I know I shouldn't, but I'm trying to help him

[dickos1]

Wigan 1 Sunderland 4
Possession. 56%.         44%
On target.     10.             9
Off target.     10.             1
Corners.        9.              6

                   Man city  3 Liverpool 0
Possession. 50%.             50%
On target.      8.                  10
Off target.      2.                  8
Corners.        5.                  6


It's a funny old game saint.

[RobTheRover]

Lies, damn lies and statistics, eh?

[madmick50]

Well done Dickos. You are now starting to use the management techniques I have introduced you to. You are now starting to judge how a team performs based on hard evidence and facts (like what I do).

As part of your education I now need to explain a couple of things to help you interpret your facts in a meaningful manner. Football is a funny old game. Sometimes you can have less possession and attempts on goal and still win!!! So don't just look at one game in isolation. What you now need to do to get any meaningful information from your facts (or data as we say in management-speak land) is to check out how these stats relate to victories in the long term.

To save you a lot of time and effort I've already done this for you. I can advise you that the conclusive evidence is that the teams with the most possession and attempts on goal finish higher up the league in the long term. But well done on your progress so far. I'll keep helping you and one day it won't seem such a mystery to you.

[dickos1]

I can give you many examples, I've just noticed your post about bristols game in isolation tonight.
Show me your conclusive evidence please? Because for every example you show me I know I can find one that will contradict you.
I look forward to your evidence.

[dickos1]

http://5addedminutes.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/utilising-possession-in-the-premier-league/

[Donnybax]

I think possession can be a false stat as you can just knock it between the back 4 and get knowhere having the most possesion. I think what counts is the percentage of possession you have in the opposition half or final third.
I also believe shots on target is an important stat as you cant go though the season being second best in shots on target and expect to win the majority of games

[dickos1]

Stoke city are bottom of all the stats tables every season yet always finish mid table,
There are many ways to play football and it's not just as simple as most possession wins as we've proven against Southampton and Leicester. And we also prove it the other way on many occasions under sod.

[madmick50]

I've nicked this from a Guardian article:

Opta statistics, produced in conjunction with Castrol, show that over the past two seasons in the Premier League in only around a third of games did one side have 60% of possession or more, and when they did they won 52% of the time, and lost 25%. If a side had 70% possession or over (which happened in 4.7% of games), they won 67% of the time and lost 17%. Only once in the past two seasons did one side have over 80 per cent possession – Liverpool, in their 3-2 win at Bolton last August.

In the closer games, having 50-59.9% possession meant a side won 43% of the time and lost 31%. So there is a clear correlation between dominating possession and winning matches.

I rest my case.

[Donnybax]

I didnt say most possession i said most possession in final third. I dont think Stoke are bottom of that actually but for stoke its different there main stat will probably the amount of set peices they win and throw ins ect. But generally the more shots you have and possesion in the final third the better you do.

[dickos1]

You rest your case? I've just provided you with an article that contradicts you. Just as I said I would.
Here is some more info:

Daniel comolli.: \"There is less of a correlation between possession and success than we supposed.
\"We lost 1-0 to Stoke City, for example, even though we had more than 70 per cent possession.
 Comolli mentions Stoke, because Tony Pulis's boys prove exactly his case - as keen readers of our website will no doubt know, Stoke have enjoyed more than 50% of possession in just one game (out of 121) since promotion to the Premier League in 2008.

One game out of 121 and you accuse me of using isolated facts

[BillyStubbsTears]

I've nicked this from a Guardian article:

Opta statistics, produced in conjunction with Castrol, show that over the past two seasons in the Premier League in only around a third of games did one side have 60% of possession or more, and when they did they won 52% of the time, and lost 25%. If a side had 70% possession or over (which happened in 4.7% of games), they won 67% of the time and lost 17%. Only once in the past two seasons did one side have over 80 per cent possession – Liverpool, in their 3-2 win at Bolton last August.

In the closer games, having 50-59.9% possession meant a side won 43% of the time and lost 31%. So there is a clear correlation between dominating possession and winning matches.

