A creditable performance saw each City man play his part in a 3-0 victory over the Spireites. Continue Reading »
In my last post on this blog, I briefly discussed the part that chance plays in football. I also pointed out that it is difficult for us fans to judge what happens during games – and to predict what will happen as a result. While catching up on my reading last night, I noted that on the Boy from Brazil website there is an article that refers to a “half-time tactical switch from Lincoln” that exploited a weakness in the way City had lined-up. This tactical switch was the substitution of Scott Kerr for Andy Hutchinson. A little later, I saw on Ceefax that Scott Kerr was a doubt for the next Lincoln game, having been substituted at half-time during the match at Bradford with a recurrence of a back injury. If Jason McKeown is right and the substitution played a part in City’s defeat, then it was luck rather than good judgement on the part of Peter Jackson that enabled Lincoln to take advantage of City’s tactics. Had Scott Kerr not suffered a recurrence of his injury, Andy Hutchinson would not have played. (The BBC website has a report of Lincoln’s injury problems.)
We fans rarely know whether a substitution is purely tactical or if there is an element of fitness in the manager’s choice – unless a player is obviously injured we will assume that a substitution is tactical, but we do not have the knowledge of the player’s condition that is available to the manager and physio. Sometimes a player will perform well and fans will be baffled to see him replaced – near the end of the Port Vale game, some fans were surprised to see O’Leary replaced by O’Brien. O’Leary later said that he had tired towards the end of the match due to a lack of football in pre-season (O’Leary is also said to have been carrying a toe injury – which flared up again before the Lincoln game).
We all see the game differently – that much is clear. Unfortunately, little else is clear. Should Thorne have been subbed last night? Was Boulding the man to save the game? Should the team have been booed for putting in effort but failing to get reward for that effort? Who should have taken the penalty? Is our narrow formation the reason we are yet to score?
Every fan has the right to have their say, but given the contradictory opinions I hear at every home match what value can be placed on the views of football fans (specifically Bradford City fans, in this instance)?
While we are all wise after the event (hindsight is 20/20, dontcha’ know), it is very difficult to predict in advance: which tactics will work best with the personnel available; which players will show the best form and frame of mind; who might be able to change a game in our favour (as an ‘impact sub’). We also lack inside knowledge – which players are carrying niggling injuries, who has been distracted by off-the-field matters, or other “unknown unknowns”. I think I’ve yet to hear a fan correctly predict which player will perform best in any given football match (although the outcome is subjective), while correct predictions of scorelines and scorers are almost equally rare (and this time the outcome is objective fact). Let’s face it – if football fans were that good at predictions, the bookies would all have gone bust by now.
Accepting that we are poor at predicting outcomes of football matches, I have to question why fans believe that their after-the-event opinions – for example, of what would have happened if only the manager had decided on the substitution they would have preferred him to have made – are valid. Sometimes the crowd (or elements of the crowd) are actually proved wrong. Anyone remember a section of the fans booing the introduction of Barry Conlon in one particular game? Bazinho proceeded to make the boo-boys eat their words by scoring City’s goal. I remember hearing fans around me on the Kop shouting in response to the subsitution “that’s shit McCall – shit”, making similar comments, and booing as the substitution was made. These fans believed that Conlon was not the man to make a difference on that occasion, but those fans were wrong. Yet the same people continue to believe that if McCall made different decisions (those they would have made themselves if they were manager, presumably) then City would see better outcomes. Frankly, they’re kidding themselves. This is only possible because their decisions remain hypothetical – they didn’t happen, so we cannot see (or judge) the outcome of them.
A further note
One thing that, as fans, we don’t seem to take into account is the part that chance plays in results. Against Lincoln, we could so easily have scored – shots saved by their keeper, goal-bound efforts that beat the keeper blocked by a defender, a penalty saved by the lad we tried to sign as our goalkeeper. Luck matters. I’m no statistician and I won’t pretend I understand risk and chance, but there is a website, understandinguncertainty.org, that has calculated that in the Premier League in 2008/09:
22% of the variability is due to chance and 78% due to genuine differences between the teams. This is a low contribution of chance, comparable with that in Greece and Turkey where the leagues contain a wide range of talent. Some leagues, in contrast, have contained teams of essentially equal ability where the league positions at the end of the season could be totally attributable to chance: for example the Scottish 2nd Division in 2002-2003 in which after 36 games each the teams all finished between 36 and 59 points: poor Cowdenbeath were at the bottom but the points show that they were really no worse than any other team, just the unluckiest.
