Cowley: Talks taking place with "multiple targets" | Page 2 | Vital Football

Cowley: Talks taking place with "multiple targets"

Skip155 - 1/6/2016 10:19

NottyImp - 1/6/2016 10:00

Here's my reasoning, btw:

We finished on 61 points last season, fully 19 points short of fifth position. Since points gained seems to be just about the best measure of performance, to finish fifth, we would need an overall improvement of the squad by:

19/61 *100 = 31%.

Therefore, in fact, improving the current squad by 10% is nowhere near enough. Arguably, the new players need to be *even better* than +30% to compensate for current players only being improved by, say, +10%

What about squad dynamics? Is there not a cumulative multiplying effect?

I have no idea. Is there?

I'm not talking mechanisms here, just average performance improvements based on what the Cowleys have said.
 
NottyImp - 1/6/2016 09:56

Impalex - 1/6/2016 09:54

NottyImp - 1/6/2016 09:53

Ex-Ref - 30/5/2016 20:24

oldimpsfan - 30/5/2016 18:03

It may well be that some of those retained have been deemed okay as cover rather than starting players.

They may also become an "improved product".

Agreed. I hope the Cowleys do improve the current crop of players and trust that they will.

However, their avowed 5 - 10% improvement (a perfectly reasonable target) is nowhere near enough to get us close to the playoffs. We need to sign 5/6 players of significantly better quality for that. I would suggest those players need to be 30% better than the current average quality of the squad.

You a maths teacher by any chance, Notty? :eek:

Well, I used to be. Taught statistics, bio-mechanics, physics and scientific method at one time, as well.

I thought as much!
 
Ah But Notty as you know Statistics prove that Statistics are wrong :-)

If the management team were to improve each player in the starting 11 by 5% you could use the statistics to argue that the team overall improves by 55% :-)

But as we don't know what the raw data is and how the improvement is measured its hard to argue either way.
 
westbanker - 1/6/2016 10:51

Ah But Notty as you know Statistics prove that Statistics are wrong :-)

If the management team were to improve each player in the starting 11 by 5% you could use the statistics to argue that the team overall improves by 55% :-)

But as we don't know what the raw data is and how the improvement is measured its hard to argue either way.

But your example is a blatant misuse of statistics, whereas mine isn't.

I've simply looked at one measure of the overall performance where improvement is required. If you know of a better measure than points gained to measure league performance, let me know. ;)
 
NottyImp - 1/6/2016 10:00

We finished on 61 points last season, fully 19 points short of fifth position.

19/61 *100 = 31%.

Therefore, in fact, improving the current squad by 10% is nowhere near enough. Arguably, the new players need to be *even better* than +30% to compensate for current players only being improved by, say, +10%

You are trying to apply mathematics to what is clearly not a precise scientific model.

Even before Christmas the team had been sussed as being too slow in vital areas by opposition managers and yet we still continued with the same basic format. Once the team could not make the playoffs its performance again fell off.

Greater mobility and better tactical awareness at set pieces, coupled with 5-6 new signings, should go a long way to getting the 10% improvement required to make a big difference next season.

 
berksimps - 1/6/2016 11:12


NottyImp - 1/6/2016 10:00

We finished on 61 points last season, fully 19 points short of fifth position.

19/61 *100 = 31%.

Therefore, in fact, improving the current squad by 10% is nowhere near enough. Arguably, the new players need to be *even better* than +30% to compensate for current players only being improved by, say, +10%

You are trying to apply mathematics to what is not a precise scientific model. There are just too many human variables.

Even before Christmas the team had been sussed as being too slow in vital areas by opposition managers' and yet we still continued with the same basic format. Once the team could not make the playoffs its performance again fell off.

Greater mobility and better tactical awareness at set pieces, coupled with 5-6 new signings, should go a long way to getting the 10% improvement required to make a big difference next season.

Which is why I am not applying precise mathematics to specific mechanisms of performance improvement (I agree that this is all but impossible without a sh|t-ton of data and some sophisticated algorithms and analysis).

To avoid that problem, I'm using a summary method - average performance - which eliminates the need for detail. Or, to put it another way, it doesn't matter *how* the Cowleys improve overall team performance, the fact remains that they need to improve it by around 31% to get LCFC into the playoffs.

I agree with your final point, though. A 10% increase in performance for the current squad coupled to the signing of 5/6 good Conference players should go a reasonable distance towards a 31% performance improvement, all other things being equal. However, that seems to me to be quite a big ask on both counts.
 
well performance is measured in many ways.

Leicester City for instance

18th for % possession
17th for % pass success rate
8th for shots per game
9th for shots on target per game
20th for rosses per game
19th for short passes per game

1st for points gained in the league

one statistic proves all the others wrong and all can be described as performance based statistics :-)

To be honest as poo as it was watching John Beck football, walking away from the Bank with 3 points in the bag was all that I really cared about not the performance.
 
westbanker - 1/6/2016 11:26
To be honest as poo as it was watching John Beck football, walking away from the Bank with 3 points in the bag was all that I really cared about not the performance.

Well, indeed. Which is why I've chosen points gained as the basis of my calculations.
 
westbanker - 1/6/2016 10:51

Ah But Notty as you know Statistics prove that Statistics are wrong :-)

If the management team were to improve each player in the starting 11 by 5% you could use the statistics to argue that the team overall improves by 55% :-)

But as we don't know what the raw data is and how the improvement is measured its hard to argue either way.
That's not quite how it works. :he he:
 
I'm going to ignore this thread until Skelly enlightens us with some true statistical analysis.
 
plumbob - 1/6/2016 12:14

I'm going to ignore this thread until Skelly enlightens us with some true statistical analysis.

