Is Pep a fraud?

[cic old boy]

A Man City fans said in this vid: "The top 6 teams in the Premier League are 6 of the best teams in Europe".
Even Tottenham that went out of the CL in the group stages! Hilarious.
[/video]

[Enugu II]

Cic Old Boy,

TBH, I always find it hilarious how much is attributed to the coach on a football team. Coaches contribute to the effectiveness of teams but IMHO their significance is minor when compared to a few other factors in a team's success (e.g. talent and team psyche). Moreover, there are things in football that are not controllable. Further, even a mere look at the distributions of population normality which applies to most human activity it becomes clear than only very few coaches would be expected to be very good (at least theoretically) and a majority merely average in other to fit into a hypothesized normal distribution.

Thus, it seems to me that there is ongoing exaggerated coaching contribution to team success that goes on in football discourse. This is why coaching failures are met with dismay and a desperate search for explanation when in fact such up and downs should be the norm among the mass number of coaches that are average theoretically.

Honestly, I f just find such discourse illogical but it is the norm in a lot of Western football discourse that aren't academically based.

[txj]

Cic Old Boy,

TBH, I always find it hilarious how much is attributed to the coach on a football team. Coaches contribute to the effectiveness of teams but IMHO their significance is minor when compared to a few other factors in a team's success (e.g. talent and team psyche). Moreover, there are things in football that are not controllable. Further, even a mere look at the distributions of population normality which applies to most human activity it becomes clear than only very few coaches would be expected to be very good (at least theoretically) and a majority merely average in other to fit into a hypothesized normal distribution.

Thus, it seems to me that there is ongoing exaggerated coaching contribution to team success that goes on in football discourse. This is why coaching failures are met with dismay and a desperate search for explanation when in fact such up and downs should be the norm among the mass number of coaches that are average theoretically.

Honestly, I f just find such discourse illogical but it is the norm in a lot of Western football discourse that aren't academically based.

I couldn't disagree more and the evidence out there does not support your theory...

[okidoki]

Cic Old Boy,

TBH, I always find it hilarious how much is attributed to the coach on a football team. Coaches contribute to the effectiveness of teams but IMHO their significance is minor when compared to a few other factors in a team's success (e.g. talent and team psyche). Moreover, there are things in football that are not controllable. Further, even a mere look at the distributions of population normality which applies to most human activity it becomes clear than only very few coaches would be expected to be very good (at least theoretically) and a majority merely average in other to fit into a hypothesized normal distribution.

Thus, it seems to me that there is ongoing exaggerated coaching contribution to team success that goes on in football discourse. This is why coaching failures are met with dismay and a desperate search for explanation when in fact such up and downs should be the norm among the mass number of coaches that are average theoretically.

Honestly, I f just find such discourse illogical but it is the norm in a lot of Western football discourse that aren't academically based.

Coaching is soooooooooo important bro, its not even funny. Case in point Chelsea, same set of players, just better man management and a different ideology, and the team goes from a mid table team of last year to a sure top 4 team this season. Ask Sevilla, and the input of Sampoli. There are so many examples.

[Enugu II]

Cic Old Boy,

TBH, I always find it hilarious how much is attributed to the coach on a football team. Coaches contribute to the effectiveness of teams but IMHO their significance is minor when compared to a few other factors in a team's success (e.g. talent and team psyche). Moreover, there are things in football that are not controllable. Further, even a mere look at the distributions of population normality which applies to most human activity it becomes clear than only very few coaches would be expected to be very good (at least theoretically) and a majority merely average in other to fit into a hypothesized normal distribution.

Thus, it seems to me that there is ongoing exaggerated coaching contribution to team success that goes on in football discourse. This is why coaching failures are met with dismay and a desperate search for explanation when in fact such up and downs should be the norm among the mass number of coaches that are average theoretically.

Honestly, I f just find such discourse illogical but it is the norm in a lot of Western football discourse that aren't academically based.

I couldn't disagree more and the evidence out there does not support your theory...

Txj,

Which evidence? Can you provide it?

My evidence is the normal population distribution which you can find here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC74JgrdztQ

Most human measurements fall under this normal distributions. Even non-normal distributions, which can occur in selected cases are also curved.

Now, which evidence do you have?

