Next Manager

[Andyregs]

I'd take aspin with a DoF. I know people will bang on about ex players, but even if he wasn't, he has won multiple promotions in non league, even more manager awards, won leagues having scored over 100 goals each season and discovered rough diamonds. If we don't want a non league manager, or want a manager with league experience, then he will be a manager who has failed elsewhere, such as some of the names mentioned (edinborough, Stubbs etc). Some names mentioned are pie in the sky for a league 2 side. Look at who we thought the Portuguese manager might be at first, and then look at what we got.

[CambridgeDon]

An interesting article about "Effect of manager turnover on team performance" from studies in the Eredivisie and Bundesligia. We can all think of exceptions to the conclusions drawn in the article and Vale are not in the top tier of English football but it does make for sobering and interesting reading.

 

A ray of light for the Vale is the statement, "The only situation where a managerial change might be beneficial would be in a club fighting against relegation, as a 3-5% change in performance — one to two points essentially — could make the difference between staying up and dropping down to a lower division."

 

One over-riding point not mentioned is the availability of money to strengthen the team, hopefully this will happen in Vale's situation and the new manager is given the appropriate funds to bring about at least safety in Lge 2.

 

http://www.soccermetrics.net/paper-discussions/manager-turnover-effect-on-team-performance-weel-paper

 

Most clubs that sack their manager usually see an immediate upturn in results. My main concern right now is that we may not see that 3-5% upturn in results you mention because we still have Parts 2 and 3 of the Clowns Act in place and the longer they're left there the worse it will get. So Norman needs to act quickly and implement his plan, that's assuming he has one.

 

Every game we go without any improvement is now reducing our chances of survival.

[Bea Smith]

We are a bigger club and are part of his greatest moment?

 

We have a richer history, we have a potentially bigger fan base, and a bigger ground which is an eyesore, and I would gladly swap for theirs.

 

In every other respect, though it will upset some to say so, we are not a bigger club, unless you count an average gate of about 25 per cent more.

 

Wycombe's average attendance is 3,917. Our last home gate was almost identical. Like Vale, they have also reached the F A Cup semi-final is a third tier club.

 

Anyone who can look at it in an open-minded and unbiased way will realise that Ainsworth's 'greatest moment' is much more likely to come at Wycombe or a higher level club than at a Smurf-plagued Vale - this could change if we get a normal owner of course.

[Andyregs]

Most clubs that sack their manager usually see an immediate upturn in results. My main concern right now is that we may not see that 3-5% upturn in results you mention because we still have Parts 2 and 3 of the Clowns Act in place and the longer they're left there the worse it will get. So Norman needs to act quickly and implement his plan, that's assuming he has one.

 

Every game we go without any improvement is now reducing our chances of survival.

 

I can't remember the name of the book in which I read it (it was like a freakinomics book for football), but it suggested that the new manager bounce is a myth. It suggests that statistically, a team won't lose every single game in a season. There will be periods where they pick up a few points. Most managers get sacked after a run of defeats, and so when they get sacked, it's not surprising that a few wins come along that would have happened anyway, and many times the teams go back to the same pattern of results. Change happens longer term (though if a team is actively not playing for a manager that could make a difference).

[Santa]

I can't remember the name of the book in which I read it (it was like a freakinomics book for football), but it suggested that the new manager bounce is a myth. It suggests that statistically, a team won't lose every single game in a season. There will be periods where they pick up a few points. Most managers get sacked after a run of defeats, and so when they get sacked, it's not surprising that a few wins come along that would have happened anyway, and many times the teams go back to the same pattern of results. Change happens longer term (though if a team is actively not playing for a manager that could make a difference).

Probably Soccernomics by Simon Kuper & Stefan Szymanski, which was an updated version of an earlier edition called Why England Lose.

 

A decent and thought-provoking read.

[pjg1876]

I can't remember the name of the book in which I read it (it was like a freakinomics book for football), but it suggested that the new manager bounce is a myth. It suggests that statistically, a team won't lose every single game in a season. There will be periods where they pick up a few points. Most managers get sacked after a run of defeats, and so when they get sacked, it's not surprising that a few wins come along that would have happened anyway

 

We must be due a good run then soon, can't wait.

