Tips for Tikay

[DungBeetle]

yes interesting this manager debate.  I remember a few people telling me years ago that statistically the new manager syndrome is a myth untill he gets to bring in a few of his own, but I didn't really agree in that if you make the RIGHT appointment then it can have an immediate upturn.  Perhaps the stats just show that chairmen don't always make the right appointments.

[redsimon]

Right i have lost the plot and put up £2302 across the Palace and Middlesbrough games tomorrow on both to win. I didn't even back optimal odds as i was using sites that already had money in. Just terrible punting tekkers but should be a decent sweat for a few peeps while having a look at the results tomoz.

I repeat that i didn't know quite what i was doing with this one and that you guys can take me apart on the application of the bets.

Before i tell you I am going to say why I am backing both teams. Palace at around evens is great value and I highly recommend the bet to you Tikay as a single. We have been unbeaten in 11 games with a strong argument to suggest we were good to win every single one of those. We were emphatic in our 2-0 beating of Blackburn who were 5th pre game and made them look like League 1 opposition apparently. Plus we squandered a penalty. Ipswich have a new manager in, yes, and they won their last game, but they beat a misfiring Birmingham who have been pretty woefal this season. Plus they missed three golden opportunities at the end to put the game to bed but were just lacking confidence. Ipswich's form has been terrible and are bottom of the table. I have the true value of this game rated at about 1.6 on the Palace win but we are at 1.96. What do I know though?

Middlesbrough are around 3.6 best price to beat Nottingham Forest away. They have won their last 6 straight and have been hugely dominant. Forrest got embarrassed by Millwall 4-1 on the weekend, while Boro smashed Charlton by the same scoreline. Form has Forest doing well with them beating Cardiff 3-1 at home recently, but I think that Middlesbrough on the form they are on could well get a win here and see the value of this bet better than the 3.6 available.

Palace I think has undoubted huge value and Middlesbrough has smaller value but value nonetheless.

Now to my betting.

£1000 @ 19/20 for the Palace win, £400 on the Boro win @ 23/10, lay bet on Ipswich with $207 liable effective 1/4 odds (made a mistake with the bet, meant to just back Palace), £400 @ 5/2 on Boro win and £371 @ 5.72/1 on Boro/Palace double.

£2302 laid out across all bets.

If Palace win and Middlesbrough don't = -£187

If Palace don't win and Middlesbrough do = +£418

If Palace and Middlesbrough both win = +£5023.13

If Palace and Middlesbrough both fail to win = -£2302

I will be in attendance at Selhurst Park.

I remember only wanting to bet on Palace today and somehow this all happened. I am going to be feeling sick tomorrow night I hope Palace win at the very least, the £187 loss would be fine enough.

Huge value on the Palace win Tikay, hopefully peeps back me up on that at least.

MATCH FACTS
Head-to-head

• Middlesbrough picked up only their second win in 31 league matches against Nottingham Forest spanning 38 years, with a 2-1 triumph at the Riverside in their last meeting in February.

• Forest are bidding for a fourth successive home league win over the Teesside club, and have failed to gain at least a point in only one of their last 16 clashes with them at the City Ground.

• 'Boro have failed to score in six of their last nine trips to the east Midlands clubs, including the last three.

[tikay]

yes interesting this manager debate.  I remember a few people telling me years ago that statistically the new manager syndrome is a myth untill he gets to bring in a few of his own, but I didn't really agree in that if you make the RIGHT appointment then it can have an immediate upturn.  Perhaps the stats just show that chairmen don't always make the right appointments.

I have nothing useful to add to the debate, but I must say, that was a new keyboard job!

I'm not going to name examples, because it just kicks off a pointless debate that nobody can win, but jeez, some of the appointments beggar belief.

He was a great footballer, therefore he'll be a great manager 

[horseplayer]

yes interesting this manager debate.  I remember a few people telling me years ago that statistically the new manager syndrome is a myth untill he gets to bring in a few of his own, but I didn't really agree in that if you make the RIGHT appointment then it can have an immediate upturn.  Perhaps the stats just show that chairmen don't always make the right appointments.

I have nothing useful to add to the debate, but I must say, that was a new keyboard job!

I'm not going to name examples, because it just kicks off a pointless debate that nobody can win, but jeez, some of the appointments beggar belief.

He was a great footballer, therefore he'll be a great manager 

correct

in general "the new manager effect" is nothing like as big as many seem to think

however if he is taking over from paul jewell then.....

[tikay]

The key fact is that it requires a certain skillset to be a footballer.

The skillset to be a Manager (people management skills, tactical nous, vision, & a business brain), is completely & wholly different.

[DungBeetle]

Indeed.  But being an ex-player does help.  Sport in the only (?) industry where the staff generally earn more than the boss, so respect is automatically harder to achieve unless you have acheived in their sphere in the past.  Actually it's probably also true in movie making but not sure.