[Enugu II]

Cic Old Boy,

TBH, I always find it hilarious how much is attributed to the coach on a football team. Coaches contribute to the effectiveness of teams but IMHO their significance is minor when compared to a few other factors in a team's success (e.g. talent and team psyche). Moreover, there are things in football that are not controllable. Further, even a mere look at the distributions of population normality which applies to most human activity it becomes clear than only very few coaches would be expected to be very good (at least theoretically) and a majority merely average in other to fit into a hypothesized normal distribution.

Thus, it seems to me that there is ongoing exaggerated coaching contribution to team success that goes on in football discourse. This is why coaching failures are met with dismay and a desperate search for explanation when in fact such up and downs should be the norm among the mass number of coaches that are average theoretically.

Honestly, I f just find such discourse illogical but it is the norm in a lot of Western football discourse that aren't academically based.

Coaching is soooooooooo important bro, its not even funny. Case in point Chelsea, same set of players, just better man management and a different ideology, and the team goes from a mid table team of last year to a sure top 4 team this season. Ask Sevilla, and the input of Sampoli. There are so many examples.

Okidoki,

How many coaches are that significant on team success compared to the many coaches that exist? Now that Chelsea is top 4, will you guarantee the same in the next year? Leicester won last year with the same coach, has the coach suddenly lost his magic wand? Has Mourinho lost his magic wand? Has Pep lost his? Guus Hiddink did wonders in Korea and did he suddenly go senile in England? I can give you many examples also of coaches like that. That is exactly the up and down that I talk about. It isn't about one or two season wonders but who among the coaches year in year out wins with every team that they manage? If coaches are so significant then explain why Ranieri was so significant for Leicester last year but not this year? Did he suddenly lose his ability to be successful? That is the issue.

The issue is not that coaching is unimportant. Far from it. The point is that coaching alone does not ensure success. I believe some of those factors are more important than coaching e.g. talent. Importantly, there are just a few coaches that significantly impact a team that they can overcome many other factors including talent. For majority of coaches they are unable to do this and are affected deeply by the ups and downs.

BTW, this should not be unexpected as I point out. It simply reflects what occurs in most human activity where a normal distribution is expected.

[txj]

Cic Old Boy,

TBH, I always find it hilarious how much is attributed to the coach on a football team. Coaches contribute to the effectiveness of teams but IMHO their significance is minor when compared to a few other factors in a team's success (e.g. talent and team psyche). Moreover, there are things in football that are not controllable. Further, even a mere look at the distributions of population normality which applies to most human activity it becomes clear than only very few coaches would be expected to be very good (at least theoretically) and a majority merely average in other to fit into a hypothesized normal distribution.

Thus, it seems to me that there is ongoing exaggerated coaching contribution to team success that goes on in football discourse. This is why coaching failures are met with dismay and a desperate search for explanation when in fact such up and downs should be the norm among the mass number of coaches that are average theoretically.

Honestly, I f just find such discourse illogical but it is the norm in a lot of Western football discourse that aren't academically based.

I couldn't disagree more and the evidence out there does not support your theory...

Txj,

Which evidence? Can you provide it?

My evidence is the normal population distribution which you can find here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC74JgrdztQ

Most human measurements fall under this normal distributions. Even non-normal distributions, which can occur in selected cases are also curved.

Now, which evidence do you have?

Its there in front of you; every week....

If that's not enough, go watch One Night in Istanbul. You can also read Uli Steilike's vivid account of the world cup in 1982.

Look at Inter, before and right after Mourinho. Or Chelsea in the season following their league triumph.

Read Graham Hunter's book on Guardiola at Barca...

Clubs spend millions on coaches, whose contribution to the game is minimal? That's quite some theory...

[tfco]

A Man City fans said in this vid: "The top 6 teams in the Premier League are 6 of the best teams in Europe".
Even Tottenham that went out of the CL in the group stages! Hilarious.

You have taken clutching to new levels.....

Summer 2016 - You were all giddy about The Revolution coming to TBL, going so far as quoting Pa Revolution

Sep 2016 - as things are going well for The Revolution you are waiting for The Revolution to be welcomed, even going so far as lying that The Revolution has never had a start as good as in TBL

Dec 2016 - As The Revolution is being found out, the tune changes to he does not havethe players he wants, and he needs players who can keep the ball on the ground. Oh and he needs more time.

Jan 2017 - we have decided to lump ALL City fans based on what one_fan_said in a 5 min clip.

what is the point of your thread again?

