http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2009/12/16/fact-or-fiction-myths-in-football/
I've seen this before but I can't find the other links. I believe it applies to other sports too such as basketball in the US. Humans look for patterns and tend to see what they want to see. You would most likely have thought you were in form and have attached everything good you did to that Regarding management: - Hodgson, who is supposedly a good manager was terrible with Liverpool. He was "good" at Fulham but only after spending huge sums on players and wages. Everyone who says he's good never explains why he was rubbish at Liverpool. - Dalgleish seemed to improve Liverpool. They have the fourth highest wage bill in the league but they are sixth at the moment. Underperformance by my thinking. The only thing that happened was to turn one good striker into two good ones by converting Torres into Carroll and Suarez. Nice business, but not really football coaching. We also know that he was "good" at Blackburn but recall that they were spending money like water on the best players in the world back when five million was a transfer record. He also took Newcastle from 4th to 2nd to 14th and got sacked for it. He's basically won trophies with teams that should be winning trophies (much like Fergusson and Wenger) - Redknapp got Southampton relegated after nearly thirty years in the top flight, although he seems to overperform with Spurs at the moment. - Macleish got Birmingham relegated but is doing OK at Villa. If he was a bad manager he's be taking Villa down too? - Coyle was great at Burnley and is now rubbish with Bolton - Steve McClaren is reckoned to be one of the most overperforming managers but look what happens when he has no money. My point is that managers become the totems that everything that happens at the club gets attached too. If he buys a lot of new players and the team does better it's because of the manager. But in reality it's almost entirely because of money. On 19 December 2011 11:45, LEESE Matthew <matthew.le...@rms.nsw.gov.au>wrote: > ** > I'm intrigued by player form having been proven to not exist. I felt I've > had some periods of form over the years (OK, once) and have seen what I > assumed to be this in other players, both professional and ones I've played > with. When a player has a particularly fruitful period that is above his > normal recognised levels, what is this put down to? In my case it could > probably be linked to drinking less beer in the main but there have been > other times where I don't think I've done anything differently, but have > felt I've hit a bit of 'form'. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *paul > *Sent:* Monday, 19 December 2011 11:38 AM > *To:* Nsw Wolves > > *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > I would contend that you have no idea what your talking about! > We have all played football at various levels and know how it should be > played. Wolves are not playing or trying to play good football, end of. MM > out! > Sent via BlackBerry® from Telstra > ------------------------------ > *From: *Steven Millward <millward....@gmail.com> > *Sender: *nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Date: *Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:31:42 +1100 > *To: *<nswolves@googlegroups.com> > *ReplyTo: *nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject: *Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > I have to confess I get frustrated by the apparent lack of logic that's > applied to football support. There are many people on here have excellent > analytical abilities and yet it gets unused in the face of what seems more > like superstition and knee jerk emotion. Rog for example applies a great > deal of analysis to backing horses. Marcus works in insurance, where > actuaries are the backbone of the business and are some of the highest paid > statisticians in any profession. > > I took it upon myself to analyse wages versus position last season and > found a correlation stronger than I have ever found in 15 years of > analysing business problems and relationships. I then found that someone > more skilled than me had already done it, which is why I'm going to read > his book. > > The example you give below seems to fall in the superstition camp. We all > form qualitative assessments of managers and how good they are. I would > contend that none of us know what we are talking about when it comes to > assessing managers, and in any case they have little impact on league > position. > > You also mention "form". Player form has been proven not to exist, in > football and any other game. Another superstition based on humans being > pattern seeking and never seeking to rigourously justify it. > > I guess this is how most superstitions start. > > > > > On 19 December 2011 11:10, LEESE Matthew <matthew.le...@rms.nsw.gov.au>wrote: > >> >> The conspiracy theorist in me thought my 'ban' was down to my movement >> away from the pro-Mick camp but then realised if that were the case the >> list would have 2 active posters. Gave it some more (reasoned) thought and >> worked out it was probably down to the fact our email addresses have just >> been changed at work and so I was likely not recognised by the server. >> Shame, I'd fired off a couple of super witty responses to comments last >> week that never got through. >> >> Mark Hughes eh? Interesting one. I had an interesting converstaion with >> Elliot on Saturday (really, I did!) about how I wouldn't mind Bolton's poor >> form continuing and getting Owen Coyle at Molineux. I had no answer to his >> very sound argument that it is pretty ridiculous to be saying 'Not happy >> with our current manager, would like to swap him for the one that's >> currently got his team bottom of the league'. Despite my extra sobriety now >> compared to Saturday, I still don't have an answer, but I do quite like him >> and particularly the style of football he gets his teams playing. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On >> Behalf Of Paul Hart >> Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 11:00 AM >> To: nswolves@googlegroups.com >> Subject: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew >> >> >> Why were you bannned Matthew ? >> Did you dare to ask for the head of MM >> >> Has anybody else heard the rumour >> That Mark Hughes was at the Stoke >> game ??? >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >> >> Before printing, please consider the environment >> >> IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachment to it are intended only >> to be read or used by the named addressee. It is confidential and may >> contain legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is >> waived or lost by any mistaken transmission to you. Roads and Maritime >> Services (RMS) is not responsible for any unauthorised alterations to this >> e-mail or attachment to it. Views expressed in this message are those of >> the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of RMS. If you >> receive this e-mail in error, please immediately delete it from your system >> and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or use any part of this >> e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >> > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > [image: Logo] > > Before printing, please consider the environment > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachment to it are intended only > to be read or used by the named addressee. It is confidential and may > contain legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is > waived or lost by any mistaken transmission to you. Roads and Maritime > Services (RMS) is not responsible for any unauthorised alterations to this > e-mail or attachment to it. Views expressed in this message are those of > the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of RMS. If you > receive this e-mail in error, please immediately delete it from your system > and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or use any part of this > e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