[tikay]

Indeed.  But being an ex-player does help.  Sport in the only (?) industry where the staff generally earn more than the boss, so respect is automatically harder to achieve unless you have acheived in their sphere in the past.  Actually it's probably also true in movie making but not sure.

It only helps if the individual possesses the Managerial skillset.

Sport is not the only industry where the staff earns more than "the boss", not by any means.

Respect is something that is earned only briefly by history, but in the longer-term - & that is surely the key - by methods & results.

[horseplayer]

Indeed.  But being an ex-player does help.  Sport in the only (?) industry where the staff generally earn more than the boss, so respect is automatically harder to achieve unless you have acheived in their sphere in the past.  Actually it's probably also true in movie making but not sure.

It only helps if the individual possesses the Managerial skillset.

Sport is not the only industry where the staff earns more than "the boss", not by any means.

Respect is something that is earned only briefly by history, but in the longer-term - & that is surely the key - by methods & results.

spot on

there is still quite a big myth that fergie is a massive ranter and raver, infact he is one of the more compassionate managers around regarding time holiday with the family e.t.c

[TightEnd]

Roy Keane
John Barnes
Bryan Robson
Paul Ince

should have been good managers right? so you can understand why chairmen give them a shot, particularly the on field leader types.....why they get repeated chances is an interesting one!

I am sure there are more

[redsimon]

Roy Keane
John Barnes
Bryan Robson
Paul Ince

should have been good managers right? so you can understand why chairmen give them a shot, particularly the on field leader types.....why they get repeated chances is an interesting one!

I am sure there are more

Bobby Charlton?

[Tal]

Some chairmen seem to select managers because their skill perfectly fits the gap. They might be great at barking at the players and whipping them into discipline, they might be the sort who can put their arm round the best player who is out of form, they might be a puppet to follow the orders of the players or the chairman.

Some chairman just pick a name.

It's like turning up for a trek up Everest in cuban heels. Might look great on a Saturday night, but they're likely not fit for purpose.

[TommyD]

There is also the expectation that a great player will be a great manager rather than a good one and this skews opinion of them.  Take Hoddle for instance.  While this point might be argued, I regard him as a decent manager.  I spend a lot of time talking to the press pack at a few grounds and the general point of view from both the media and a decent section of the fans is he was a failure as a manger.  I really can't see that myself.  I had one hack once tell me that in his opinion Hoddle was as bad of a manager as he was as good of a player.

There are only so many pots to win in management and most of them are shared between a select few clubs on the basis of finance in that football club.

To go to Tighty's point about the effect of new managers, I see such a connection with teaching.  The long suffering teacher who has 'lost' his class finally gives in and asks to do a switch.  The new one comes in, knowing it's a bad class and instantly takes the strict route.  The class knowing this suddenly don't know where the boundaries are and don't know if they have the support of their peer group in mocking the teacher as his respect among the class is unknown at this point.  So everyone behaves and works hard until the first student 'breaks cover' or the teacher 'shows weakness' which may take some time.  I think it's pretty much the same in football clubs as a lot of professional footballers are just boys in the classroom at heart.

[DungBeetle]

"Sport is not the only industry where the staff earns more than "the boss", not by any means."

Which others, aside from those industries with "talent" eg film-making?

[DungBeetle]

To be fair there are quite a few ex players who are good managers.  Might not be superstar players, but solid top level players nonetheless.

I also thought Hoddle was a good manager.  Of course his religious drawbacks to giving him a job are well known, but also he was apparently reknowned for his frustration that his players couldn't do what he could.  I suspect the latter is what stops him going back into management at lower league level again.

[TightEnd]

Premiership relegation

Taking one current market

Southampton 1/2
Reading 4/6
Norwich 5/4
QPR 9/5
Villa 9/4
Wigan 13/5

Boylesports (who are best priced on QPR)

Ten matches in

14    Norwich    10    2    2    1    5    6    0    2    3    3    12    -10    10    
15    Stoke    10    1    3    0    3    1    0    3    3    5    9    -2    9    
16    Sunderland    9    1    2    1    3    3    0    4    1    3    6    -3    9    
17    Aston Villa    10    1    2    1    5    5    1    1    4    3    9    -6    9    
18    Reading    9    0    3    1    7    9    0    2    3    5    9    -6    5    
19    QPR    10    0    3    2    3    9    0    1    4    5    10    -11    4    
20    Southampton    10    1    1    3    9    10    0    0    5    5    18    -14    4

For QPR:

Fernandes keeps saying Hughes has all season (this might actually be a situation where a managerial change is needed?)

There is a view that QPR have had a very tough start, will take a while for all these new players to gel etc. However they have just started to play fellow bottom dwellers and have beaten none of them


Please explain to me why Norwich are shorter than QPR to go down?

They have a six point head start after a quarter of the season for starters!


I am not necessarily suggesting thread should tie up capital til May on a 9/5 shot, but in practice they are more like 5/4 to go down than 9/5 aren't they?

Camel? AndrewT? everyone else?