[Enugu II]

Cic Old Boy,

TBH, I always find it hilarious how much is attributed to the coach on a football team. Coaches contribute to the effectiveness of teams but IMHO their significance is minor when compared to a few other factors in a team's success (e.g. talent and team psyche). Moreover, there are things in football that are not controllable. Further, even a mere look at the distributions of population normality which applies to most human activity it becomes clear than only very few coaches would be expected to be very good (at least theoretically) and a majority merely average in other to fit into a hypothesized normal distribution.

Thus, it seems to me that there is ongoing exaggerated coaching contribution to team success that goes on in football discourse. This is why coaching failures are met with dismay and a desperate search for explanation when in fact such up and downs should be the norm among the mass number of coaches that are average theoretically.

Honestly, I f just find such discourse illogical but it is the norm in a lot of Western football discourse that aren't academically based.

I couldn't disagree more and the evidence out there does not support your theory...

Txj,

Which evidence? Can you provide it?

My evidence is the normal population distribution which you can find here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC74JgrdztQ

Most human measurements fall under this normal distributions. Even non-normal distributions, which can occur in selected cases are also curved.

Now, which evidence do you have?

Its there in front of you; every week....

If that's not enough, go watch One Night in Istanbul. You can also read Uli Steilike's vivid account of the world cup in 1982.

Look at Inter, before and right after Mourinho. Or Chelsea in the season following their league triumph.

Read Graham Hunter's book on Guardiola at Barca...

Clubs spend millions on coaches, whose contribution to the game is minimal? That's quite some theory...

I have read some of those and other books celebrating coaching successes but that is the point. They fly against logic and that is precisely my point noting the examples I just provided to Okidoki and the bell curve that I mentioned earlier. Football is not aberrant. It is human performance and similar distributions occur using sampling theory. This is not rocket science.By the way, I have also read academic research of the work of coaches and those are not as celebratory as the books mentioned above. Those are based on data and are more 'underwhelming' of the effect of coaching on team success.

BTW, I highlighted the money for good reasons. Football brings in revenue and coaches share in that revenue. You also have footballers who rarely play and still make far more money than you and me simply because the sport generates the money and they deservedly take the share. Thus, the money is not necessarily the function of their ability but instead it is based on the function of the football industry and its ability to give companies access to a huge captive market that no other activity is able to match. I bet you that some coaches earning tons of millions may actually not be as intelligent or tactically adept as some coaches receiving far less but in less notable leagues (i.e. leagues generating less revenue). Note, by the way, that the point is only a FEW (not zero) coaches are truly significant (e.g. those able to achieve above the talent at their disposal). The most are average meaning that their impact is not significant (These you can identify easily because their success is often dependent on talent and some other factors).

[txj]

Cic Old Boy,

TBH, I always find it hilarious how much is attributed to the coach on a football team. Coaches contribute to the effectiveness of teams but IMHO their significance is minor when compared to a few other factors in a team's success (e.g. talent and team psyche). Moreover, there are things in football that are not controllable. Further, even a mere look at the distributions of population normality which applies to most human activity it becomes clear than only very few coaches would be expected to be very good (at least theoretically) and a majority merely average in other to fit into a hypothesized normal distribution.

Thus, it seems to me that there is ongoing exaggerated coaching contribution to team success that goes on in football discourse. This is why coaching failures are met with dismay and a desperate search for explanation when in fact such up and downs should be the norm among the mass number of coaches that are average theoretically.

Honestly, I f just find such discourse illogical but it is the norm in a lot of Western football discourse that aren't academically based.

Coaching is soooooooooo important bro, its not even funny. Case in point Chelsea, same set of players, just better man management and a different ideology, and the team goes from a mid table team of last year to a sure top 4 team this season. Ask Sevilla, and the input of Sampoli. There are so many examples.

Okidoki,

How many coaches are that significant on team success compared to the many coaches that exist? Now that Chelsea is top 4, will you guarantee the same in the next year? Leicester won last year with the same coach, has the coach suddenly lost his magic wand? Has Mourinho lost his magic wand? Has Pep lost his? Guus Hiddink did wonders in Korea and did he suddenly go senile in England? I can give you many examples also of coaches like that. That is exactly the up and down that I talk about. It isn't about one or two season wonders but who among the coaches year in year out wins with every team that they manage? If coaches are so significant then explain why Ranieri was so significant for Leicester last year but not this year? Did he suddenly lose his ability to be successful? That is the issue.