I rest my case.

Mick. The most common mistake that people make when dealing with statistics is getting confused over causality. They see a relationship between B and A  and assume that B happens because of A.

I'd put it to you that teams don't become good BECAUSE they dominate possession. They dominate possession because they are better than their opponents. Now, it may be the case that teams that dominate possession will, on average, do better than those that don't. But it is not a logical step to therefore say that a side's aim should be to dominate possession. That is a by-product of being good, not a pre-requisite for it.

Also, just because, on average, teams that dominate possession tend to do better does not mean that teams that do not dominate possession are guaranteed to do badly. The causality is far more nuanced than that.

I'll give you a simpler example. People in this country who don't have male sexual organs, on average, live longer than those who do. That doesn't mean that every man who wants to live longer should cut their cock and balls off.

[madmick50]

Fair point Billy. All I would say is that being a management expert one of the crucial things you should do is assess your strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. The Ansoff matrix springs to mind.

If I'd been appointed as Rovers new manager one of the strengths I would have immediately identified would have been our ability to retain possession. By your analogy this makes us a better team than most of the others.

What has happened (until the last game when the old guard took over) is that we have turned this strength into a weakness. This is abysmal management. I don't just say Saunders is inept.
I go on evidence and facts. This is just part of the overwhelming evidence that condemns him.

[madmick50]

You rest your case? I've just provided you with an article that contradicts you. Just as I said I would.
Here is some more info:

Daniel comolli.: \"There is less of a correlation between possession and success than we supposed.
\"We lost 1-0 to Stoke City, for example, even though we had more than 70 per cent possession.
Comolli mentions Stoke, because Tony Pulis's boys prove exactly his case - as keen readers of our website will no doubt know, Stoke have enjoyed more than 50% of possession in just one game (out of 121) since promotion to the Premier League in 2008.

One game out of 121 and you accuse me of using isolated facts

Stoke are the exception that prove the rule.

[dickos1]

He's a lost cause billy. Can't admit when he is wrong which is terrible management behaviour.
 We used to keep possession a lot and infact Saunders did notice this but realised we kept possession in the wrong areas. And he made a point of this in his earlier interviews. He has now changed this which has improved results.
Proving himself to have potential as a good manager

[nice one rovers]

Off subject a bit, but My lad and I have always wondered exactly how they work out possession? Is it down to split seconds? or number of kicks? Been waiting for the subject to come up.

[VikingJames]

Off subject a bit, but My lad and I have always wondered exactly how they work out possession? Is it down to split seconds? or number of kicks? Been waiting for the subject to come up.

I think they just make it up.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

I've come to the conclusion that Madmick is one of these management consultants that talk a load of jargon to make an obvious point, he has to be.

[vaya]

He's undoubtedly a management consultant. It’s at the same time he’s a professional gambler, devout Christian and receives a constant stream of up-to-date inside information about the club third-hand from a single stadium visit made weeks ago. It's a miracle he finds time to fit it all in.

[madmick50]

I've come to the conclusion that Madmick is one of these management consultants that talk a load of jargon to make an obvious point, he has to be.

I am not a management consultant. I have been a manager and I have been managed in many teams over the years in the private sector. I have professional qualifications which is why I know about Forming, Storming,Norming, Performing and the Ansoff Matrix etc. So don't be surprised if I come across as a bit of an expert in this field. I don't have a lot of time for most management consultants as they tend not to have real business experience.

I have always used common sense throughout my successful business life and have found some management theory to be quite useful. I currently run 3 successful businesses on a part time basis which luckily for Saunders gives me lots of free time to give him advice on this forum.

The reason I can see that he is struggling is because I can interpret his actions and statements not through rose tinted spectacles but through the cold steely eyes of a successful businessman. I judge him against sound business criteria and find him wanting in most cases.

[madmick50]

You rest your case? I've just provided you with an article that contradicts you. Just as I said I would.
Here is some more info

When looking at information the source of the data is crucial. My data is from Opta yours is from somewhere no-one has ever heard of. On the face of it my data contradicts your data so a decision has to be made. Which is the most reliable source of data? I put it to you that it is Opta. I rest my case.

