Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
In the words of Hilaire Belloc: It has long been recognised by public men of all kinds, that statistics come under the head of lying, and that no lie is so false or inconclusive as that which is based on statistics. On 20/12/2011, at 10:42 , Steven Millward wrote: Nothing. I showed you a table that showed that 18 of 20 teams were within 3 places of the forecast and 15 were within 2 places. There is an element of luck and other factors in this as I explained in my earlier response to Matt. It's not a perfect model but it explains 90% of variability. On 20 December 2011 10:22, Marcus Chantry chant...@iinet.net.au wrote: ok, let's see how much you trust your statistics. How much are you willing to place on a bet that Wolves will finish exactly fourth from bottom? On 20/12/2011, at 10:20 , Steven Millward wrote: See you're trying to discredit me by the absurd. The last bastion of a scoundrel. I say there is a need for a manager to do the things that managers do, but that beyond a certain level of competence and experience there is very little difference in the influence they have on performance. We need a manager. My analysis says that Mick is a good one. We should focus on something that is of more importance than this superstitious nonsense. On 20 December 2011 10:05, Marcus Chantry chant...@iinet.net.au wrote: you are correct that insurance is very heavily dependant on statistics for assessing and pricing for risks. However, I am not an actuary and my role for the best part of 17 years has been to challenge actuaries to ensure that my products are affordable and sustainable, in effect disproving many of the stats that they use to paint a certain doom gloom picture. Actuaries can make stats tell whatever story they want them to, but they are very conservative by nature and only assess the stats that they think help their argument. Sound familiar Steve? Let's think outside the square and devise a system whereby each season ticket holder is given a one month tenure as team selector. This does away with the need to have a manager and coaching staff but leaves one person that can be blamed each month depending on performances (over which they've clearly had no effect one). Save money and remove the unnecessary managerial merry-go-round. On 20/12/2011, at 09:30 , Steven Millward wrote: Interesting point of view from someone that works in insurance, an industry that is entirely based on the statistical pricing of risk. Please take the stats I have presented and make them support your agenda. I can send you the spreadsheet if you want to have a go. I understand it must be confronting to have long held belief destroyed in front of your eyes. I suppose you can always rely on faith and ignore the facts On 20 December 2011 08:40, Marcus Chantry chant...@iinet.net.au wrote: Stats can be made to support any agenda that a person wants to push. Climate Change is the perfect example of how both sides can manipulate statistics to support their own agenda. On 20/12/2011, at 08:36 , Jeremy Tonks wrote: You’ve missed the point Lee ;) How much is he being paid? I’m not sure 1 game without him this season gives us any statistical validity?! I think I’d like to see which games he missed (as in opponents) as well. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:30 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED Whilst on the subject of statistics, did anyone else see the Karl Henry stats on Mol Mix? Are these stats too much of a coincidence 2010-2011 - With Karl Henry P28 ( + 1 sub ) W7 ( 21 points ) D6 ( 6 points ) L16 Pts: 27 2010-2011 - Without Karl Henry P9 W4 ( 12 points ) D1 ( 1 point ) L4 Pts: 13 points 2011-2012 - With Karl Henry P 14 W3 ( 9 points ) D2 ( 2 points ) L9 Pts: 11 2011-2012 - Without Karl Henry P1 W1 ( 3 points ) Pts: 3 IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:21 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] I’m not going to put Sunderland in that basket for a few more weeks yet… …and the wages statistics still tell me that Sh*te will fall on their collective backsides sooner rather than later J From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Interesting choice of quote. Belloc was an anti-Semetic, anti-Islamic Catholic who asserted that the Theory of Evolution had been completely discredited. Someone else who didn't like facts getting in the way of dogmatic personal belief and superstition. On 20 December 2011 19:51, Marcus Chantry chant...@iinet.net.au wrote: In the words of Hilaire Belloc: It has long been recognised by public men of all kinds, that statistics come under the head of lying, and that no lie is so false or inconclusive as that which is based on statistics. On 20/12/2011, at 10:42 , Steven Millward wrote: Nothing. I showed you a table that showed that 18 of 20 teams were within 3 places of the forecast and 15 were within 2 places. There is an element of luck and other factors in this as I explained in my earlier response to Matt. It's not a perfect model but it explains 90% of variability. On 20 December 2011 10:22, Marcus Chantry chant...@iinet.net.au wrote: ok, let's see how much you trust your statistics. How much are you willing to place on a bet that Wolves will finish exactly fourth from bottom? On 20/12/2011, at 10:20 , Steven Millward wrote: See you're trying to discredit me by the absurd. The last bastion of a scoundrel. I say there is a need for a manager to do the things that managers do, but that beyond a certain level of competence and experience there is very little difference in the influence they have on performance. We need a manager. My analysis says that Mick is a good one. We should focus on something that is of more importance than this superstitious nonsense. On 20 December 2011 10:05, Marcus Chantry chant...