The issue is not that coaching is unimportant. Far from it. The point is that coaching alone does not ensure success. I believe some of those factors are more important than coaching e.g. talent. Importantly, there are just a few coaches that significantly impact a team that they can overcome many other factors including talent. For majority of coaches they are unable to do this and are affected deeply by the ups and downs.

BTW, this should not be unexpected as I point out. It simply reflects what occurs in most human activity where a normal distribution is expected.

Football is also a human sport, so the inconsistencies you note are the result of human dynamics. But its also a team sport, with team dynamics. That is the constant push and pull.

But one central factor in the ability to harness the dynamics of a team, including the individual player qualities, and the motivation (human dynamics) to sustain these qualities, resides in the coach.

Ranieri brilliantly harnessed these qualities to help Leicester win last season. This season that team spirit and motivation is lacking. But that it is lacking is not by itself evidence of the insignificance of coaches, but a reflection of its continuing challenges.

The best coaches are thus those with the ability to sustain the motivation and drive of their teams, along with other variables that influence success.

Harvard University specifically had Alex Ferguson deliver lectures on this- team dynamics; as did several Fortune 500 companies. Ditto for Marcello Lippi years ago.

Your theory is not sustained by the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[Enugu II]

Cic Old Boy,

TBH, I always find it hilarious how much is attributed to the coach on a football team. Coaches contribute to the effectiveness of teams but IMHO their significance is minor when compared to a few other factors in a team's success (e.g. talent and team psyche). Moreover, there are things in football that are not controllable. Further, even a mere look at the distributions of population normality which applies to most human activity it becomes clear than only very few coaches would be expected to be very good (at least theoretically) and a majority merely average in other to fit into a hypothesized normal distribution.

Thus, it seems to me that there is ongoing exaggerated coaching contribution to team success that goes on in football discourse. This is why coaching failures are met with dismay and a desperate search for explanation when in fact such up and downs should be the norm among the mass number of coaches that are average theoretically.

Honestly, I f just find such discourse illogical but it is the norm in a lot of Western football discourse that aren't academically based.

Coaching is soooooooooo important bro, its not even funny. Case in point Chelsea, same set of players, just better man management and a different ideology, and the team goes from a mid table team of last year to a sure top 4 team this season. Ask Sevilla, and the input of Sampoli. There are so many examples.

Okidoki,

How many coaches are that significant on team success compared to the many coaches that exist? Now that Chelsea is top 4, will you guarantee the same in the next year? Leicester won last year with the same coach, has the coach suddenly lost his magic wand? Has Mourinho lost his magic wand? Has Pep lost his? Guus Hiddink did wonders in Korea and did he suddenly go senile in England? I can give you many examples also of coaches like that. That is exactly the up and down that I talk about. It isn't about one or two season wonders but who among the coaches year in year out wins with every team that they manage? If coaches are so significant then explain why Ranieri was so significant for Leicester last year but not this year? Did he suddenly lose his ability to be successful? That is the issue.

The issue is not that coaching is unimportant. Far from it. The point is that coaching alone does not ensure success. I believe some of those factors are more important than coaching e.g. talent. Importantly, there are just a few coaches that significantly impact a team that they can overcome many other factors including talent. For majority of coaches they are unable to do this and are affected deeply by the ups and downs.

BTW, this should not be unexpected as I point out. It simply reflects what occurs in most human activity where a normal distribution is expected.

Football is also a human sport, so the inconsistencies you note are the result of human dynamics. But its also a team sport, with team dynamics. That is the constant push and pull.

But one central factor in the ability to harness the dynamics of a team, including the individual player qualities, and the motivation (human dynamics) to sustain these qualities, resides in the coach.

Ranieri brilliantly harnessed these qualities to help Leicester win last season. This season that team spirit and motivation is lacking. But that it is lacking is not by itself evidence of the insignificance of coaches, but a reflection of its continuing challenges.

The best coaches are thus those with the ability to sustain the motivation and drive of their teams, along with other variables that influence success.

Harvard University specifically had Alex Ferguson deliver lectures on this- team dynamics; as did several Fortune 500 companies. Ditto for Marcello Lippi years ago.

