We are (hopefully) staying up: the opposition

[BWFC_Insane]

Are we really unpredictable? We're playing Ameobi as our outlet. If he is out for any reason I shudder to think what we do. But its hardly like we've suddenly become Man City overnight.

We're grafting. But our general play is exactly the same as it was with Madine here. The shape has changed to accommodate someone else up front alongside Sammi. Whilst Sammi adds some different quality up front and is in himself unpredictable I don't think we have more ways of breaking teams down, I think we have less.

With Madine we could go long, play for set pieces, get it into his chest or simply push the wide men/wing backs on and get crosses in.

Now we're reliant on Ameobi or Clough doing something outside the box. Long balls are wasted and throwing crosses into the box is generally also a waste of time.

Surely even if one is taking the strongest pro Madine stance one has to concede that we have more variety and unpredictability going forward now?

Before we had Madine, who was exceptionally good at being a nuisance for defenders and good at bringing others into play, and was good for a number of close range finishes. Ameobi had at times a big impact going forward but in recent times that faded partly because he was responsible for lung bursting journeys up and down the right touchline to keep the defensive shape. And we really never got an effective from the right hand side, apart from a couple of games where Buckley and Armstrong delivered. And Vela was virtually anonymous as a creative force. Our approach was hit it long to Madine, with a secondary option of using our overlapping full backs out wide.

Now we have a number of options. Not all of them are consistent, but if you are an opposing manager you have to prepare for a number of scenarios. We could use Ameobi as Madine 2.0. We can have Ameobi as a number 10 and have any of Clough, ALF, Walker or Wilbraham as the no. 9. Clough can also play as a no. 10, or we can have Ameobi and one other as a pair up top. Clough brings intelligent movement and finishing, ALF brings instinctive finishing. Walker brings raw pace and finishing. Wilbraham is a big target man a la Madine. And Ameobi brings pace, dribbling, long range shooting, and is a physical presence. And we still have other threats such as decent wing backs, and the likes of Vela breaking forward from midfield.

You are the manager of Birmingham or Barnsley. Which scenario is harder to prepare for?

We were signing Walker anyway regardless of Madine staying or not. Who knows we may even have signed Clough too.

Those options haven't increased because Madine has left, and to me its clutching to say "well we now can play Wilbraham so thats another option". We could have played him anyway, but we didn't because he's gash.

Time will tell, but I think generally we'll struggle to break teams down more than we did.

Its meant that we'll probably rotate our strikers more, but again that's highly arguable whether that's a good thing.

For me we need a target man option better than AW. Not to play every week. But to have a proper option to allow us to go long or get crosses into the box when we need that option. Without it, we're going to be more restricted than we were IMHO.

[bristol_Wanderer3]

Time will tell, but I think generally we'll struggle to break teams down more than we did.

Its meant that we'll probably rotate our strikers more, but again that's highly arguable whether that's a good thing.

For me we need a target man option better than AW. Not to play every week. But to have a proper option to allow us to go long or get crosses into the box when we need that option. Without it, we're going to be more restricted than we were IMHO.

Yeah, I mean I am not suggesting that selling Madine was the act that will propel us to mid table before embarking on a path towards to world domination or anything. We might well not achieve our objective of staying up, and Madine might have continued his improvement and almost single-handedly kept us up if he had stayed. All I'm saying is that we are clearly (imho) harder to set up against because we now have a number of different options in attack that we didn't have before.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

An interesting weekend ahoy in the Championship drop-dodge. Four of the bottom nine play each other, three don’t play at all – in the league.

Screen Shot 2018-02-15 at 14.01.25.png (52.07 KiB) Viewed 3163 times

Games (all Sat, 3pm):
Birmingham v Millwall
Burton v Forest
QPR v Bolton
Sunderland v Brentford

No league games for Barnsley, Reading or Hull (who are Chelsea in the FA Cup on Friday night).

Intriguing game at St Andrew’s; before the derby defeat last Sunday, Blues had been in their best form for ages (W4 D1 L1) and had even started scoring goals, winning 3-1 at home to Sunderland and at Hillsborough. Will be interesting to see how they bounce back against a Millwall side that’s gone W3 D4 L1 since Christmas, including wins at Reading and Leeds and home draws with Derby and Cardiff. No mugs.

