Form- Data Visualisation

[selby]

  I don't think we needed a graph to tell us the centre halves were costing us goals.

[belton rover]

When DS took charge, my expectations were based on hope. When GM came, my expectations were based on belief.
I still haven’t given up on this season’s play off challenge (why does football make me think so naively at my age?), but I now accept that the problem isn’t laid just at the manager’s door.
The major difference between DS and GM is that I believe GM is still the one to take us up, eventually, but DS never was.

[BillyStubbsTears]

We were a low chance creation, more solid unit at our best under DS. Thats never going to be as easy on the eye as a higher chance creation, more open defensively team.

With DS, I couldn’t see where the improvement in front of goal was going to come from and I don’t think the players did either. That added to the demise when the system essentially started boring them too.

The solutions to McCann’s issues are potentially easier to find. We have to bin the 3 centre half system for me. More bodies defensively doesn’t necessarily mean more solidity. The amount of goals we concede by one of the centre halves getting dragged out of position and a deep runner exposing the space is incredible really.

Interesting that our xG conceded suddenly went from actually very good to rapidly very bad from about match 30 last year (that was the win vs Barrow at home). That coincides with RS Williams getting injured (he didn't start a match between game 29 and game 45) and with Anderson having recurring injury problems (he started 6 of the last 17 games from match 30).

By the time we hit match 35, our defence was Olowu, Nelson and Rowe, with Brown and Seaman as wingbacks.

By match 40 it was Faulkner, Long and Nelson with Seaman and Molyneux at wingback.

Really not a surprise that we were offering lots of goal chances every week.

[DonnyOsmond]

RoShaun still free?

[roversdude]

I believe so - still don’t think he was as bad as he was made out to be, probably fit in ok in this team.
Be interesting to see how we fare with goals from set pieces, most other teams are dangerous and seem to have centre halves who can chip in with a few goals

[RugbyRover]

When DS took charge, my expectations were based on hope. When GM came, my expectations were based on belief.
I still haven’t given up on this season’s play off challenge (why does football make me think so naively at my age?), but I now accept that the problem isn’t laid just at the manager’s door.
The major difference between DS and GM is that I believe GM is still the one to take us up, eventually, but DS never was.

The major difference between McCann and DS (and Sheffers and Wellens) is that he's convinced Terry to splash the cash. 

[BillyStubbsTears]

I believe so - still don’t think he was as bad as he was made out to be, probably fit in ok in this team.
Be interesting to see how we fare with goals from set pieces, most other teams are dangerous and seem to have centre halves who can chip in with a few goals

His problem was you never knew when he was going to drop an absolute bollock. But overall, the numbers speak for themselves. We were a far better defensive unit with him than without him.

[Branton Red]

Thanks for this Gazlaz - very interesting. My interpretation: -

McSheffrey - the start last season (14pts from 6 games) looks even more unrepresentative against performances than I thought even in hindsight.

Dismissing him still looks the right decision.

Schofield - we got the usual new manager bounce on appointing him which he sustained for a time before things fell off a cliff. And that fall preceded the major injury crisis at season end.

Dismissing him is confirmed as an absolute no-brainer - esp allied with the major fall in season ticket sales retaining him strongly looked like causing.

McCannn - the start this season (2pts from 7 games) was as bad as the performance data suggest. But he has overseen virtual continual progress through the season (despite what recent form in terms of points suggests).

It's fair to be asking why overall we're seemingly not performing as well as last year despite additional investment but whilst performances are improving (though we need to expect a short term drop off given the current injury situation) he is very much deserving of continued support.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Is there hard empirical evidence of this "usual new manager bounce"?

Morecambe didn't have one. Before last Satdi, obviously.

[Branton Red]

Is there hard empirical evidence of this "usual new manager bounce"?

Morecambe didn't have one. Before last Satdi, obviously.