Your theory is not sustained by the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

KPOM!! I agree.

The highlighted BOOM reflects the issues theorized in the population of normality. Ranieri represents the average coach who is affected largely by the inconsistent up and down that shows that his skill does not consistently overcome other factors that affect the game. His lot is that of most coaches. Their impact on the game does not significantly overcome other factors.

Great example of Ferguson. He reflects the FEW coaches that I talk about who consistently overcome other factors and are defined in the population of normality. Those are the truly great ones but they are few indeed.

If you wish, send me a PM and I can fwd an academic study on the EPL over a few seasons that actually show that the EPL has a bit more of good coaches than should be normally expected based on the curve. In essence, it reflects a slightly skewed bell curve. This particular study controls for talent and other extraneous variables.

[txj]

Cic Old Boy,

TBH, I always find it hilarious how much is attributed to the coach on a football team. Coaches contribute to the effectiveness of teams but IMHO their significance is minor when compared to a few other factors in a team's success (e.g. talent and team psyche). Moreover, there are things in football that are not controllable. Further, even a mere look at the distributions of population normality which applies to most human activity it becomes clear than only very few coaches would be expected to be very good (at least theoretically) and a majority merely average in other to fit into a hypothesized normal distribution.

Thus, it seems to me that there is ongoing exaggerated coaching contribution to team success that goes on in football discourse. This is why coaching failures are met with dismay and a desperate search for explanation when in fact such up and downs should be the norm among the mass number of coaches that are average theoretically.

Honestly, I f just find such discourse illogical but it is the norm in a lot of Western football discourse that aren't academically based.

Coaching is soooooooooo important bro, its not even funny. Case in point Chelsea, same set of players, just better man management and a different ideology, and the team goes from a mid table team of last year to a sure top 4 team this season. Ask Sevilla, and the input of Sampoli. There are so many examples.

Okidoki,

How many coaches are that significant on team success compared to the many coaches that exist? Now that Chelsea is top 4, will you guarantee the same in the next year? Leicester won last year with the same coach, has the coach suddenly lost his magic wand? Has Mourinho lost his magic wand? Has Pep lost his? Guus Hiddink did wonders in Korea and did he suddenly go senile in England? I can give you many examples also of coaches like that. That is exactly the up and down that I talk about. It isn't about one or two season wonders but who among the coaches year in year out wins with every team that they manage? If coaches are so significant then explain why Ranieri was so significant for Leicester last year but not this year? Did he suddenly lose his ability to be successful? That is the issue.

The issue is not that coaching is unimportant. Far from it. The point is that coaching alone does not ensure success. I believe some of those factors are more important than coaching e.g. talent. Importantly, there are just a few coaches that significantly impact a team that they can overcome many other factors including talent. For majority of coaches they are unable to do this and are affected deeply by the ups and downs.

BTW, this should not be unexpected as I point out. It simply reflects what occurs in most human activity where a normal distribution is expected.

Football is also a human sport, so the inconsistencies you note are the result of human dynamics. But its also a team sport, with team dynamics. That is the constant push and pull.

But one central factor in the ability to harness the dynamics of a team, including the individual player qualities, and the motivation (human dynamics) to sustain these qualities, resides in the coach.

Ranieri brilliantly harnessed these qualities to help Leicester win last season. This season that team spirit and motivation is lacking. But that it is lacking is not by itself evidence of the insignificance of coaches, but a reflection of its continuing challenges.

The best coaches are thus those with the ability to sustain the motivation and drive of their teams, along with other variables that influence success.

Harvard University specifically had Alex Ferguson deliver lectures on this- team dynamics; as did several Fortune 500 companies. Ditto for Marcello Lippi years ago.

Your theory is not sustained by the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

KPOM!! I agree.

The highlighted BOOM reflects the issues theorized in the population of normality. Ranieri represents the average coach who is affected largely by the inconsistent up and down that shows that his skill does not consistently overcome other factors that affect the game. His lot is that of most coaches. Their impact on the game does not significantly overcome other factors.

Great example of Ferguson. He reflects the FEW coaches that I talk about who consistently overcome other factors and are defined in the population of normality. Those are the truly great ones but they are few indeed.

If you wish, send me a PM and I can fwd an academic study on the EPL over a few seasons that actually show that the EPL has a bit more of good coaches than should be normally expected based on the curve. In essence, it reflects a slightly skewed bell curve. This particular study controls for talent and other extraneous variables.