Very wise! He'll tear my argument to shreds. :pointy:
 
westbanker - 1/6/2016 11:26

well performance is measured in many ways.

Leicester City for instance

18th for % possession
17th for % pass success rate
8th for shots per game
9th for shots on target per game
20th for rosses per game
19th for short passes per game

1st for points gained in the league

one statistic proves all the others wrong and all can be described as performance based statistics :-)

To be honest as poo as it was watching John Beck football, walking away from the Bank with 3 points in the bag was all that I really cared about not the performance.

nice post.

so, do we need to find the areas that can be improved by 10 per cent - that then lead to an overall points haul much greater than 10 per cent.

 
NottyImp - 1/6/2016 11:22

berksimps - 1/6/2016 11:12


NottyImp - 1/6/2016 10:00

We finished on 61 points last season, fully 19 points short of fifth position.

19/61 *100 = 31%.

Therefore, in fact, improving the current squad by 10% is nowhere near enough. Arguably, the new players need to be *even better* than +30% to compensate for current players only being improved by, say, +10%

You are trying to apply mathematics to what is not a precise scientific model. There are just too many human variables.

Even before Christmas the team had been sussed as being too slow in vital areas by opposition managers' and yet we still continued with the same basic format. Once the team could not make the playoffs its performance again fell off.

Greater mobility and better tactical awareness at set pieces, coupled with 5-6 new signings, should go a long way to getting the 10% improvement required to make a big difference next season.

Which is why I am not applying precise mathematics to specific mechanisms of performance improvement (I agree that this is all but impossible without a sh|t-ton of data and some sophisticated algorithms and analysis).

To avoid that problem, I'm using a summary method - average performance - which eliminates the need for detail. Or, to put it another way, it doesn't matter *how* the Cowleys improve overall team performance, the fact remains that they need to improve it by around 31% to get LCFC into the playoffs.

I agree with your final point, though. A 10% increase in performance for the current squad coupled to the signing of 5/6 good Conference players should go a reasonable distance towards a 31% performance improvement, all other things being equal. However, that seems to me to be quite a big ask on both counts.

re: bold
we start from a fairly low base. so plenty of areas for improvement. but also there may be areas where a ten percent improvement becomes the tipping point.
let's say we target a specific area... the close games where we dropped points... [22 of 46]

we were involved in 13 games that were draws. a one goal swing in our favour in these games would give a maximum improvement of 26 points. 10% overall team performance improvement might be enough to achieve that in more than 10% of the games.

9 games were lost by one goal. one goal improvement at both ends would give a maximum improvement of 27 points in these games. even a one goal swing here would give 9 more points max. again, 10% overall team performance improvement might be enough to achieve this in more than 10% of the games.


then:
last season goals for: 69. [10% improvement in attack could possibly lead to 6 or 7 more goals]
goals against: 68. [10% improvement in defence could possibly lead to 6 or 7 fewer goals conceded]

put the two together, and we have lots of potential to increase the overall points total by way more than 10%.

#tryingtolookonthebrightside :cheers:
 
Luke Imp - 1/6/2016 09:35

I wasn't entirely sure that was ever going to happen, but only because it was DC/NC last day in their job on Friday.

Unless it was secured while they were down there, just not announced until the FA have done their bit (bearing in mind it was a bank holiday weekend).

Perhaps see some movement this week then, but I get the feeling it will be more likely next week. Although I'm happy to be patient in all fairness, would rather us sign quality than rush. Can't help but think the first couple of signings need to be top drawer and show a statement of intent to help create a buzz around the club then other quality players will then take notice and hopefully decide to also sign for us.

Cheek has apparently agreed a deal at Braintree so rule that one out.
 
Gaz_Imp - 1/6/2016 15:10

Luke Imp - 1/6/2016 09:35

I wasn't entirely sure that was ever going to happen, but only because it was DC/NC last day in their job on Friday.

Unless it was secured while they were down there, just not announced until the FA have done their bit (bearing in mind it was a bank holiday weekend).

Perhaps see some movement this week then, but I get the feeling it will be more likely next week. Although I'm happy to be patient in all fairness, would rather us sign quality than rush. Can't help but think the first couple of signings need to be top drawer and show a statement of intent to help create a buzz around the club then other quality players will then take notice and hopefully decide to also sign for us.

Cheek has apparently agreed a deal at Braintree so rule that one out.

Cheek has signed again for Braintree.
 
Never know if he was on Cowleys list of potential signings I suppose, he might have other strikers lined up.
 
Impish - 1/6/2016 15:16

Gaz_Imp - 1/6/2016 15:10

Luke Imp - 1/6/2016 09:35

I wasn't entirely sure that was ever going to happen, but only because it was DC/NC last day in their job on Friday.

Unless it was secured while they were down there, just not announced until the FA have done their bit (bearing in mind it was a bank holiday weekend).

Perhaps see some movement this week then, but I get the feeling it will be more likely next week. Although I'm happy to be patient in all fairness, would rather us sign quality than rush. Can't help but think the first couple of signings need to be top drawer and show a statement of intent to help create a buzz around the club then other quality players will then take notice and hopefully decide to also sign for us.

Cheek has apparently agreed a deal at Braintree so rule that one out.

Cheek has signed again for Braintree.

In that same BBC report, it states that Akinola has a year to run on his contract. A bit like Rhead, then. If we want him, we'll have to pay.