Unfortunately Bradford seem to be having one 

www.goal.com/en-gb/news/what-is-new-manager-bounce-in-football/blt73eb2750d6754abc

Premier League but to quote from the above: -

"According to a Premier League report, since the start of 2017/18, there were 26 managerial changes in the top-flight competition in four complete seasons."

"If we go by statistics and data, the 'new manager bounce' phenomenon is actually real. Of the 26 managerial changes that took place, 20 of them averaged more points per match (ppm) in his first five matches in charge than his predecessor. In nine cases, the new man doubled the previous points average or did even better than that."

Of course a manager is more likely to be sacked after a poor run of results which is more likely to occur against better teams. If this occurs the following matches, on average, are statistically likely to be against relatively weaker teams.

Not that that matters here as Gazlaz's stats don't take into account the ability of opponents.

[BillyStubbsTears]

It's just that we didn't get one when we recruited Moore. We'd just made the playoffs, and were rarely at that level of performance in Moore's first half season.

Or Butler. He lost 7 of his first 11 games.
Or Wellens. He lost 7 of his first 9 games.
Or McSheffrey. He lost 7 of his first 8 games.

So I'm wondering what was "usual" about Schofield's good start?

[Branton Red]

Billy

You asked for empirical evidence.

You were given empirical evidence.

You ignore the empirical evidence because it doesn't fit your view.

"Usual" doesn't mean all the time. The 4 instances you quote: -

- 2 taking over in the close season. One where we lost our most consistent goalscorer in 50 years. One where the budget was cut considerably.
- 2 totally inexperienced managers taking over from managers with some experience and track record of previous success at a time of on-field crisis.

[Branton Red]

BTW I'm not using the "new manager bounce" to dismiss Schofield's initial impact.

He clearly, at least initially, got the players motivated and working hard (remember the Stevenage game).

He also radically altered the way the team was tactically set up to play. Which initially improved performances.

Sadly this didn't last.

[GazLaz]

Is there hard empirical evidence of this "usual new manager bounce"?

Morecambe didn't have one. Before last Satdi, obviously.

Nearly always the “bounce” is after managers get the sack when underlying data is good but results poor. Results then revert to where they should be based on performances. Can’t prove it obviously but I think it’s generally down to that extra few percent focus the new manager brings. Generally more to it than a new manager though.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Branton.

There have been thousands of managerial changes in my lifetime. I'm not sure that a selection of 26 in one league is entirely representative. Of course, my selection of four (five actually - I missed McCann this season: a new manager who came with a huge investment and saw no bounce) of our recent ones isn't either.

What interests me is that Gaz's data supports what we saw with our eyes - Schofield's effect was to make us tighter, defensively. That appears to have been a long term effect. Again, we saw it with our own eyes. We were solid, but really dull.

 And the collapse in that effect coincided with us losing our two most effective centre halves.

Might well be confirmation bias, but it supports what I've been saying all year. Schofield was nowhere near the  disaster he's commonly believed to be. He was grimly effective with a shit hand, but couldn't do much when the shit melted and ran between his fingers.

[sedwardsdrfc]

Great you’ve typed until you’ve convinced yourself you’re right. He still got sacked and he’s still got one of the worst records going.

No amount of nuisance or asking for stats then discounting them will make anyone other than you think he was decent.

[normal rules]

Peterborough was a battling performance, but it was only when rovers got a goal back did we see a real diff. The play became more direct and confidence grew.
Putting an exact finger on downturn in results is difficult though.
But I do wish rovers were a little more direct in the final third. And i can’t help but thinking the lack of overall directness is directly linked to levels of confidence. Or lack of.

[belton rover]

Branton.

There have been thousands of managerial changes in my lifetime. I'm not sure that a selection of 26 in one league is entirely representative. Of course, my selection of four (five actually - I missed McCann this season: a new manager who came with a huge investment and saw no bounce) of our recent ones isn't either.