[CambridgeDon]

I can't remember the name of the book in which I read it (it was like a freakinomics book for football), but it suggested that the new manager bounce is a myth. It suggests that statistically, a team won't lose every single game in a season. There will be periods where they pick up a few points. Most managers get sacked after a run of defeats, and so when they get sacked, it's not surprising that a few wins come along that would have happened anyway, and many times the teams go back to the same pattern of results. Change happens longer term (though if a team is actively not playing for a manager that could make a difference).

 

Wouldn't be surprised if that were true. It's just that everytime we play a team where the manager's just gone, we seem to lose. Must be sod's law!

[Essex Vale]

There is a scene in one of the brilliant Fawlty Towers episodes where Basil has accidentally groped a beautiful young Australian girl and then been caught hiding in her wardrobe by Sybil.

 

Sybil has had (unfounded) suspicions that Basil has been after the girl for a while but finally confronts him and asks-

 

'What makes you think that a young, attractive young lady like this would be interested in an ageing nauseous brilliantine stick-insect like you Basil ?'

 

Now if you substitute Vale and its owner for Basil, Ainsworth for the Australian girl, and the words stick-insect for alleged lardy fantasist there is a certain similarity with what is going on here.

 

Why in a million years would Ainsworth want to swap what he has at Wycombe for a ticket to what I have to sadly describe as our trouble and lunacy land ?

 

 

-ps You could substitute Coleman for Ainsworth too - why would he want the hassle when he is doing so well and is Smurf-free ?

 

I don't necessarily agree with the strategic thinking of this post but the analogy is cuttingly funny and accurate

[valiantsireno]

We have a richer history, we have a potentially bigger fan base, and a bigger ground which is an eyesore, and I would gladly swap for theirs.

 

In every other respect, though it will upset some to say so, we are not a bigger club, unless you count an average gate of about 25 per cent more.

 

Wycombe's average attendance is 3,917. Our last home gate was almost identical. Like Vale, they have also reached the F A Cup semi-final is a third tier club.

 

Anyone who can look at it in an open-minded and unbiased way will realise that Ainsworth's 'greatest moment' is much more likely to come at Wycombe or a higher level club than at a Smurf-plagued Vale - this could change if we get a normal owner of course.

 

Even as a player? You cannot look in an unbiased way, that's just not being a football fan. I want this club to crush all others and if anyone thinks differently I'd do whatever it takes to change their mind, and I mean anything!

[Andyregs]

Probably Soccernomics by Simon Kuper & Stefan Szymanski, which was an updated version of an earlier edition called Why England Lose.

 

A decent and thought-provoking read.

 

That's the one. A good read. Makes you question whether we over estimate the effect of managers when money is the main factor in success. Apparently Paul sturrock was the best manager when you factor out budgets.

[pjg1876]

I've seen Adams, Ainsworth, Adkins, Askey, Aspin all mentioned and I haven't got to letter B yet. Hope Smurf has a Plan B as he will never please everybody if anybody.

[Andyregs]

We must be due a good run then soon, can't wait.

 

We'll win on Saturday and everyone will think it's because we sacked brown (not suggesting we shouldn't have, just that improvement will take more than that). It's probably something to keep in mind when clubs decide to keep the a temporary manager on permanently because they get a few wins at the start.

[pjg1876]

Wouldn't be surprised if that were true. It's just that everytime we play a team where the manager's just gone, we seem to lose. Must be sod's law!

That's because we usually lose most probably. Changing managers doesn't make a lot of difference in our case. We're not very good playing against 10 men either

[eh up nah]

Anyone seen Burges Facebook post?

 

Sorry if it's earlier on in the thread or on the Ryan burge thread that I can't find now.

 

What an utter fruitloop!

[Andyregs]

Anyone seen Burges Facebook post?

 

Sorry if it's earlier on in the thread or on the Ryan burge thread that I can't find now.

 

What an utter fruitloop!

 

Tell us what it says then!