Apparently this isn't the case, but I'm also too much of a brainlet (and it's step too far into the stat realm for me) to really look into it enough to understand. But if anyone wants to:Under Carrick we take a lead, 1 or 2 goals and then defend which results in less possession. Under Amorim we always chased the games, more possession, more pointless shots which increase the volume of shots and cumulative xg.
Apparently this isn't the case, but I'm also too much of a brainlet (and it's step too far into the stat realm for me) to really look into it enough to understand. But if anyone wants to:
The follow up post includes leading/trailing differential.
Apparently this isn't the case, but I'm also too much of a brainlet (and it's step too far into the stat realm for me) to really look into it enough to understand. But if anyone wants to:
Apparently this isn't the case, but I'm also too much of a brainlet (and it's step too far into the stat realm for me) to really look into it enough to understand. But if anyone wants to:
The follow up post includes leading/trailing differential.
It's a results business and you make your own luck. Amorim wasn't a good fit and should have been removed after the Europa League final last season.I mean, this isn't a massive surprise. We haven't been that good under Carrick quite often and have ridden our luck far too often. I would broadly say that Carrick has enjoyed a lot of good luck and Amorim enjoyed a fair chunk of bad. I don't think Amorim was our guy but the idea that Carrick has transformed us in anything but results seems ridiculous to me and a huge part of the reason I'm nowhere near convinced he was the right guy to give the job to permanently.
I would perhaps suggest that his results made it almost impossible for anyone else to be given the job however. If we brought in another manager and results weren't instantly great, the pitchforks would have been out and the questions about why Carrick wasn't given the job would be there from day 2.
Amorim was a bellend, in addition to being the worst MU manager ever. Luck has nothing to do with it.I mean, this isn't a massive surprise. We haven't been that good under Carrick quite often and have ridden our luck far too often. I would broadly say that Carrick has enjoyed a lot of good luck and Amorim enjoyed a fair chunk of bad. I don't think Amorim was our guy but the idea that Carrick has transformed us in anything but results seems ridiculous to me and a huge part of the reason I'm nowhere near convinced he was the right guy to give the job to permanently.
I would perhaps suggest that his results made it almost impossible for anyone else to be given the job however. If we brought in another manager and results weren't instantly great, the pitchforks would have been out and the questions about why Carrick wasn't given the job would be there from day 2.
Apparently this isn't the case, but I'm also too much of a brainlet (and it's step too far into the stat realm for me) to really look into it enough to understand. But if anyone wants to:
The follow up post includes leading/trailing differential.
He‘s a part of it, but Onana (who was terrible) wasn‘t making mistakes every single game. Lammens definitely solved the gk issue though.The answer, primarily, is Lammens.
He‘s a part of it, but Onana (who was terrible) wasn‘t making mistakes every single game. Lammens definitely solved the gk issue though.
We looked excellent in big games under Carrick.
It's the midtable teams where we looked a bit suspect at times
if you're going to be set up as mentioned above clearly the CM became the most glaring issue if you're going to attack with two wingers, both fullbacks, the CF and the ACM....thus really only defending with 4 and theCM's get over runYou mean he needs a new midfield and strengthen our full backs and probably needs a new CB.
All things any new manager would need.
It's a results business and you make your own luck.
Next season will take care of itself and Carrick will be judged on results once more.
Something like 10 points lower. They were definitely killing us at the start of the season.Onana/Bayindir between them weren't that far off a mistake every game. They were killing us in games.
Lammens is easily the biggest factor in thos turnaround.
Where do you think we'd have finished this season if we didn't sign him?
Something like 10 points lower. They were definitely killing us at the start of the season.
We’ve missed enough sitters like most clubs do. As for “have no business” wtf does that even mean. You have no business talking utter bollox.Thats such a BS statement. You don't make the opposition miss sitters. You don't make your striker score a few worldies that they have no business scoring. Its just a meaningless saying used to avoid having to engage on a matter of underperformance vs outcome.
He will be judged on results and he will be judged on performances. Unless you are Arsenal, most of the big clubs expect good football as well as results. And I don't think that results are going to be as good as this season even after we have spend £200m+ on players. I think the top teams won't be as crap next season and we won't be looking at 3rd place with performances like we have seen this year.
I thought Jasper was a former Brummie director and comedianI don’t mind carrot getting the job because there’s so much better going forward, but there’s no way we can sustain playing this way in Europe against some of the better teams because they will just slice us to death. Carrick has to find a happy medium with being offensively attack minded, but a little bit more sound defensively, especially through the middle of the pitch
It didn‘t help Amorim much, therefore I disagree.I’d say it would be a lot worse than that. And zero feel good factor.
It would make more sense to just ban all x this and x that completely (and the the other fecking X that used to be something else), personally I don't need any stats to tell be whether a chance is good or not and whether it should be scored or not or whether player A is better than player B at doing ZI know this Amorim XG chatrer is loosley about Carrick, but let's try to stay on topic.
