I'm saying that the difference between a competent mamanger and a great manager is very small. As most managers are competent and have their coaching badges then there is little upside from having a better one in the *current system*.
If there was a salary and transfer cap then management would be more important. However, if management is only 3% as important as wages then having the greatest manager at Wolves would only be the same as having an extra 1m on a 30m wage bill. Even if was was all of the remaining 10% then it still wouldn't be a transformative factor in performance. The average tenure of a manager now is 18 months in England. Whyis that? Clubs appoint managers after selecting the best one and then find that they haven't got it right. It looks to me like something where it's expected to have an impact but doesn't Managers absorb all of the negativity from fans and then are purged. It's a strange cultural phenomenon. On 20 December 2011 09:30, LEESE Matthew <matthew.le...@rms.nsw.gov.au>wrote: > ** > If managers/coaches have so little impact on the success of a football > team why do clubs across the world, at all levels of the game, put so much > importance on them and strive to appoint the best available? Are you saying > that the collective world of football administration is wrong and should be > listening to a professor of economics? > > ------------------------------ > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 9:23 AM > > *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > Yes but Paul, a professor of economics did the analysis over 20 years > and found an even stronger relationship. The facts are there. If you have > similarly strong facts to dispute it then please share them but your gut > feel doesn't count. > > Mick outperformed resources, hence Wolves are in the top half of that > table. > > There is random error when you look at football over a short term due to > refereeing decision, who plays who etc. > > The fact that there are only two anomolies shows how strong the > relationship is > > > > On 20 December 2011 08:00, Paul Crowe <pcr...@contechengineering.com>wrote: > >> Morning Steve,**** >> >> **** >> >> Are you winding us up? Or do you seriously believe “There's no room to >> say that management is important and Mick is a bad manager because the >> facts don't support it”.**** >> >> **** >> >> Even in your listed figures for last season there are some major >> anomaly’s like West Brom (difference 8) and West Ham (difference 12). The >> reason the Baggies are doing well is because they changed their Manager >> mid-last season and now have a good one. The reason West Ham went down is >> because they had a bad Manager and persevered with him.**** >> >> **** >> >> Look at West Ham now, they changed their Manager and are doing very well >> in the Chump League with the majority of Player’s who were relegated.**** >> >> **** >> >> If you look at the teams around us this season, your table would read:*** >> * >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> Team League Rank Wage Rank Difference**** >> >> Sunderland 16 8 8**** >> >> Wolves 17 18 1*** >> * >> >> Wigan 18 16 2* >> *** >> >> Blackburn 19 12 7**** >> >> Bolton 20 14 6* >> *** >> >> **** >> >> Note: I have used your wage ranking figures from last season. **** >> >> **** >> >> Your theory just doesn’t stack up. Also if you throw in Norwich (current >> Difference 10) and Swansea (current Difference 8) for this season, who >> arguably have a lower wage structure than us, then your theory starts to >> fall apart! Granted the season still has a long way to go but I bet you a >> carton of beer both these teams will finish above us. Hope you like >> Elliott’s Toohey’s Red.**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> Norwich 9 19 10* >> *** >> >> Swansea 12 20 8**** >> >> **** >> >> My theory is that the reason teams like Norwich and Swansea are doing >> better than us is because they are trying to play attractive attacking >> football, are coached well and have a better Manager. **** >> >> **** >> >> The Manager is in charge of the coaching staff and determines the tactics >> for his team, to advocate this has no bearing on results and the position >> of your team in the League is pure bunkum!**** >> >> **** >> >> Another one to leave you with, why back in the 90’s and early 00’s, when >> we were the top wage payer’s in the Championship, did it take us so long to >> get promoted?**** >> >> **** >> >> Regards**** >> >> **** >> >> Paul.**** >> >> **** >> >> Paul Crowe**** >> >> Sales Manager - Asia Pacific**** >> >> **** >> >> ConTech (Sydney Office)**** >> >> **** >> >> PO Box 3517**** >> >> Rhodes Waterside**** >> >> Rhodes NSW 2138**** >> >> Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542**** >> >> Mob: 0406009562**** >> >> Email: pcr...