22% of the variability in the Premier League is due to chance, and in other leagues where there are not significant gaps in quality (League Two, for example, hardly has a “big four” that are obviously better than the other teams in the division as has been the case in recent Premier League history) chance plays a bigger part. While commentators may claim that luck tends to even out over a season, I am not convinced that this is the case. Maybe luck plays a bigger part than they (or most football fans – including myself) realise.
The first home game of the season was a fairly uneventful affair, but a more enjoyable one than I had expected. Of the new signings, Eastwood was not seriously tested by City’s opponents and it may take a few games before any judgement can be reached on the loan ‘keeper. Williams made an impressive home debut and looked comfortable in his new surroundings, while Ramsden also played well. O’Leary looked bright and did a good job in midfield, picking the ball up from defenders and looking to start attacking moves (while also being unafraid to “put a foot in” in the centre of midfield). Hanson seems to have made a good start to his City career and put in one very good cross from the left in the first half, while also winning his fair share of headers. Evans came on for Boulding and looks to have the strength that is required of forwards in this division (although his time on the pitch was fairly brief). James O’Brien was not on long enough to make an impact, while Flynn played reasonably well without making a big impression. Continue Reading »
Well, as far as I’m concerned the answer to the question I posed in the title is “no”. Deciding a manager’s future based on a single game would be ridiculous in my opinion. In 2004, Newcastle United decided to sack Bobby Robson on the basis of the first four matches of the season despite his performances in previous seasons (fourth, third and fifth in the Premier League). Sacking McCall now would probably not be quite as irrational a decision as that taken by Freddy Shepherd, but think for a moment about how Newcastle have fared since Robson left. Souness, Roeder, Allardyce, Keegan, Kinnear, Hughton, and Shearer have all been in the manager’s office at Newcastle since then and the finishing positions in the Premier League under the managers following Robson have been 14, 13, 7, 12 and 18. The consequences of irrational decisions taken too hastily can be long-lasting and serious. Sacking a manager after one match is irrational – performances should be evaluated over a longer period. Continue Reading »
This blogger has posted an article that is, while generally factually accurate, making some rather silly assertions. Continue Reading »
Well… Graeme Lee has left, Michael Boulding has announced he wants to take a pay cut and stay at the club, and there’s no news on McLaren or Brandon. We’re into pre-season training now and only one of the “big four” has left the club. It is starting to look as if we might have a rather small squad this season given that signings seem to be dependent on departures of members of this small group of big earners. We have, though, signed a couple of players. Continue Reading »
It’s been reported that three players have left Guiseley during this summer break and that “striker James Hanson may yet follow”. According to manager Steve Kittrick: “He will be having trials with Bradford City in the pre-season and if anything develops there we would not stand in his way.” (Source: http://www.wharfedaleobserver.co.uk/sport/4418407.Guiseley_hoping_to_hang_on_to_hanson/) Continue Reading »
I’ve had enough of waiting and waiting for pages to load, having to wait again if I want to scroll up or down and facing an even longer wait if I want to leave a comment. Newspaper websites are crap. It’’s not just the T&A, admittedly – I also need to slag off pretty much every other newspaper (including the Guardian). If they didn’t rely so much on Flash then their websites would load more quickly and be much more user-friendly. Frankly, I’d rather read a well-written blog. Like Boy From Brazil.
EDIT: Good news. Following a brief period when I coudn’t access the BfB site, it is now showing again (albeit with stray bits of code littering the site). http://www.boyfrombrazil.co.uk/
Maybe Sheffield United will get promoted to the Premier League and decide that Nicky Law could do with another spell at Bradford (and pay his wages for us)? [They've just beaten Preston 1-0 to make the play-off final.]
Maybe Leeds will sell Fabian Delph for £10 million and we’ll get a hefty fee from the sell-on clause?
Maybe Rangers will win the Scottish League and decide that Dean Furman could do with another spell at Bradford (and pay his wages for us)?
Maybe our youth team harbours several superstars in waiting?
Maybe I’ll win the lottery and be able to put some money into the club?
Maybe Luke Medley will be sold by Barnet for a few million? Erm, I think I may have gone too far now.
-
Recent Comments
