Pick the manager.

[Alioune DVToure]

Cheers Sparty,

My first comment is that is is an interesting subject and would make a great thread topic. Made even more interesting because it includes teams from outside the Prem (eg Lyon).
Get it sorted mate....:-)

The other thing I would add is that the study took evidence over a number of years. It would be even more interesting to see in further detail how the paths that the successful clubs followed and how smoothly or otherwise those paths rose. Just for interest sake, I have traced the positional paths since 1986-87 of the English G14 clubs and added Chelsea.

the rags...11th...2nd...11th...13th...6th...2nd....1st...1st....2nd...1st...1st...2nd...1st...1st...1st...3rd...1st...3rd...3rd.. 2nd...1st...1st...1st...2nd...1st...2nd

Arsenal.....4th....6th....1st....4th....1st...4th...10th...4th...12th...5th..3rd...1st...2nd...2nd..2nd...1st...2nd...1st..2nd... 4th...4th...3rd...4th...3rd...4th...3rd

L'Pool.......2nd...1st.....2nd...1st....2nd...6th....6th...8th....4th...3rd...4th...3rd...7th...4th...3rd..2nd...5th...4th...5th... 3rd...3rd...4th...2nd...7th...6th...8th

Chelsea....14th..18th...21st...5th...11th..14th..11th..14th...11th..11th..6th...4th...3rd...5th...6th..6th....4th..2nd...1st... 1st...2nd...2nd...3rd...1st...2nd...6th

The yellow highlights correspond...the rags: when taggart took over. Arsenal: when Wenger took over. L'Pool When Souness took over, it signalled a period of regular management changes. Chelsea: when Abramovitch bought the club.

Interesting that Liverpool have only finished top-2 twice in the PL era. Equally interesting that they haven't finished lower than 8th since 1987. That six-place swing must be one of the narrowest in the history of football over a prolonged period of time. Real Madrid's will be even tighter I reckon. Our swing over the same period is 46 places!

[Cocacolajojo1]

Soccernomics: I'd copy the chapter but its on me kindle

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0007457 ... mdp_mobile

I'd urge anyone interested in the statistical side of the game to take a read

I can vouch for that as well. Great book. Some of it's pretty speculative but I'd say they're spot on regarding the salaries and the transfer sums.

It opened up my eyes a bit. Read it if you haven't bb!

However, the correlation between salaries and success probably is equally valid for managers as for players no?

[Im_Spartacus]

I can vouch for that as well. Great book. Some of it's pretty speculative but I'd say they're spot on regarding the salaries and the transfer sums.

It opened up my eyes a bit. Read it if you haven't bb!

However, the correlation between salaries and success probably is equally valid for managers as for players no?

.

Manager salaries are not reliable for the same reason transfer fees arent reliable data, because they are generally speculation, not based on the hard facts. They looked at transfer fees and used two sources over a period of a couple of seasons and found that for one club they cited, the two sources reported a £12m difference in transfer fees which made the data on transfer fees totally unreliable, to the extent though, that even when they used one source for consistency, there was still no correlation through the leagues on transfer spending and league position (although clearly an exception would have been the premier leagues top 4, it doesnt hold true for any other position in any other english league) which is why player salaries was considered a more reliable indicator.

Player salaries are recorded as a separate item on the published accounts - so it is a cast iron fact how much each club pays their playing squad as a whole and that can be compared from club to club.

But a big name manager cant win trophies consistently with a low paid squad - unless you are brian clough or Jose Mourinho.....and in the latter case, if you have a small club, you will, sooner or later be appointed to one of the biggest where you will have the biggest wage bill.

In response to John, a club may have a couple of below par seasons and fluctuate by a few positions, but over the longer term, it still holds true that United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool over a sustained period have been the highest payers, and they have occupied the top 4 for most of the last 15/20 years. I dont think that would come as a surprise to anybody, but I have to admit I was really surprised to see just how close the correlation was all the way down through the leagues, not just in the top 4.

