The Real Football Thread

[andy1234]

"It hardly matters who succeeds David Moyes as manager of Manchester United. It hardly matters even to Manchester United supporters. What matters most to the success of clubs in the English Premier League is not really the manager or even the huge amount of money spent on transfer fees – the evidence is that this is largely wasted. What matters is the size of the wage bill.

This determined 92 per cent in the variation of the league positions of the Premiership clubs during the period 1991 to 2000, according to data published in Soccernomics by Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski."



http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/why...-have-stuck-with-david-moyes-1.1777778?page=1




'Soccernomics' by Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski

http://www.soccernomics-agency.com/

The vast bulk of managers appear to have almost no impact on their teams’ performance and do not last very long in the job

And those few that do last in their jobs, do so, because they do have a impact.

Managers who are effective, win titles.
Clubs that win titles can spend the most money.
And around it goes.

 

[Hawkwood]

The vast bulk of managers appear to have almost no impact on their teams’ performance and do not last very long in the job

And those few that do last in their jobs, do so because they do have a impact.

OMG I've logged into a football website by mistake! How do I get out of here?

 

[Samson777]

"It hardly matters who succeeds David Moyes as manager of Manchester United. It hardly matters even to Manchester United supporters. What matters most to the success of clubs in the English Premier League is not really the manager or even the huge amount of money spent on transfer fees – the evidence is that this is largely wasted. What matters is the size of the wage bill.

This determined 92 per cent in the variation of the league positions of the Premiership clubs during the period 1991 to 2000, according to data published in Soccernomics by Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski."



http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/why...-have-stuck-with-david-moyes-1.1777778?page=1




'Soccernomics' by Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski

http://www.soccernomics-agency.com/

Thanks for the link. Will have a read.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

The vast bulk of managers appear to have almost no impact on their teams’ performance and do not last very long in the job

And those few that do last in their jobs, do so, because they do have a impact.

Managers who are effective, win titles.
Clubs that win titles can spend the most money.
And around it goes.

... or the "effective" managers could just have been in the right place at the right time: Overtaking a talented team that underachieved for a couple of seasons, then as the new manager is signed the team performance regresses to the mean. The sucsess is credited falsly to the "effective" manager, when in reality luck/randomness just evened out over a longer period of time.

 

[The Hitch]

There was already talk about Diego Costa going to Chelsea next season, Courtois the goalie is on loan from Chelsea so there is a feeling he will be included as a sweetner to entice Costa.

It is always nice to see an outsider outdo the big boys but usually the tean breaks up pretty quickly, Porto and Monaco who were the finalists 10 years ago are examples of that. You always wonder why you would leave a team that can reach CL final to go somewhere else but then you realise it's about the money. Finance has distorted football as much as doping has distorted cycling.

Doesn't Costa have a buyout they just have to match so don't need to sweeten the deal?

As for Porto and Monaco that wasnt as impressive imo. Atletico took out the wonderteam barca and beat both them and the galacticos in the league which is just crazy. Those 2 teams comprise like 80% of the last 4 or 5 world xi teams.

 

[andy1234]

... or the "effective" managers could just have been in the right place at the right time: Overtaking a talented team that underachieved for a couple of seasons, then as the new manager is signed the team performance regresses to the mean. The sucsess is credited falsly to the "effective" manager, when in reality luck/randomness just evened out over a longer period of time.

It could indeed be the case. Jose Mourinho, for example, may simply have been in the right place at the right time, with 5 different clubs, in 5 different countries.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

It could indeed be the case. Jose Mourinho, for example, may simply have been in the right place at the right time, with 5 different clubs, in 5 different countries.

... with 5 great rosters. Yeah could be very much true.

 

[Parrulo]

What's the difference betweens juventus and Benfica's budgets?

It really is a shame that the Portuguese teams aren't capable of keeping their best players because Benfica and Porto are arguably the 2 best clubs in the world at finding young talented players.

The list of players that have sold since 03/04 (the mourinho years in Porto) is amazing.

Also since they keep losing their best players the teams don't have the stability needed to slowly bring young players up the rankings, although Benfica seems t be getting better at it.

 

[Hugo87]

Bye Juve, we will be back in two weeks.

Benfica!

 

[The Hitch]

It could indeed be the case. Jose Mourinho, for example, may simply have been in the right place at the right time, with 5 different clubs, in 5 different countries.

