Catch - is that you?

[SiliconeSoul]

Good stuff.

[Captain]

I don't withdraw my assertion that it doesn't mean we can't finish above our wage rank however, or even that it is unlikely. We do it more often than not.

I don't think anyone has suggested we can't finish above our wage rank. We can. As can teams below us in the wage rank.

 

If the current level of "investment" in the team is sustained the next five years under our next manager, finishing fourth is not what we'll be debating. No matter how brilliant we were in the eighties.

[Randy Marsh]

I think the article, although maybe a bit condescending, highlights an important and obvious factor that many people seem to dismiss.

 

You spend the most, you pay the most, generally you ill turn out to be the best.

 

That applies in every aspect of business, not just football.

 

Hence why, I believe, until we are on equal parity to our rivals (those we are expected to exceed, and largely have done in recent years) people's expectations should be revised.

[zigackly]

I don't think anyone is saying fifth is the best we can get.

 

Actually they have. Even Catch has said it at least once, and he should know better.

 

If no-one had ever said that, I wouldn't have any reason to kick up a stink about it.

[SiliconeSoul]

I think the article, although maybe a bit condescending, highlights an important and obvious factor that many people seem to dismiss.

 

You spend the most, you pay the most, generally you ill turn out to be the best.

 

That applies in every aspect of business, not just football.

 

Hence why, I believe, until we are on equal parity to our rivals (those we are expected to exceed, and largely have done in recent years) people's expectations should be revised.

 

Who's going to tell the team?

[Guest TK-421]

Why didn't Rafa take Tevez in the first place then back in 2006? Barry is a bullet dodged. Mr Average, always has been.

 

I don't know the answer as I'm not privy to the transfer negotiations.

 

Look at it this way; whatever your views are on their ability, would you have expected them to join Man City if we had Man City's resources and vice versa? I wouldn't and think at least one of them would now be a Liverpool player.

[Kennys_spell]

Luck is a huge part of scientific/mathmatical research. It will often be called randomness, which is in effect just luck, and explains evolution, changes in stock markets, how a large group of people will react to something like a fire in a building etc

 

Or indeed how a large group of people (who like to present themselves as "intelligent"), react to a GENERALISATION based around salaries.

[Kennys_spell]

I already acknowledge wages' as a big part of the game. I just refuse to believe that you can use them to work out a fixed percentage on success. It's sport not science and there are too many humans getting in the way, and other variables. For me it just feels like another excuse to hide behind, but maybe I'm out of touch.

 

 

What are you basing this refusal on?

[Roy Hobbs]

For the benefit of anyone not stuck up their own rectum, I've never argued with the general case that increased money gives you a better chance in the league.

 

As I've said often enough in this and other threads, I don't like the fact some people use this to try to browbeat other people into believing we should only expect fifth place.

 

We've proved often enough, as have the Mancs, that we are capable of doing better than our monetary resources appear to imply.

 

I don't think anyone only expects 5th place, its just that it shouldn't be that surprising if we do especially if we suffer from a lot of injuries any given year. I personally think we can win the league (not this year) despite our lack of financial strength compared to our major rivals but I also know we will need a lot of things to go right for us along the way.

[The Woolster]

Woolster or Catch, do you happen to know what the standard deviation is in these stats?

 

 

I haven't a clue. To be honest, although I know where it comes from, I haven't read the analysis that Catch goes on about, I'm just trying to explain the stats in more laymens terms, as I learnt stats as a layman and I know they can be hard to get your head around. The way I have explained it may not even be right as stats are not really my strong point (which also might make the rest of what I am going to say bollocks...).

 

I have found a recent article by one of the authors though.

 

FT.com / weekend columnists / Simon Kuper - Magical managers have no effect on league

 

The main thing I would take from it is that in any 1 season, the correlation between wages and league position is actually only 70%, which why we see team like Newcaste getting relegated. The 90% is over the long term, so perhaps Catch shouldn't be so repetitive with that point...

 

And that is why I would argue against what they say about managers not making a difference. Over the long term managers (generally) change, so you would have an 'average' manager, and would assume that managers are all of the same level. They quite clearly aren't. Over the short term, a manager, I think, would make up a lot of the 30% thats wages don't account for, and not the luck, injuries, bad referee decisions that they ascribe it to (although to be fair, they probably know more about what they are doing than me...).

 

I also think that how they correlate wage rankings with league position is the wrong way to go about it as there is not enough variance in data and the results, it can only be 1 to 20, and that the way the Fink Tank does it by correlating wages with points is better as you can then compare points difference from where you would expect.

 

Also, although I have no stats to back this up, I would say it is likely that there isn't a linear relationship, and that wages have a higher correlation for teams at the top and at the bottom of the league, and for mid tables there are other stronger factors. Which is why the top 4 stay as the top 4 each season, the promoted teams are usually the ones that get relegated unless they are able to spend big, whilst the mid table teams can often vary in position quite a lot from season to season.

 

Shit, I'm starting to sound like Catch, or even worse, Tomkins :eek:

[zigackly]

That's actually a fucking excellent post mate, and does raise significant doubts over the oft-repeated mantras we hear on this site.

 

The 70% figure also fits better with what we actually see, rather than what the statevangelists try to force down our throats.

 

It's clear that if anyone really wants to debunk the arguments made off the back of these stats thoroughly though, they are going to have to become an expert in these studies, which sounds like a lot of effort to me.

 

Really the burden of proof should be on the people making the extraordinary claims not those who are skeptical of them.

 

Anyway, I will try to read that article when my hangover is less vicious ;)

[The Woolster]

That's actually a fucking excellent post mate, and does raise significant doubts over the oft-repeated mantras we hear on this site.

 

The 70% figure also fits better with what we actually see, rather than what the statevangelists try to force down our throats.

 

It's clear that if anyone really wants to debunk the arguments made off the back of these stats thoroughly though, they are going to have to become an expert in these studies, which sounds like a lot of effort to me.

 

Really the burden of proof should be on the people making the extraordinary claims not those who are skeptical of them.

 

Anyway, I will try to read that article when my hangover is less vicious ;)

 

It should be remembered though that 70% is still very very high. And as I pointed out, I think there is less correlation for mid table clubs, which in effect brings the result down to 70%, and it could infact be much higher for us.

 

I did try to figure out how I could calculate the standard deviation for last season, and not sure if I have done it right, but got a standard deviation from the expected position of 4.7. In other words, on average, each team was 4.7 places away from where wage rank would suggest.

 

But the thing that stood out for me, was that the difference between the 6th highest payers and the 17th highest payers was £20m, whilst the difference between us and Arsenal is also £20m, the difference between Arse and Utd is another £20m, and the difference between Utd and Chelsea is £30m. And that really is a significant amount and shows that task we have to finish higher than 4th.

[Captain]

Grim reading that last one, Woolster.

[SiliconeSoul]

So Chelsea spend 30 million more on wages than the mancs who have won the title the past 3 seasons?

[Kevin D]

The enjoyment of football is slowly being sucked out of me with all this science and statistical data bobbins. Where's the romance in using wage bills to predict the league table before a ball has even been kicked? Status, ability, desire to win and good managment don't seem to matter anymore.

 

I get the impression this guy would have a different outlook with regards to wage bills if he wasn't a massive fan of Benitez. Talking about him being forced to go with more attritional football, when it's clear to most that he has a cautious, scientfic philosophy is fooling no one.

 

Whilst reading this thread I had a mental image of Catch coaching his sons team and having parents scream at him for forfeiting yet another match, all the while he quitely shows them the rivals school expenditure and refers them to Draper's book.