The Woolster

You've changed tack here - my reply was to you saying you can't understand what the Transfer funds have to do with the financial situation.

 

Read my posts it should clear that up for you.

As you have repeatedly mentioned to other posters about them not answering questions, perhaps you can answer the one I asked you?

At no point did I say that I don't understand what transfer funds have got to do with finances, 1, because I do, and 2, because transfer funds have nothing to do with the article. Neither does whether the squad is good enough for 4th, 7th, or 20th, but for some reason you seem to be discussing that a lot on this thread too.

Here are some other questions for you, what do you think is the best way to get rid of the yanks? Do you think boycotts will affect the way a potential buyer will see us? Do you think we should accept that C&A will have to make a big profit if we want them gone as soon as possible?

Now see if you can answer them without mentioning Rafa or transfer funds

I despair of the education system I really do, in your response you acknowledge the article is about finances - then go on to try and remove "transfer funds" from the discussion about "Finances"??

 

If it wasn't so tragic it would be funny.

What has transfer funds got to do with the best way to get rid of the yanks?

The article is not about whether Rafa has had the funds to spend on players. I am firmly in the camp that he has not, however I am able to seperate different subjects, even if they are in the same broad area, something which you are obviously unable to do as you are turning every thread into the same subject.

And my education was just fine thanks.

Really - you really don't understand the link between the Leeches spending policy (i.e. there won't be any) and the fact that the team finished 7th?

But the article hasn't got anything to do with what the yanks have spent or not, it is about the financial problems of the club, and how the writer thinks the best solution to get rid of them is probably the most unpalatable to us, and that is to stop the boycott and/or protests against them.

Unfortunately, I think there is some truth in what he says.

Also, unfortunately, you are more repetitive than Catch 22. At least Catch has humour and often raises valid points

There's probably fault on both sides. I doubt either are easy to work with.

Is right.

If this hand gesture is true, why is Gerrard arguing with Rafa in the first place? What is he arguing with him about? And what does he say to provoke the gesture? I can't see Rafa giving it the big 'I am' just doing it for the hell of it. The could be a few things he said to him, but the most probable I can think of to cause such a reaction is that Stevie has told Rafa he wants him sacked.

Thats if it happened of course...

It was too long, couldn't be doing with reading it. Someone give me the gist of it, and not a sarcastic one either.

We are in the shit financially, and that we need new owners, but unfortunately the quickest way to get rid of C&A is to make the club itself as attractive as possible to potential buyers, and that means everyone, boss, players and fans showing a united front to make it a club worht buying, and that if we want C&A gone, we should accept that they will have to make a profit out of it.

EDIT: Unfortunately however, the thread is now about whether the squad is good enough for 7th.

Only have 1 post, but have been lurking for years, so hope you don't mind me joining.

 

Might make me post more, especially when I win the thing :smile:

Oooh, finished 2nd. Close but no cigar. Great score from Dynamo Coaster, 123rd overall is a really impressive finish in this game

I'm not too worried about the likes of Torres being "sold off" and I'll tell you why: In a perverse way, Torres staying actually helps the Yanks stay at Liverpool.

 

They're only still here as they're able to borrow against the assets of the club - ie the players and the stadium.

 

If torres leaves then that's a huge chunk of asset equity walking out the door.

 

Yes, selling him would be a short term cash injection and could pay of a considerable chunk of credit, but leveraged finance doesn't operate on paying off your debts in large chunks, it operates on simply managing them in small doses.

 

For that reason alone he's going nowhere.

 

 

So we can all breath easy....

Errr, your description of how leveraged finance works is wrong. FACT.

By its very nature, LBO finance makes its returns by paying back its debt in large chunks, as the investment horizon for leveraged finance deals is generally relatively short, say about 5 years. The most common way the that an LBO makes its profit is to buy something, increase its value over the 5 years, and then selling it at a higher value, paying off all the debt and whats left being profit. There may be debt in the company afterwards, but that is 'different' debt, and the acquisition debt has been paid in full, in one large chunk.

A more relevant example of how leveraged financiers can get their returns would be asset stripping/divestment/spin-off, where they believe that the individual assets are worth more seperately than what they have had to pay for the whole. In this case, they would sell the asset, and use the proceeds to reduce debt, in a large chunk, so that they can make a return quicker, and also because without the sold asset, they business will generate less profit/cash to service their debts, so they need to be reduced.

Just thought I'd let you know like

You are right about Torres staying keeping the yanks in longer though

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.

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:

I didn't think 'luck' was even acknowledged in scientifc research?

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

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.

.