Oh come on. With 4 of those clubs he was given insane teams which were by far the best in their country. Besides with real he was a failure. His u21s cost more than the average player in that league and he won it once. Should have been treble every year if he was so good.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

OK guys. The seasoned posters on here know there is a football thread in another forum. To the new guys, go and find it. To you all, stop it and get back on topic.

Common, give me 5 minutes to debunk the "effective" coach myth. Just some quick and dirty stats of Mourinho. Just to show that Benotti is right (cycling related, that coaches indeed have no influence). I mean we all learn from this. Thx in advance.
In the football thread this will go to anonymity. You know this. OK?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

So here we go:
I just used league game stats for the matter of simplicity. No cherry picking here. I am no soccer fan, so I just looked at the raw numbers without knowing what the outcome will be.
Method: If Mourinho didn´t coach a full season, I just looked at his record vs the record of his predecessors respectively successors in the very same season.
It´s a little more difficult to extract "Mourinho performance" from his predecessors if he was signed before a season (b/c he could hit the transfer market for better players, thus improving his record, when in reality it´s the better players that influenced his record. I assume owners opened their pockets to give Mourinho the players he wanted). Same problem when he was released after a complete season, since his successors had to play with inherited players from the "great coach" (I assume owners didn´t want to invest more millions when they already hit the market big with him. I could be wrong though with this assumption). Whatever. If Mourinho coached full seasons, I looked at his first season vs the last one of his predecessor. And at his last season, and the next of his successor.
Benfica 00/01: M (Mourinho) 5-2-2, O (others) 10-7-8
Leira 01/02: M 14-8-4, O 16-13-13
Porto 01/02: 11-2-2, O 10-3-6
Porto 03/04: 25-7-2, O 17-11-6 (04/05)
Chelsea 04/05: 29-8-1, O 24-7-7 (03/04)
Chelsea 06/07: 3-2-1, O 22-8-2
Inter08/09: 25-9-4, O 25-10-3 (07/08)
Inter 09/10: 24-10-4, O 23-7-8 (10/11)
Real 10/11: 29-5-4, O 31-3-4 (09/10)
Real 12/13: 26-7-5, O 26-4-4 (13/14)

Totals: Mourinho; 191-60-29 = 78.9 Winning Pct.
Others; 204-73-61 = 71.2 Winning-Pct.

So indeed his record is better than this of his successors/predecessors. But is that 7.7% difference worth millions over millions which could have been better invested into even more great players? And isn´t it true that he got lucky in his early years, and then regressed to the mean, as I posted early? Isn´t it true he lives off his Portugal years reputation?

 

[The Hitch]

good post foxxy

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Thanks.

 

[BYOP88]

So here we go:
I just used league game stats for the matter of simplicity. No cherry picking here. I am no soccer fan, so I just looked at the raw numbers without knowing what the outcome will be.
Method: If Mourinho didn´t coach a full season, I just looked at his record vs the record of his predecessors respectively successors in the very same season.
It´s a little more difficult to extract "Mourinho performance" from his predecessors if he was signed before a season (b/c he could hit the transfer market for better players, thus improving his record, when in reality it´s the better players that influenced his record. I assume owners opened their pockets to give Mourinho the players he wanted). Same problem when he was released after a complete season, since his successors had to play with inherited players from the "great coach" (I assume owners didn´t want to invest more millions when they already hit the market big with him. I could be wrong though with this assumption). Whatever. If Mourinho coached full seasons, I looked at his first season vs the last one of his predecessor. And at his last season, and the next of his successor.
Benfica 00/01: M (Mourinho) 5-2-2, O (others) 10-7-8
Leira 01/02: M 14-8-4, O 16-13-13
Porto 01/02: 11-2-2, O 10-3-6
Porto 03/04: 25-7-2, O 17-11-6 (04/05)
Chelsea 04/05: 29-8-1, O 24-7-7 (03/04)
Chelsea 06/07: 3-2-1, O 22-8-2
Inter08/09: 25-9-4, O 25-10-3 (07/08)
Inter 09/10: 24-10-4, O 23-7-8 (10/11)
Real 10/11: 29-5-4, O 31-3-4 (09/10)
Real 12/13: 26-7-5, O 26-4-4 (13/14)

Totals: Mourinho; 191-60-29 = 78.9 Winning Pct.
Others; 204-73-61 = 71.2 Winning-Pct.

