English Football 2016-2017: NOW WITH 100% LESS FANERIO - Page 1093 - Sporting Events and Fantasy Sports

yeah I was referencing the Sky commentators' multiple statements that "it could be a long drive home for these Newcastle fans" right up to the equaliser, though I concede that it would have been funnier if it was like Man Utd or Liverpool.

I'll get my coat

02-28-2017 , 06:54 PM

#27304

Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 8,132

Ploppers

02-28-2017 , 07:22 PM

#27305

joejoe1337

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 16,286

pretty decent fivethirtyeight writeup on Ranieri/managers in general. If this doesn't get BAIDS back then I don't know what will:

Quote:

Last week, only 298 days after Claudio Ranieri helped Leicester City win the Premier League title, a 5,000-1 triumph, Ranieri was sacked. But does sacking a football manager have an effect? Not very much of one, a growing body of evidence suggests. There is over a 90 percent correlation between teams’ wages and their results, according to analysis of teams’ spending and results from 1973 to 2010 in “Soccernomics,” a book by Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski. That leaves less than 10 percent to be decided by other factors — who its manager is, injuries, scouting and plain old luck. In English football from 1973 to 2010, Kuper and Szymanski found, only 10 percent of top-flight managers consistently overachieved when wages were taken into account. A very select few managers do make a difference, but most have a negligible impact on how a club performs.

Today, the average Premier League manager — except Arsene Wenger, in his 21st year at Arsenal — lasts a little over a year, slightly shorter than Ranieri’s reign. That doesn’t leave much time for a manager to leave a mark. Occasionally, innovations can help managers succeed immediately, as Antonio Conte has in reintroducing the 3-4-3 formation at Chelsea this season, to stunning effect. But in the overwhelming majority of cases, clubs’ complex systems of coaching, player analysis, scouting, youth development and training facilities far predate — and normally outlast — any new manager.

Take Leicester and Ranieri. There were several crucial aspects of their success last year: the brilliant end to the 2014-15 season, winning seven of the team’s last nine matches under a previous manager; sophisticated use of data analytics (several members of Leicester’s backroom team have subsequently been poached); and a brilliant scouting network. All of it was in place before Ranieri took charge. While Ranieri tweaked the side’s tactics and elevated the midfielder Danny Drinkwater from the substitutes’ bench, overall he changed relatively little about Leicester’s method.

What did change was Leicester’s luck, first for the better, and then for the worse. Last season, Leicester’s goal difference was 11.5 greater than predicted by a model of expected goals developed by David Sumpter, a sports economist, using Opta data that takes into account the location of shots; the team also benefited from the fewest total days lost to injury of any Premier League team. Until Leicester defeated Liverpool in its first match without Ranieri, it had been the unluckiest team in the league this season according to Sumpter’s model. When Ranieri was sacked, Leicester had conceded 9.6 goals more than expected, while scoring 0.8 fewer than expected, adding up to a goal difference of -10.4 compared to its actual figures, the lowest in the league.

“Sacking Ranieri now is stupid. It’s falling into the trap of underestimating randomness,” said Sumpter, author of “Soccermatics.” “This season’s run of bad form is partly down to a run of bad luck.” Football is particularly prone to randomness, because it is so low scoring; underdogs win more than in any other major sport.

So if Leicester continues to maintain its level of play for the remainder of the season, its results should improve, regardless of who the new manager is — or whether Ranieri had stayed.

Ranieri’s sacking is likely to lead to an upswing in Leicester City’s results, just not because a new manager is better than him. New Premier League managers generally enjoy “a short honeymoon period,” a study of sackings from 1992-2008 by Sue Bridgewater, director of the Centre for Sports Business at the University of Liverpool Management School, found — but this is not because of the new boss. Managers tend to be sacked when a team is at a low point, after which they tend to revert to their former level: Bridgewater found that an average team earns 1.3 points a match, which is what they earn in the three months after a sacking. The “bounce” a new manager enjoys is just regression to the mean. Bas ter Weel, a Dutch economist, has found the same phenomenon in the Netherlands.

