• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Tim Sherwood…gone \o/

Do you want Tim Sherwood to stay as manager?


  • Total voters
    125
  • Poll closed .
Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

My old boss actually did quite well for himself , being as he was a multi-billionaire. He didn't make decisions based on no information, he just based it on enough information to make a decision, neither too much nor not enough. He wasn't stymied from making a decision by delaying ad norsiam and waiting for the "perfect" answer.

Randomness in your equation doesn't allow for the players or for the coach. Yet you say the "natural" POD of Emirates Marketing Project is higher than that of Crystal Palace. Why is that then? What is our level of POD that we"should" achieve over time? Is it higher than Palace and lower than City? If so, why?

Is there nothing we can do - new players, different coach, different tactics - which will alter our POD? If the answer is yes, then surely it is a meaningless concept. If the answer is no, then it doesn't matter what our team is, what tactics are employed or who the coach is. Either way, the POD cocept is fundamentally flawed IMO.

By the way, wasn't it Arnold Palmer who said " funnily enough, the more I practice the luckier I get" ?

I didn't get that impression at all. I think Scara was simply stating what the TRUE nature of randomness is. And it's actually very simple. You cannot control randomness. You can control other things closer to you, whether that be in terms of the preparation you engage in, the training you execute, the players you choose, diets and so on. But you cannot control randomness.

I would suggest that perhaps AVB's biggest failing was his desire to control EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of a game as opposed to focussing on what he COULD control. It's a common problem, one that I've seen especially in the likes of Mancini and The Waiter when he was here (although at Chelski he improved rapidly); rather than control what can be controlled, they stubbornly stick to a method which they believe will yield TOTAL control and eliminate any sniff of randomness in a game. Which is silly. I'll offer an example; if your side is performing better as an attacking unit in a match, and if success is coming with that approach, it behooves the manager to make substitutions to MAINTAIN that nature of display and NOT to spend the final 20 mins of a match sitting back 10-15 yards deeper and trying to 'hold' a lead. One such moment I will never forget was away at Kaiserslautern in the UEFA back in the dark days under GGG; he went to Germany with Ginola as a sub! He was so convinced he could hold out for a 0-0 draw that he set up a plan to sit deep and bore the game to death, totally ignoring the fact that Ginola TERRIFIED them in the first leg. A friend was playing at the time and said that during the warm-up, Kaiserslautern players could not believe it! The plan, as it was, worked swimmingly (crowd stifled, we were singing, etc) until Djorkaeff hit the bar from 20 yards in the 70th minute; it was like someone had flicked the electricity on in the stands because the whole atmosphere shift was mental. We came under the cosh, finally GGG threw Ginola on for the last 10 mins but we'd already given up momentum and ended up getting knocked out very late in the game. I would argue that had GGG done everything WITHIN his POWER before kick-off to WIN the game (i.e. played the one player who could terrify the oppo/make that a real possibility) the scenario we suffered would never have played out. Instead, he got too clever and ended up being done by two random acts, the shot crashing off the bar that lit the stadium to life, and Carr's own-goal. He blew it with his arrogance. I am not saying that playing Ginola from the start would've prevented those random acts, because obviously I believe you cannot control randomness in that fashion. But where he failed, for me, was that he did NOT utilize his control properly in areas where he had it. As a manager, you play your best players for the situation. And knowing that the oppo were terrified of Ginola, not starting him was failing to take simple control of a situation IMV.

I think AVB will get over that one with experience, because smart people (and regardless of what people say here, he IS a very smart man) eventually learn that you have to focus on controlling what you can. For me, playing Adebayor was absolutely within his control and something he could've made happen, but he chose not to. There's nothing random about Ade playing well; if he's given support and a little TLC by his manager, he delivers. I always thought Fergie would've made an absolute giant out of him for this reason.

