Conventional Wisdom

[Abrak]

To stop ruining the Liverpool thread I thought I start one of my own.

First of I do not believe in massive overuse of statistics in football. I am not interested in a defenders percentage of completed tackles in the first third of the pitch.

Secondly statistics are simply an aid to an argument when you dont know about football.

Let me give you an example...

If you ask Kenny if Suarez is a good footballer

And he says 'Yes he is great, one of the best I have seen'. I dont see how one could question his judgment.

However, when Ventners sacked Allardyce of Blackburn they claimed that Blackburn should be competing amongst the top 5.

Now I dont know anything about football but I know enough about statistics to know they dont know much about football.

So we come back to moneyball and Henry. Henry is a stats geek who made a fortune in commodities by betting against 'conventional wisdom' traditional subjective analysis using objective analysis. Essentially many ideas that everyone took for granted and never challenged were in fact wrong. In baseball they employed some guys with calculators and things changed.

I can promise you that 95% of things we would agree with 100%. But basically 5% is the interesting part.

I would like to know with the Torres acquisition for instance why Chelsea bought Torres when statistically he was so out of form. Spurs fans might like to know what impact playing in the Europa on Thursday had on Liverpool league form on the matches they played the following Sunday (the answer is none).

But I will start with something I see if anyone responds...

Football says. Management is a performance business and if you dont perform even within a single year you are out of a job. Actually this is a self-forfilling prophecy and but whatever it is, it is not wisdom. The key to success is longevity (and so continuity). Chopping and changing management is totally unproductive. With Newcastle being the best example (relegation with the highest wage bill). Everton, ManU, and Arsenal are classic examples of success stories. Mourinho is a successful manager but he doesnt bring lasting success to the club (look at Inter). That is what the statistics tell you - short term management changes are totally counter productive

I think there is about a 3 match honeymoon period after management change in soccer but generally any team takes considerable time and I guess cost to adapt to a new manager. The first year of new management is net disruptive. I would also think it is a statement of the bleeding obvious as it applies to virtually every other business. So why hasnt football changed yet?

Liverpool will not be set up that way.

[JacknDanny]

At last, a picture to the face Mr Abrak

[carmine]

I think Mr Henry would be laughing at the Liverpool thread as much as the rest of us.

[alfieconn]

Spurs fans might like to know what impact playing in the Europa on Thursday had on Liverpool league form on the matches they played the following Sunday (the answer is none).

It's impossible to say 100% the impact a mid week game has on the following weekend game so where the answer "none" comes from i do not know .

Incidently looking at the results following a Europa Cup game they didn't seem very positive .

[MSingh]

Secondly statistics are simply an aid to an argument when you dont know about football.

Let me give you an example...

If you ask Kenny if Suarez is a good footballer

And he says 'Yes he is great, one of the best I have seen'. I dont see how one could question his judgment.

=========

Why would you suggest that Statistics help aid the opinion that you used as an example, of Dalgiesh, which would make you NOT question his judgement ?

What are those statistics that would make you not question that judgement ?

Would those Statistics be his Goal Scoring Record in the Dutch League ?

What that be the reason why Dalgliesh would say " Yes he's great, one of the best i've ever seen " or would that be the reason why you wouldn't question that judgement ?