@iinet.net.au wrote: you are correct that insurance is very heavily dependant on statistics for assessing and pricing for risks. However, I am not an actuary and my role for the best part of 17 years has been to challenge actuaries to ensure that my products are affordable and sustainable, in effect disproving many of the stats that they use to paint a certain doom gloom picture. Actuaries can make stats tell whatever story they want them to, but they are very conservative by nature and only assess the stats that they think help their argument. Sound familiar Steve? Let's think outside the square and devise a system whereby each season ticket holder is given a one month tenure as team selector. This does away with the need to have a manager and coaching staff but leaves one person that can be blamed each month depending on performances (over which they've clearly had no effect one). Save money and remove the unnecessary managerial merry-go-round. On 20/12/2011, at 09:30 , Steven Millward wrote: Interesting point of view from someone that works in insurance, an industry that is entirely based on the statistical pricing of risk. Please take the stats I have presented and make them support your agenda. I can send you the spreadsheet if you want to have a go. I understand it must be confronting to have long held belief destroyed in front of your eyes. I suppose you can always rely on faith and ignore the facts On 20 December 2011 08:40, Marcus Chantry chant...@iinet.net.au wrote: Stats can be made to support any agenda that a person wants to push. Climate Change is the perfect example of how both sides can manipulate statistics to support their own agenda. On 20/12/2011, at 08:36 , Jeremy Tonks wrote: ** You’ve missed the point Lee ;) ** ** How much is he being paid? ** ** I’m not sure 1 game without him this season gives us any statistical validity?! I think I’d like to see which games he missed (as in opponents) as well. ** ** ** ** -- *From:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** [mailto:** nswolves@googlegroups.com**] *On Behalf Of *Morris, Lee SGT *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:30 AM *To:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** *Subject:* [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] ** ** *UNCLASSIFIED* Whilst on the subject of statistics, did anyone else see the Karl Henry stats on Mol Mix? Are these stats too much of a coincidence *2010-2011 - With Karl Henry* P28 ( + 1 sub ) W7 ( 21 points ) D6 ( 6 points ) L16 Pts: 27 *2010-2011 - Without Karl Henry** *P9 W4 ( 12 points ) D1 ( 1 point ) L4 Pts: 13 points *2011-2012 - With Karl Henry* P 14 W3 ( 9 points ) D2 ( 2 points ) L9 Pts: 11 *2011-2012 - Without Karl Henry* P1 W1 ( 3 points ) Pts: 3 ** ** *IMPORTANT*: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. -- *From:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** [mailto:** nswolves@googlegroups.com
[NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
UNCLASSIFIED Whilst on the subject of statistics, did anyone else see the Karl Henry stats on Mol Mix? Are these stats too much of a coincidence 2010-2011 - With Karl Henry P28 ( + 1 sub ) W7 ( 21 points ) D6 ( 6 points ) L16 Pts: 27 2010-2011 - Without Karl Henry P9 W4 ( 12 points ) D1 ( 1 point ) L4 Pts: 13 points 2011-2012 - With Karl Henry P 14 W3 ( 9 points ) D2 ( 2 points ) L9 Pts: 11 2011-2012 - Without Karl Henry P1 W1 ( 3 points ) Pts: 3 IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:21 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] I'm not going to put Sunderland in that basket for a few more weeks yet... ...and the wages statistics still tell me that Sh*te will fall on their collective backsides sooner rather than later :-) From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:15 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED There lies the problem because first the Baggies and now Sunderland have nicked the obvious candidates...we have dithered too much IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:13 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] You raise good points Lee but you fail in the usual way... just who is it that is going to replace MM? From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:09 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED So using this theory, West Brom are 8 places above where they should be, simply because they found a bloody good manager to replace the dross they had previoulsyI rest my case. Again using West Brom as an example, we were just about on equal terms when they appointed their current manager whilst we continued to battle along with MM. Of course wages make a difference, as the table below shows, BUT the need for higher quality should have been staring MM and Steve Morgan in the face after the struggle last season...I blame Morgan for jumping the gun with the stadium...rather than spending more on players, but I understand the timing aspect re the economy..I blame Mick for the way we play...its horrible sub standard stuff...I think I enjoyed the championship more. IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 05:31 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
RE: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
You've missed the point Lee ;) How much is he being paid? I'm not sure 1 game without him this season gives us any statistical validity?! I think I'd like to see which games he missed (as in opponents) as well. _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:30 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED Whilst on the subject of statistics, did anyone else see the Karl Henry stats on Mol Mix? Are these stats too much of a coincidence 2010-2011 - With Karl Henry P28 ( + 1 sub ) W7 ( 21 points ) D6 ( 6 points ) L16 Pts: 27 2010-2011 - Without Karl Henry P9 W4 ( 12 points ) D1 ( 1 point ) L4 Pts: 13 points 2011-2012 - With Karl Henry P 14 W3 ( 9 points ) D2 ( 2 points ) L9 Pts: 11 2011-2012 - Without Karl Henry P1 W1 ( 3 points ) Pts: 3 IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:21 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] I'm not going to put Sunderland in that basket for a few more weeks yet. .and the wages statistics still tell me that Sh*te will fall on their collective backsides sooner rather than later :-) _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:15 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED There lies the problem because first the Baggies and now Sunderland have nicked the obvious candidates...we have dithered too much IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:13 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] You raise good points Lee but you fail in the usual way. just who is it that is going to replace MM? _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:09 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED So using this theory, West Brom are 8 places above where they should be, simply because they found a bloody good manager to replace the dross they had previoulsyI rest my case. Again using West Brom as an example, we were just about on equal terms when they appointed their current manager whilst we continued to battle along with MM. Of course wages make a difference, as the table below shows, BUT the need for higher quality should have been staring MM and Steve Morgan in the face after the struggle last season...I blame Morgan for jumping the gun with the stadium...rather than spending more on players, but I understand the timing aspect re the economy..I blame Mick for the way we play...its horrible sub standard stuff...I think I enjoyed the championship more. IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 05:31 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
Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Stats can be made to support any agenda that a person wants to push. Climate Change is the perfect example of how both sides can manipulate statistics to support their own agenda. On 20/12/2011, at 08:36 , Jeremy Tonks wrote: You’ve missed the point Lee ;) How much is he being paid? I’m not sure 1 game without him this season gives us any statistical validity?! I think I’d like to see which games he missed (as in opponents) as well. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:30 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED Whilst on the subject of statistics, did anyone else see the Karl Henry stats on Mol Mix? Are these stats too much of a coincidence 2010-2011 - With Karl Henry P28 ( + 1 sub ) W7 ( 21 points ) D6 ( 6 points ) L16 Pts: 27 2010-2011 - Without Karl Henry P9 W4 ( 12 points ) D1 ( 1 point ) L4 Pts: 13 points 2011-2012 - With Karl Henry P 14 W3 ( 9 points ) D2 ( 2 points ) L9 Pts: 11 2011-2012 - Without Karl Henry P1 W1 ( 3 points ) Pts: 3 IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:21 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] I’m not going to put Sunderland in that basket for a few more weeks yet… …and the wages statistics still tell me that Sh*te will fall on their collective backsides sooner rather than later J From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:15 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED There lies the problem because first the Baggies and now Sunderland have nicked the obvious candidates...we have dithered too much IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:13 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] You raise good points Lee but you fail in the usual way… just who is it that is going to replace MM? From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:09 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED So using this theory, West Brom are 8 places above where they should be, simply because they found a bloody good manager to replace the dross they had previoulsyI rest my case. Again using West Brom as an example, we were just about on equal terms when they appointed their current manager whilst we continued to battle along with MM. Of course wages make a difference, as the table below shows, BUT the need for higher quality should have been staring MM and Steve Morgan in the face after the struggle last season...I blame Morgan for jumping the gun with the stadium...rather than spending more on players, but I understand the timing aspect re the economy..I blame Mick for the way we play...its horrible sub standard stuff...I think I enjoyed the championship more. IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 05:31 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
RE: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Guess what I'm reading on line at the moment Marcus. _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Chantry Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:40 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Stats can be made to support any agenda that a person wants to push. Climate Change is the perfect example of how both sides can manipulate statistics to support their own agenda. On 20/12/2011, at 08:36 , Jeremy Tonks wrote: You've missed the point Lee ;) How much is he being paid? I'm not sure 1 game without him this season gives us any statistical validity?! I think I'd like to see which games he missed (as in opponents) as well. _ From: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:30 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED Whilst on the subject of statistics, did anyone else see the Karl Henry stats on Mol Mix? Are these stats too much of a coincidence 2010-2011 - With Karl Henry P28 ( + 1 sub ) W7 ( 21 points ) D6 ( 6 points ) L16 Pts: 27 2010-2011 - Without Karl Henry P9 W4 ( 12 points ) D1 ( 1 point ) L4 Pts: 13 points 2011-2012 - With Karl Henry P 14 W3 ( 9 points ) D2 ( 2 points ) L9 Pts: 11 2011-2012 - Without Karl Henry P1 W1 ( 3 points ) Pts: 3 IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. _ From: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:21 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] I'm not going to put Sunderland in that basket for a few more weeks yet. .and the wages statistics still tell me that Sh*te will fall on their collective backsides sooner rather than later :-) _ From: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:15 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED There lies the problem because first the Baggies and now Sunderland have nicked the obvious candidates...we have dithered too much IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. _ From: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:13 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] You raise good points Lee but you fail in the usual way. just who is it that is going to replace MM? _ From: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:09 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED So using this theory, West Brom are 8 places above where they should be, simply because they found a bloody good manager to replace the dross they had previoulsyI rest my case. Again using West Brom as an example, we were just about on equal terms when they appointed their current manager whilst we continued to battle along with MM. Of course wages make a difference, as the table below shows, BUT the need for higher quality should have been staring MM and Steve Morgan in the face after the struggle last season...I blame Morgan for jumping the gun with the stadium...rather than spending more on players, but I understand the timing aspect re the economy..I blame Mick for the way we play...its horrible sub standard stuff...I think I enjoyed the championship more. IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. _ From: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 05:31 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew I've taken my points
RE: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