@contechengineering.com**** >> >> Website: www.contechengineering.com**** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On >> Behalf Of *Steven Millward >> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 6:31 AM >> *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com >> *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew**** >> >> **** >> >> I've taken my points on to Molineux Mix if anyone's interested >> http://molineuxmix.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?t=66061 >> >> Here's some more interesting data in the table below. >> >> League rank is the position that the team finished in the league >> Wage rank is the position forecast by wages >> >> You'll notice that wages are a great predicitor of league position. >> 10 teams are within one position of their prediction. >> 15 teams are within two positions of their prediction >> 18 teams are within three positions of their prediction. >> >> I've sorted the table by the last column which is the difference between >> the league and wage ranking. The teams at the top are the ones that >> seemingly outperformed their resources. >> >> You'll notice all the "good" managers are near the top of the list: >> Hodgson - Pulis - Redknapp - Ferguson - *McCARTHY* >> >> The way I see if you can say that *either* management is important and >> Mick is a good manager *or* management is unimportant. >> >> There's no room to say that managment is important and Mick is a bad >> manager because the facts don't support it. >> >> Team..........League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference >> West Brom..........11..............19................8 >> Fulham................8...............11.......... ......3 >> Stoke................13...............15.......... ......2 >> Spurs..................5................7......... .......2 >> Man Utd..............1................3............... ..2 >> Wolves..............17...............18........... .....1 >> Blackpool...........19...............20........... .....1 >> Arsenal...............4.................5......... .......1 >> Everton..............7.................8.......... ......1 >> Wigan...............16...............16........... .....0 >> Newcastle..........12...............12............ ....0 >> Bolton...............14...............14.......... ......0 >> Chelsea..............2.................1.......... .....-1 >> Birmingham.........18...............17............ ..-1 >> Man City.............3.................2.............. .-1 >> Liverpool.............6.................4......... ......-2 >> Sunderland.........10................8............ ....-2 >> Aston villa...........9.................6...............-3 >> Blackburn...........15...............12........... ....-3 >> West Ham..........20................8...............-12**** >> >> On 19 December 2011 15:03, Paul Crowe <pcr...@contechengineering.com> >> wrote:**** >> >> Hughes’s Granny would be better than MM!**** >> >> **** >> >> Maybe we should just enlist a local Gypsy as replacement for MM, as our >> teams performance depends on luck and other dubiously explained factors, >> nothing at all to do with the Manager and his coaching skills?**** >> >> **** >> >> Paul Crowe**** >> >> Sales Manager - Asia Pacific**** >> >> **** >> >> ConTech (Sydney Office)**** >> >> **** >> >> PO Box 3517**** >> >> Rhodes Waterside**** >> >> Rhodes NSW 2138**** >> >> Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542**** >> >> Mob: 0406009562**** >> >> Email: pcr...@contechengineering.com**** >> >> Website: www.contechengineering.com**** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On >> Behalf Of *Steven Millward >> *Sent:* Monday, 19 December 2011 2:52 PM**** >> >> >> *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com >> *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew**** >> >> **** >> >> Hold the front page. What a scoop!**** >> >> On 19 December 2011 11:09, Paul Hart <wholiga...@gmail.com> wrote:**** >> >> I spoke to my mate last night in Penn he heard Hughes was there. **** >> >> **** >> >> Well just have to wait and see. >> >> Sent from my iPhone**** >> >> >> On 19/12/2011, at 11:05 AM, Steven Millward <millward....@gmail.com> >> wrote:**** >> >> He dared to make a positive comment about Wolves and the filter kicked >> him out. I've hacked it. >> >> Where is that rumour from?**** >> >> On 19 December 2011 11:00, Paul Hart <wholiga...@gmail.com> wrote:**** >> >> >> 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.**** >> >> **** >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out.**** >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out.**** >> >> **** >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out.**** >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out.**** >> >> **** >> >> -- >> 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.