There are many good coaches, but fewer great coaches.

But every coach needs the right ingredients to succeed. In the case of Ranieri, having spectacularly overachieved with Leicester, the only way he could sustain this was for the management of the team to introduce new variables to drive the team to further success.

The example is not proof that Ranieri is average. On the contrary he is great to have taken the players he had to the level they reached. The team needed new driving forces to operate in a vastly new footballing environment that its success had placed it.

Not only did Ranieri not get these, he lost his best players or had them distracted by other teams...

[Enugu II]

Cic Old Boy,

TBH, I always find it hilarious how much is attributed to the coach on a football team. Coaches contribute to the effectiveness of teams but IMHO their significance is minor when compared to a few other factors in a team's success (e.g. talent and team psyche). Moreover, there are things in football that are not controllable. Further, even a mere look at the distributions of population normality which applies to most human activity it becomes clear than only very few coaches would be expected to be very good (at least theoretically) and a majority merely average in other to fit into a hypothesized normal distribution.

Thus, it seems to me that there is ongoing exaggerated coaching contribution to team success that goes on in football discourse. This is why coaching failures are met with dismay and a desperate search for explanation when in fact such up and downs should be the norm among the mass number of coaches that are average theoretically.

Honestly, I f just find such discourse illogical but it is the norm in a lot of Western football discourse that aren't academically based.

Coaching is soooooooooo important bro, its not even funny. Case in point Chelsea, same set of players, just better man management and a different ideology, and the team goes from a mid table team of last year to a sure top 4 team this season. Ask Sevilla, and the input of Sampoli. There are so many examples.

Okidoki,

How many coaches are that significant on team success compared to the many coaches that exist? Now that Chelsea is top 4, will you guarantee the same in the next year? Leicester won last year with the same coach, has the coach suddenly lost his magic wand? Has Mourinho lost his magic wand? Has Pep lost his? Guus Hiddink did wonders in Korea and did he suddenly go senile in England? I can give you many examples also of coaches like that. That is exactly the up and down that I talk about. It isn't about one or two season wonders but who among the coaches year in year out wins with every team that they manage? If coaches are so significant then explain why Ranieri was so significant for Leicester last year but not this year? Did he suddenly lose his ability to be successful? That is the issue.

The issue is not that coaching is unimportant. Far from it. The point is that coaching alone does not ensure success. I believe some of those factors are more important than coaching e.g. talent. Importantly, there are just a few coaches that significantly impact a team that they can overcome many other factors including talent. For majority of coaches they are unable to do this and are affected deeply by the ups and downs.

BTW, this should not be unexpected as I point out. It simply reflects what occurs in most human activity where a normal distribution is expected.

Football is also a human sport, so the inconsistencies you note are the result of human dynamics. But its also a team sport, with team dynamics. That is the constant push and pull.

But one central factor in the ability to harness the dynamics of a team, including the individual player qualities, and the motivation (human dynamics) to sustain these qualities, resides in the coach.

Ranieri brilliantly harnessed these qualities to help Leicester win last season. This season that team spirit and motivation is lacking. But that it is lacking is not by itself evidence of the insignificance of coaches, but a reflection of its continuing challenges.

The best coaches are thus those with the ability to sustain the motivation and drive of their teams, along with other variables that influence success.

Harvard University specifically had Alex Ferguson deliver lectures on this- team dynamics; as did several Fortune 500 companies. Ditto for Marcello Lippi years ago.

Your theory is not sustained by the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

KPOM!! I agree.

The highlighted BOOM reflects the issues theorized in the population of normality. Ranieri represents the average coach who is affected largely by the inconsistent up and down that shows that his skill does not consistently overcome other factors that affect the game. His lot is that of most coaches. Their impact on the game does not significantly overcome other factors.

Great example of Ferguson. He reflects the FEW coaches that I talk about who consistently overcome other factors and are defined in the population of normality. Those are the truly great ones but they are few indeed.

If you wish, send me a PM and I can fwd an academic study on the EPL over a few seasons that actually show that the EPL has a bit more of good coaches than should be normally expected based on the curve. In essence, it reflects a slightly skewed bell curve. This particular study controls for talent and other extraneous variables.

There are many good coaches, but fewer great coaches.