But they do matter, they matter imensly, its those things can't easily be measured with a number, and part of them will acutally be reflected in the wage numbers, which is why it comes out at such a high number.

But if it gets you down, just ignore it and watch the game, as it isn't about stats, its just some of us saddos are more statistically inclined.

Strange assertion given your faith in statistical outcome.

Not really, models are very rarely 100% accurate, there is always a part that is unexplained. In football, a lot of this would be luck. Luck should even itself out, but this probably over a period a lot longer than a season. Which is part of why I think the term "the best team always wins the league" is a misnomer, as proved when Arsenal won the league in 89. But there are other examples as well.

I'm not saying it does though, I'm saying it disproves the addlebrained idea that any such correlation puts a ceiling on our finishing position!

 

Whether or not the stats have been collated and tested properly would strengthen or weaken the 90% or whatever it is today. My cynical position is to question whether they have been, which so far no-one has been prepared to answer.

 

Good post by the way.

5th definately isn't the best we can do, but I think it is fair to say that it is what we should expect if everything else is equal. But not everything is equal, we have a great manager, and that is why we often finish above expectations. This year he has not been as good, but a managers performance, like a players, can sometimes be above or below average.

I think it would actually be easier to understand if it was to calculate expected points instead of expected position. In very basic terms, you could say that a team with our wages should expect to score say, 75 points, which would explain 90% of our points scored. The other 10% would be 7.5 points, but this could be + or - from the 75 points, depending on whether the other factors were positive or negative for us. Giving a large swing of 15 points because the last 10% is very important.

The Fink Tank in The Times, do a manger of the year every season, which is based on expected points dependent on wages, and how many points the manager has added. I think it is pretty well explained. Fergie came top last season, with Rafa 2nd. Moyes has actually come top on a couple of occasions...

The graphic in the link shows all the managers

Sir Alex Ferguson is Fink Tank manager of the year | The Fink Tank - Times Online

Sir Alex Ferguson is Fink Tank manager of the year

 

They always ask the wrong question. When I tell people that I am about to reveal the Fink Tank Manager of the Year, I am usually asked “Who?” or sometimes “Why?” or most often “What are you serving for dinner and can I come?” But the right question is “How?”

 

I am going to tell you the identity of our Manager of the Year and you will have your own opinion of whether that feels right. But the correct way to judge if the result is correct is to judge whether the basis on which we made the calculation is correct. In other words, you need to think about how we did it, rather than who we picked. The result merely follows from our method of calculation.

 

So let me explain the thinking behind our method. First, we believe strongly that a calculation is better than a subjective judgment.

 

Subjective judgments based on newspaper reports or single incidents are inclined to give too much emphasis to individual events that happen to be at the front of people’s minds. This is what psychologists call the availability bias.

 

Second, you can’t use raw data on club performance to choose a manager of the year, because this ignores the elephant in the room. Money is the single most important driver of performance. You have to be able to model the relationship between the money spent and the team’s performance if you are going to isolate the impact of the manager.

 

Third, looking only at money, performance and expectations excludes many things that people might like to include. Press relations, say, or nimbleness in the transfer market. But our view is that these things don’t matter unless they impact on a team’s results. Who cares if someone is good in the transfer market unless they produce good results?

 

Finally, the period over which they produce good results is important.

 

Having a manager of the month is absurd, because the results of one month of games tell you almost as much about luck as they do about management.

 

There is a good argument that even a year is too short. But it is reasonable to take a look each season.

 

So, Dr Henry Stott, Dr Mark Latham and Dr Ian Graham began by plotting the number of points obtained by each club against their estimated player wage bill. This allowed a curve to be drawn that shows how many points you would expect a team to score given the amount of money they were spending. As you move towards the top end you have to spend more and more money to gain anything extra in the way of points. That is even more true this season than it was last season.

 

Finally, we excluded managers who had been in charge for fewer than 15 games because we didn’t think there was enough data to judge fully.

 

This year’s Manager of the Year is Sir Alex Ferguson, the first time he lifts the prestigious trophy. Even though Manchester United’s wage bill is vast, his performance exceeded the expected performance by a wide margin. Rafael Benítez came second, his best Fink Tank Manager of the Year performance. Tony Pulis and Phil Brown have also had exceptional seasons. David Moyes finished near the top again.

 

It is worth noting that Sam Allardyce did better than expected given the Blackburn Rovers wage bill despite not having a chance to play the transfer market properly.

 

Luiz Felipe Scolari finished in the bottom segment, though controversially above Gianfranco Zola. Guus Hiddink was excluded because he wasn’t manager for long enough. But if he had been included? He would have come second.

