Liverpool have pinpointed the Feyenoord head coach Arne Slot as the man they want to replace Jürgen Klopp.[
@_pauljoyce
]
@_pauljoyce
]
He’ll Slot right in
- Thread starter rurikbird
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
The way managers get along here he'll have hair plugs and teeth from Turkey in a week and sounding like Korean billy it's fine
No idea if he's that good like. He's not an ego knob like Ten Hag though
View: https://twitter.com/AnythingLFC_/status/1782879525535146425
No need to look far, he can just get Zidane’s old house.
Tea time you mean!!
The fuck is this!!!!
I think you’ll find The Ulster Fry is superior to any “Full English” wank.
Not much analysis on Slot (yet), but pretty interesting discussion on some of the “discarded” candidates near the end.
View: https://www.youtube.com/live/2EmQOpyUHv4?si=7taOTh5qvWz0ibuy
View: https://www.youtube.com/live/2EmQOpyUHv4?si=7taOTh5qvWz0ibuy
Last edited:
Fair enough. I think the advantage of data-driven approach - when done well - is that it allows you to unearth potential gems before their quality has a chance to translate into obvious success and they become hot property. By the time media and fans catch on, it’s usually too late.
It’s a pretty obvious concept with players, but when it comes to evaluating coaches I’m thinking of someone like Brendan Rodgers who went through a couple cycles of being linked with big jobs in seasons when he was doing great at Leicester and the likes of Arsenal wanted him and other periods when he was almost a laughingstock - unlike certain big clubs who still make their hiring decisions mostly based on publicity and other non-football factors, a data-driven approach would probably show a truer picture of Rodgers’ strengths and shortcomings as a manager, correcting for randomness and luck. We all know the story of how Edwards hired Klopp on the back of a disastrous season at Dortmund after concluding based on numbers that it was nothing but random misfortune and didn’t reflect on his quality as a coach.
All of this to say, it’s always easier to swim with the media tide, to chase the next big thing - this season it’s been Alonso and Amorim, next season it will probably be someone completely different. Fans want a name they know and constantly hear in the press, it feels safer, but it’s an illusion. I feel much better about getting someone who satisfies specific underlying statistical parameters that were set before any names were even considered - and I’m sure that’s exactly the process that led our recruitment team to Slot.
I’ll finish where I started - all of this works only if people in charge of the operation really know what they are doing. Stats provide you with a few kernels of useful information buried in an ocean of noise and you can go totally astray if you don’t know what to look for. Fortunately we have a team that have done it successfully before, so I think their chances of getting this appointment spot-on are reasonably high. And as for media narratives or whether fans initially feel “underwhelmed,” I honestly couldn’t give a toss.
Last edited:
Not if you put Edwards in charge of recruiting your next wife
All well and good applying that to players. But a whole new ballgame for applying stats based approaches to identifying managers. There are a lot of intangibles associated with being a great manager which stats cannot quantify.
You can rely on stats and ignore the narrative, but the narrative will likely eat the next manager, and quickly. I think much of why we are looking for some more hidden talent is simply that we think there isn't anyone high profile available, and we can't get a standout. The thing is, these managers with little to no cv will not be afforded much patience. Not by the press. Not by the supporters. Not by the players, who have had their entire careers in many cases defined by much better managers.
So it's down to the whole package of management with diminished influence of a single manager to get things going. In this model I think we'd have to be willing to spin the wheel on new managers faster, if they fail.
And it is spinning a wheel, as was thrown at me. There are too many variables in play and too little relevant data to be particularly persuasive with most of these managers, some of whom have zero honours in a significant league, or our league, let alone at a club of our level.
Id be very interested in looking at the stats to inform my thinking. Almost every one I've seen is superficial and inconclusive. They show the team plays a high pressing style? Ok. So many teams do nowadays. Id need tons more context and understanding of the teams involved, to know whether the performances metrics being routed as a feather in their cap are down to the manager, whether they built that system, how much the players at hand relative to competition may or may not allow that to be instructive in a new league, and on and on.
I don't really see any manager specific stats, they are just performance stats for a team in a moment. Often, we need to see a manager turn something around. We actually do need a narrative. Good stats can be a happy accident of a right man in a right job. They are going to get found out at some stage with us, do they have the experience to turn things around? Is there precedent for that? How well do they present? Would their demeanor buy them time or erode their support?
People act like all these other things are superficial, sometimes the stats are more superficial!
Lastly, Id love to know how these managers will deal with managing players at this level, but we've no clue, as none of the ones that are being considered seem to have any experience.
No one will want virtually any manager that comes in, in the sense that they'd rather it wasn't happening. There are managers who could be a breath of fresh air, but they are all such unknown quantities. Some are waving away a lot with some trivial statistics.
Lastly, I thought the whole point of this sort of statistical analysis was that it was agnostic to the idea of a profile. Like, we are clearly going for a certain kind of manager at a certain point in their career. Why?
