Andy Gray?

[Yellow Bungle]

Is this guy for real? Is he having an affair with Fergie (Alex not the ginger one)?

 

Watching today's match every time a Man U player got caught by a slight breeze he was calling for a freekick and he kept going on about how Man U had SO many more shots and shots on target.

 

I can't believe he is still Sky's face of football. 15 years ago he was in the right place at the right time (and probably cheap), but he really needs to up his game and show a bit of impartiality.

[Eastside Urchin]

well man utd were the better side and did have about 15 shots on target

[IDtheWIZ]

but the only shot that counts is the one in the back of the net so all the stats that ppl say next week its all forgot.

[chilled out entertainer]

very simplistic way of looking at it, if it was as simple as that noone would watch football, jusr check the results later. people wuill be talking to day about the game and commenting that utd had 17/18 shots on target, and all west ham did was score a goalmouth scramble.utd were dominant and a new manager in curbs for west ham done them a world of good. how many times have we seen that new blood revitalises a team???

[Hookey]

Don't agree Man Utd dominated, look at the first half possession stats 77%/23% in West Ham's favour. Agree Man U had the more clear cut chances (Zamora's not withstanding) but West Ham were not lucky, just resilient.

 

Be interesting to see how long the "new manager" syndrome lasts though, should get a result at Fulham on Sat and be out of the bottom 3 for Xmas.

 

Gotta feel sorry for Pards though, he must thinking "B'stards", they are the same players!!!

[IDtheWIZ]

Quote:

chilled out entertainer said:
very simplistic way of looking at it, if it was as simple as that noone would watch football

If you read what I was saying people would still be talking for a week about the game like we are now, it is just the next week people will move onto the next match and they would have put this game into the back of their minds

[IDtheWIZ]

Quote:

Hookey said:
Gotta feel sorry for Pards though, he must thinking "B'stards", they are the same players!!!

All players seem to do the same thing when a new manager comes along all fighting for a place

[Yellow Bungle]

My point wasn't whether or nor West Ham or Man U, deserved to win. It was about the quality of Andy Gray's punditry.

[Yellow Bungle]

Quote:

Idthewiz said:

Quote:

Hookey said:
Gotta feel sorry for Pards though, he must thinking "B'stards", they are the same players!!!

All players seem to do the same thing when a new manager comes along all fighting for a place

Statistical evidence actually shows the contrary, that a team changing a manager suffer a dip in form.

[chilled out entertainer]

that can not be true. i demand hard facts!!!

[Barry Scott]

Love the sig Bungle, saw them last night, were truly excellent. I thought Man United were [****!!****] [****!!****] on Sunday, and had another game where inside the first five minutes you could tell it wasn't going to go their way. And credit to West Ham as they just looked like they wanted it more

[Yellow Bungle]

Quote:

chilled out entertainer said:
that can not be true. i demand hard facts!!!

http://www.le.ac.uk/sp/sf-review/97-98/97article7.html

Basically any improvement may be put down to the fact you can't go on losing forever.

There is other research which finds even stronger evidence that sacking the manager does not lead to better results. I can dig it out if you want.

[chilled out entertainer]

that evidence is flawed in that you cant compare teams up to a point when they may have sacked their manager with those that have as that is pure speculation. different teams have different fixtures and club history(therefore expectaion) so may be more likely to sack a manager than other teams. financial constraints are also an issue. After reading this i still believe that more often than not teams that change manager do better in the short to midterm.

[Yellow Bungle]

You can never prove anything definitively. You can only statistically test the hypotheses.

 

In the case of sacking managers, all the academic research I've seen (and surprisingly there's quite a bit around) have been unable to statistically prove (i.e. within specified confidence intervals) that sacking managers has any positive impact on results. Conversely, there is statistical evidence to suggest that results will suffer.

 

Whether or not the evidence is flawed is irrelevant. You asked for "hard facts" and facts don't come harder than published academic research. Now, if you'd asked for proof...

[chilled out entertainer]

Quote:

Yellow Bungle said:
You can never prove anything definitively.

In the case of sacking managers, all the academic research I've seen have been unable to statistically prove that sacking managers has any positive impact on results. Conversely, there is statistical evidence to suggest that results will suffer.

of course you can prove things definitely? what planet are you from?


and how can there be evidence to prove teams suffer but not evidence to prove they prosper?? using sttistics that can only be (im guessing) match results

[Yellow Bungle]

Want an epistomological argument about that? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/boxing.gif" alt="" />