Thats such a BS statement. You don't make the opposition miss sitters. You don't make your striker score a few worldies that they have no business scoring. Its just a meaningless saying used to avoid having to engage on a matter of underperformance vs outcome.
Something like 10 points lower. They were definitely killing us at the start of the season.
As someone who has been watching United in action since the mid 80s its far from BSThats such a BS statement. You don't make the opposition miss sitters. You don't make your striker score a few worldies that they have no business scoring. Its just a meaningless saying used to avoid having to engage on a matter of underperformance vs outcome.
He will be judged on results and he will be judged on performances. Unless you are Arsenal, most of the big clubs expect good football as well as results. And I don't think that results are going to be as good as this season even after we have spend £200m+ on players. I think the top teams won't be as crap next season and we won't be looking at 3rd place with performances like we have seen this year.
Nail on head.We’ve missed enough sitters like most clubs do. As for “have no business” wtf does that even mean. You have no business talking utter bollox.
I get the feeling that we've accidentally stumbled upon the man to finally solve our midfield issue after all these years
Very well said. To build on your point about serious analytics, there is a massive issue with how people treat xG as the "ground truth" without understanding how it actually works.I’m a big fan of sports analytics and deeply trust baseball's Sabermetrics, but I find it hard to buy into this whole "Amorim vs. Carrick xG comparison."
1. The sample size is too small.
Amorim had 21 games, and Carrick has 16. In serious analytics, aren't these considered micro-samples? How can we reliably identify a genuine statistical trend or judge a manager’s tactical superiority based on such a small sample size?
2. How do we account for the heavily skewed sample composition?
With a sample this small, shouldn't the schedule be nearly identical to make a fair comparison? Look at the bottom 3 teams (Wolves, West Ham, Burnley). Amorim played them 5 times, while Carrick only faced them once. On the flip side, they both faced Top-5 sides 4 times each. If you replace a home match against Wolves with an away match at Arsenal, can you really expect to get a roughly similar xG number with such a small sample?
To me, this looks more like a narrative-driven cherry-picking of data rather than an objective statistical analysis.
All about ”research”, y’knowBefore this you saw: Frank, Howe, Iraola, Glasner
Nowadays you see: Iraola, Glasner
Being mentioned all the time
By next year maybe only one name left. Dont know why people like them so much
In the short term there's plenty of swings for and against the data, but over time it normally evens out fairly well. Not perfectly, but I think it'll be rare you see a significant over-performance or under-performance maintained over a significant amount of time. A couple of years ago I went back about 10 PL seasons and looked at how many teams were significantly different than their expected amount of points, and while every season there would normally be one or two teams that over or under performed by 10-15 points, I don't think there was ever a team that did it season on season. They always returned to a more normal expected point total, indicating that the season that they had been different than their stats was an outlier and not something that could be expected again.Has anyone thought about the idea that the supposition that results eventually have to match the underlying statistics as measured here is only true in this robotic football environment that we have now, where every chance is meticulously worked out beforehand. In a more "free-spirit" and "creative" play style, they may not even have to converge over time.
In other words - the idea that the results and underlying statistics have to converge is dependent on the play style (and consequently, the manager). So I would like to see some data collating how different managers consistently over- or under-perform their underlying statistics - and what does that say about particular play styles. Not necessarily the sustainability of one play style over another.
In the short term there's plenty of swings for and against the data, but over time it normally evens out fairly well. Not perfectly, but I think it'll be rare you see a significant over-performance or under-performance maintained over a significant amount of time. A couple of years ago I went back about 10 PL seasons and looked at how many teams were significantly different than their expected amount of points, and while every season there would normally be one or two teams that over or under performed by 10-15 points, I don't think there was ever a team that did it season on season. They always returned to a more normal expected point total, indicating that the season that they had been different than their stats was an outlier and not something that could be expected again.
As an obvious case, plenty of people were saying similar things to your post during the first half of 23/24. All the data and stats were saying we should have been down around 14th or 15th, but we were somehow in 6th at that point largely due to opposition teams messing up a lot of good chances (much more than normal). Then from around the end of January if I remember correctly until the end of the season our results started matching our performances and based on that period we actually would have been 14th. Then the following season started and we were in 14th when ETH was fired.
Just now I had a quick look back at the last six years in the PL, and I didn't find a single team that had a 10+ point swing in consecutive seasons which might indicate it was something that team was doing that wasn't being shown in the stats. The closest I could find was Aston Villa who have outperformed significantly in two out of the last three seasons.
Apparently this isn't the case, but I'm also too much of a brainlet (and it's step too far into the stat realm for me) to really look into it enough to understand. But if anyone wants to:
The follow up post includes leading/trailing differential.