To clarify, the methodology was to calculate the average wage bill for all available clubs, then calculate the factor by which each club exceeds or falls below it. So, for example, the clubs below are ranked by average league position during the study period

United - 3.16
Arsenal - 2.83
Chelsea - 3.50
Liverpool - 2.68
Newcastle - 1.93
Aston Villa - 1.34
Tottenham - 1.60
Everton - 1.41
Middlesborough - 1.32
Leeds United - 1.70
West Ham - 1.31
Blackburn - 1.48
Charlton - 0.98
Bolton - 0.92

So from this, you can see the massive drop off from the top 4, then beyond that another drop off as you reach the likes of Bolton and Charlton who were amongst those who punched above their weight. But the top 12 teams in premier league history, are the clubs who kept the top 12 wage bills

So perhaps for example this shows there is no real mystery about how moyes does so well with everton.......he actually really isnt punching above his weight, his league positions fairly accurately reflect his clubs outlay on wages, with the odd season where he over performs.

The book puts all these into a logarithmic graph, but I can see how this could have been manipulated to fit their results, so when i have a spare half hour, I might have a bash at plotting these on a graph we can all understand and post the results on a new thread

[Beefymcfc]

So, who'd we pick?

[Original Dub]

So, who'd we pick?

Do you expect an answer to these stupid questions beefy old boy??

Losing it. I swear ;-)

[Im_Spartacus]

So, who'd we pick?

Well, if the figures above rule Moyes out, i'm happy.......but the suggestion is that with the highest paid squad, no matter who we appointed, or how many times we repeated that exercise, sooner or later we would win something simply by virtue of having the best players.

Real Madrid have proven that time and time again over the years.

Therefore i reckon we should have a new coach each season to keep it fresh and keep the opposition guessing

[john68]

@ Sparty,

Thanks for taking the time to dig that info out for us...appreciated.

But, my sharp mind has spotted a couple of things that may affect an updated version of that data. Hopefully you can enlighten me.

With regard to City, we have only competed in the CL for the last 2 seasons, prior to that, did we not have to offer players higher than usual wages to attract them to sign for City. Would this not skew or distort City's wage:success ratio?

Notwithstanding the accuracy of the data used, am I right in thinking that the conclusion seems to be that; the higher the wages, the greater the success, with the asumption that the wages drive the success. Would it not also be true that the greater success would also push wages higher through performance related bonuses.

This week, It was reported that L'Pool were to double Suarez's wages because of an agreement relating to performance. Spurs also announced that they were doing the same for Bale, mainly to decrease the chances of him being poached by another club. Wouldn't this also distort the final outcome of that data?

[Pretty Boy Lee]

I think it adds to the data John. By paying those higher wages they surely must be increasing their chance of success?

Imagine spurs this season without bale, or pool without Suarez.

[john68]

I think it adds to the data John. By paying those higher wages they surely must be increasing their chance of success?

Imagine spurs this season without bale, or pool without Suarez.

My thinking was that in the past years covered by the Sparty's data, players' wages were much lower than now, therefore a doubling of someone's wages would have some but possibly not a significant impact on the conclusions drawn. The quoted figure for Bale alone is a raise worth £20M (wages). A far higher figure, that I thought would cause a higher distortive effect.

[Socrates]

Interesting stats on wage bill v success and of course there will be a correlation. You'd only get a true picture by adding the wage bill to player amortisation and academy costs, wages alone don't reflect each clubs investment in players. I'd also argue that a time factor should be involved to each point in time. I'd suggest a discounting of 20% per annum going backwards from each season other than for academy expenditure where it would be based on 3-10 years prior

So to judge 2012/13 you would use 100% of player amortisation and wages for 2012/13, 80% of 2011/12, 60% of 2010/11, 40% of 2009/10, 20% of 2008/9, add in academy spending for the 8 years up to 2009/10 and you would have a comparable net investment figure. I don't have the data or the time to do it though...

One thing for sure, our player investment over time is not greater than the rags so there is no way we should be considered to be underperforming by being second to them, in fact the achievement of winning a title already is an overperformance.

[Alex Sapphire]

ha sthis been shared?

[Im_Spartacus]

There are some good thoughts on this, its a fascinating topic so I will copy the chapter later and whack it in a new thread....for now though;

John, the data on city in reality reflects our lack of success vs salary bill throughout the whole period of the 90s upto franks takeover.. Of course we spent a fair bit of that time as a big fish in a small pond, paying high wages in the football league as we fell from the premier league, then we had the Keegan profligacy, and then the period under Sven.