What interests me is that Gaz's data supports what we saw with our eyes - Schofield's effect was to make us tighter, defensively. That appears to have been a long term effect. Again, we saw it with our own eyes. We were solid, but really dull.

 And the collapse in that effect coincided with us losing our two most effective centre halves.

Might well be confirmation bias, but it supports what I've been saying all year. Schofield was nowhere near the  disaster he's commonly believed to be. He was grimly effective with a shit hand, but couldn't do much when the shit melted and ran between his fingers.

Schofield WAS a disastrous appointment.
The feeling around the club was awful. He offered nothing that gave us any kind of hope or encouragement or belief.
No statistics or data analysis can account for the human touch. He was hugely responsible for a depressing negativity that ran through the club.
Nice bloke, I’m sure, but utterly out of his depth in that role.

[MachoMadness]

Think we can say Schofield was the wrong man for the job, but you could argue there was no right man for the job with the state we were in.

He inherited a poor, bloated squad full of sick notes. Years of baggage from previous regimes that we're still in the process of sorting. A horrendous injury crisis. Bugger all support on recruitment from those above him, with no money to spend. Our signings were dreadful. And all these problems were knotted together, so there's no easy fix. Maybe Schofield was a poor manager as well. We were never going to properly find out in those circumstances though. Pep Guardiola couldn't have turned us around at the end of the season.

Having said that it's no contest between him and McCann. McCann is proven quality. Schofield hasn't proven anything - but I do have some sympathy with him being the scapegoat for last season.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Think we can say Schofield was the wrong man for the job, but you could argue there was no right man for the job with the state we were in.

He inherited a poor, bloated squad full of sick notes. Years of baggage from previous regimes that we're still in the process of sorting. A horrendous injury crisis. Bugger all support on recruitment from those above him, with no money to spend. Our signings were dreadful. And all these problems were knotted together, so there's no easy fix. Maybe Schofield was a poor manager as well. We were never going to properly find out in those circumstances though. Pep Guardiola couldn't have turned us around at the end of the season.

Having said that it's no contest between him and McCann. McCann is proven quality. Schofield hasn't proven anything - but I do have some sympathy with him being the scapegoat for last season.

This. My take is that, given how we have struggled to punch our weight this season with a large investment in the squad that Schofield never had, it is very unfair to scapegoat him for last season's performance. We'll never know what he would have been like as a manager for us, given anything like a half decent squad to work with over an extended period. But the fact that he got the squad he inherited winning 25 points from his first 16 games before the injuries destroyed us says he wasn't a shambles. Yes, the football was grim, but that's a better run than anything the previous 3 managers had managed, and on a par with what McCann has done with a much better squad. I really do think that some of the vitriol thrown his way is not a good reflection on this place.

[GazLaz]

I think in 10 years when we look back it will be proven that DS is a decent coach but without the capacity to run a football club. Thats what we brought him in as though. He had a head of football to run the club and was essentially let down by him, albeit we didn’t give that experiment long to ride out. McSheffrey (and Butler) is likely to be the one we look back at and wonder “what the f**k were we doing then?”.

Grant is a very capable manager. The best we’ve had since Sean. It is a case of brushing the structural issues under the carpet for a short period though. I think Grant can possibly paper over the cracks in most departments while he is here. What we do when he leaves is the $64,000 question though. We made steps towards creating a sustainable structure but we scrapped that in the blink of an eye. That’s just another indicator that we don’t really have a medium to long term plan. Without said plan we can’t have medium to long term success, it’s as simple as that. Head of medical!!! What a waste of a wage that is. Paying Coppinger to do something and nothing, waste of a wage, jack of all trades master of none situation there.

I could find the club a data quant on 30k a year that would add more value to the football club than Coppinger and the medicine man put together. This is not just a DRFC issue admittedly, the point stands for 90% of the clubs in the country.

[belton rover]

If Schofield becomes a remotely successful manager at this level or above, I will be very, very surprised.

[GazLaz]

If Schofield becomes a remotely successful manager at this level or above, I will be very, very surprised.

