realised what

let me reiterate for you pete

pep for 5 years is costing city maybe 60m more than random PL scrub manager

lacazette for 5 years is costing arsenal something like 60m more than random PL scrub striker

pep is supposedly the best around, laca is what maybe the 15-20th best striker itw

looks to me like teams have 'realised it'. maybe you would like to contest my estimates, or maybe you would prefer to **** off back to the pub

you'd think a leeds fan of all people would realise that changing manager every 5 mins makes no difference

You can really tell How obsessively meticulous Pep is from that clip where he makes Arteta prepare a whole report on Arsenal’s attack and defense, as if the whole squad couldn’t show up pissed and beat the dog**** out of us. Pep GOAT.

and the superstar manager thing is mainly an english trend. barcelona and real madrid and everyone else mostly hire cheap guys they can afford to fire at the end of the year

simeone is getting €10m/year or some thing like that though which is much less than griezmann but more than most of their players.

yea people said same **** about mourinho back during that run where he had the biggest warchest. now he's down at about only 4th biggest he's a confirmed turgid clown

we be saying same about marco silva when uzmanov gets round to uzmanoving all over the league

they also just handed 7 years of simeone management to monaco for the right to pay lemar and his agent a load more simeones. lemar >>>> simeone (just ask atletico)

MLS level defending from 3 separate players for the Leeds equalizer

1 more leeds. Cmon

They don't call **** in the Championship. Fun for a neutral who dgaf

You're absolutely right. No manager should ever be sacked. Had Palace kept Frank De Boer, they would've been fine anyway. Neil Warnock's 8 promotions are nothing to do with managerial ability.

where do you find these guys?

didnt frank win 4 consecutive titles with ajax or something. idk i dont really follow the managerial merry go round and cant tell all these gorgeous foriegners apart

anyway, the complete and devastating ineptitude you seem to have picked up on apparently didnt matter during those years?

i never did understand why those 3 games w palace obliterated those titles. guess dutch league dont count

--

on warnock,

lol warnock

Says it all really.

How about Dyche? Is it just money that's behind his relative success?
How about Leicester under Ranieri? Pure buying power or good management?

Of course. Your theory only applies to clubs who spend lots of money.

Exactly. You should stick with a manager so he has time to manage and have his influence. You're arguing against yourself here. It strikes me that you're the one in the pub and you've had a few too many.

I am not really 100% on board with the BAIDS theorem, far from it, but you are basically arguing for his side not against here Pete. De Boer/Warnock/Ranieri? Christ.

ranieri's title is sandwiched in between getting sacked by greece for losing to the faroe islands and getting sacked by the team he won the title with for being 16th or whatever

how does this not set off huge alarm bells for you

lol leicester btw they should've made him emperor of leicester, ie manager for life until he dies and then his offspring inherits the job and so on

New rule of thumb for every 2+2 football discussion.

Causal fan pundit football narratives are 1, 2+2 hyper rationalistic world view is 10. Real world is about 7 or 8.

Pisshead fight!

@val
what is this scale?

Can’t managers theoretically have a massive net negative impact on results under BAIDS theorem though? Similar to south of the Karius line in OAFK Theorem? Like Seems like poor atmosphere and team selection can be pretty important.

Also think it’s a bit muddled by the varying degrees of scouting/choosing how to unleash a warchest that different managers can have especially in spots 3/4-20. Is Txiki Begeristain paid more than Pep? Is LevyWOAT pod more than Poch? Is the entirety of the scouting network?

Number 1 is a mythical worldview full of narratives based on small sample sizes.
Number 10 is a rational worldview where the emotional complexities of human beings are somewhat underated.

Do you really think lacazette is a top 20 striker itw

there's just too much info available to have much of an edge imo. we're at a point where ****ty mid table PL clubs have detailed reports on the state of the ecuadorian u19s setup. its all marginal gainz from here on out unless someone figures out the dna strand for good footballer

obviously short term someone can and will be great/awful on signings (eg the bloke that signed ngolo and vardz and mahrez for about 16 pence), but then give that bloke a big splashy contract and a load of money and yea maybe he'll repeat the trick, or perhaps he'll spend 150m on on klassen, bolasie, keane, gylfi and schneiderlin.......................... and then you'll have to sack him

lol everton gjge

This has more to with marginal utility than with importance. The most important position in the field are goalkeepers but they are also the cheapest.

Managers can definitely make squads a lot less then the sum of their parts.

Being a manager is like olympic archery. They are a bunch of very good ones and the difference between number a 1 and number 25 is not very much.