maybe the other 9 guys havent finished with her yet ? lol. On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Rog & Reet <rognr...@exemail.com.au> wrote:
> And I’d like to know what happened to my 1/10th of a shag with a super > model that the stats imply.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Thursday, 5 January 2012 11:39 AM > > *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] MO'N**** > > ** ** > > I actually shared a link from Warwick Business School earlier in this > debate that said that there is a honeymoon period after the appointment of > a new manager but after that the performance of the club is no better than > previously, in fact often worse. > > There's nothing in six games at Sunderland that makes me think any > differently about the 38 years of data that I've examined and shared. > That's why I'd like to look at it over a longer term. It seems silly to > ignore a lifetime of information thaat says one thing and only focus on one > club for a month. > > It's interesting that Steve Bruce took Sunderland from 16th in 2008-9 to > 8th in the table by the time Marcus advocated him as being a good manager. > Marcus feels able to draw very firm conclusions from short term results but > over the long term feels able to completely change his mind. Again, it's > why I'd like to look over the longer term. > > I also wonder what MON is supposed to have done in these couple of weeks > that only he can do? And why do we only look at one manager when there are > lots of others that fail? > > ** > ****** > > On 5 January 2012 10:12, Paul Crowe <pcr...@contechengineering.com> wrote: > **** > > Only thing that has changed at Sunderland in the last 4 weeks has been the > appointment of Martin O’Neill. 100% fact!!**** > > **** > > Their upturn in form and results has been impressive, instantaneous and > commendable. It is very hard to argue that a change of Manager has not had > a massive effect in this case. Sorry, Steve your theory doesn’t work with > this one. **** > > **** > > Looking forward to drinking the case of beer with Elliott. Elliott, I will > give you the extra to get a decent case instead of the Toohey’s Red. **** > > **** > > 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:* Wednesday, 4 January 2012 11:13 PM**** > > > *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] MO'N**** > > **** > > Is this the same Steve Bruce you advocated as a replacement for Mick in > november 2009? Or a different one? If it helps jog you memory it was the > same email that you nominated gianfranco Zola as an alternative.**** > > **** > > Steve Bruce had Sunderland sixth in the league at the end of 2009 but they > finished the season in tenth place. Perhaps that wad when he turned bad or > perhaps that was when they sold Darren bent. Was it players or the manager? > **** > > **** > > So how many places improvement can Martin oneill give Sunderland above the > expectation based on wages?**** > > **** > > Maybe mon is a great manager. All I ask is that we judge over a couple of > full seasons > > On 04/01/2012, at 10:05 PM, Marcus Chantry <chant...@iinet.net.au> wrote:* > *** > > I don't see how there is any risk from your point of view. Sunderland > have never been and are unlikely to ever be a top 5 side in the premier > league. But perhaps you can explain something: When Steve Bruce was in > charge, Sunderland had the 8th highest wage bill in the league yet they > were playing shit. Since MON took over they still have the same players > and the same wage bill (8th highest in the league) and have picked up 16 > points from their last 8 games. Are you suggesting that even if they had > kept Steve Bruce in charge they would have had the same upturn in fortune? > I don't think so. Over the past 10 years, Steve Bruce's managerial record > has been in steady decline. The proof of this is that over the most recent > 10 years his win % at the 3 clubs he has managed have reduced at each club > from 37% to 33% to 29% at Sunderland. There is nothing there to suggest > that he would have taken Sunderland to 8th in the league to match their 8th > highest wage bill. Yet by some strange coincidence or anomaly, the > appointment of MON has changed their fortunes dramatically. Why is that?* > *** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > On 04/01/2012, at 20:43 , Steven Millward wrote:**** > > ** ** > > I think I have made it perfectly clear that I believe that league position > is almost entirely decided by players, with wages being the best way of > measuring player quality. The more you spend on wages, the better the > players you get and the better your position in the league. > > Based on the spreadsheet I shared on here a couple of weeks ago, > Sunderland have the 8th highest wages in the league and I would therefore > expect them to come 8th in the league. > > If you believe that Martin O'Neill can make a big difference as a manager > then you would surely expect him to take Sunderland at least say three > places higher than that wouldn't you? > > I know you like quoting anecdotes as evidence, such as a six game stretch, > and you know that I prefer something like 25,000 games to make my case. > > However I propose something in between as the basis for another public bet > with you Marcus. I bet you that the average league position of Sunderland > over next season and the season after won't be higher than 5th. The risk > is all with me as you have someone at the helm of Sunderland that you > really rate and an owner that could throw even more money behind them. > Their wage bill after their summer signings probably now suggests that they > should finish even higher. > > As this is a long-term bet, I propose higher stakes. The loser will wear > a t-shirt at every Wolves meeting for the rest of their lives that says > "I'm thick and I know nothing about football". > > Are we on?**** > > On 4 January 2012 11:10, Chantrys <chant...@iinet.net.au> wrote:**** > > Yes very strange. Since being appointed as manager, Sunderland have won 5, > drawn 1 and lost only once away to Spurs. I'm guessing that when they > sacked Bruce they gave all the players a pay rise and that's why they have > turned in to world beaters (nothing to do wit MON). **** > > > > Sent from my iPad**** > > > On 04/01/2012, at 9:57, "Rog & Reet" <rognr...@exemail.com.au> wrote:**** > > Another statistical anomaly this morning.**** > > **** > > -- > 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. > -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