So it's down to the whole package of management with diminished influence of a single manager to get things going. In this model I think we'd have to be willing to spin the wheel on new managers faster, if they fail.
And it is spinning a wheel, as was thrown at me. There are too many variables in play and too little relevant data to be particularly persuasive with most of these managers, some of whom have zero honours in a significant league, or our league, let alone at a club of our level.
Id be very interested in looking at the stats to inform my thinking. Almost every one I've seen is superficial and inconclusive. They show the team plays a high pressing style? Ok. So many teams do nowadays. Id need tons more context and understanding of the teams involved, to know whether the performances metrics being routed as a feather in their cap are down to the manager, whether they built that system, how much the players at hand relative to competition may or may not allow that to be instructive in a new league, and on and on.
I don't really see any manager specific stats, they are just performance stats for a team in a moment. Often, we need to see a manager turn something around. We actually do need a narrative. Good stats can be a happy accident of a right man in a right job. They are going to get found out at some stage with us, do they have the experience to turn things around? Is there precedent for that? How well do they present? Would their demeanor buy them time or erode their support?
People act like all these other things are superficial, sometimes the stats are more superficial!
Lastly, Id love to know how these managers will deal with managing players at this level, but we've no clue, as none of the ones that are being considered seem to have any experience.
No one will want virtually any manager that comes in, in the sense that they'd rather it wasn't happening. There are managers who could be a breath of fresh air, but they are all such unknown quantities. Some are waving away a lot with some trivial statistics.
Lastly, I thought the whole point of this sort of statistical analysis was that it was agnostic to the idea of a profile. Like, we are clearly going for a certain kind of manager at a certain point in their career. Why?
In short, slot machine odds.
Good luck.
Good luck.
Why would it be agnostic? If we’re replacing Salah on the right wing, we can say we are looking for a profile of a left-footed or two-footed player with above-average speed who is potentially capable of scoring 20+ goals a season (key word is potentially - there is almost no chance we are signing a ready-made player who scores 20+ goals from the wing, so we have to go into deeper underlying metrics such as number of shots per game, chance conversion etc to make this prognosis).
Anyway, it’s a clear profile. Of course if we prioritize a wrong or irrelevant thing (he must be Egyptian like Mo and have curly hair), our data will be garbage. Same goes for managers. We clearly settled on a profile of an up-and-coming manager, hence no Flick or Tuchel, and probably continuity with Klopp’s style of play and suitability to profiles of key players in our current squad was also a factor - perhaps this is why we didn’t go for Amorim with his 3-4-3 and no clear place for Trent.
Last edited:
Maybe so, but you don’t have to rely on stats blindly - it’s just a powerful tool to broaden the pool of candidates, introduce some objective criteria for comparison and, perhaps most importanly, neutralize the bias of meria hype and narratives. In the end, it’s still a human decision - I don’t think Edwards and FSG let AI pick our next manager.
Next time you go for an interview, just remember that a computer said NO to you.
This is harder to quantify, because there are so many different ways to win. If you input the last 10 years of EPL into a computer, the answer will be simple - copy Guardiola as closely as possible and you’ll probably be successful. But in reality of course that’s not possible or maybe even desirable.
This is where the vision of a DOF and the owners comes in. They know we will always be outspent by at least 3-4 clubs - so you have to prioritize hiring a manager who can compete and win against teams with bigger resources. Alonso, Amorim and Slot all share this trait.
I don't really see how the two are similar, but since you brought it up, if we need to replace salahs output, we should not be looking to replace salah.
It's even more stupid with a manager. The reason we are looking at less established managers who play similar styles for me, is that they'll go along with the two layers of management that are going to dominate our fortunes.
That's the only rational reason. Otherwise our search wouldn't just be relatively young managers who aren't particularly well established. Why do they have to be young?
One would think once we get to our third or fourth choice, it would make more sense to broaden the search parameters.
Isn’t there a mod who goes around thumping posters who write this many paragraphs?
Damn it, Jim, I am an anonymous forumite, not a PhD!
Damn it, Jim, I am an anonymous forumite, not a PhD!
Well yes so since we can't outspend other teams, intangibles like charisma, motivation, and uh aura do come into play which are things that fans are quite good at assessing even if we aren't so good at analysing tactics etc. Slot just doesn't seem to inspire the same fire and passion as Amorim and Alonso although the Feyenoord fans seem to like him (not as much as Sporting fans like Alonso, though?) Would potentially world class players want to come and play for Arne Slot? Guess that's what's on my mind. Happy to leave everything else to the computer.
Anyway, since you've watched them, how does Slot ball compare to Alonso ball or Amorim ball?
Haha. I don't hate the Dutch, I lived there for a couple of years and they treated me wonderfully well, one couple even let me sleep on their sofa for 3 months ! They are very blunt, very, but friendly. And tall. Bloody hell are they tall.
A cunt then.
Did we?
