Catch - is that you?

[redrosetints]

So, once again I'll ask you to print a league table from any season which proves this correllation between wages and finishing position.

 

Maybe we should put Ryan Babel on £300,000-a-week, sit back and watch him evolve into the best player on earth.

 

All this fooltomery Hermes, you cheeky little scamp. Playing your little games.

[Roy Hobbs]

It isn't really because no one has said that and it's just the opposite end of the extreme. Wages are hugely important but so is building team spirt and the right approach. We had the same wage bill last season and yet when we went out in a positive frame of mind and attacked teams we almost won the league. So to write off one or the other is daft.

 

We went out with that frame of mind early this year and despite losing 2 of 3 Rafa stuck with it and we won 6 in a row convincingly. Unfortunately we suffered from poor form and injuries, started leaking goals and confidence dropped dramatically.

 

He's addressed it and is now in the process of building confidence up again.

[Roy Hobbs]

Is the 10% the reason why Chelsea haven't won the league for 3 seasons, which doesn't really correlate given the 90% factor in winning titles.

 

Poor management in terms of getting rid of a good manager because he makes demands. Manchester United spend 30-35M GBP more than us every year and have a squad built on success. If we do win the title it will make it easier to manage the squad purely from the belief gained.

[goatboy59]

It isn't really because no one has said that and it's just the opposite end of the extreme. Wages are hugely important but so is building team spirit and the right approach. We had the same wage bill last season and yet when we went out in a positive frame of mind and attacked teams we almost won the league. So to write off one or the other is daft.

Isn't it fair to say that money can also exacerbate the problems you have on that score?

 

I'm sure a few City players were looking at Robinho and thinking "I'm running myself ragged here and that greedy disinterested twat is not even bothering. Why am I?"

 

Certainly it was one of the factors that turned Grobbelaar extremely bitter in the early 90's and whether you believe the allegations or not (I'll never side with the scum over ANY Liverpool player, even him) it certainly led to a poisonous atmosphere.

 

And as we keep saying work-rate, fitness, passion, attacking intent and (yes) luck are all free.

 

People aren't saying money doesn't matter, but as 4th place and the manager's future become more and more precarious (even more disappointing after an excellent season) it's coming more and more to the fore.

 

I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

[goatboy59]

We went out with that frame of mind early this year and despite losing 2 of 3 Rafa stuck with it and we won 6 in a row convincingly. Unfortunately we suffered from poor form and injuries, started leaking goals and confidence dropped dramatically.

 

He's addressed it and is now in the process of building confidence up again.

Bolton, Leeds, West Ham and Debrecen were not "convincing".

 

And we were already leaking goals. "Despite" losing suggests we lost to Spurs and Villa because we were attacking too much. We really weren't.

 

As for addressing it, the football is dull and overcautious, even against the likes of Reading and Wolves. It will probably continue to be so.

[Reacher]

Bit smartarse actually, but one thing I disliked from 2005 and 2007 is Chelsea fans and Mancs telling us we only reached the finally because we had no league title chase to contend with.

 

I'm not entirely enamoured with the idea of the Spesh coming here either, but fair's fair.

 

It's true tho really isn't it? There was alot of bitterness from both sets of fans especially because of the way we won it. But it did help that we didn't have a sustained title charge which manure and for the past few years chelski have had to balance.

[hamstrung]

We have to balance it with the fight for 4th. Its much the same but you don't get medals.

[goatboy59]

It's true tho really isn't it? There was alot of bitterness from both sets of fans especially because of the way we won it. But it did help that we didn't have a sustained title charge which manure and for the past few years chelski have had to balance.

We were still putting everything into the games because of 4th place. It was very late on in both seasons that we lost out (2005) or clinched it with a couple of games to spare (2007).

 

Chelsea were the worst because we beat them in the semi finals, the Mancs just belittle us as a reflex action. They're both wrong.

[Royal Family]

Of course there is a very close correlation - noone can sensibly deny that. But to say it is the only determinant is plainly wrong. For instance we would have paid Gareth Barry anywhere between 80k-100k a week and he would have joined in 2008 - he was happy with those terms, but the clubs couldn't agree the fee; City pay him £150-160k per week in 2009. By implication that means he's almost twice a better and more effective player for City than he would have been for us? It's nonsense to argue therefore that wages are a determinant of performance - all they do is REFLECT the wealth and spending of clubs. So in other words it's not the wages in themselves that determine the finishing position: an extra 20-30k per week doesn't motivate players at this level. Rather wages are just a factor in showing the wider economic conditions in which clubs operate.

[Royal Family]

Oh, and who had the 5th highest wage level in the premiership last season, and indeed the 4th highest in 2007-8?

 

Newcastle United.

[Reacher]

We were still putting everything into the games because of 4th place. It was very late on in both seasons that we lost out (2005) or clinched it with a couple of games to spare (2007).