UNCLASSIFIED Thats right, lets have our own poll then. For MM = Against MM (I'm against but only if a suitable replacement is available) Should Henry be our first choice defensive midfielder = Should we sign someone specifically to replace him (I think we need someone better in his position) I also happen to believe we desperately need another quality striker. IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Chantry Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:40 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Stats can be made to support any agenda that a person wants to push. Climate Change is the perfect example of how both sides can manipulate statistics to support their own agenda. On 20/12/2011, at 08:36 , Jeremy Tonks wrote: You've missed the point Lee ;) How much is he being paid? I'm not sure 1 game without him this season gives us any statistical validity?! I think I'd like to see which games he missed (as in opponents) as well. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:30 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED Whilst on the subject of statistics, did anyone else see the Karl Henry stats on Mol Mix? Are these stats too much of a coincidence 2010-2011 - With Karl Henry P28 ( + 1 sub ) W7 ( 21 points ) D6 ( 6 points ) L16 Pts: 27 2010-2011 - Without Karl Henry P9 W4 ( 12 points ) D1 ( 1 point ) L4 Pts: 13 points 2011-2012 - With Karl Henry P 14 W3 ( 9 points ) D2 ( 2 points ) L9 Pts: 11 2011-2012 - Without Karl Henry P1 W1 ( 3 points ) Pts: 3 IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:21 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] I'm not going to put Sunderland in that basket for a few more weeks yet... ...and the wages statistics still tell me that Sh*te will fall on their collective backsides sooner rather than later :-) From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:15 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED There lies the problem because first the Baggies and now Sunderland have nicked the obvious candidates...we have dithered too much IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:13 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] You raise good points Lee but you fail in the usual way... just who is it that is going to replace MM? From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:09 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED So using this theory, West Brom are 8 places above where they should be, simply because they found a bloody good manager
RE: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
I really loved MM and am very thankful for his hard work and what he has done for the Club but it is time for a change. I do not think he is the man to take us forward. MM out!! Don't care who the replacement is as I know the Board will choose the best person available. 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 Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:50 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED Thats right, lets have our own poll then. For MM = Against MM (I'm against but only if a suitable replacement is available) Should Henry be our first choice defensive midfielder = Should we sign someone specifically to replace him (I think we need someone better in his position) I also happen to believe we desperately need another quality striker. IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Chantry Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:40 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Stats can be made to support any agenda that a person wants to push. Climate Change is the perfect example of how both sides can manipulate statistics to support their own agenda. On 20/12/2011, at 08:36 , Jeremy Tonks wrote: You've missed the point Lee ;) How much is he being paid? I'm not sure 1 game without him this season gives us any statistical validity?! I think I'd like to see which games he missed (as in opponents) as well. _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:30 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED Whilst on the subject of statistics, did anyone else see the Karl Henry stats on Mol Mix? Are these stats too much of a coincidence 2010-2011 - With Karl Henry P28 ( + 1 sub ) W7 ( 21 points ) D6 ( 6 points ) L16 Pts: 27 2010-2011 - Without Karl Henry P9 W4 ( 12 points ) D1 ( 1 point ) L4 Pts: 13 points 2011-2012 - With Karl Henry P 14 W3 ( 9 points ) D2 ( 2 points ) L9 Pts: 11 2011-2012 - Without Karl Henry P1 W1 ( 3 points ) Pts: 3 IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:21 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] I'm not going to put Sunderland in that basket for a few more weeks yet. .and the wages statistics still tell me that Sh*te will fall on their collective backsides sooner rather than later J _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:15 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED There lies the problem because first the Baggies and now Sunderland have nicked the obvious candidates...we have dithered too much IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:13 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] You raise good points Lee but you fail in the usual way. just who is it that is going to replace MM? _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:09 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED So using this theory, West Brom are 8 places above where they should be, simply because they found a bloody good manager to replace the dross they had previoulsyI rest my case. Again using West Brom as an example, we
RE: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