In 2015-16, there were 58 sackings across the 92 clubs in the top four tiers in English football, a record. In most cases, teams would have been better off retaining their managers and using the saved cash on new players, or greater investment in scouting and youth development.

In recent years several unglamorous teams have thrived while adopting strategies that limit a manager’s importance. As Kuper and Szymanski note, Lyon won seven consecutive titles in France from 2002-08, as well as reaching the quarterfinals of Champions League in three consecutive seasons from 2003-04, with four different coaches – Jacques Santini, Paul Le Guen, Gérard Houllier and Alain Perrin — who subsequently had undistinguished records. Lyon recognized that a previous manager, Bernard Lacombe, was exceptional at spotting talent, so moved him to a director of football role, focusing on player recruitment while insulated from day-to-day pressure. More recently, Southampton has excelled in the Premier League despite repeatedly losing its coaches to other clubs. Southampton’s success, like Lyon’s, has been underpinned by excellent youth development and a philosophy for player recruitment that changes little depending on who the manager is.

Routinely branded the savior or destroyer of a club, the football manager is rarely either. Indeed, given how short his stints are and how many other staff members clubs now employ, perhaps the manager has never been less important. Ranieri’s unfathomable two years at Leicester might be best remembered as a reminder of the limits of a manager’s significance.

02-28-2017 , 09:18 PM

#27306

tchaz

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 14,836

Quote:

Originally Posted by from 538- from Joejoe's post

Take Leicester and Ranieri. There were several crucial aspects of their success last year: the brilliant end to the 2014-15 season, winning seven of the team’s last nine matches under a previous manager; sophisticated use of data analytics (several members of Leicester’s backroom team have subsequently been poached); and a brilliant scouting network. All of it was in place before Ranieri took charge.

While Ranieri tweaked the side’s tactics and elevated the midfielder Danny Drinkwater from the substitutes’ bench, overall he changed relatively little about Leicester’s method.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tchaz

Where is Kante in this?

What did change was Leicester’s luck, first for the better, and then for the worse. Last season, Leicester’s goal difference was 11.5 greater than predicted by a model of expected goals developed by David Sumpter, a sports economist, using Opta data that takes into account the location of shots; the team also benefited from the fewest total days lost to injury of any Premier League team.

Until Leicester defeated Liverpool in its first match without Ranieri, it had been the unluckiest team in the league this season according to Sumpter’s model. When Ranieri was sacked, Leicester had conceded 9.6 goals more than expected, while scoring 0.8 fewer than expected, adding up to a goal difference of -10.4 compared to its actual figures, the lowest in the league.

02-28-2017 , 09:26 PM

#27307

DonkDonkDonkDonk

Goose

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 40,303

Kante is clearly the greatest player to ever play football. Only explanation for the last two seasons.

02-28-2017 , 09:54 PM

#27308

tchaz

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 14,836

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonkDonkDonkDonk

Kante is clearly the greatest player to ever play football. Only explanation for the last two seasons.

that seems pretty close to TRUE aorn.

(obviously where you substitute GPTEPFB for goatitplt)

03-01-2017 , 03:12 AM

#27309

Elrazor

losing momentum

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 14,054

Quote:

Originally Posted by joejoe1337

Ranieri’s unfathomable two years at Leicester might be best remembered as a reminder of the limits of a manager’s significance.

Poch tho.

My general feeling is there are a handful of decent managers who actually know what they are doing, while the majority are just throwing teacups around.

03-01-2017 , 03:17 AM

#27310

KrazyKris

GOAT PEEHS Drehpehs

Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 14,268

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elrazor

Poch tho.

My general feeling is there are a handful of decent managers who actually know what they are doing, while the majority are just throwing pizza around.