One of the things I have admired about Sherwood's current tenure is precisely the fact that as he looks and learns, he does not move above his station and try to revolutionize world football. he is keeping things within the remit of a Spurs side and within the instinctive capabilities of the squad. There is much more potential, but right now it's about getting results. In that sense, I think he, too, is playing it very smart.
 
Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

I didn't get that impression at all. I think Scara was simply stating what the TRUE nature of randomness is. And it's actually very simple. You cannot control randomness. You can control other things closer to you, whether that be in terms of the preparation you engage in, the training you execute, the players you choose, diets and so on. But you cannot control randomness.

I would suggest that perhaps AVB's biggest failing was his desire to control EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of a game as opposed to focussing on what he COULD control. It's a common problem, one that I've seen especially in the likes of Mancini and The Waiter when he was here (although at Chelski he improved rapidly); rather than control what can be controlled, they stubbornly stick to a method which they believe will yield TOTAL control and eliminate any sniff of randomness in a game. Which is silly. I'll offer an example; if your side is performing better as an attacking unit in a match, and if success is coming with that approach, it behooves the manager to make substitutions to MAINTAIN that nature of display and NOT to spend the final 20 mins of a match sitting back 10-15 yards deeper and trying to 'hold' a lead. One such moment I will never forget was away at Kaiserslautern in the UEFA back in the dark days under GGG; he went to Germany with Ginola as a sub! He was so convinced he could hold out for a 0-0 draw that he set up a plan to sit deep and bore the game to death, totally ignoring the fact that Ginola TERRIFIED them in the first leg. A friend was playing at the time and said that during the warm-up, Kaiserslautern players could not believe it! The plan, as it was, worked swimmingly (crowd stifled, we were singing, etc) until Djorkaeff hit the bar from 20 yards in the 70th minute; it was like someone had flicked the electricity on in the stands because the whole atmosphere shift was mental. We came under the cosh, finally GGG threw Ginola on for the last 10 mins but we'd already given up momentum and ended up getting knocked out very late in the game. I would argue that had GGG done everything WITHIN his POWER before kick-off to WIN the game (i.e. played the one player who could terrify the oppo/make that a real possibility) the scenario we suffered would never have played out. Instead, he got too clever and ended up being done by two random acts, the shot crashing off the bar that lit the stadium to life, and Carr's own-goal. He blew it with his arrogance. I am not saying that playing Ginola from the start would've prevented those random acts, because obviously I believe you cannot control randomness in that fashion. But where he failed, for me, was that he did NOT utilize his control properly in areas where he had it. As a manager, you play your best players for the situation. And knowing that the oppo were terrified of Ginola, not starting him was failing to take simple control of a situation IMV.

I think AVB will get over that one with experience, because smart people (and regardless of what people say here, he IS a very smart man) eventually learn that you have to focus on controlling what you can. For me, playing Adebayor was absolutely within his control and something he could've made happen, but he chose not to. There's nothing random about Ade playing well; if he's given support and a little TLC by his manager, he delivers. I always thought Fergie would've made an absolute giant out of him for this reason.

One of the things I have admired about Sherwood's current tenure is precisely the fact that as he looks and learns, he does not move above his station and try to revolutionize world football. he is keeping things within the remit of a Spurs side and within the instinctive capabilities of the squad. There is much more potential, but right now it's about getting results. In that sense, I think he, too, is playing it very smart.

The bolded statement is of course a truism. Luck, fate, kismet, Gods will, global warming, people sneezing in Indo-China, Wars, floods, tempests, whatever, means there are factors at play outside our control.However, Scara has stated that TS is having more than his share of luck while AVB had more than his share of bad luck. No-one can control ALL events (obviously) and it will undoubtedly be true that our current results under TS won't continue indefinitely - if they would, we would run away with the league!

However, to take the coaches and players out of the equation altogether ( as Scara explained in an earlier post PDO does) and say Randomness determines so much, is just nonsense IMO.

BTW who is the waiter you refer to above?
 
Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

The bolded statement is of course a truism. Luck, fate, kismet, Gods will, global warming, people sneezing in Indo-China, Wars, floods, tempests, whatever, means there are factors at play outside our control.However, Scara has stated that TS is having more than his share of luck while AVB had more than his share of bad luck. No-one can control ALL events (obviously) and it will undoubtedly be true that our current results under TS won't continue indefinitely - if they would, we would run away with the league!

However, to take the coaches and players out of the equation altogether ( as Scara explained in an earlier post PDO does) and say Randomness determines so much, is just nonsense IMO.

BTW who is the waiter you refer to above?


I don't tend to analyze stats very much, just my thing, so what I've observed is that both managers are almost on a par results-wise (AVB had those heavy defeats but had more games under his belt) with the big differences being Sherwood's reintroduction of Ade and his blooding of Bentaleb, who is a quicker, crisper passing presence in the midfield.

The Waiter is Benitez...
 
Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

There is scope for a small variation based on style, certainly. But if you consider we're multiple times the deviation between City & Palace from the mean, it shows far more than style can account for.

When I said sets up to play I was referring to more than just style, player choice, motivation of players on a particular day, formation choice etc etc. Each of these (both alone and combined) can all influence the raw data.

Other factors like weather, refereeing decisions, the opposition and how they happen to play that day come into play also (as well as many many others)

Where we are currently may well show more than style can account for but if at the end of the season the mean is higher under Sherwood than it was under AVB I suspect you'll still find some way to pick holes in it.

You've spent much of this thread argueing that football is a very complex game and we need a manager with intellect to understand it, yet now every improvement can be explained away by luck.

On randomness. I work in the pharmaceutical industry, where randomness is the devil. In processes that we haven't developed enough to have any control over we do what we can to reduce the variance in results, there's multiple mathematical models that can be used to do this. When we have a well defined process we see less variance in our results and the process is understood we can control the predictability of events. Essentially this is what a football manager is trying to do but the process is designed to score goals at one end and not conceed goals at the other.

Like I said, it's the raw data that determines the output, and if you consciously do anything at all which influences it, then you influence the data which is output.
 
Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

I use the word luck as it's shorthand for "a reasonably improbable string of positive or negative events outside of that which we can control and entirely caused by randomness" - I suspect most would rather read the word luck too. You also have to take into account that people understand luck (as a concept, not the cause of it), very very few people properly understand randomness - just look at how an entire generation uses the word random.

Oh my, yes.
It's quite irritating.
 
Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Scara, I'm genuinely interested in your opinion to greats such as Sir Alex Ferguson and Jose Mourinho. Both of them made a living from grinding out results despite everyone thinking/saying out loud "how the **** did they win that?". Look at United over the past few seasons, since Ronaldo left I would say most people agree that Fergie squeezed every ounce of talent out of that squad when you compare it to Emirates Marketing Project's squad. They won so many games by the odd goal despite playing poorly. Are they just lucky to have won so many games? I'm not comparing Sherwood to them btw.

You're just making yourself look silly trying to make out that Sherwood is just lucky and AVB was simply unlucky even though he shot himself in the foot with his stubbornness and negative tactics. Fair enough you don't like him and think we can do better, I think it's unanimous that people think appointing Sherwood is a gamble and he has EVERYTHING to prove, but not giving little/no credit just makes you look totally and utterly unreasonable and blinkered, you're clearly not dumb either when it comes to football or intelligence in general.
 
Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

I haven't read all this thread so excuse me if I am going over old ground.

But what if avb was completely obsessed with PDO, and he set up a formation that ensured that he would get the maximum amount of shots on goal (regardless of whether most would consider them 'good chances') and at the same time he ensured (because of slow and deliberate build up) that even in transition there was less shots allowed against us regardless if they were of higher quality.

