The under-appreciated Chris Coleman

More numbers for you.

I’ve just quickly read this and don’t really understand everything, but Chris Coleman’s time at Fulham places him top of the table of managers active in the last few seasons, based on (to over-simplify) amount spent and league position.  Can’t disagree. It wasn’t working very well in the end but in retrospect Coleman had a fine eye for a player, and had he received the same backing as other Fulham managers, might have done even better.  Or not – it doesn’t always work that way, does it?

On a different note, this is quite good from Jonathan Wilson.

Similarly you get people whose argument consists of saying
“I’ve been to every game since 1986; therefore I must know
better than you.” Well, yes, you do have a better bank of
specific knowledge about the club in question, just as a
player who argues that he knows better because he’s “played
the game” has greater experience of the inside of
football than a journalist. But having the resource is
not enough; you then have to use it to construct an
argument. An army may have more guns than its
enemy, but it still has to fi re them.

10 thoughts on “The under-appreciated Chris Coleman

  1. Too complicated for me but if the stats prove Coleman to be a good manager then the stats are flawed.

    He gave confidence to a demotivated squad and initially had good players to work with. He wasn’t given the money to replace with like quality but he was gradually revealed as tacticly inept and things were falling apart when he left.

    A likeable man that players wanted to work with but that’s the extent of it. There was a downside to that in that he seemed to be one of the lads rather than the boss.

    Subsequent jobs proved unsuccessful.

    1. Agree 100% with this. Hard not to factor the amount spent on the squad he inherited in the calculations, which I don’t think this does.

  2. the model only seems to factor in transfer costs, and not wages. if i recall right, MON was pushed out becasue wages were 80 something percent of turnover or some stupid ratio.

    interesting read though.

      1. This seems beyond madness for me. Transfer costs can be completely affected by circumstance – for example, No way that Liverpool would have to pay £35m for Andy Carroll if they has not received £50m for Torres, same goes for Man City and Chelsea when they started spending silly money.

        Also, the ‘wages table’ correlates much more to the actual premier league table on a consistent basis than transfer spending.

        1. I think Zach’s right that both are important. So Zach gets good ratings for O’Neill and Allardyce, when Allardyce spent a long time doing little on transfers but enticing good players to play for him on Bosmans (wages and signing on fees driving this, I assume). O’Neill may have been the same. So presumably a blended approach is the holy grail.

          1. True, the blended approach would be the ideal, I am just always wary of transfers.

            Another example – Chris Smalling leaves here for circa £10m. This fee is based more on potential and the fact he is English than talent at the given time. Smalling, I assume, will then be given a contract with wages in line with players in a similar position to himself, rather than a signing who cost a similar amount (Vidic). If he is a successful player then his wages will increase and then may begin to reflect the intial outlay, if not his wages will remain the same but whatever happens, the wages will surely represent his true value, and as they van be assessed on a rolling basis within the context of other teams in the league, they give a more up to date idea of the true ‘value’ of a player. In my opinion of course!

            I guess the whole process is rather academic as the biggest spenders 9/10 times get the success, with the other 1/10 being randomness etc.

          2. completely agree, which is why looking at either in isolation is madness.

            it also would seem to benefit teams iwth younger players that havent collected the huge contract yet, but thats for a different story.

  3. I would certainly agree that wages have a good bit of impact as well, and will be looking to integrate such an analysis in the future. For the time being, the bigger challenge was building a narrative around transfer costs, especially given the perception that was taking hold via things like Chapter 3 of Soccernomics that made the declaration “wages, not transfers, matter”. This is especially problematic as wages can be renegotiated on a more regular basis compared to transfer fees. In truth, both do matter. Now that we have the data to support changing the narrative related to transfers, a holistic approach that integrates wages and transfers can be built.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s