But every coach needs the right ingredients to succeed. In the case of Ranieri, having spectacularly overachieved with Leicester, the only way he could sustain this was for the management of the team to introduce new variables to drive the team to further success.

The example is not proof that Ranieri is average. On the contrary he is great to have taken the players he had to the level they reached. The team needed new driving forces to operate in a vastly new footballing environment that its success had placed it.

Not only did Ranieri not get these, he lost his best players or had them distracted by other teams...

I think you are splitting hairs here.

The bottom line is that average coaches are far more than those coaches who are significantly able to overcome the other factors. That is the logic of the population of normality.

[joao]

Great debate ongoing between EII and txj, but guys please consider the place of hype in the equation.
The subjectivity of coaching had been expressed, and many keep ignoring that. Many confuse the work type of coaching,
tagging it as tactical instead of artistic. Artistic because each coach is trying to make flux differing combinations of
individual styles, personalities, and ability to follow team concepts. If the coach succeeds he is hailed as a genius, but if
same coach fails the next season he is declared clueless. Mourinho at Chelsea is a good example.
Also to be considered is the place of luck on this very subjective activity. For Arsenal to have placed at the top four in the
EPL for so many seasons shows that the coaching is up there. But to have failed to take home the gold after so many tries?
Well....???
Finally, Pep is no fraud. He just happens to be in a more competitive league where tiki-taka cannot always dominate.

[mastermind 17]

A Man City fans said in this vid: "The top 6 teams in the Premier League are 6 of the best teams in Europe".
Even Tottenham that went out of the CL in the group stages! Hilarious.

You have taken clutching to new levels.....

Summer 2016 - You were all giddy about The Revolution coming to TBL, going so far as quoting Pa Revolution

Sep 2016 - as things are going well for The Revolution you are waiting for The Revolution to be welcomed, even going so far as lying that The Revolution has never had a start as good as in TBL

Dec 2016 - As The Revolution is being found out, the tune changes to he does not havethe players he wants, and he needs players who can keep the ball on the ground. Oh and he needs more time.

Jan 2017 - we have decided to lump ALL City fans based on what one_fan_said in a 5 min clip.

what is the point of your thread again?

TFCO, why are you so cruel my brother? Why are you giving the man a rope to hang himself. Give him some slack, he is blinded by "admiration for love"

[Cristao II]

A Man City fans said in this vid: "The top 6 teams in the Premier League are 6 of the best teams in Europe".
Even Tottenham that went out of the CL in the group stages! Hilarious.
[/video]

Tottenham's underperformance in the CL is due to several factors ...

1: New Stadium - It was a good idea to play games there this season preparing us for next year. I am seriously downplaying Spurs ability to over-perform due to the move to Wembley next season.
2: Inexperience of the squad and coach. People forget that this squad is quite young and that Pochettino is still learning.
3: Injuries to key players.
4: Players late recovery from the shambles of Euro 2016
5: Sometimes shiite just happens

That said - I would like to know the European team that would want to face Spurs and not feel some trepidation.

[green4life]

A Man City fans said in this vid: "The top 6 teams in the Premier League are 6 of the best teams in Europe".
Even Tottenham that went out of the CL in the group stages! Hilarious.

Tottenham's underperformance in the CL is due to several factors ...

1: New Stadium - It was a good idea to play games there this season preparing us for next year. I am seriously downplaying Spurs ability to over-perform due to the move to Wembley next season.
2: Inexperience of the squad and coach. People forget that this squad is quite young and that Pochettino is still learning.
3: Injuries to key players.
4: Players late recovery from the shambles of Euro 2016
5: Sometimes shiite just happens

That said - I would like to know the European team that would want to face Spurs and not feel some trepidation.

IMO, the biggest factor is a combination of Spurs as an organization being inexperienced in CL football and lacking self belief in Europe. Leicester City similarly lacks even more experience in CL than Spurs but I saw a certain level of self belief in their European performances that helped them to win their CL group.

@ CIC, using your logic, since Leicester City won their CL group, plus are the EPL defending champions, that makes them a top team in Europe especially considering Pep got demolished by them not long ago, abi?

[smartbrother]

A Man City fans said in this vid: "The top 6 teams in the Premier League are 6 of the best teams in Europe".
Even Tottenham that went out of the CL in the group stages! Hilarious.
[/video]

Very unfair to judge english football based on perennial chokers like spurs

[Cristao II]

A Man City fans said in this vid: "The top 6 teams in the Premier League are 6 of the best teams in Europe".
Even Tottenham that went out of the CL in the group stages! Hilarious.

