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.