So you think that a manager success or failure are random?Ok so your first sentence I do think age has relevance but not because of potential for success.
If we were to sack Ten Hag I would prefer a younger manager but only because I’m assuming the 50+ year old world class ones aren’t available they tend to hold down good positions. So you have to gamble on the next generation which I think is where this weird conflation of trying to prove a point with a bit of analysis that isn’t statistically significant comes in.
If anything Ten Hag at 54 is a prime candidate for success given the available data on PL managers.
Id argue those biological factors are in no way shape or form as statistically relevant as the point you’re then trying to make would make them out to be given. In other words it’s a very weak argument with no statistical basis that isn’t easily explained away as normal everyday variance.
30 coin flips don’t always land 15/15 etc.
I find it odd that someone who usually posts a well reasoned argument like yourself has decided this is of any statistically significant consequence.