[ArmthorpeRover]

It's not difficult to get a professional qualification in management....just a few quid and membership to the CMI will do for starters. Good managers however never blow their own trumpet, never lord it over others and never try to prove their superiority over others perceived 'under' them......that would be aspects of a bad one. Good managers are receptive to change if it benefits the situation and are open to other opinions and ideas....but being the expert I'm sure you know that....I'm sure they also taught you that Bruce Tuckman's model wasn't the only one when they gave you the businessballs website either. It would seem that Kurt Lewin's three stages would be more apt in a team that had piss poor morale and couldn't get a win for love nor money and was adapting for a big change in direction....unfortunately that doesn't fit your argument tho....unless you take the freezing part hand in hand with Tuckman....then it would...for the positive....

What qualification and level do you have out of interest?

[madmick50]

It's not difficult to get a professional qualification in management....just a few quid and membership to the CMI will do for starters.

I'm not a member of the CMI but feel pretty sure that there would be a lot more to gaining a professional qualification with them than you make out. I don't hold a lot of store with qualifications on their own. Before I gained mine I made sure I had learnt on the job from the ground floor up. I then went down the qualifications route to try to enhance my career opportunities. I then tested the theory against what I had learnt and found much of it concurred with what I already knew.

Common sense is the biggest quality any manager could have but it is nice to know the theory and you gain more confidence when the theory backs up what you already thought. I am a modest individual and therefore do not want to brag about what qualifications I possess. It is others that have put the management consultant tag on me.

[inSODwetrust]

I'll tell you what, if our 'fans' made as much noise within the stadium, home and away, as they do on this forum about boring, pointless b*llocks, then maybe we'd be as loud as the Stoke fans!

[vaya]

It's not difficult to get a professional qualification in management....just a few quid and membership to the CMI will do for starters.

I'm not a member of the CMI but feel pretty sure that there would be a lot more to gaining a professional qualification with them than you make out. I don't hold a lot of store with qualifications on their own. Before I gained mine I made sure I had learnt on the job from the ground floor up. I then went down the qualifications route to try to enhance my career opportunities. I then tested the theory against what I had learnt and found much of it concurred with what I already knew.

Common sense is the biggest quality any manager could have but it is nice to know the theory and you gain more confidence when the theory backs up what you already thought. I am a modest individual and therefore do not want to brag about what qualifications I possess. It is others that have put the management consultant tag on me.

This is exactly the same reasoning I employed when performing unlicenced surgery, yet still I ended up doing time.

There's no justice.

[ArmthorpeRover]

It's not difficult to get a professional qualification in management....just a few quid and membership to the CMI will do for starters.

I'm not a member of the CMI but feel pretty sure that there would be a lot more to gaining a professional qualification with them than you make out. I don't hold a lot of store with qualifications on their own. Before I gained mine I made sure I had learnt on the job from the ground floor up. I then went down the qualifications route to try to enhance my career opportunities. I then tested the theory against what I had learnt and found much of it concurred with what I already knew.

Common sense is the biggest quality any manager could have but it is nice to know the theory and you gain more confidence when the theory backs up what you already thought. I am a modest individual and therefore do not want to brag about what qualifications I possess. It is others that have put the management consultant tag on me.

If you have the qualifications then you'll know it's that easy....not think it'll entail more. You get your membership, pay for your course et voila...your now a fully fledged coach/mentor or whatever with paperwork to back you up (assuming you pass of course!). You may not choose to stay a member but you will lose the chance to go to seminars/meetings/networking...if that's your cuppa tea. Having said that there is nothing wrong with working from the ground up and that suits some ppl fine but that should teach a person humility and respect as they once were on the bottom rung, they would have known the differences of good/bad managers (and there are far more bad than good, trust me!) above them in their climb and adapted their own style based on their own learning experience.