So indeed his record is better than this of his successors/predecessors. But is that 7.7% difference worth millions over millions which could have been better invested into even more great players? And isn´t it true that he got lucky in his early years, and then regressed to the mean, as I posted early? Isn´t it true he lives off his Portugal years reputation?

Good post!.................(and it totally proves that Horner is clean )

 

[andy1234]

So here we go:
I just used league game stats for the matter of simplicity. No cherry picking here. I am no soccer fan, so I just looked at the raw numbers without knowing what the outcome will be.
Method: If Mourinho didn´t coach a full season, I just looked at his record vs the record of his predecessors respectively successors in the very same season.
It´s a little more difficult to extract "Mourinho performance" from his predecessors if he was signed before a season (b/c he could hit the transfer market for better players, thus improving his record, when in reality it´s the better players that influenced his record. I assume owners opened their pockets to give Mourinho the players he wanted). Same problem when he was released after a complete season, since his successors had to play with inherited players from the "great coach" (I assume owners didn´t want to invest more millions when they already hit the market big with him. I could be wrong though with this assumption). Whatever. If Mourinho coached full seasons, I looked at his first season vs the last one of his predecessor. And at his last season, and the next of his successor.
Benfica 00/01: M (Mourinho) 5-2-2, O (others) 10-7-8
Leira 01/02: M 14-8-4, O 16-13-13
Porto 01/02: 11-2-2, O 10-3-6
Porto 03/04: 25-7-2, O 17-11-6 (04/05)
Chelsea 04/05: 29-8-1, O 24-7-7 (03/04)
Chelsea 06/07: 3-2-1, O 22-8-2
Inter08/09: 25-9-4, O 25-10-3 (07/08)
Inter 09/10: 24-10-4, O 23-7-8 (10/11)
Real 10/11: 29-5-4, O 31-3-4 (09/10)
Real 12/13: 26-7-5, O 26-4-4 (13/14)

Totals: Mourinho; 191-60-29 = 78.9 Winning Pct.
Others; 204-73-61 = 71.2 Winning-Pct.

So indeed his record is better than this of his successors/predecessors. But is that 7.7% difference worth millions over millions which could have been better invested into even more great players? And isn´t it true that he got lucky in his early years, and then regressed to the mean, as I posted early? Isn´t it true he lives off his Portugal years reputation?

Jeez, I know their is a football thread, but this HAS to be replied to.
Is a 7% improvement in win rate worth the millions he, or any other manager, is paid?

If 7% is the difference between winning and losing the league, it most certainly is.....

You presented stats that proved his effectivenes vs his peers, and then tried to use them to say anyone could do the job

The question here, is (and the question isn't limited to you)what is the agenda for trying to prove that managers or coaches have little effect over performance?

Mods: this is as much about cycling as football, so please don't move the post.

 

[SundayRider]

Jeez, I know their is a football thread, but this HAS to be replied to.
Is a 7% improvement in win rate worth the millions he, or any other manager, is paid?

If 7% is the difference between winning and losing the league, it most certainly is.....

You presented stats that proved his effectivenes vs his peers, and then tried to use them to say anyone could do the job

The question here, is (and the question isn't limited to you)what is the agenda for trying to prove that managers or coaches have little effect over performance?

Mods: this is as much about cycling as football, so please don't move the post.

7% is a huge amount, especially considering the gap between the top three in BPL right now.

 

[del1962]

Effective football coach = Brian Clough and Peter Taylor combo

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

There has been a recent study of Premier league coaches. It appears that the coaches have as much affect on teams as the chef or dietician would. Cant find the link, but if i do, i will post it.

I guess on average this may well be true. But we're not talking averages. We're talking about very rare, specific individuals who make a difference. If managers/coaches make no difference then Premiership clubs would hire AN Other coach, and pay them a lot less than £5m a year.

Moyes' departure was probably hastened by the senior players, but if he had the gift as a coach and the team had been steamrollering through the Champions League then he would have stayed.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Totals: Mourinho; 191-60-29 = 78.9 Winning Pct.

Others; 204-73-61 = 71.2 Winning-Pct.

Interesting analysis. Thanks.

In elite sport, winning 7% more games is a huge difference. In a ~40 match league season that's 3 games, so even if the "other manager" drew three games rather than won them, that's a differential of 6 points (3pts for a win; 1 for a draw). Given that the top 3 in the Premier League this season will be covered by 2 or 3 points and the title may be awared on goal difference, I think can safely conclude that such a difference is significant.

