Dave Challinor

[tuffers#1]

Every day in every way............you are talking sillier and sillier !

Am I ? Lottery possibilities
1-59
So the odds are calculated thus
59×58x57x56x55x54
Manager possibilities
100 people apply for the job let's say 25 % aren't qualified & 15% want to much money
The odds of picking the right one are
60x59x58x57x56x55x54x53all the way down to an including x1

The lottery has only 6 possibilities & have fixed values .
Managers & clubs & players all have to match up to win (get lucky)
There is no guarantee that any of those 60 or the 100 would be the winning combination ie
Brian clough Leeds Rafael benitez Everton Ken Knighton Orient sam allardyce West Bromley.

Hope you see it now Sidney

Odds on winning the first prize in the Euro lottery, well punters only have a 1 in 139,838,160 chance of bagging the top prize. The mind boggles, so extremely lucky if you happen to bag the big first prize !

The odds of 100 applications for a managers job & them being successful would still be bigger .

[tuffers#1]

So the club should do the lottery, win the Jackpot and then they could afford a decent manager.

No , they pick the best candidate .
That does not mean success .
Again Brian Clough Leeds Big Sam West Brom &
CARL F*CK IT UP Leyton Orient as examples.

[o-no]

[o-no]

Manager possibilities
100 people apply for the job let's say 25 % aren't qualified & 15% want to much money
The odds of picking the right one are
60x59x58x57x56x55x54x53all the way down to an including x1

How so? You have 60 candidates, you have to choose 1.

Worst case, choosing randomly, the odds of getting the 'right' one are 60-1

[Jack]

Manager possibilities
100 people apply for the job let's say 25 % aren't qualified & 15% want to much money
The odds of picking the right one are
60x59x58x57x56x55x54x53all the way down to an including x1

How so? You have 60 candidates, you have to choose 1.

Worst case, choosing randomly, the odds of getting the 'right' one are 60-1

You cant do it like that, because more than one of the candidates may be the right one, maybe five could do well as manager, there's no way of knowing until the new manager has been in the job a while

[tuffers#1]

Manager possibilities
100 people apply for the job let's say 25 % aren't qualified & 15% want to much money
The odds of picking the right one are
60x59x58x57x56x55x54x53all the way down to an including x1

How so? You have 60 candidates, you have to choose 1.

Worst case, choosing randomly, the odds of getting the 'right' one are 60-1

The odds of getting the winning ticket ( a successful manager ).
It works the same way odds are worked out for picking the winning numbers .
There are 59 numbers to which 6 will be correct, guaranteed
When you pick 1 number from a choice of 59 , then there are 59 left
So 58 57 56 55 & 54 . You multiply 59x58x57x56x55x54 to calculate those odds .

With a football job & 60 applications you have 60 choices , but you are not guaranteed a winning combination
So 60 x59x58 down to x1 . Again you are still not guaranteed the winning ticket as a manager b players c club are all
things that need to align ( get lucky ) . So it's bigger odds than a lottery win plus the permutations of other managers who didn't apply
The right players & the right club .

It's simple enough to work out for the odds ,
That's why in a 140 years clubs like ours are only mildly successful where as richer clubs eliminate by the best throwing themselves at them.

[Long slender neck]

Are we back to blaming Ling for everything?

[tuffers#1]

Are we back to blaming Ling for everything?

It seems like they are
There doing it over at the lesser place constantly

[o-no]

Manager possibilities
100 people apply for the job let's say 25 % aren't qualified & 15% want to much money
The odds of picking the right one are
60x59x58x57x56x55x54x53all the way down to an including x1

How so? You have 60 candidates, you have to choose 1.

Worst case, choosing randomly, the odds of getting the 'right' one are 60-1

The odds of getting the winning ticket ( a successful manager ).
It works the same way odds are worked out for picking the winning numbers .
There are 59 numbers to which 6 will be correct, guaranteed
When you pick 1 number from a choice of 59 , then there are 59 left
So 58 57 56 55 & 54 . You multiply 59x58x57x56x55x54 to calculate those odds .

With a football job & 60 applications you have 60 choices , but you are not guaranteed a winning combination
So 60 x59x58 down to x1 . Again you are still not guaranteed the winning ticket as a manager b players c club are all
things that need to align ( get lucky ) . So it's bigger odds than a lottery win plus the permutations of other managers who didn't apply
The right players & the right club .

It's simple enough to work out for the odds ,
That's why in a 140 years clubs like ours are only mildly successful where as richer clubs eliminate by the best throwing themselves at them.

That makes no sense. The calculation for the lottery is correct because you have to pick 6 numbers per try. You only pick one manager at a time.