The study ends before the takeover, when in reality our wage bill will now skew the data even further, but in time it will fall in line with the trend if we finish in the top 1-4 for the next decade or so.

JF the reason the study isolated this statistic is that the value of an individual player is subjective and most clubs overpay for players.

By using a squad's wage bill, you remove the influence of the odd overinflated salary, as players tend to be paid commensurate with the market and their actual ability, wheras a transfer fee and all other data would not reflect for example the premium which had to be paid to wrest that player away from their club, how desperate we were to recruit for that position etc, all of which are subjective.

If the player we buy for £20m was never actually really worth £20m in the first place then amortisation would be a worthless figure to study for example as you would be writing down the value of an asset that was never really worth the value we assigned to it in the first place

Then if you factor in the academy....well if united are a good example, the study period included the period they saw the fruits of their labour, but over the long term, the wages of Scholes, giggs, beckham, the Nevilles etc, would have been the market value once they were established in the team.

What you invest in the academy, again is not an indication of the success it brings you on the pitch, as it may be badly run and churn out nothing but shit. If decent players come through, they will eventually be a factor in the playing staff's wage bill

[john68]

Sparty,

A couple of thoughts on City of around that period;
When Joe Royle came in, it was reported we had so many players on our books, the squad had to be split into 2 groups to make it possible to carry out training. It was also reported that just after Royle took over, he bumped into a player he knew well and stopped for a chat, asking how he was getting on and who he was playing for. The player answered "You Joe".

Thinking about that situation brought to ind a conversation I had at that time when someone pointed out that we had actually paid more out in transfer fees than the rags. The difference was that we had bought lots of crap players, were burdened with a huge total wage bill, whilst they had bought a lot fewer but higher quality players.

Basically at that time, we wasted a lot of money on shit that failed and then tried to replace them with more shit that failed...and so on.

[Socrates]

Hmmmm, exactly the same arguments could be applied to wasted wages as transfer fees and academy expenditure. Point is to analyse the success or failure of the club's spending on the squad, and development of it, as a whole surely? Concentrating on one aspect only is too narrow in my view.

[Cit.revenge]

Think Laudrup make team of anything ,he show that ,and he will do what we need that is to be less unfriendly towards players and better explain what he wants.This Swansea players enjoy they manager like few of them , that work for Klopp for Guardiola .More to be part of the team then so over them.And hes the name we could bring .Thin that Bob with hes hmmm litlle bit angry style making the players sometimes not to go for the plan , they go for what leave them in team, i could be wrong.

[sidSmith]

Let's bump this fucker! I need some convincing that this isn't where we now are.

At the start if the match they made comment that Mancini was playing for Leicester only 12 years ago....

[Zabaleta]

go off the map with this.
r
Manuel Pellegrini. knows how to handle a squad, showing at Malaga. We need a manager who can keep the squad together and show chemistry and not break apart when things are going rough.

[Socrates]

I think we should appoint Roberto Mancini. He's won trophies with every club he's managed and managed to win the FA Cup and the Premier League inside just 2 seasons with a squad that was still gelling. Is a brilliant third season compared to Baconface at the Swamp who finished 13th in his third full season in spite of hugely outspending the opposition.

[Blue Since 76]

I think we should appoint Roberto Mancini. He's won trophies with every club he's managed and managed to win the FA Cup and the Premier League inside just 2 seasons with a squad that was still gelling. Is a brilliant third season compared to Baconface at the Swamp who finished 13th in his third full season in spite of hugely outspending the opposition.

Good shout - unless you want to do well in Europe, something he's consistently failed to do.

You can also say won the FA Cup and Premier League with the most expensively assembled squad in the history of football. Both are as valid

[carl_feedthegoat]

I think we should appoint Roberto Mancini. He's won trophies with every club he's managed and managed to win the FA Cup and the Premier League inside just 2 seasons with a squad that was still gelling. Is a brilliant third season compared to Baconface at the Swamp who finished 13th in his third full season in spite of hugely outspending the opposition.

Are there any more failed politicians living there in Thailand with you?