 

[NaturalClen]

Originally Posted by Benotti69 View Post
There has been a recent study of Premier league coaches. It appears that the coaches have as much affect on teams as the chef or dietician would. Cant find the link, but if i do, i will post it.

this is utter bs

coaches are paid millions/year, 10-20x more than chefs and diet guys, for a good reason. "splashing money" theories are also bs.

in today's world salaries are a very good indicator of how much ROI (return of investment) a person is worth*.

edit: * except for state employed workers.

 

[bewildered]

i think 7.7% is massive and shows that Mourinho makes a difference. A manager is also vital in attracting certain players to clubs who wouldn't join otherwise.

And a lot of managers don't actually 'coach' that much. Fergie in his later years used young coaches like McClaren and Muelensteen to do the day to day, because he knew his methods were outdated. Martin O'Neill was the same with John Robertson doing the coaching. Celtic players used to only see O'Neill once a week on matchdays. Contrast with Wenger, whose methods were revolutionary in 1998 but they are now considered outdated, yet he never delegates day to day to anyone, likes to keep control of everything.

O'Neill & Robertson also did a great job at Villa and were inexplicably gotten rid of. He went to Sunderland afterwards and didn't have his right hand man Robertson with him and that didn't turn out too well.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

...

Jeez, I know their is a football thread, but this HAS to be replied to.
His Portugal sucsess could be easily explained by very small sample size. Speak pure luck, being signed to teams that underachieved before he signed, his predecessors could have been real bad coaches, so that his simple standing around at the sidelines meant improvement, etc.! It could be also he was the best coach at that time in Portugal.
BUT
Once he was signed to the big teams, his "magic", being "the special one", his "greatness", was gone. How you explain this?
He produced a .791 winning percentage with Chelsea, Inter and Real. The others had a .770 winning percentage. Is this 2% improvement (which could be explained solely by having spendable owners to sign the players he wanted) worth millions over millions? Really?... Of course not. He simply regressed (as expected) to the mean over a longer period.
And BTW, I (and most others) trust those more who actually worked on the matter (the soccer guys) than one forum guy with a gut feeling that dismisses a study because he don´t like the outcome.

The question here, is (and the question isn't limited to you)what is the agenda for trying to prove that managers or coaches have little effect over performance?

There is no agenda. It´s the simple truth. Talent is what matters (and if that isn´t enough for the athlete, doping is the cream on top of it).
Barry Switzer and some other coaches were honest, basically saying "everybody could win (as coach), if you have the talent around you". The study in soccer underlines this, as NFL studies do on the same subject, so it´s certainly universal and can by applied to cycling too... That´s all it is.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I guess on average this may well be true. But we're not talking averages. We're talking about very rare, specific individuals who make a difference. If managers/coaches make no difference then Premiership clubs would (should) hire AN(Y) Other coach, and pay them a lot less than £5m a year.

That would be a great idea. Especially for those having a smaller payroll to work with. They could spent the money on urgent needed player talent.

 

[gooner]

What's the difference betweens juventus and Benfica's budgets?

It really is a shame that the Portuguese teams aren't capable of keeping their best players because Benfica and Porto are arguably the 2 best clubs in the world at finding young talented players.

The list of players that have sold since 03/04 (the mourinho years in Porto) is amazing.

Also since they keep losing their best players the teams don't have the stability needed to slowly bring young players up the rankings, although Benfica seems t be getting better at it.

A big fan of Jesus but do Benfica have this outstanding record of finding young talent?

I give you David Luiz, Coentrao and maybe Rodrigo but the likes of Matic and Javi Garcia well known in football. I remember Matic when Chelsea first signed him and loaned him to Vitesse. The same with Garcia who was at Madrid and later Osasuna. Markovic is a good young player but he was going to Chelsea. In the end he went to Benfica but Chelsea got first option and refusal on him as part of it if he leaves.

Even Gaitan was capped with Argentina before joining Benfica and these players aren't exactly getting discovered in their teenage years. Salvio was at Atletico, the same with Silvio, Garay was at Real Madrid and already capped by Argentina, Siqueira was known to me at Granada and is by no means a young player. Nolito who was at Benfica before going to Celta was getting a couple of games at Barca. Was Nolito a young player when he first signed? I remember Lima playing against Arsenal for Braga in the Champions League. Sulejmani is well known to Ajax fans when he was a young player who signed there from Heerenveen.

Lots of these players were signed when they weren't 16-21.