A modest person wouldn't call themselves an 'expert' either, that is an overused word for those that think their opinion counts more than others. You may know a bit more in a certain field than others but it doesn't qualify you as an expert. I know more about fixing computers and looking at management models then alot of ppl....still doesn't mean I'm an expert in them no matter my qualifications or history and I am always receptive to new ideas and better ways to help me grow my skill set.

I'll leave Lewin on the table for you to look into but my honest opinion? I really don't think a football club can run strictly by these models....just like statistics, one set can be used to argue a point that another set will refute.

[BillyStubbsTears]

\"A modest person wouldn't call themselves an 'expert' either,\"

It's a cast-iron law of the Universe that the more intelligent and able people REALLY are, the more humble and modest they become about how little they really understand.

Leonardo da Vinci had a nervous breakdown in his 40s when he realised how little he truly understood.

Isaac Newton said, \"I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.\"

Einstein said: \"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.\"

I've worked with many people with widely differing levels of ability and intelligence. In general, I find that their level of self-confidence in their own omnipotence is inversely proportional to their true understanding and ability.

So, to paraphrase Goebbels, \"When I hear someone describe themselves as an expert, I reach for the off-button.\"

[madmick50]

If you have the qualifications then you'll know it's that easy....not think it'll entail more. You get your membership, pay for your course et voila...your now a fully fledged coach/mentor or whatever with paperwork to back you up (assuming you pass of course!). You may not choose to stay a member but you will lose the chance to go to seminars/meetings/networking...if that's your cuppa tea. Having said that there is nothing wrong with working from the ground up and that suits some ppl fine but that should teach a person humility and respect as they once were on the bottom rung, they would have known the differences of good/bad managers (and there are far more bad than good, trust me!) above them in their climb and adapted their own style based on their own learning experience.

A modest person wouldn't call themselves an 'expert' either, that is an overused word for those that think their opinion counts more than others. You may know a bit more in a certain field than others but it doesn't qualify you as an expert. I know more about fixing computers and looking at management models then alot of ppl....still doesn't mean I'm an expert in them no matter my qualifications or history and I am always receptive to new ideas and better ways to help me grow my skill set.

I'll leave Lewin on the table for you to look into but my honest opinion? I really don't think a football club can run strictly by these models....just like statistics, one set can be used to argue a point that another set will refute.

Like I said I don't have any qualifications from the CMI. A quick look on their website proves what you are saying about getting a professional qualification from them is a load of rubbish.

I am a modest 'expert' with a sense of humour and I sometimes say things tongue in cheek. I have a very pugnacious debating style and don't beat about the bush. This upsets a lot of people but I don't care. It is far more important to get the message across in a forthright honest way.

I have never said that a football club should be run strictly by these business models. However there is a lot of useful stuff in there that can help the situation and show where you might be going wrong. For example I would be grateful if you could explain to me how we ever get past the 'Storming' stage with the McKay strategy?

[graingrover]

there is an ecellent example on this thread of two people who have stiudied statistics ( and probably some other dimensions of Management skills) . One seems to know how and when to use the various tools the other one just wants you to know he knows the tools exist.I know which one I would have in the Management team.

[madmick50]

\"A modest person wouldn't call themselves an 'expert' either,\"

It's a cast-iron law of the Universe that the more intelligent and able people REALLY are, the more humble and modest they become about how little they really understand.

Leonardo da Vinci had a nervous breakdown in his 40s when he realised how little he truly understood.

Isaac Newton said, \"I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.\"

Einstein said: \"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.\"

I've worked with many people with widely differing levels of ability and intelligence. In general, I find that their level of self-confidence in their own omnipotence is inversely proportional to their true understanding and ability.

So, to paraphrase Goebbels, \"When I hear someone describe themselves as an expert, I reach for the off-button.\"

You need to get your head out of all those books you read and come into the real world. While you're at it try and get a sense of humour.

[madmick50]

there is an ecellent example on this thread of two people who have stiudied statistics ( and probably some other dimensions of Management skills) . One seems to know how and when to use the various tools the other one just wants you to know he knows the tools exist.I know which one I would have in the Management team.

Thank you for your support.