The idea that it is harder to find a winning manager than to win the lottery is laughable

[tuffers#1]

How so? You have 60 candidates, you have to choose 1.

Worst case, choosing randomly, the odds of getting the 'right' one are 60-1

The odds of getting the winning ticket ( a successful manager ).
It works the same way odds are worked out for picking the winning numbers .
There are 59 numbers to which 6 will be correct, guaranteed
When you pick 1 number from a choice of 59 , then there are 59 left
So 58 57 56 55 & 54 . You multiply 59x58x57x56x55x54 to calculate those odds .

With a football job & 60 applications you have 60 choices , but you are not guaranteed a winning combination
So 60 x59x58 down to x1 . Again you are still not guaranteed the winning ticket as a manager b players c club are all
things that need to align ( get lucky ) . So it's bigger odds than a lottery win plus the permutations of other managers who didn't apply
The right players & the right club .

It's simple enough to work out for the odds ,
That's why in a 140 years clubs like ours are only mildly successful where as richer clubs eliminate by the best throwing themselves at them.

That makes no sense. The calculation for the lottery is correct because you have to pick 6 numbers per try. You only pick one manager at a time.

The idea that it is harder to find a winning manager than to win the lottery is laughable

You really don't understand do you ?
It's the combination of a mixture of different odds
That makes it such a small chance with massive odds
To combine & turn into success .

Manager x club x players x budgets x success ( only winning ) x Luck .
Of course its Higher odds !

If its not about that & it's simple
Why did Jamie Cureton not score goals here where everywhere else he did ?

[B.whitehouse+10more]

Does anyone know what this thread is about …..answers on a postcard

[tuffers#1]

I think it started as a get dave
But he doesn't do very well against us except the trophy final when our lot had been on the p155 for 2 weeks

[Monkey Boy]

Are we back to blaming Ling for everything?

It seems like they are
There doing it over at the lesser place constantly

Let’s get this straight tuffers old chap,most of it is me and I’m not afraid to admit it,it’s simple as far as I’m concerned,there’s one person that’s responsible for employing the past managers that we have had and that’s Ling. The one and only possible exception is Justin,and even in that season we limped over the line in the last game. I don’t like Jacket haven’t from the start(although many will disagree) I don’t like his style of football,I don’t like the ridged formation he plays and he hasn’t addressed the problem of getting a creative midfielder in, and Ling is part of that process like it or not. Even if by some miracle we were to get into the playoffs my views won’t change, and I really don’t care what anyone else thinks about my opinion. But as far as the other side is concerned there’s still many that support Jacket and there quite entitled too so don’t tar every one with the same brush please

[tuffers#1]

Are we back to blaming Ling for everything?

It seems like they are
There doing it over at the lesser place constantly

Let’s get this straight tuffers old chap,most of it is me and I’m not afraid to admit it,it’s simple as far as I’m concerned,there’s one person that’s responsible for employing the past managers that we have had and that’s Ling. The one and only possible exception is Justin,and even in that season we limped over the line in the last game. I don’t like Jacket haven’t from the start(although many will disagree) I don’t like his style of football,I don’t like the ridged formation he plays and he hasn’t addressed the problem of getting a creative midfielder in, and Ling is part of that process like it or not. Even if by some miracle we were to get into the playoffs my views won’t change, and I really don’t care what anyone else thinks about my opinion. But as far as the other side is concerned there’s still many that support Jacket and there quite entitled too so don’t tar every one with the same brush please

You didn't like jackett Ling Embleton etc etc
But you LOVE 442 .

When you have something original to say
Do keep us informed

[o-no]

The odds of getting the winning ticket ( a successful manager ).
It works the same way odds are worked out for picking the winning numbers .
There are 59 numbers to which 6 will be correct, guaranteed
When you pick 1 number from a choice of 59 , then there are 59 left
So 58 57 56 55 & 54 . You multiply 59x58x57x56x55x54 to calculate those odds .

With a football job & 60 applications you have 60 choices , but you are not guaranteed a winning combination
So 60 x59x58 down to x1 . Again you are still not guaranteed the winning ticket as a manager b players c club are all
things that need to align ( get lucky ) . So it's bigger odds than a lottery win plus the permutations of other managers who didn't apply
The right players & the right club .

It's simple enough to work out for the odds ,
That's why in a 140 years clubs like ours are only mildly successful where as richer clubs eliminate by the best throwing themselves at them.

That makes no sense. The calculation for the lottery is correct because you have to pick 6 numbers per try. You only pick one manager at a time.

The idea that it is harder to find a winning manager than to win the lottery is laughable

You really don't understand do you ?
It's the combination of a mixture of different odds
That makes it such a small chance with massive odds
To combine & turn into success .