You're reducing the argument to nonsense. The point is that NONE of the top four teams finished in their "expected" positions last season. Or the season before. Or the season before that. If it's so fucking inarguable, riddle me that.

That doesn't actually disprove the 90% odd though does it. In fact, on a very basic stats level, it would prove it, as from memory the output of the regression, which is the analysis where the 90% comes from, will be the one that has the least squared errors. Taking last season as an example, Utd finished 1st, an error of +1, we were 2nd, an error of +2, Chelsea 3rd, an error of -2, and Arse were 3rd, an error of -1. So the sum of those errors = 0, and infers that the regression has a very good fit.

The regression is a line of best fit through a sample, but none of the sample actually have to be on that line for the regression to be significant.

When I did stats you always had to do a confidence interval of the the output as well, usually to 90% or 95%, as there will always be errors. I wouldn't be surprised if the 95% confidence interval for expected positions is about + or - 2 places. So, even when were 4th highest payers, we only had a small chance of winning the league.

Haven't done any stats for a while though, so I may not be completely right.

I think have a problem with the 90% explanation as it makes everything else seem insignificant, whereas statistically, that 10% is still very significant.

Found this website which gives a rough idea of transfer spending in Italy, but if you look at the overview section you will see it does not have details for all players

Transferbilanz - Football - transfermarkt.co.uk

Whether you have a man on the post or not is usually the goalkeeper's call. Our marking scheme is tweaked for pretty much every game, so this wasn't a great surprise.

Who said it would it be a Keeper's call?

Dunno about anyone else, but I haven't noticed anyone defending on a goal post for a while, so wondered if Rafa is trying to address the goals scored from set pieces problems that we've had.

Personally I think it is good for one or 2 on the goal line for inswingers, but out swingers you can see how it is meant to work with that goal that was dissalowed against Everton, everyone stepped up, leaving the attacker in front of the keeper and interfering with play whether they get a touch or not.

Only saw the highlights from last nights match, but noticed Insua I think it was on the back post defending a couple of corners. Did this also happen Vs Blackburn?

Has Rafa changed things or is it just because Insua is a short arse so not worth having him mark someone?

I think Rafa will have been well preped and spoken beforehand about what questions were okay and what questions were off limits. You don't get an interview like this without have some dialogue between both parties beforehand. I'd imagine so anyway.

Or perhaps he is hoping to come across as more open, as one of the complaints from the press about him is that he is cold and hasn't tried to build a relationship with them. He could just as easily have said he would answer anything, especially as the questions are coming from a red who works for a paper that I would say is pro Rafa. In his interview with Tomkins, Tomkins I think mentions how surprised he was with how open Rafa was to answer anything, perhaps its just more of the same.

Could it possibly be that in an interview, an interviewer asks questions and Rafa answers them? Meaning that Rafa doesn't actually choose what to talk about? I'm sure we were all interested to know Rafa's viewpoint on the Barry/Keane/Alonso saga and I appreciate that he has given answers. But instead it has to be inferred that Rafa is trying to make Rick Parry look bad, and he's a deluded freak who is trying to curry favour with the national press because we are on a bad run of form?

Was just about to say the same, have seen so many posts asking why he is speaking about it now, but he is being interviewed, therefore he is answering questions, how can so many not see this? If he avoided answering the question, wouldn't he have just looked worse?

Our aims have been realistic - 99% of the times. In your opinion, which top club in Europe would have given Rafa a new 5 year contract?

 

I admire your will to argue about the wages but to say a manager is only 10% or less responsible for the club's success is a joke. I'm sorry to say, but it is really a joke.

 

Wages are important - only a fool will argue otherwise. But to bring wages into the argument EVERYTIME we fail to win a game or a trophy is also a joke. Football doesn't always operate like that.

 

If football strictly operated on the basis of statistics and numbers, we wouldn't have won the CL in 2005. We wouldn't have reached the final in 2007 either.

 

Wages is an important factor in success and domination. So are other qualities. And a manager has far MORE responsibility than just 5% or 10%.

I agree that Catch goes on far too much about the wages issue, however it does not mean he is necessarily wrong. Although I have not read it, I think he is getting his 90% from the recent book "Why England lose" which used stats to look at a lot of issues in football, and the emprical evidence of plotting end of season positions compared to wage bill suggests that wages account for 90% of where a team finishes. But it is quite an abstract way of looking at things, which is why it does seem wrong, but the evidence is there to support it.

I find the Fink Tank in The Times quite interesting and their Manager of the Year analysis sums it up quite well how to look at expectations compared to wages. Although unfortunately last season they gave it to Slur Alex.

