dandeclaret wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 1:25 pm
MY work life is managing change. Part of my job is to guide against people who paint one sided views of change, and balance out the risks. Whilst I don't disagree the output you present is possible, I'd ask the question, what % chance of it happening do you think there is? Also, what happens if it doesn't work - what's the impact then?
You've made multiple amazing posts in this thread and I think this is an interesting point. I've studied/trained in risk analysis to a reasonably high standard, probably not the same as you but I thoroughly agree. What interests me is how posters who by their own admission work in areas that incentivise risk (eg. finance) and where the consequences of risks are usually less severe to them (ie. other peoples' money in play) are the one more in favour of amplifying the already high levels of risk inherent in our current situation.
In my case it's nothing to do with being change-averse, I wanted Cotterill gone over a year before he went during the abject winless run, I wasn't sad to see Howe go in the slightest, I didn't actively want Wood to leave but felt Weghorst represented an upgrade, I wasn't sad to see Andre Gray go despite his goal record. it's to do with I do not think on the balance of any probability or evaluating the market, realistic prospects & track records, there's anybody we can get who can do better than Dyche especially given our resources or lack thereof. As I've said before- if we go down and are still struggling by November-December, that's a different story and the risk of keeping Dyche failed, but I believe it is a far lower risk with a higher probability of success, lower probability of failure, and lower floor of worst-case scenario than a change. That's what people either don't seem to understand, or don't want to accept, when people put forward the case for keeping Dyche. It's not about blind loyalty, you don't have to agree with the conclusion or analysis but there's extremely dishonest and inaccurate retorts being flung around.
Those who do best in a crisis are usually those who keep their head and don't make panicked or emotion-driven decisions. The Dyche Out camp seems far more emotion-driven than the Dyche In camp, for all the projection that it's about blind loyalty and fanboyism.
Conroy92 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 1:53 pm
I appreciate a difference of opinions, I suppose it comes down to, is this as good as it gets being a Burnley fan.
I don't like to believe it is, no. Having more and more seasons in the top league should not be seen as a disadvantage, it should be an advantage. We reached Europe, a feat that ten years ago we never thought we'd achieve. Guess what, after out first promotion under Coyle people said it was good as it gets. Under Dyche's first promotion it was as good as it gets. Under the second one it was good as it gets to be a yo yo club bouncing up and down. It was as good as it got when we survived, we'd come straight back down. It was as good as it got when we reached Europe.
As you can see, the as good as it gets policy has been wrong about us for quite some time.
After the seasons we've had in this division, did I think we would be relegated in such a way with performances and tactics this absolutely dire. I didn't. I could accept relegation, but not like this. Do I think it's unrealistic for us to stay in this division, eventually maybe, do I think we should have stopped up this year looking at the other side's and the way they have performed? Yes. So I suppose I agree with your assessment of me thinking Dyche has underperformed this year. Do I think Garlicks lack of investment has hurt us as much as the poor tactics. Yes.
Guaranteed if we dropped to a mid table championship side people would be saying "it's as good as it gets for us".
You might not like to believe it but every form of analysis suggests it's true.
I don't think stats tell 100% of the story in football- if they did supercomputers would always get it bob on, sport psychology wouldn't exist and mathematicians would rule football. I do think they're very useful however - as does Dyche, it's long been record that he uses analytics in training, tactics & scouting- and the analytical data has consistently had us overperforming on goals scored and on goals conceded, until the past 12 months or so. Last season we had patches underperforming/hitting expected on goals scored, largely kept our overperforming defence, overperformed to expected on goals in the final run-in particularly through Wood. This season, we've dropped to expected/underperforming on goals, defence has still somewhat overperformed but less so and less often, haven't really been able to overperform at the other end. It's not nice to hear or accept but we are normalising, for the most part.
Take out stats, go off the eye test and remove Claret-tinted specs which are often emotionally charged and less objective- just about any non-Burnley fan will talk about how we've overperformed for years, just about any will say Dyche does excellent for us. Every single football pal I have who doesn't support Burnley thinks we would be mental to lose Dyche and that he's had his punch above our weight for a long time, there's a reason everyone always expects us to go down and it's not Dyche. It's resources on and off the pitch.
If we drop to mid-table championship that is obviously a huge capitulation and underperformance. It's something I worry is possible given the financial concerns and huge summer rebuild/exodus. It's something I believe is infinitely more likely if we also have a new manager tasked with completely rebuilding a squad in crisis with questions over funds and stability.
These 2 users liked this post: bodge Spijed
