Not seen the stats, Spart, but I'm wary about sweeping statements like those and 'you never win owt with kids' and the like. I thought you were too ?
Football fans only make comment on team changes after a loss or in anticipation of one. It's hardly ever acknowledged after a win.

They were probably on the Met Office website Ang ....

I know the great BC believed in those two clichés so I am in good company. Ranieri was known as the tinkerman at Chelsea, always changing the team for spurious reasons. At Leicester he hardly made any changes and low and behold look what happened. Football is a simple game played by simple men. Try and over complicate it you come a cropper.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/eingesetztespieler/wettbewerb/GB1

Interesting, not sure it proves too much either way. Liverpool has used the same number of players as Everton and Brighton this season in the Premiership for example. There would be a natural tendency to change a team that had lost but who is to say that stability of selection might not improve the team? Fatigue and minor knocks and strains come into it. In Clough's day squads were incredibly small whereas now there can be 30 players in a first team squad. Even the great modern day managers like Klopp and Guardiola will pick teams to suit the opposition on occasion. If your team is much better than everyone else then you don't need to worry too much but at our level, where differences are marginal, then it makes sense to take some notice at least of the opposing players and style of play.

Bobby Madley is making a comeback.....Oh no.

.https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51494849

Expect to see him in the Champ in 2021-22 then ?
Lets hope we've got promotion by then !

comment by lastapostleofvidal (U1491)
posted about 2 hours ago

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/eingesetztespieler/wettbewerb/GB1

Interesting, not sure it proves too much either way. Liverpool has used the same number of players as Everton and Brighton this season in the Premiership for example. There would be a natural tendency to change a team that had lost but who is to say that stability of selection might not improve the team? Fatigue and minor knocks and strains come into it. In Clough's day squads were incredibly small whereas now there can be 30 players in a first team squad. Even the great modern day managers like Klopp and Guardiola will pick teams to suit the opposition on occasion. If your team is much better than everyone else then you don't need to worry too much but at our level, where differences are marginal, then it makes sense to take some notice at least of the opposing players and style of play.

-----------------------------------

Well from that table all the teams at the bottom, with the exception of Brighton, seemed to be doing OK. So it looks like the fewer players you use the better your results.

It’s fascinating to see how lay people like Spart interpret data. Invariably they will try to skew the data to fit their pre-existing prejudices. Scientists like, say, Scouse or Harper, will observe that it is more complex than it might first appear. They will note, for example, that Spurs are not bottom of the Premiership despite using most players. They would also open their mind to other confounding variables, such as the fact that a team that has a lot of injuries is likely to use more players, and that the injuries would be likely to weaken the team and therefore result in poorer performance.

Things are seldom as they seem
Skim milk masquerades as cream
Highlows pass as patent leathers
Jackdaws strut in peacock feathers.

You mean it's fascinating to see data analysed correctly. As you come from a profession which is notoriously bad at interpreting data I will let you off. I mean no one in the medical profession seemed to notice that Harold Shipman had numerous deaths in his surgery, something which is extremely rare. It took lay people to go to the police.

I do hope that you will both manage to keep this up - it really is compulsive reading. Remember though, it did for 606 in the end!

666 obviously, 606 will endure

If you add up the number of points gained by the 10 clubs who had fielded the fewest number players then it comes to 402.

If you add up the number of points gained by the 10 clubs who had fielded the largest number of players it comes to 292. Even someone as statistically illiterate as Vidal can see that there is a significant difference. I could use other methodologies but they would all show the same thing. Don't change the team too much.

I rest my case.

A common mistake amongst lay people is to assume that because B follows A, then A must have caused B, or by making other spurious associations. Statistically, if a team has more shots on goal then it is more likely to win, but it does not follow that in order to ensure victory you simply need to shoot every time that you get the ball, no matter where you are on the field. It is more complex than that, as someone like Scouse would immediately grasp. I urge Spart to try to be a little more like Scouse and to broaden his mind ever so slightly. If possible, to try to understand the difference between cause and effect and spurious associations which may be linked but not causally related.

Anyway, I am now off to play football myself. In my absence, perhaps Scouse may deputise. Dumbing down may be required, it seems.

The difference is too significant to ignore Vidal. Were it 20 or 30 points then you could say that that was within the range where other parameters could be considered but this is a big difference. Only one conclusion you can come to.

Spart ... can I just confirm that the theory is that settled sides win more points?

No Peeder it's about managers taking the simple option of playing either their winning side or their best players rather than trying to pick specific players for specific games. Just showing that those sides which make the least changes are generally more successful. It's pretty obvious really but the likes of 2W and Vidal think football is a complex game rather than a simple game with easy to follow rules, strategies and tactics. In the final analysis football is not an intellectual game.

Spart I agree with you to a large extent. Players develop understandings if they play together regularly. Using a greater number of players is likely to be a surrogate marker for teams that have had a greater number of injuries, so that will be a factor in poorer results. There isn't a straight line correlation though there does seem to be a trend. Obviously the quality of players come into it aswell. In general most managers and fans like to keep a winning team unchanged but what if you lose? Does that mean a change is needed or will consistency of selection eventually improve the situation?

I can accept all of that, Vidal, it's a complex relationship.
If it was really as simplistic as Spart says, we might as well have RFB as our manager.

So, if I understand this correctly.....a settled team plays, winning regularly until they lose. At which point changes are made and the start a losing run. At some point they will eventually win.....and so on?

If you change a winning team what does that say about the player who is dropped? Forsyth is a player I have never rated highly but he played well against Stoke and apparently well against Swansea. So unless he is injured why drop him for Lowe? The two experienced strikers, Martin and Waghorn, played well against Stoke so why change that for Swansea? Managers have the luxury of being able to put right any errors of selection during a game, something that managers in the past when these clichés were first coined never had.

There is an idea that the manager is some sort of mastermind who uses his players to engineer a win but as soon as that whistle blows it is the players who find a way to win. The more they win the better they know how to do it in the next game. A managers main job is to pick the team and motivate the players.

Heb, you have worked out the art of football management. If you look at results they tend to follow that trend.

What happens if the team wins but one or more players have a stinker?

That is why we have managers Vidal. But when they don't and they are dropped it seems a bit tough. It's like being blamed for something you haven't done.

comment by Spart-Derby really are the best says red dog. (U4603)
posted 43 minutes ago
If you change a winning team what does that say about the player who is dropped? Forsyth is a player I have never rated highly but he played well against Stoke and apparently well against Swansea. So unless he is injured why drop him for Lowe? The two experienced strikers, Martin and Waghorn, played well against Stoke so why change that for Swansea? Managers have the luxury of being able to put right any errors of selection during a game, something that managers in the past when these clichés were first coined never had.

There is an idea that the manager is some sort of mastermind who uses his players to engineer a win but as soon as that whistle blows it is the players who find a way to win. The more they win the better they know how to do it in the next game. A managers main job is to pick the team and motivate the players.

Heb, you have worked out the art of football management. If you look at results they tend to follow that trend.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He also knows that the way to score is often by a great cross from near the by-line. Bird found that a bit late even after Bristol had demonstrated it. Bogle never got it at all. His recent goal scoring effort has caused him to cut in from the wing. Bogle has great skill but needs coaching in how to be even more effective, Get in better crosses, get crosses in early but not diagonal. Use his pace to get to the line and put in GOOD CROSS leaving the goalkeeper. Bristol showed how. We didn't learn until too late.

He, above being Fossie.