For MM (come on Lee - WHO IS YOUR SUITABLE REPLACEMENT THAT HAPPENS TO BE AVAILABLE?) Don't really care but I do think we do better without him. We should shore up midfield in Jan Yes we need another quality striker. Who's coming out on loan? Is Tevez available? JT (The Tevez question was a joke Joyce) _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:50 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED Thats right, lets have our own poll then. For MM = Against MM (I'm against but only if a suitable replacement is available) Should Henry be our first choice defensive midfielder = Should we sign someone specifically to replace him (I think we need someone better in his position) I also happen to believe we desperately need another quality striker. IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Chantry Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:40 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Stats can be made to support any agenda that a person wants to push. Climate Change is the perfect example of how both sides can manipulate statistics to support their own agenda. On 20/12/2011, at 08:36 , Jeremy Tonks wrote: You've missed the point Lee ;) How much is he being paid? I'm not sure 1 game without him this season gives us any statistical validity?! I think I'd like to see which games he missed (as in opponents) as well. _ From: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:30 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED Whilst on the subject of statistics, did anyone else see the Karl Henry stats on Mol Mix? Are these stats too much of a coincidence 2010-2011 - With Karl Henry P28 ( + 1 sub ) W7 ( 21 points ) D6 ( 6 points ) L16 Pts: 27 2010-2011 - Without Karl Henry P9 W4 ( 12 points ) D1 ( 1 point ) L4 Pts: 13 points 2011-2012 - With Karl Henry P 14 W3 ( 9 points ) D2 ( 2 points ) L9 Pts: 11 2011-2012 - Without Karl Henry P1 W1 ( 3 points ) Pts: 3 IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. _ From: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:21 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] I'm not going to put Sunderland in that basket for a few more weeks yet. .and the wages statistics still tell me that Sh*te will fall on their collective backsides sooner rather than later :-) _ From: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:15 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED There lies the problem because first the Baggies and now Sunderland have nicked the obvious candidates...we have dithered too much IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. _ From: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:13 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] You raise good points Lee but you fail in the usual way. just who is it that is going to replace MM? _ From: mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:09 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED So using this theory, West Brom are 8 places above where they should be, simply because they found a bloody good manager to replace the dross they had previoulsyI rest my case. Again using West Brom as an example, we were just about on equal terms
RE: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Why bother with a manager when they have so little impact on the the way the team plays and the result of games? If we got rid of Mick and all the coaching staff we should be able to use their wages to pay the wages of better players and therefore improve our results and league position. The stats support it you know. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Crowe Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:56 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] I really loved MM and am very thankful for his hard work and what he has done for the Club but it is time for a change. I do not think he is the man to take us forward. MM out!! Don't care who the replacement is as I know the Board will choose the best person available. 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.commailto:pcr...@contechengineering.com Website: www.contechengineering.comhttp://www.contechengineering.com From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:50 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED Thats right, lets have our own poll then. For MM = Against MM (I'm against but only if a suitable replacement is available) Should Henry be our first choice defensive midfielder = Should we sign someone specifically to replace him (I think we need someone better in his position) I also happen to believe we desperately need another quality striker. IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Chantry Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:40 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Stats can be made to support any agenda that a person wants to push. Climate Change is the perfect example of how both sides can manipulate statistics to support their own agenda. On 20/12/2011, at 08:36 , Jeremy Tonks wrote: You've missed the point Lee ;) How much is he being paid? I'm not sure 1 game without him this season gives us any statistical validity?! I think I'd like to see which games he missed (as in opponents) as well. From: nswolves@googlegroups.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:30 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED Whilst on the subject of statistics, did anyone else see the Karl Henry stats on Mol Mix? Are these stats too much of a coincidence 2010-2011 - With Karl Henry P28 ( + 1 sub ) W7 ( 21 points ) D6 ( 6 points ) L16 Pts: 27 2010-2011 - Without Karl Henry P9 W4 ( 12 points ) D1 ( 1 point ) L4 Pts: 13 points 2011-2012 - With Karl Henry P 14 W3 ( 9 points ) D2 ( 2 points ) L9 Pts: 11 2011-2012 - Without Karl Henry P1 W1 ( 3 points ) Pts: 3 IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. From: nswolves@googlegroups.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:21 To: nswolves@googlegroups.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] I'm not going to put Sunderland in that basket for a few more weeks yet... ...and the wages statistics still tell me that Sh*te will fall on their collective backsides sooner rather than later :) From: nswolves@googlegroups.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:15 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.commailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED There lies the problem because first the Baggies and now Sunderland have nicked the obvious candidates...we have dithered too much IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction
Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Interesting point of view from someone that works in insurance, an industry that is entirely based on the statistical pricing of risk. Please take the stats I have presented and make them support your agenda. I can send you the spreadsheet if you want to have a go. I understand it must be confronting to have long held belief destroyed in front of your eyes. I suppose you can always rely on faith and ignore the facts On 20 December 2011 08:40, Marcus Chantry chant...@iinet.net.au wrote: Stats can be made to support any agenda that a person wants to push. Climate Change is the perfect example of how both sides can manipulate statistics to support their own agenda. On 20/12/2011, at 08:36 , Jeremy Tonks wrote: ** You’ve missed the point Lee ;) ** ** How much is he being paid? ** ** I’m not sure 1 game without him this season gives us any statistical validity?! I think I’d like to see which games he missed (as in opponents) as well.** ** ** ** ** ** -- *From:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** [mailto:**nswolves@googlegroups.com* *] *On Behalf Of *Morris, Lee SGT *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:30 AM *To:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** *Subject:* [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] ** ** *UNCLASSIFIED* Whilst on the subject of statistics, did anyone else see the Karl Henry stats on Mol Mix? Are these stats too much of a coincidence *2010-2011 - With Karl Henry* P28 ( + 1 sub ) W7 ( 21 points ) D6 ( 6 points ) L16 Pts: 27 *2010-2011 - Without Karl Henry** *P9 W4 ( 12 points ) D1 ( 1 point ) L4 Pts: 13 points *2011-2012 - With Karl Henry* P 14 W3 ( 9 points ) D2 ( 2 points ) L9 Pts: 11 *2011-2012 - Without Karl Henry* P1 W1 ( 3 points ) Pts: 3 ** ** *IMPORTANT*: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. -- *From:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** [mailto:**nswolves@googlegroups.com* *] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Tonks *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:21 *To:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] I’m not going to put **Sunderland** in that basket for a few more weeks yet… …and the wages statistics still tell me that Sh*te will fall on their collective backsides sooner rather than later J ** ** ** ** -- *From:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** [mailto:**nswolves@googlegroups.com* *] *On Behalf Of *Morris, Lee SGT *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:15 AM *To:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] ** ** *UNCLASSIFIED* There lies the problem because first the Baggies and now **Sunderland**have nicked the obvious candidates...we have dithered too much ** ** *IMPORTANT*: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. -- *From:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** [mailto:**nswolves@googlegroups.com* *] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Tonks *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:13 *To:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] You raise good points Lee but you fail in the usual way… just who is it that is going to replace MM? ** ** ** ** -- *From:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** [mailto:**nswolves@googlegroups.com* *] *On Behalf Of *Morris, Lee SGT *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:09 AM *To:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] ** ** *UNCLASSIFIED* So using this theory, West Brom are 8 places above where they should be, simply because they found a bloody good manager to replace the dross they had previoulsyI rest my case. Again using **West Brom** as an example, we were just about on equal terms when they appointed their current manager whilst we continued to battle along with MM. Of course wages make a difference, as the table below shows, BUT the need for higher quality should have been staring MM and Steve Morgan in the face after the struggle last season...I blame Morgan for jumping the gun with the stadium...rather than spending more on players, but I understand the timing aspect re the economy..I blame Mick for the way we play...its horrible sub
Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
you are correct that insurance is very heavily dependant on statistics for assessing and pricing for risks. However, I am not an actuary and my role for the best part of 17 years has been to challenge actuaries to ensure that my products are affordable and sustainable, in effect disproving many of the stats that they use to paint a certain doom gloom picture. Actuaries can make stats tell whatever story they want them to, but they are very conservative by nature and only assess the stats that they think help their argument. Sound familiar Steve? Let's think outside the square and devise a system whereby each season ticket holder is given a one month tenure as team selector. This does away with the need to have a manager and coaching staff but leaves one person that can be blamed each month depending on performances (over which they've clearly had no effect one). Save money and remove the unnecessary managerial merry-go-round. On 20/12/2011, at 09:30 , Steven Millward wrote: Interesting point of view from someone that works in insurance, an industry that is entirely based on the statistical pricing of risk. Please take the stats I have presented and make them support your agenda. I can send you the spreadsheet if you want to have a go. I understand it must be confronting to have long held belief destroyed in front of your eyes. I suppose you can always rely on faith and ignore the facts On 20 December 2011 08:40, Marcus Chantry chant...@iinet.net.au wrote: Stats can be made to support any agenda that a person wants to push. Climate Change is the perfect example of how both sides can manipulate statistics to support their own agenda. On 20/12/2011, at 08:36 , Jeremy Tonks wrote: You’ve missed the point Lee ;) How much is he being paid? I’m not sure 1 game without him this season gives us any statistical validity?! I think I’d like to see which games he missed (as in opponents) as well. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:30 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED Whilst on the subject of statistics, did anyone else see the Karl Henry stats on Mol Mix? Are these stats too much of a coincidence 2010-2011 - With Karl Henry P28 ( + 1 sub ) W7 ( 21 points ) D6 ( 6 points ) L16 Pts: 27 2010-2011 - Without Karl Henry P9 W4 ( 12 points ) D1 ( 1 point ) L4 Pts: 13 points 2011-2012 - With Karl Henry P 14 W3 ( 9 points ) D2 ( 2 points ) L9 Pts: 11 2011-2012 - Without Karl Henry P1 W1 ( 3 points ) Pts: 3 IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:21 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] I’m not going to put Sunderland in that basket for a few more weeks yet… …and the wages statistics still tell me that Sh*te will fall on their collective backsides sooner rather than later J From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:15 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED There lies the problem because first the Baggies and now Sunderland have nicked the obvious candidates...we have dithered too much IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:13 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] You raise good points Lee but you fail in the usual way… just who is it that is going to replace MM? From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:09 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED So using this theory, West Brom are 8 places above where they should be, simply because they found a bloody good manager to replace the dross they had
Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
See you're trying to discredit me by the absurd. The last bastion of a scoundrel. I say there is a need for a manager to do the things that managers do, but that beyond a certain level of competence and experience there is very little difference in the influence they have on performance. We need a manager. My analysis says that Mick is a good one. We should focus on something that is of more importance than this superstitious nonsense. On 20 December 2011 10:05, Marcus Chantry chant...@iinet.net.au wrote: you are correct that insurance is very heavily dependant on statistics for assessing and pricing for risks. However, I am not an actuary and my role for the best part of 17 years has been to challenge actuaries to ensure that my products are affordable and sustainable, in effect disproving many of the stats that they use to paint a certain doom gloom picture. Actuaries can make stats tell whatever story they want them to, but they are very conservative by nature and only assess the stats that they think help their argument. Sound familiar Steve? Let's think outside the square and devise a system whereby each season ticket holder is given a one month tenure as team selector. This does away with the need to have a manager and coaching staff but leaves one person that can be blamed each month depending on performances (over which they've clearly had no effect one). Save money and remove the unnecessary managerial merry-go-round. On 20/12/2011, at 09:30 , Steven Millward wrote: Interesting point of view from someone that works in insurance, an industry that is entirely based on the statistical pricing of risk. Please take the stats I have presented and make them support your agenda. I can send you the spreadsheet if you want to have a go. I understand it must be confronting to have long held belief destroyed in front of your eyes. I suppose you can always rely on faith and ignore the facts On 20 December 2011 08:40, Marcus Chantry chant...@iinet.net.au wrote: Stats can be made to support any agenda that a person wants to push. Climate Change is the perfect example of how both sides can manipulate statistics to support their own agenda. On 20/12/2011, at 08:36 , Jeremy Tonks wrote: ** You’ve missed the point Lee ;) ** ** How much is he being paid? ** ** I’m not sure 1 game without him this season gives us any statistical validity?! I think I’d like to see which games he missed (as in opponents) as well.* *** ** ** ** ** -- *From:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** [mailto:**nswolves@googlegroups.com **] *On Behalf Of *Morris, Lee SGT *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:30 AM *To:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** *Subject:* [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] ** ** *UNCLASSIFIED* Whilst on the subject of statistics, did anyone else see the Karl Henry stats on Mol Mix? Are these stats too much of a coincidence *2010-2011 - With Karl Henry* P28 ( + 1 sub ) W7 ( 21 points ) D6 ( 6 points ) L16 Pts: 27 *2010-2011 - Without Karl Henry** *P9 W4 ( 12 points ) D1 ( 1 point ) L4 Pts: 13 points *2011-2012 - With Karl Henry* P 14 W3 ( 9 points ) D2 ( 2 points ) L9 Pts: 11 *2011-2012 - Without Karl Henry* P1 W1 ( 3 points ) Pts: 3 ** ** *IMPORTANT*: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. -- *From:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** [mailto:**nswolves@googlegroups.com **] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Tonks *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:21 *To:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] I’m not going to put **Sunderland** in that basket for a few more weeks yet… …and the wages statistics still tell me that Sh*te will fall on their collective backsides sooner rather than later J ** ** ** ** -- *From:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** [mailto:**nswolves@googlegroups.com **] *On Behalf Of *Morris, Lee SGT *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:15 AM *To:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] ** ** *UNCLASSIFIED* There lies the problem because first the Baggies and now **Sunderland**have nicked the obvious candidates...we have dithered too much ** ** *IMPORTANT*: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email
Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
ok, let's see how much you trust your statistics. How much are you willing to place on a bet that Wolves will finish exactly fourth from bottom? On 20/12/2011, at 10:20 , Steven Millward wrote: See you're trying to discredit me by the absurd. The last bastion of a scoundrel. I say there is a need for a manager to do the things that managers do, but that beyond a certain level of competence and experience there is very little difference in the influence they have on performance. We need a manager. My analysis says that Mick is a good one. We should focus on something that is of more importance than this superstitious nonsense. On 20 December 2011 10:05, Marcus Chantry chant...@iinet.net.au wrote: you are correct that insurance is very heavily dependant on statistics for assessing and pricing for risks. However, I am not an actuary and my role for the best part of 17 years has been to challenge actuaries to ensure that my products are affordable and sustainable, in effect disproving many of the stats that they use to paint a certain doom gloom picture. Actuaries can make stats tell whatever story they want them to, but they are very conservative by nature and only assess the stats that they think help their argument. Sound familiar Steve? Let's think outside the square and devise a system whereby each season ticket holder is given a one month tenure as team selector. This does away with the need to have a manager and coaching staff but leaves one person that can be blamed each month depending on performances (over which they've clearly had no effect one). Save money and remove the unnecessary managerial merry-go-round. On 20/12/2011, at 09:30 , Steven Millward wrote: Interesting point of view from someone that works in insurance, an industry that is entirely based on the statistical pricing of risk. Please take the stats I have presented and make them support your agenda. I can send you the spreadsheet if you want to have a go. I understand it must be confronting to have long held belief destroyed in front of your eyes. I suppose you can always rely on faith and ignore the facts On 20 December 2011 08:40, Marcus Chantry chant...