Say what you want about EDF but he seems to have figured out the CL puzzle. Thats something Sarri nor Conte (with an infinitely bigger budget) could figure out. If he can just figure out how to get more consistent league play out of this team he'd be a damn near perfect manager for Roma.
no because Juve managers can't figure out how to win in the CL, regardless of how much money they spend.
Sarri would probably give us a boost in the league at the cost of some CL success vs EDF. I don’t see Sarri as realistic choice that could be at Roma long term. He would be here 2 years, possibly 3
Last 7 away games in CL under EDF: Viktoria Plzeň 2–1 Roma CSKA Moscow 1–2 Roma Real Madrid 3–0 Roma Liverpool 5–2 Roma Barcelona 4–1 Roma Shakhtar Donetsk 2–1 Roma Atlético Madrid 2–0 Roma 6 losses, 1 win 19 goals conceded, 7 scored I would wait longer before making such judgement if I were you. The luck of having a good draw and meeting teams at their worst earlier in the season will have to eventually run out. Things always regress back to the mean.
Sarri is a rigid coach with limited tactical flexibility. He can produce results when everything falls into place but has no answer when things go against him, which sooner or later happens to everyone. What separates good coaches from great coaches is the ability to adapt and innovate. He isn't a good fit for environment like Roma's where they like to change half the team every summer with complete disregard to the coach system, it actually would be a recipe for disaster. But then again there are limited number of coaches who can succeed in such environment and none of them would like to come and work here. Again pointing out the problem is Pallotta and his vision (or lack of rather), not the individuals.
This completely and utterly useless, irrelevant information. It's like looking at only one half of a match and deciding the winner and the loser based on that. You know the CL is composed of 6 group matches and a home and away match knockout stages right? They play home and away for a reason and they all count the same. I'll tell you the only thing that matter. 2017/18 CL semi-finalists where they were 1 goal away from going to the finals. Not only did they make it to the Semi's they knocked out Barca.. you know one of the 2-3 best teams in the world. The team that has one of the 2-3 best players in the world. 2018/19 they are in the round of 16 with a very, very good chance of making it to the quarter-finals. All that non-sense above was useless
In essence you are saying only results matter, and as such you must agree Di Matteo is one hell of a coach. Things will regress to the mean with EDF just like it did with Di Matteo.
I'll give you credit , you've been against EDF from day 1. The rest of it , well , we'll just have to disagree. Not sure why'd you only use a manager's away results in the CL , unless you're really going for a spin-job.
Imagine that. A team finding it hard to get good results against quality opposition on their own turf.
It is called sensitivity analysis. An established statistical approach in sceince and life in general to look at trends and to minimize bias when looking at small sample size. There is a bigger picture than just results.
A quality coach who has "figured out CL" doesn't lose the plot completely away from home in such manner. That's just not possible logically. Logically speaking: 1)It is either he is indeed good but the away results were outliers or 2)He is average and the home games are outliers. Look at the big picture and the larger sample size of Serie A and tell me which is the more likely scenario.
I'm not sure what the hell Di Matteo has to do with anything. Again, you fail to tell the real story. Di Matteo guided them to the CL trophy then the next year he got bounced in the group stage. That's 1 good year, 1 bad year. EDF has and 2 good years. Roma are never going to win the CL, they don't have the money Chelsea do so his past 2 seasons (in the CL) have been tremendous success What does this have to do with anything. Your argument above was that because EDF had a poor away record Roma did not do well in the CL. That's just factually wrong. They have done spectacular for a club their size.
It's called choosing the away results (which I'm sure are worse for most managers) to make a point about a competition that involves games that exist at home too. You know what you're doing. If you cared about the bigger picture, you'd include all the data.
You can't be serious. You are argue statistical analysis but you cherry-pick your data points? You argue sample size then not only purposely reduce your sample size by eliminate the data points that don't fit your biased view? I'm sorry but nothing in any of your arguments even hints and unbiased statistical analysis.
I wanted to include all the data. Including the draw factor, the status of teams faced and more importantly the overall performance of the team in general outside of CL. You guys wanted to concentrate on results. Which is it? All data or just results?
Sensitivity analysis is looking at trends within the sample. You have a drug that worked on a sample, but when you look closer using sensitivity analysis you realize that the sicker patients did not actually benefited from it. This suggest it might not be as effective as you think and the result might be due to outliers or chance. You go and test it on larger sample if you can to confirm, or repeat the study on sicker patients only to minimize the bias. This is safer and more logical than say "results only matter" I am going to prescribe it for everyone, especially when considering the potential side effects. You have a coach who done well in small sample of CL. Is it because he was effective or because he got lucky with draw and circumstances? You do sensitivity analysis and realize he sucks so bad away from home. You test it on a larger sample (Serie A) and you have concerns. But you still want to stick with him regardless (with the potential side effects) because "results only matter"?
I don't care how you approach it , man. It's your take , I just think you should approach it from a more measured angle. I know you don't like EDF- that's been established- just give me something better to chew on. I'll listen to anyone but Matrim.
Again, not correct. In your example all we can say is that patient outcomes are sensitive to their degree of illness. We can then build mathematical "what-if" models around this analysis to determine what expected outcomes might be given a patients degree of illness. It does not allow you to simply disregard data you don't like. No statistical analysis does; not sensitivity, not scenario or uncertainty allows for this.
I do this for a living, I have a postgrad degree on it. And I can tell you with absolute certainty that is not how you approach bias within a sample. If you are interested I can provide you with references. It is called "restriction" one of the established methods to control for potential bias in a sample.
I’d rather listen to Matrim. Game overs fake degree is just a less funny version of matrims fake children’s book