna knows if he absolutely intended to tread on the player. Its interesting that Dim felt it was accidental, yet Mick the ex pro called it straight away as a deliberate stamp. I for one from seeing it; once again could not be sure.


Surely the Officials have to be 99% sure before calling a straight red ?

Remember our three penalty shouts last week. I was too far away to call the first, & the second was clearly not a pen. The third however was a pen; yet if the Ref felt in an instant, that he could not be 99% sure(I am not sure what the Ref crossing his arms, is meant to convey-absolute conclusion on their part that they are absolutely right ? ); then he cannot call it as a pen & equally the same certainties have to apply with red cards.

Penalties & red cards; are just too important during a game-such that the Official has to be almost certain that they are making the right call.

Unfortunately the standard of reffing is not great-certainly at Championship level.Win , lose or draw; after a game , when I have commented , on those rare occassions when we have had in my opinion had a good ref (maybe once or twice a season)-everyone else has countered, by saying that he was lucky, not to have had any tough calls.

The Bacuna red was nowhere near as bad as the Boro player who kicked out at Blackett on Saturday.

[Hampshire Royal]

Are we going to appeal against the red cards?

[Vicky Pollard]

Only just seen the highlights, Blackett's is never a red. But he is just a terrible footballer. His awful touch meant he had to make the tackle.

Bacuna knew exactly what he was doing standing on the guy's leg.

[Zip]

Only just seen the highlights, Blackett's is never a red. But he is just a terrible footballer. His awful touch meant he had to make the tackle.

Bacuna knew exactly what he was doing standing on the guy's leg.

That’s how I see it. I don’t think Blackett’s tackle was malicious. What Bacuna did was. He knew exactly what he was doing and should be dropped from the side even when available. Just gross stupidity

[Snowflake Royal]

Only just seen the highlights, Blackett's is never a red. But he is just a terrible footballer. His awful touch meant he had to make the tackle.

Bacuna knew exactly what he was doing standing on the guy's leg.

That’s how I see it. I don’t think Blackett’s tackle was malicious. What Bacuna did was. He knew exactly what he was doing and should be dropped from the side even when available. Just gross stupidity

I'll don't think there's any question about Blacketts challenge being not malicious. But it's incredibly easily described as (at least) reckless, and IMO being made with excessive force... which are absolutely the hall marks of a straight red.

[sandman]

It's a referee that has it in for us, screwed us over in two games now this season. Nothing more nothing less.

[Denver Royal]

Whether it was a red or not, Blacketts challenge didn’t look good, in a hostile environment, where you trying not to rile up the other team or their fans.

You then force the ref to make a decision when, as far as possible, you don’t want them deciding games. So, you are then reliant on having a good ref, and him making the right decision, in a split second and in the spur of the moment.

When a tall bloke like Blackett leaves his feet and goes to ground, it can look worse than what it is. He’s better off staying on his feet and avoiding any drama, and was likely taught as much at youth level. Play smart footy.

Bacuna (our captain!?) was unnecessary and avoidable. It was also close to a lino, some of whom often want to make a call and get in on the action. Again, not smart footy.

[Snowflake Royal]

I can understand Blackett, hard in the heat of the moment to make good decisions rather than just react and jump in. It's stupid and he should know better, but we all make daft decisions in the heat of the moment.

But Bacuna has no excuse. Even if he found himself treading on the guy by accident, he then takes his time lifting his other foot up and putting all his weight on him. And IMO you can tell he knows he's done wrong by the way he quietly walks away from the scene rather than reacting to the accusations. He's a firey character and I just don't see it as credible that he doesn't get involved when someone accuses him of a stamp unless he knows he's done it and wants to be anonymous and away from the incident.

Fact is, the officials are not mistaken in what they saw, so there's no way Blackett's will be overturned and only a very slim chance that the ref (Who didn't see Bacuna) reviews it and decides the lino overegged it. But otherwise, never being overturned at appeal.

You've seen far worse, but you can't complain when that gets punished IMO.

[SCIAG]

Point being, there's no evidence to suggest that sacking the manager will improve results. Yes if your manager is actually holding you back (Mourinho at United) then it probably will, but that's about improving, not just changing. Situations like Coppell offering to resign when we were struggling in the PL because he thought a new manager would "get a bounce" are just stupid - no reason to think the old manager would be less likely to get a bounce if all else was equal.