@iinet.net.au wrote: Stats can be made to support any agenda that a person wants to push. Climate Change is the perfect example of how both sides can manipulate statistics to support their own agenda. On 20/12/2011, at 08:36 , Jeremy Tonks wrote: You’ve missed the point Lee ;) How much is he being paid? I’m not sure 1 game without him this season gives us any statistical validity?! I think I’d like to see which games he missed (as in opponents) as well. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:30 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED Whilst on the subject of statistics, did anyone else see the Karl Henry stats on Mol Mix? Are these stats too much of a coincidence 2010-2011 - With Karl Henry P28 ( + 1 sub ) W7 ( 21 points ) D6 ( 6 points ) L16 Pts: 27 2010-2011 - Without Karl Henry P9 W4 ( 12 points ) D1 ( 1 point ) L4 Pts: 13 points 2011-2012 - With Karl Henry P 14 W3 ( 9 points ) D2 ( 2 points ) L9 Pts: 11 2011-2012 - Without Karl Henry P1 W1 ( 3 points ) Pts: 3 IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:21 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] I’m not going to put Sunderland in that basket for a few more weeks yet… …and the wages statistics still tell me that Sh*te will fall on their collective backsides sooner rather than later J From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:15 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED There lies the problem because first the Baggies and now Sunderland have nicked the obvious candidates...we have dithered too much IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves
Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Nothing. I showed you a table that showed that 18 of 20 teams were within 3 places of the forecast and 15 were within 2 places. There is an element of luck and other factors in this as I explained in my earlier response to Matt. It's not a perfect model but it explains 90% of variability. On 20 December 2011 10:22, Marcus Chantry chant...@iinet.net.au wrote: ok, let's see how much you trust your statistics. How much are you willing to place on a bet that Wolves will finish exactly fourth from bottom? On 20/12/2011, at 10:20 , Steven Millward wrote: See you're trying to discredit me by the absurd. The last bastion of a scoundrel. I say there is a need for a manager to do the things that managers do, but that beyond a certain level of competence and experience there is very little difference in the influence they have on performance. We need a manager. My analysis says that Mick is a good one. We should focus on something that is of more importance than this superstitious nonsense. On 20 December 2011 10:05, Marcus Chantry chant...@iinet.net.au wrote: you are correct that insurance is very heavily dependant on statistics for assessing and pricing for risks. However, I am not an actuary and my role for the best part of 17 years has been to challenge actuaries to ensure that my products are affordable and sustainable, in effect disproving many of the stats that they use to paint a certain doom gloom picture. Actuaries can make stats tell whatever story they want them to, but they are very conservative by nature and only assess the stats that they think help their argument. Sound familiar Steve? Let's think outside the square and devise a system whereby each season ticket holder is given a one month tenure as team selector. This does away with the need to have a manager and coaching staff but leaves one person that can be blamed each month depending on performances (over which they've clearly had no effect one). Save money and remove the unnecessary managerial merry-go-round. On 20/12/2011, at 09:30 , Steven Millward wrote: Interesting point of view from someone that works in insurance, an industry that is entirely based on the statistical pricing of risk. Please take the stats I have presented and make them support your agenda. I can send you the spreadsheet if you want to have a go. I understand it must be confronting to have long held belief destroyed in front of your eyes. I suppose you can always rely on faith and ignore the facts On 20 December 2011 08:40, Marcus Chantry chant...@iinet.net.au wrote: Stats can be made to support any agenda that a person wants to push. Climate Change is the perfect example of how both sides can manipulate statistics to support their own agenda. On 20/12/2011, at 08:36 , Jeremy Tonks wrote: ** You’ve missed the point Lee ;) ** ** How much is he being paid? ** ** I’m not sure 1 game without him this season gives us any statistical validity?! I think I’d like to see which games he missed (as in opponents) as well. ** ** ** ** -- *From:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** [mailto:** nswolves@googlegroups.com**] *On Behalf Of *Morris, Lee SGT *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:30 AM *To:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** *Subject:* [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] ** ** *UNCLASSIFIED* Whilst on the subject of statistics, did anyone else see the Karl Henry stats on Mol Mix? Are these stats too much of a coincidence *2010-2011 - With Karl Henry* P28 ( + 1 sub ) W7 ( 21 points ) D6 ( 6 points ) L16 Pts: 27 *2010-2011 - Without Karl Henry** *P9 W4 ( 12 points ) D1 ( 1 point ) L4 Pts: 13 points *2011-2012 - With Karl Henry* P 14 W3 ( 9 points ) D2 ( 2 points ) L9 Pts: 11 *2011-2012 - Without Karl Henry* P1 W1 ( 3 points ) Pts: 3 ** ** *IMPORTANT*: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email. -- *From:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** [mailto:** nswolves@googlegroups.com**] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Tonks *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:21 *To:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] I’m not going to put **Sunderland** in that basket for a few more weeks yet… …and the wages statistics still tell me that Sh*te will fall on their collective backsides sooner rather than later J ** ** ** ** -- *From:* **nswolves@googlegroups.com** [mailto:** nswolves@googlegroups.com**] *On Behalf Of *Morris, Lee SGT *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:15 AM
