Aston Villa 2 Chelsea 2

[east lower]

14 minutes ago, Alex said:

Yep, you're right he did, but they also pursued Brandt: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/its-shame-liverpool-21m-target-27405055

Good player - Brandt

[Siidi]

3 hours ago, Alex said:

You should Google the 2019 Economist piece entitled, 'Managers in football matter much less than most fans think'.

Fans do lay most of the blame or credit for a team's performance on the manager. The article gives statistical evidence of how most successful managers struggle to replicate their success elsewhere suggesting other factors are more important to their original success. 

I think success or failure is holistic and everything plays a part. In 2017 Klopp asked the board to sign a German forward called Julian Brandt. The Sporting director said the analysts preferred a certain Egyptian winger.

Which is why The Economist should stick to economics. I am even happier now that I ended my subscription to it. The little I have read of the article is full of self-contradictions. 

Of course, Klopp then made a brilliant player of the Egyptian winger, the same winger who did so-so under his previous managers.  I cannot see how that diminishes the importance of a manager. If anything, it showed that a brilliant manager can make something of what he is being given. Instead of Klopp moaning about not getting Julian Brandt, he got on with the job. Put a different manager in the same equation, and all you would ever hear is how the board signed the wrong players, blah, blah, blah, hence our poor performances. Sounds familiar?

Edited April 29 by Siidi

[jasonb]

7 hours ago, Siidi said:

I think Leon Bailey was already at Villa when Unai Emery arrived.

Wasn't there when we played at Villa park under Gerard, I checked on Bounderfriardale site. 

[jasonb]

7 hours ago, Sciatika said:

I am always impressed by John McGinn. He's the kind of player you'd love to have on your own side and hate to play against. 

I also think McGinn has been a good player for them too.

Then you have the younger talents like Jacob Ramsay. 

[Alex]

2 hours ago, Siidi said:

Which is why The Economist should stick to economics. I am even happier now that I ended my subscription to it. The little I have read of the article is full of self-contradictions. 

Of course, Klopp then made a brilliant player of the Egyptian winger, the same winger who did so-so under his previous managers.  I cannot see how that diminishes the importance of a manager. If anything, it showed that a brilliant manager can make something of what he is being given. Instead of Klopp moaning about not getting Julian Brandt, he got on with the job. Put a different manager in the same equation, and all you would ever hear is how the board signed the wrong players, blah, blah, blah, hence our poor performances. Sounds familiar?

Lol, come on now, The Economist never has been solely about economics, not should it be. It's a current affairs periodical that's mainly about world events and politics (much the same as any newspaper is about current affairs and politics). Also in the same way the FT isn't just a financial newspaper and both are pretty much the pinnacle of journalism. It also doesn't have the sort of political bias as many national publications. As someone that spent his early career working as an analyst I really enjoy their data-driven journalism.

The 2019 analysis didn't mention Brandt, but it did call Klopp an outlier in the data in that he was a successful manager repeating his success elsewhere.

Has Pochettino been moaning about the board signing the wrong players? If he has that seems to have passed me by.

[Alex]

2 hours ago, Siidi said:

The little I have read of the article is full of self-contradictions. 

 

Coul you cite these self-contradictions please? You also still haven't cited these clear statistics you mentioned about management change being the biggest factor affecting team performance that started this whole debate.

[Siidi]

12 hours ago, Alex said:

Lol, come on now, The Economist never has been solely about economics, not should it be. It's a current affairs periodical that's mainly about world events and politics (much the same as any newspaper is about current affairs and politics). Also in the same way the FT isn't just a financial newspaper and both are pretty much the pinnacle of journalism. It also doesn't have the sort of political bias as many national publications. As someone that spent his early career working as an analyst I really enjoy their data-driven journalism.

The 2019 analysis didn't mention Brandt, but it did call Klopp an outlier in the data in that he was a successful manager repeating his success elsewhere.

Has Pochettino been moaning about the board signing the wrong players? If he has that seems to have passed me by.

I have a lot of respect for the Economist. But I am never reverential of any journal or journalist. This article is so flawed it's not even worth discussing. 

Their key argument is that if you change a manager and keep the same players , results remain the same. In other words, managers don't improve results, players do.

There is a concept of spurious association in statistics, where two events occur together but one is not responsible for the other. Unai Emery improved Villa by getting their existing players to play better. He also signed a couple of players. You have to be both a poor statistician and a pretty hopeless football follower to  not notice that their results improved without new signings.

The author could have avoided the fallacy by asking themselves, what happens  when a club keeps  a failing manager and sign more prayers. In most cases , they don't improve, in some they get even worse results. Trying to shore up a poor manager with new signings is a fast route to bankrupt a club  you'd think the Economist would know this. If the Saudi had not come into the market, Chelsea would be in a much worse financial situation today due to desperate signings by the previous managers.

Pochettino doesn't have to moan about his players because the football press is busy doing it for him. Just watch  someone ask him about his own responsibility for his team's inconsistency and see the excuses fly out.

[Alex]

1 hour ago, Siidi said:

Their key argument is that if you change a manager and keep the same players , results remain the same. In other words, managers don't improve results, players do.

That's not at all what they said! 

They said a manager's impact is hard to gauge and that a successful manager moving club has just over 50% chance of being successful.

Villa are again a specific example of a manager doing well when he comes in (and Unai Emery has a mixed record of success as well). Villa have had lots more examples of managers doing badly when they came in. Gerrard was a successful manager before his move, so that's just balanced out Emery.

This example is not the "clear statistics" you stated, just another example that supports the point you made on what I believe was simply your gut feeling. The Economist analysis however is a pattern that emerged from 15 years of English league data encompassing every managerial change during that time.

[paulw66]

On 27/04/2024 at 21:50, Mark Kelly said:

Great goal from Gallagher. 

 

 

On 27/04/2024 at 21:46, My Blood Is Blue said:

What a goal! Fully deserved. Great performance in this second half.

 

On 27/04/2024 at 21:46, Original 21 said:

Take a bow, Conor Gallagher. 

 

On 27/04/2024 at 21:45, Chelsea_Matt said:

Gallagher!!!!!!! ‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️

 

Anyone notice how similar this goal was to Lampard at Villa Park in 2013 when he broke the record? Very similar place on the pitch, shifting the ball to his left.......