• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

English national football, where do we go from here?

BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Marcuss said:
Reckon more than 1/20 times it'd be the Champions.
Click to expand...
Of course it would be. Given the draw for the WC is seeded anyway, applying the same principle means Arsenal, Man U, Chelsea & Spurts would be kept apart in the group stage.

If it was 95% luck a team like North Korea or Zaire would've won it by now.
 
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
BoyBrumby said:
Of course it would be. Given the draw for the WC is seeded anyway, applying the same principle means Arsenal, Man U, Chelsea & Spurts would be kept apart in the group stage.

If it was 95% luck a team like North Korea or Zaire would've won it by now.
Click to expand...
I didn't say the World Cup was 95% luck TBH, I said the success of a particular manager in a World Cup is 95% luck. Most of the factors that decide whether a team goes out in the first round or quarter finals are out of the manager's control to a large extent. Amongst many things, it's fair to say the players have quite a bit of input too.
 
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
What stats? It's just how often the better team doesn't win at a game.
 
Last edited:
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The numbers are besides the point though, they're pretty conservative anyway. To what extent would you say how well a team performs in a World Cup is down to its manager? Surely they can do a hell of a lot less to change it than the players. And pure luck plays a huge role too.
 
sledger

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Uppercut said:
The numbers are besides the point though, they're pretty conservative anyway. To what extent would you say how well a team performs in a World Cup is down to its manager? Surely they can do a hell of a lot less to change it than the players. And pure luck plays a huge role too.
Click to expand...
That's almost akin to saying that an F1 team's success is dependant entirely on the car and the input of the driver is minimal.
 
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
sledger said:
That's almost akin to saying that an F1 team's success is dependant entirely on the car and the input of the driver is minimal.
Click to expand...
Is it? I wouldn't know. What would be wrong with such a statement if it were true?
 
Goughy

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Look there are a huge number of variables to take into account seperate to that of the quality of the players. Everything from coaching, moral, luck, form etc plays a role.

Where players are of a similar standard, coaching plays a really important role as it gives an edge and at the highest level the margins are so slim.

A well coached, talented team with some luck has a great deal going for it. Great base and good variables. Luck is important but you are going nowhere fast if you are relying on it.
 
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Goughy said:
Look there are a huge number of variables to take into account seperate to that of the quality of the players. Everything from coaching, moral, luck, form etc plays a role.
Click to expand...
Of course. The point I'm making is that the ability of the manager to control all the variables is so limited. Even if he does everything right, his team could so, so easily go out early anyway, and someone like Domenech can chance his way to a World Cup final. Yet the blame assigned to the manager for a failure is completely disproportionate, especially in short tournaments that are often decided in a few key moments.
 
Last edited:
Goughy

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Uppercut said:
Of course. The point I'm making is that the ability of the manager to control all the variables is so limited. Even if he does everything right, his team could so, so easily go out early anyway.
Click to expand...
Given the format of a group stage, it is improbable that a team with good players (ie better than the opposition), with the manager 'doing everything right' will go out. Over the space of three games it is statistically improbable that the other variables can have such an effect.

In a one off game, sure it can happen but it is unlikely. Good, well managed teams do well. Good, lucky teams do well. Good, well managed, lucky teams do great and good, unlucky and poorly managed teams underperform badly.
 
Last edited:
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It's no secret that good sides with good players, good coaching and a good manager do well most of the time. Good sides with good players and a bad manager do well most of the time too.

This conversation is getting too boring even for me. I think we should leave it :p.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top