Manager x club x players x budgets x success ( only winning ) x Luck .
Of course its Higher odds !

If its not about that & it's simple
Why did Jamie Cureton not score goals here where everywhere else he did ?

Obviously I really don't. Let's leave Jamie Cureton out of it and get to the bottom this.

What I believe you are saying is that the odds of getting a successful manager are far, far, far higher arithmetically than the odds of winning the lottery jackpot which it has been stated are 139 million-1 because you are factoring in every conceivable value (club, player, budgets, results etc) and asserting that if any single one of those is 'wrong' in any way, then you cannot have a successful manager.

[tuffers#1]

That makes no sense. The calculation for the lottery is correct because you have to pick 6 numbers per try. You only pick one manager at a time.

The idea that it is harder to find a winning manager than to win the lottery is laughable

You really don't understand do you ?
It's the combination of a mixture of different odds
That makes it such a small chance with massive odds
To combine & turn into success .

Manager x club x players x budgets x success ( only winning ) x Luck .
Of course its Higher odds !

If its not about that & it's simple
Why did Jamie Cureton not score goals here where everywhere else he did ?

Obviously I really don't. Let's leave Jamie Cureton out of it and get to the bottom this.

What I believe you are saying is that the odds of getting a successful manager are far, far, far higher arithmetically than the odds of winning the lottery jackpot which it has been stated are 139 million-1 because you are factoring in every conceivable value (club, player, budgets, results etc) and asserting that if any single one of those is 'wrong' in any way, then you cannot have a successful manager.

Nope , that's not what I am saying .
You really are struggling with this aren't you

[o-no]

You really don't understand do you ?
It's the combination of a mixture of different odds
That makes it such a small chance with massive odds
To combine & turn into success .

Manager x club x players x budgets x success ( only winning ) x Luck .
Of course its Higher odds !

If its not about that & it's simple
Why did Jamie Cureton not score goals here where everywhere else he did ?

Obviously I really don't. Let's leave Jamie Cureton out of it and get to the bottom this.

What I believe you are saying is that the odds of getting a successful manager are far, far, far higher arithmetically than the odds of winning the lottery jackpot which it has been stated are 139 million-1 because you are factoring in every conceivable value (club, player, budgets, results etc) and asserting that if any single one of those is 'wrong' in any way, then you cannot have a successful manager.

Nope , that's not what I am saying .
You really are struggling with this aren't you

I think that's a pretty faithful representation of what you said...

The odds of getting the winning ticket ( a successful manager ).
It works the same way odds are worked out for picking the winning numbers .
There are 59 numbers to which 6 will be correct, guaranteed
When you pick 1 number from a choice of 59 , then there are 59 left
So 58 57 56 55 & 54 . You multiply 59x58x57x56x55x54 to calculate those odds .

With a football job & 60 applications you have 60 choices , but you are not guaranteed a winning combination
So 60 x59x58 down to x1 . Again you are still not guaranteed the winning ticket as a manager b players c club are all
things that need to align ( get lucky ) . So it's bigger odds than a lottery win plus the permutations of other managers who didn't apply
The right players & the right club .

Which bit of it is incorrect?

[tuffers#1]

Obviously I really don't. Let's leave Jamie Cureton out of it and get to the bottom this.

What I believe you are saying is that the odds of getting a successful manager are far, far, far higher arithmetically than the odds of winning the lottery jackpot which it has been stated are 139 million-1 because you are factoring in every conceivable value (club, player, budgets, results etc) and asserting that if any single one of those is 'wrong' in any way, then you cannot have a successful manager.

Nope , that's not what I am saying .
You really are struggling with this aren't you

I think that's a pretty faithful representation of what you said...

The odds of getting the winning ticket ( a successful manager ).
It works the same way odds are worked out for picking the winning numbers .
There are 59 numbers to which 6 will be correct, guaranteed
When you pick 1 number from a choice of 59 , then there are 59 left
So 58 57 56 55 & 54 . You multiply 59x58x57x56x55x54 to calculate those odds .

With a football job & 60 applications you have 60 choices , but you are not guaranteed a winning combination
So 60 x59x58 down to x1 . Again you are still not guaranteed the winning ticket as a manager b players c club are all
things that need to align ( get lucky ) . So it's bigger odds than a lottery win plus the permutations of other managers who didn't apply
The right players & the right club .

Which bit of it is incorrect?

I'll make it simple for you

The lottery winner consists of 6 numbers from a range of 1-59
No other numbers can win ie 71 couldn't be a part of the 6 .
Therefore the choices you have guarantee that the winning
number will come from them .