This is a moneyball approach to football (moneyball is a film (true story) about a coach and his assitant who revolutionised base ball by the use of advanced statistics... Worth a watch. But this worked with baseball because it's a game based on set pieces.... Where football is infinitely more fluid and complex.

Now maybe I have oversimplified this or perhaps this has been discussed to death already, but if not, this is an alternative explanation of why avbs PDO indicated that he was 'unlucky' when in fact minus players like bale Hulk Falco (all of whom turn low percentage shots into goals regularly) his PDO will always be low especially against the big teams

Question for Scara or stato perhaps, if you take the 'outliners' of west spam pool and city out what's Avbs PDO look like?
 
Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Ver good point , it was the same term used RE Nick Faldo after he redeveloped his swing he never won another major....diff sport but same ethos
And therein lies the rub. It makes no sense to take players and managers out of the equation. Comparison of stats without these (and other) key components which directly influence games is futile IMO and serves no purpose.

It really doesn't do to over intellectualize games. It is just a ****ing GAME. An old boss of mine used to say you can over analyze things - he called it paralysis by analysis, whereby nothing would ever get actually DONE if you spend your whole time looking at something from every aspect.

Just sit back, cheer on the lads and try and enjoy it.
 
Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

I'd point you towards the same reading material as I did Jurgen and Pirate, but I fear (and please don't take this the wrong way, it's not meant as an insult) it might be a step too far. If your level of understanding is that far off (and you're not just playing the fool to make a point) I think you're probably a little outside of my ability to explain concepts, which is pretty poor to start with.

I read up on PDO and I still think it is inherently flawed.... My thoughts are that a team playing in the way that AVB had set Spurs up is very likely to have a low PDO and I don't think that this has a great deal to do with "randomness" but is largely down to design. My reasons for this are as follows:

1. The team move the ball forward very slowly and purposely, allowing the opposition to easily get themselves goal side. The eventual result is the opposition penned into their own penalty area at which point there is no real way through and also no target man in the box to get a cross in to and so the eventual result is often a shot taken from somewhere around the edge of the penalty box that has to travel past/through a large number of defenders and the keeper. The result is a high number of shots on target but very few goals. Statistically this seems unlucky - but is actually pretty much par for the course (unless you have a genius like Bale doing that shooting)

2. In defensive situations. Under AVB - our high possession percentage, slow movement of the ball forward, gradual advancement of the whole team, high defensive line, lots of room in behind us gives the opposition fewer chances to build a possesson based attack, but a fantastic chance to quickly hit us on the break. This is likely to result in not many chances conceded in a game, but the chances that are conceded are of the very good one on one type variety. The result is the opposition not having many shots on target but scoring a high number of goals per shots.

Now Compare the above to our game plan under Sherwood where our first priotity is to get the ball forward instead of just keeping possession and also looking to get more players into attacking positions more quickly and thus create situations where we are exposing a defence who are out of position. This may result in the same number of shots on goal (perhaps even fewer?) but will probably result in more 'scoreable' chances. Ergo a higher 'PDO'. It is a similar story on the defensive side of things as well. Our faster transition forward of the ball results in us having more players still back in a defensive position if we lose the ball and we are therefore less susceptible to the counter attack. However opposition teams do gain more of the ball now in percentage terms and are able to build their own slower paced attacks. The result is probably more shots against us but with a lower conversion rate.... Again this results in a higher PDO and statistically seems 'lucky' but in reality it's expected.

This is why I believe PDO to be seriously flawed.... as there can be a very big difference in the actual true chance of scoring with a shot on target depending on the organisation and position of the opposition when that shot is taken.... Take Townsend here as a prime example.... He'll have about 20 shots, all from pretty central areas on the edge of the penalty area (so, in theory, good chances) he will probably get a good 15 out of the 20 of them on target but he will perhaps actually score from only 1 of those efforts. Does that make the team unlucky (as PDO would say) or is it just a team with a poor attacking gameplan?
 
Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

I read up on PDO and I still think it is inherently flawed.... My thoughts are that a team playing in the way that AVB had set Spurs up is very likely to have a low PDO and I don't think that this has a great deal to do with "randomness" but is largely down to design. My reasons for this are as follows:

1. The team move the ball forward very slowly and purposely, allowing the opposition to easily get themselves goal side. The eventual result is the opposition penned into their own penalty area at which point there is no real way through and also no target man in the box to get a cross in to and so the eventual result is often a shot taken from somewhere around the edge of the penalty box that has to travel past/through a large number of defenders and the keeper. The result is a high number of shots on target but very few goals. Statistically this seems unlucky - but is actually pretty much par for the course (unless you have a genius like Bale doing that shooting)

2. In defensive situations. Under AVB - our high possession percentage, slow movement of the ball forward, gradual advancement of the whole team, high defensive line, lots of room in behind us gives the opposition fewer chances to build a possesson based attack, but a fantastic chance to quickly hit us on the break. This is likely to result in not many chances conceded in a game, but the chances that are conceded are of the very good one on one type variety. The result is the opposition not having many shots on target but scoring a high number of goals per shots.

Now Compare the above to our game plan under Sherwood where our first priotity is to get the ball forward instead of just keeping possession and also looking to get more players into attacking positions more quickly and thus create situations where we are exposing a defence who are out of position. This may result in the same number of shots on goal (perhaps even fewer?) but will probably result in more 'scoreable' chances. Ergo a higher 'PDO'. It is a similar story on the defensive side of things as well. Our faster transition forward of the ball results in us having more players still back in a defensive position if we lose the ball and we are therefore less susceptible to the counter attack. However opposition teams do gain more of the ball now in percentage terms and are able to build their own slower paced attacks. The result is probably more shots against us but with a lower conversion rate.... Again this results in a higher PDO and statistically seems 'lucky' but in reality it's expected.

This is why I believe PDO to be seriously flawed.... as there can be a very big difference in the actual true chance of scoring with a shot on target depending on the organisation and position of the opposition when that shot is taken.... Take Townsend here as a prime example.... He'll have about 20 shots, all from pretty central areas on the edge of the penalty area (so, in theory, good chances) he will probably get a good 15 out of the 20 of them on target but he will perhaps actually score from only 1 of those efforts. Does that make the team unlucky (as PDO would say) or is it just a team with a poor attacking gameplan?

Lets be honest its an ice hockey stat.

This sums up why its not applicable to football
http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2011...re-going-to-understand-just-one-nhl-statistic

"1. Shooting percentage is primarily luck-driven

We've gone through this a billion times - a season's worth of shots, whether for a team, while a player's on the ice, or just those taken by an individual player, simply isn't a large enough sample to overcome the role of luck in putting pucks in the net.

2. Save percentage is primarily luck-driven

The spread of goaltending talent is much smaller than most people suspect, and 29-year-old goalies jumping from obscurity to the All-Star game are hardly uncommon. Again, we've got single-season sample size issues, backup goalies, and a whole lot of luck."


We might as well be counting the number of faceoffs Defoe causes per game.
 
Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Release the Hounds.

Seriously though our backline needs sorting out, it looks so brittle.
 
Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Convincingly tactically outsmarted by Ramos then.

Dnipro were so organised and their whole-team defending was impressive to watch.
 
Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Convincingly tactically outsmarted by Ramos then.

Dnipro were so organised and their whole-team defending was impressive to watch.

I don't think he was bothered about the match tbh, neither was I. Premier League is the most important thing at the moment. We might not get a open chance like this for a while if Liverpool get top four. Especially when United are likely to come back stronger next season.
 
Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

You get we played a lot of our 2nd string team away from home right?

Lloris, Walker, Dembele, Lennon and Ade were the only players rested.

While Ramos was in charge of a middling team full of journeymen from a third-rate league who'd not had a game in 2 months.
 
Back