 

Chelsea were the worst because we beat them in the semi finals, the Mancs just belittle us as a reflex action. They're both wrong.

 

I agree with you mate especially about the chelski fans. I love LFC to bits but they were chasing the title whilst we were going for 4th but their wage bill is bigger than ours right ;)

[King Emlyn]

Oh, and who had the 5th highest wage level in the premiership last season, and indeed the 4th highest in 2007-8?

 

Newcastle United.

well that kinda throws a spanner in the works of the theory.

[zigackly]

well that kinda throws a spanner in the works of the theory.

 

Perhaps not, depending on how the numbers were arrived at. If you count how far a club finishes off it's wage rank then Newcastle would have a massive impact. If that's just counted as one position from twenty being incorrect though, it would have a tiny one. Hence the phrase "lies, damn lies and statistics". A huge amount depends on the size of the sample, and how you crunch the numbers. Which is why I tend to only give real credence to peer reviewed statistical analyses which pass a two-tailed confidence test. In the absence of evidence such as that, always follow the money. Research is big business if you get the results someone wants ;)

[aws]

Maybe we should put Ryan Babel on £300,000-a-week, sit back and watch him evolve into the best player on earth.

 

Now you're just being silly.

[piscinin]

Perhaps not, depending on how the numbers were arrived at. If you count how far a club finishes off it's wage rank then Newcastle would have a massive impact. If that's just counted as one position from twenty being incorrect though, it would have a tiny one. Hence the phrase "lies, damn lies and statistics". A huge amount depends on the size of the sample, and how you crunch the numbers. Which is why I tend to only give real credence to peer reviewed statistical analyses which pass a two-tailed confidence test. In the absence of evidence such as that, always follow the money. Research is big business if you get the results someone wants ;)

 

There is no sampling involved in this calculation. 20 league positions, 20 wage totals = entire population.

[zigackly]

There is no sampling involved in this calculation. 20 league positions, 20 wage totals = entire population.

 

I didn't have you down as deliberately stupid, so you must be misunderstanding something.

 

20 coin tosses, 20 outcomes = entire population.

 

No? But wait ...

[SiliconeSoul]

There is no sampling involved in this calculation. 20 league positions, 20 wage totals = entire population.

 

If I told you football was a simple game would you hold it against me?

[Stu Monty]

I'm just wondering who's going to be the first person to buy a lab coat in an effort of going all-in to win the debate.

[zigackly]

Do you trust 90% of statistics quoted to you Stu?

 

I'm a natural cynic, I'm afraid. I don't really give a fuck about the debate as such: if I'm wrong about something I'll happily change my mind.

 

I think these stats are too glib. I'm not the one making claims based on them though, just questioning the claims.

[Stu Monty]

Do you trust 90% of statistics quoted to you Stu?

 

I'm a natural cynic, I'm afraid. I don't really give a fuck about the debate as such: if I'm wrong about something I'll happily change my mind.

 

I think these stats are too glib. I'm not the one making claims based on them though, just questioning the claims.

 

I tend to believe a statistic on face value but then think about the mitigating factors for that figure and how the stats have been twiddled to come out as desired.

 

I don't particularly think you need an A-level in statistics to see that the clubs with the most money will be able to pay large transfer fees and wages for the best players and the best managers. I don't think that is all there is to it but I do think it is a major, major factor.

[piscinin]

I didn't have you down as deliberately stupid, so you must be misunderstanding something.

 

20 coin tosses, 20 outcomes = entire population.

 

No? But wait ...

 

Open both eyes and try again.

 

1. I tossed a coin 20 times and it landed on heads every time (20 tosses = entire population)

2. I tossed a coin 20 times and based on that I reckon in the future it will land on heads everytime (20 tosses = sample, all future coin tosses = entire population).

 

On top of that AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN people are confusing association and causation and what a correlation coefficient "is" vs. how some people use it.

[zigackly]

I think you are hopelessly lost in semantics. 20 coin tosses is a sample. Yes or no?

 

I also think you're someone who refuses to engage in the substance of a discussion if you think you can make yourself look clever by clinging to the minutia.

 

I'm questioning whether these statistics have been properly reviewed and tested, and all you can do is to try to discredit my argument through pedantic nitpicking.

[piscinin]

I think you are hopelessly lost in semantics. 20 coin tosses is a sample. Yes or no?

 

I already answered that question, but again your desire to reduce everything to yes or no, precludes you from seeing that the answer is both yes and no. Whether a bunch of numbers is a sample or not depends on what your doing with it.

 

I also think you're someone who refuses to engage in the substance of a discussion if you think you can make yourself look clever by clinging to the minutia.

 

If that makes you feel better, run with it.

[zigackly]

Well thank you for adding to the discussion in hand. I'm sure it "makes you feel better".

[Guest TK-421]

There's got to be some hardcore flirting going on with you two. You're at it every day!