60 applications of random managers do NOT GAURENTEE you a winning combination
Factor in the other things which also don't Guarantee you anything , then you can clearly see
The odds have to be bigger because one has a guaranteed winning combination ,
Whilst the other simply doesn't.
In its purest form its Basic mathematics .

[Monkey Boy]

It seems like they are
There doing it over at the lesser place constantly

Let’s get this straight tuffers old chap,most of it is me and I’m not afraid to admit it,it’s simple as far as I’m concerned,there’s one person that’s responsible for employing the past managers that we have had and that’s Ling. The one and only possible exception is Justin,and even in that season we limped over the line in the last game. I don’t like Jacket haven’t from the start(although many will disagree) I don’t like his style of football,I don’t like the ridged formation he plays and he hasn’t addressed the problem of getting a creative midfielder in, and Ling is part of that process like it or not. Even if by some miracle we were to get into the playoffs my views won’t change, and I really don’t care what anyone else thinks about my opinion. But as far as the other side is concerned there’s still many that support Jacket and there quite entitled too so don’t tar every one with the same brush please

You didn't like jackett Ling Embleton etc etc
But you LOVE 442 .

When you have something original to say
Do keep us informed

Again tuffers you’re being very presumptuous, personally I’d ask the person the question first and then come to my conclusionhave a nice day

[tuffers#1]

Let’s get this straight tuffers old chap,most of it is me and I’m not afraid to admit it,it’s simple as far as I’m concerned,there’s one person that’s responsible for employing the past managers that we have had and that’s Ling. The one and only possible exception is Justin,and even in that season we limped over the line in the last game. I don’t like Jacket haven’t from the start(although many will disagree) I don’t like his style of football,I don’t like the ridged formation he plays and he hasn’t addressed the problem of getting a creative midfielder in, and Ling is part of that process like it or not. Even if by some miracle we were to get into the playoffs my views won’t change, and I really don’t care what anyone else thinks about my opinion. But as far as the other side is concerned there’s still many that support Jacket and there quite entitled too so don’t tar every one with the same brush please

You didn't like jackett Ling Embleton etc etc
But you LOVE 442 .

When you have something original to say
Do keep us informed

Again tuffers you’re being very presumptuous, personally I’d ask the person the question first and then come to my conclusionhave a nice day

I'm never so presumptuous to believe a question needs to be asked !
Have a good day

[B.whitehouse+10more]

Anyone remember what this thread is about, as once again it has been hi jacked by the usual suspects with personal agendas.

[o-no]

Nope , that's not what I am saying .
You really are struggling with this aren't you

I think that's a pretty faithful representation of what you said...

The odds of getting the winning ticket ( a successful manager ).
It works the same way odds are worked out for picking the winning numbers .
There are 59 numbers to which 6 will be correct, guaranteed
When you pick 1 number from a choice of 59 , then there are 59 left
So 58 57 56 55 & 54 . You multiply 59x58x57x56x55x54 to calculate those odds .

With a football job & 60 applications you have 60 choices , but you are not guaranteed a winning combination
So 60 x59x58 down to x1 . Again you are still not guaranteed the winning ticket as a manager b players c club are all
things that need to align ( get lucky ) . So it's bigger odds than a lottery win plus the permutations of other managers who didn't apply
The right players & the right club .

Which bit of it is incorrect?

I'll make it simple for you

The lottery winner consists of 6 numbers from a range of 1-59
No other numbers can win ie 71 couldn't be a part of the 6 .
Therefore the choices you have guarantee that the winning
number will come from them .

60 applications of random managers do NOT GAURENTEE you a winning combination
Factor in the other things which also don't Guarantee you anything , then you can clearly see
The odds have to be bigger because one has a guaranteed winning combination ,
Whilst the other simply doesn't.
In its purest form its Basic mathematics .

OK, let me make it simple for you too.

Are you actually saying that the odds of guaranteeing a winning manager (however that is defined) are far, far higher than the chance of winning the jackpot on the lottery, or not?

[tuffers#1]

I think that's a pretty faithful representation of what you said...



Which bit of it is incorrect?

I'll make it simple for you

The lottery winner consists of 6 numbers from a range of 1-59
No other numbers can win ie 71 couldn't be a part of the 6 .
Therefore the choices you have guarantee that the winning
number will come from them .

60 applications of random managers do NOT GAURENTEE you a winning combination
Factor in the other things which also don't Guarantee you anything , then you can clearly see
The odds have to be bigger because one has a guaranteed winning combination ,
Whilst the other simply doesn't.
In its purest form its Basic mathematics .

OK, let me make it simple for you too.

Are you actually saying that the odds of guaranteeing a winning manager (however that is defined) are far, far higher than the chance of winning the jackpot on the lottery, or not?

Even simpler ,
Is it possible we will never gain another promotion ?