FYP

03-01-2017 , 03:37 AM

#27311

bazooka87

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 22,144

Yup Poch is a perfect example of how truly unimportant the manager is

03-01-2017 , 03:46 AM

#27312

Hoopie1

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 26,272

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elrazor

Poch tho.

My general feeling is there are a handful of decent managers who actually know what they are doing, while the majority are just throwing teacups around.

This is it.

The most tilting thing about the Newcastle game, apart from their sick luckboxing, was the commentator. He pronounced "Knockaert" as "Kernockaert". You don't kernock st someone's door, do you?

03-01-2017 , 04:58 AM

#27313

Tall Paul

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 9,417

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoopie1

No you don't, but that's how his name is pronounced.

03-01-2017 , 05:04 AM

#27314

Hoopie1

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 26,272

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tall Paul

No you don't, but that's how his name is pronounced.

no u

03-01-2017 , 06:12 AM

#27315

joejoe1337

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 16,286

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elrazor

Poch tho.

My general feeling is there are a handful of decent managers who actually know what they are doing, while the majority are just throwing teacups around.

So Levy notGOAT in that case?

03-01-2017 , 06:40 AM

#27316

Elrazor

losing momentum

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 14,054

Who appointed Poch? :P

Spurs transfer business compares favorably against any of the Sky six. City and Chelsea are just money sinks, Man Utd's business for a number of years has been poor and Plop's has been terrible for 25 years.

Wrt Arsenal, I think you have to look at Wenger's record over his entire Arsenal career and overall he's done very well. The only criticism is the money spent since the stadium move and when he was frittering away a small fortune on wages to crap players.

Anyway, our current best 11 cost less than we sold Bale for so clearly someone is doing something right, and the most parsimonious explanation is:

Spoiler:

03-01-2017 , 07:00 AM

#27317

Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 8,132

FAO 64

03-01-2017 , 09:32 AM

#27318

sixfour

should be called sevenfour

Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 75,201

That's despite getting one point from the first twelve as well

03-01-2017 , 12:02 PM

#27319

raheem

temp-banned

Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 2,235

My take on Leicester's success is that they definitely had high intensity pressing game, which I would largely credit Ranieri with. Players pressed where the ball was, so situations would occur where they had 2-on-1s often instead of more relaxed pressing where it's largely 1-on-1.

Kante has been surprising me this season how good he actually is with the ball.

I think the 538 article has a slightly nihilistic view.

Last edited by raheem; 03-01-2017 at 12:13 PM.

03-01-2017 , 12:34 PM

#27320

joejoe1337

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 16,286

How is it nihilistic exactly?

03-01-2017 , 02:05 PM

#27321

O.A.F.K.1.1

Ted Patrick

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 27,952

Quote:

Originally Posted by joejoe1337

How is it nihilistic exactly?

It explains how Leicester are points less this season.

03-01-2017 , 02:10 PM

#27322

raheem

temp-banned

Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 2,235

Quote:

Originally Posted by joejoe1337

How is it nihilistic exactly?

It says that the coach hardly makes a difference; it doesn't matter. I hope I didn't use the wrong term.

Last edited by raheem; 03-01-2017 at 02:22 PM.

03-01-2017 , 02:49 PM

#27323

unwantedguest

Guest

Posts: n/a

Fancy St Johnstone win btts at 9/1 this evening.

Wouldn't go mad on it though.

03-01-2017 , 02:58 PM

#27324

unwantedguest

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elrazor

Spoiler:

Lo****ingl you should be shouting for Levy to be spending all the money (it's not yours ffs) he gets on the squad, may help Spuds not finish 3rd in a 2 horse race next time.

Roughly 3 years to build a squad (12/13 players btw, depth ovb not great ldo) on Bale money (conviently ignoring the Bale money was spunked on ****ing duds) is an achievement for the likes of Bournemouth. Any teams with ambition to win things dgaf how much **** costs.