He will prove to be a decent coach/ assistant. Unlikely to be a good No1 as you say.

[selby]

  He was supposed to be a top coach, even criticized some players technical ability, never once did any of the coaching staff while he was here take those players for one on one coaching sessions, or offer any advice how to overcome any problems.
  He had half the team trying to play a system they were not equipped for, one of footballs all time great educated idiots.
 

[ncRover]

Schofield preferred to bury his head in the sand after a bad loss than to face uncomfortable truths.

It is for this reason that he would have got us relegated this year had he stayed. Everybody would have worked out The Process while he stood still.

He was also incredibly tedious and unlikeable.

[BigH]

I think in 10 years when we look back it will be proven that DS is a decent coach but without the capacity to run a football club. Thats what we brought him in as though. He had a head of football to run the club and was essentially let down by him, albeit we didn’t give that experiment long to ride out. McSheffrey (and Butler) is likely to be the one we look back at and wonder “what the f**k were we doing then?”.

Grant is a very capable manager. The best we’ve had since Sean. It is a case of brushing the structural issues under the carpet for a short period though. I think Grant can possibly paper over the cracks in most departments while he is here. What we do when he leaves is the $64,000 question though. We made steps towards creating a sustainable structure but we scrapped that in the blink of an eye. That’s just another indicator that we don’t really have a medium to long term plan. Without said plan we can’t have medium to long term success, it’s as simple as that. Head of medical!!! What a waste of a wage that is. Paying Coppinger to do something and nothing, waste of a wage, jack of all trades master of none situation there.

I could find the club a data quant on 30k a year that would add more value to the football club than Coppinger and the medicine man put together. This is not just a DRFC issue admittedly, the point stands for 90% of the clubs in the country.

Wouldn't disagree.

Perhaps worth noting that none of the managers we've appointed since Moore have had any managerial experience of the divisions they've been managing in. You can even see that with McCann who has tried to adopt a footballing philosophy but probably now realises that L2 is, in the main, a physical league. However, I think he's a savvy manager and that from this point on we'll see more emphasis on that in terms of recruitment and team development.

The other change needed is that the footballing side of things needs to be run with a far greater passion; I hope TB brings this back. Blunt, as Chairman, was an unmitigated disaster; please God never let an accountant lead the club again.

[ForsolongaRover]

The quality of the goalkeeping is surely a facto as well as the performance of the defenders. And overall Mitchell was better than Jones. Mitchell got a lot of stick for some blunders towards the end of the season, but before that he was less likely to be excused by the oft-repeated and sympathetic phrase: “Jones had no chance”.

[scawsby steve]

The quality of the goalkeeping is surely a facto as well as the performance of the defenders. And overall Mitchell was better than Jones. Mitchell got a lot of stick for some blunders towards the end of the season, but before that he was less likely to be excused by the oft-repeated and sympathetic phrase: “Jones had no chance”.

Shock horror of the day.

A ForsolongaRover post criticising Louis Jones.

Who would have believed it?

[Nudga]

Even before the shit hit the fan with Schofield, his dad told me, and I quote "he's got f**k all money to play with and they're expecting him to have a go at promotion. Our Danny says he's working with Sunday league players".

I couldn't say anything at the time obviously but I knew then that we were in the shit.

I do think that Schofield tried a system and a way of playing that didn't suit the players or the division we are in.

[GazLaz]

Even before the shit hit the fan with Schofield, his dad told me, and I quote "he's got f**k all money to play with and they're expecting him to have a go at promotion. Our Danny says he's working with Sunday league players".

I couldn't say anything at the time obviously but I knew then that we were in the shit.

I do think that Schofield tried a system and a way of playing that didn't suit the players or the division we are in.

Managers are generally only as good as their players. People talk about formations, tactics, good managers, bad managers, confidence, bla bla bla, but players are the vast majority of it. It’s the reason we are currently not a great side.