That would make sense if you view every downturn in results as merely a "blip" that will automatically self-correct. It's a cliche, but sometimes managers do "lose the dressing room" and that's not going to correct itself.

When players lose their respect for a manager, or no longer believe in that manager's methods, or that manager can no longer motivate that squad of players, it's not going to correct itself. It that manager's tactics have been found out an nullified, and he's unable to adapt, results will not just pick up again by themselves at a later date.

I would certainly agree that there are occasions where the sacking of a manager is rather hasty and unjustified, but the implication that pretty much all sackings are pointless because results would just correct themselves if given time, seems an incredibly shaky assumption.

I think I've basically addressed your point in what remains of my quote.

I think "losing the dressing room" is an overstated phenomenon. By all accounts Clement "lost the dressing room" in September (the things you overhear at U23s matches...) but we went on to experience an upturn in form. Obviously there are times when it does affect the players - again, Mourinho at United, Grant at Chelsea - but I don't think it has to be terminal.

But I wasn't trying to argue that sacking the manager is always a pointless exercise. While I'm a big advocate of patience, I actually think all our sackings in recent years, except perhaps the last two, could be justified by reference to particular qualities the new manager had which were clearly better than the old manager (Adkins was better tactically than McDermott and better at managing difficult characters; Clarke's sides were better organised; McDermott was a better example to his players and brightened the place up; Stam had more vision). I was merely trying to suggest that the immediate "new manager bounce" isn't caused by changing the manager in itself. While there might be a long-term improvement from appointing a more-suitable manager, short term "bounces" are usually just regression to the mean, much like the Manager of the Month curse.

[tmesis]

Point being, there's no evidence to suggest that sacking the manager will improve results. Yes if your manager is actually holding you back (Mourinho at United) then it probably will, but that's about improving, not just changing. Situations like Coppell offering to resign when we were struggling in the PL because he thought a new manager would "get a bounce" are just stupid - no reason to think the old manager would be less likely to get a bounce if all else was equal.

That would make sense if you view every downturn in results as merely a "blip" that will automatically self-correct. It's a cliche, but sometimes managers do "lose the dressing room" and that's not going to correct itself.

When players lose their respect for a manager, or no longer believe in that manager's methods, or that manager can no longer motivate that squad of players, it's not going to correct itself. It that manager's tactics have been found out an nullified, and he's unable to adapt, results will not just pick up again by themselves at a later date.

I would certainly agree that there are occasions where the sacking of a manager is rather hasty and unjustified, but the implication that pretty much all sackings are pointless because results would just correct themselves if given time, seems an incredibly shaky assumption.

I think I've basically addressed your point in what remains of my quote.

I think "losing the dressing room" is an overstated phenomenon. By all accounts Clement "lost the dressing room" in September (the things you overhear at U23s matches...) but we went on to experience an upturn in form. Obviously there are times when it does affect the players - again, Mourinho at United, Grant at Chelsea - but I don't think it has to be terminal.

But I wasn't trying to argue that sacking the manager is always a pointless exercise. While I'm a big advocate of patience, I actually think all our sackings in recent years, except perhaps the last two, could be justified by reference to particular qualities the new manager had which were clearly better than the old manager (Adkins was better tactically than McDermott and better at managing difficult characters; Clarke's sides were better organised; McDermott was a better example to his players and brightened the place up; Stam had more vision). I was merely trying to suggest that the immediate "new manager bounce" isn't caused by changing the manager in itself. While there might be a long-term improvement from appointing a more-suitable manager, short term "bounces" are usually just regression to the mean, much like the Manager of the Month curse.

I depends how short term you mean.

When a new manager comes in, players do tend to try that bit harder, and that extra bit of effort can make a difference.

[John Madejski's Wallet]

The top clubs can play passing football because they have top players.

Don't know if anyone has noticed but we don't.

Swansea managed it at this level.
So, what do you think the club should do with the dross that we have got?
Long ball is no good as most of the time we have midgets playing up front.

Why does it have to be a binary thing? When some complain about possession football (only works with great players imo), others always hit back with 'long ball'.

Most champ teams play somewhere in the middle and I seem to recall a very successful spell for RFC that was neither possession or long ball.....

I just want 'attacking' football, regardless the of what label it has