Sir Alex Ferguson is Fink Tank manager of the year

 

They always ask the wrong question. When I tell people that I am about to reveal the Fink Tank Manager of the Year, I am usually asked “Who?” or sometimes “Why?” or most often “What are you serving for dinner and can I come?” But the right question is “How?”

 

I am going to tell you the identity of our Manager of the Year and you will have your own opinion of whether that feels right. But the correct way to judge if the result is correct is to judge whether the basis on which we made the calculation is correct. In other words, you need to think about how we did it, rather than who we picked. The result merely follows from our method of calculation.

 

Subjective judgments based on newspaper reports or single incidents are inclined to give too much emphasis to individual events that happen to be at the front of people’s minds. This is what psychologists call the availability bias.

 

Second, you can’t use raw data on club performance to choose a manager of the year, because this ignores the elephant in the room. Money is the single most important driver of performance. You have to be able to model the relationship between the money spent and the team’s performance if you are going to isolate the impact of the manager.

 

Third, looking only at money, performance and expectations excludes many things that people might like to include. Press relations, say, or nimbleness in the transfer market. But our view is that these things don’t matter unless they impact on a team’s results. Who cares if someone is good in the transfer market unless they produce good results?

 

Finally, the period over which they produce good results is important.

 

Having a manager of the month is absurd, because the results of one month of games tell you almost as much about luck as they do about management.

 

There is a good argument that even a year is too short. But it is reasonable to take a look each season.

 

So, Dr Henry Stott, Dr Mark Latham and Dr Ian Graham began by plotting the number of points obtained by each club against their estimated player wage bill. This allowed a curve to be drawn that shows how many points you would expect a team to score given the amount of money they were spending. As you move towards the top end you have to spend more and more money to gain anything extra in the way of points. That is even more true this season than it was last season.

 

Finally, we excluded managers who had been in charge for fewer than 15 games because we didn’t think there was enough data to judge fully.

 

This year’s Manager of the Year is Sir Alex Ferguson, the first time he lifts the prestigious trophy. Even though Manchester United’s wage bill is vast, his performance exceeded the expected performance by a wide margin. Rafael Benítez came second, his best Fink Tank Manager of the Year performance. Tony Pulis and Phil Brown have also had exceptional seasons. David Moyes finished near the top again.

 

It is worth noting that Sam Allardyce did better than expected given the Blackburn Rovers wage bill despite not having a chance to play the transfer market properly.

 

Luiz Felipe Scolari finished in the bottom segment, though controversially above Gianfranco Zola. Guus Hiddink was excluded because he wasn’t manager for long enough. But if he had been included? He would have come second.

Sir Alex Ferguson is Fink Tank manager of the year | The Fink Tank - Times Online

Sometimes I think you watch a differnt match to me! Lucas for me hides nearly all the time - you watch how often he takes a position up where he is the one who puts the opposition player between him and the ball.

I think he is changing, perhaps becoming more confident, and is now always looking for the ball and giving the player on the ball an option of an easy pass. I watched the Fulham game last night as I didn't get to watch it first time round, and I think watching a game when you know the result means you can look at things a bit differently as you don't have the tension of a live game, and all the way through he was giving options like Alonso used to do. Of course when he got it he wasn't quite Alonso like. Thought the same during the Lyon game too.

as far as i know masch has captain argentina at every level he's played at for the argies and was always a captain in waiting. Apart from a few months at WHU, he's always been seen as a top player and a leader. We got him, but I bet just about every club in europe looking for that type of player would have been in for him given the chance - we are a top club, so he came to us. He's always been a leader and that what we bought. I would give you a big "FAIL" too, but I am not nerdy enough to know how to do that! As for how about the rest of the squad - on Wednesday we had at least 5 "captains" on the pitch (carra, insua, masch, kuyt, torres), how many do you want (and i might be wrong, but the Greek might also have been a captain in the past too)? We have more than enough leaders on the pitch, what we need is more ability at playing football.

I think Lucas has been captain of Brazil at junior levels as well, so that is 6

I can see it now

Have it your way, you got it! @ Burger King: The Whopper Stadium - Anfield

Instead of a hotdog or pie at half time, it will be a Chicken Royale meal

*belm*

 

The fucking point is, you can learn how to defend better.

You can't teach someone pace if you haven't got any.

You can teach/coach someone to be faster than they already are though, and surely part of learning how to defend better would also inlcude how to defend against pace through better positioning and reading of the game.

For the one with Torres and Vidic

Vidic: Why don't you just bum me now and get it over with