Tottenham's underperformance in the CL is due to several factors ...

1: New Stadium - It was a good idea to play games there this season preparing us for next year. I am seriously downplaying Spurs ability to over-perform due to the move to Wembley next season.
2: Inexperience of the squad and coach. People forget that this squad is quite young and that Pochettino is still learning.
3: Injuries to key players.
4: Players late recovery from the shambles of Euro 2016
5: Sometimes shiite just happens

That said - I would like to know the European team that would want to face Spurs and not feel some trepidation.

IMO, the biggest factor is a combination of Spurs as an organization being inexperienced in CL football and lacking self belief in Europe. Leicester City similarly lacks even more experience in CL than Spurs but I saw a certain level of self belief in their European performances that helped them to win their CL group.

@ CIC, using your logic, since Leicester City won their CL group, plus are the EPL defending champions, that makes them a top team in Europe especially considering Pep got demolished by them not long ago, abi?

Spurs' problem in Europe was not self belief. That sentence has been mouthed so many times that people believe the myth. Ranieri has far more CL experience than Poch including reaching a CL final.

[cic old boy]

Cic Old Boy,

TBH, I always find it hilarious how much is attributed to the coach on a football team. Coaches contribute to the effectiveness of teams but IMHO their significance is minor when compared to a few other factors in a team's success (e.g. talent and team psyche). Moreover, there are things in football that are not controllable. Further, even a mere look at the distributions of population normality which applies to most human activity it becomes clear than only very few coaches would be expected to be very good (at least theoretically) and a majority merely average in other to fit into a hypothesized normal distribution.

Thus, it seems to me that there is ongoing exaggerated coaching contribution to team success that goes on in football discourse. This is why coaching failures are met with dismay and a desperate search for explanation when in fact such up and downs should be the norm among the mass number of coaches that are average theoretically.

Honestly, I f just find such discourse illogical but it is the norm in a lot of Western football discourse that aren't academically based.

Enugu,

I agree and disagree to some degree. Coaches are paid megabucks for a reason. What they contribute may be "minor", but football is usually won on minor details, esp when the difference in talent is not massive. But you are right that there is an overemphasis on the significance of coaches - this even more so in England where there is a long tradition of larger-than-life "managers".

[cic old boy]

You have taken clutching to new levels.....

Summer 2016 - You were all giddy about The Revolution coming to TBL, going so far as quoting Pa Revolution

Sep 2016 - as things are going well for The Revolution you are waiting for The Revolution to be welcomed, even going so far as lying that The Revolution has never had a start as good as in TBL

Dec 2016 - As The Revolution is being found out, the tune changes to he does not havethe players he wants, and he needs players who can keep the ball on the ground. Oh and he needs more time.

Jan 2017 - we have decided to lump ALL City fans based on what one_fan_said in a 5 min clip.

what is the point of your thread again?

Thicko, your links have little to do with your introductory one-liners. The 1st link is about Pep's dad saying the EPL is shite. The rest follow the same pattern.

The point of this thread is in the title. Jeez, you are slow.

[cic old boy]

@ CIC, using your logic, since Leicester City won their CL group, plus are the EPL defending champions, that makes them a top team in Europe especially considering Pep got demolished by them not long ago, abi?

The logic is that you can't describe the top 6 English teams as the top 6 in Europe judging by their CL experience in recent years. Spurs were just a glaring example. Top 6 teams in Europe are those sides that have regularly played in semis of the CL over the last few years.

[Cristao II]

@ CIC, using your logic, since Leicester City won their CL group, plus are the EPL defending champions, that makes them a top team in Europe especially considering Pep got demolished by them not long ago, abi?

The logic is that you can't describe the top 6 English teams as the top 6 in Europe judging by their CL experience in recent years. Spurs were just a glaring example. Top 6 teams in Europe are those sides that have regularly played in semis of the CL over the last few years.

But cic - arent you over-reacting? The article never said the TOP 6 teams in the EPL ARE the top 6 teams in Europe. It said that the top 6 teams in the Premier League are 6 of the best teams in Europe. If you had to draw up a list of the 50 top teams in Europe, you would have those teams in there.