Burton-Forest has the derby overlay, and you’d expect Forest to want to boss possession - which may be how Burton want it. The Brewers are in awful form: W1 D2 L5 since Christmas, and last week’s 0-0 at Ipswich ended a run of results reading 1-3, 0-6, 1-3, 2-3. Mind, Forest aren’t much better: since they beat us in early December they’re W1 D2 L7, and they’ve only scored twice in the last eight – both in a 2-0 win at Wolves which seems as much a blip as it was a shock, because since then they’ve lost 0-3 at home to PNE, 2-0 at Fulham and 2-0 at home to Hull. At kick-off we’ll be five points clear of Burton and five behind Forest, so it’s one of those that sort of depends on our result and our ambition: if we win, it wouldn’t be a bad thing to see Forest (and QPR) dragged into it.

Sunderland-Brentford is more straightforward – Bees, please – but not a foregone conclusion. They’ve wobbled with one point from the last three games (0-1 hosting Norwich, 0-3 at Derby, 1-1 hosting PNE) after winning six in the previous seven. Hopefully they can get back to that sort of form against a Sunderland side still clearly struggling: kudos for the three-goal comeback at Bristol, but before that they’d lost five in six to teams including Barnsley, Birmingham and Ipswich. They’re still susceptible to stage-fright at home - in five 2018 home league games they’ve scored 1, 1, 0, 1 and 0.

At the moment, we're in 19th place, 2pts clear of relegation and 5pts off the bottom. At worst, this weekend could see us 20th but only 1pt above the dots and only 2pts off the bottom. At best, we could go 18th, 5pts clear and 7pts off the bottom – and only 2pts behind 17th-placed Forest and 16th-placed QPR. As ever, we'll see...

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

The view from Sunderland, as per the Daily Telegraph: "It has become a chore. As soon as the opposition team score, that’s it, heads go down and you’re heading towards yet another defeat. It’s a horrible feeling you can’t get rid of." And that's a bloke who's motivated enough to run a podcast about the club...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/201 ... -football/

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

MORAIS JOINS BARNSLEY

(Not that one)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43085934

The Tykes have appointed a Portugueezer who worked with Jose Mourinho at Porto, Inter, Madrid and Chelsea. He's also managed Westfalia Herne and Dresdner SC (German lower tier), Académico Viseu and Santa Clara (Portuguese lower tiers), Assyriska (a Swedish lower-league team formed by Assyrian immigrants), Al-Hazm (Saudi Arabia), Stade Tunisien (Tunisia), the Yemen national team, Esperance (Tunisia), Al-Shabab (Saudi Arabia), Antalyaspor (Turkey) and AEK Athens (Greece). From what I can tell, his tenures in these managerial jobs have lasted (respectively) four months, five months, nine months, four months, five months, ten months, seven weeks, two months, five months, four months, four months, nine months and three months, and he's been unemployed for the last 13 months.

Curious.

Club statement says “We’re really, really pleased to have secured the club’s number one target from the start of the process (...) To be fully transparent, we ran a fair and full interview process. We spoke to a lot of head coaches who were both in and out of employment. The interviewed candidates were all strong contenders, but the unanimous decision was to appoint Jose, who instilled the full board with the belief that he is the right man to lead us up the table, whilst bringing excitement back to the club with an attacking style and goals for the fans to enjoy."

[Prufrock]

Fair to say it's a left-field one.

While I understand people hoping as many teams as possible are sucked into it, I'm firmly of the keep three below us view.

Burton and Barnsley are two teams I think we need to finish above to have any chance.

[BWFC_Insane]

MORAIS JOINS BARNSLEY

(Not that one)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43085934

The Tykes have appointed a Portugueezer who worked with Jose Mourinho at Porto, Inter, Madrid and Chelsea. He's also managed Westfalia Herne and Dresdner SC (German lower tier), Académico Viseu and Santa Clara (Portuguese lower tiers), Assyriska (a Swedish lower-league team formed by Assyrian immigrants), Al-Hazm (Saudi Arabia), Stade Tunisien (Tunisia), the Yemen national team, Esperance (Tunisia), Al-Shabab (Saudi Arabia), Antalyaspor (Turkey) and AEK Athens (Greece). From what I can tell, his tenures in these managerial jobs have lasted (respectively) four months, five months, nine months, four months, five months, ten months, seven weeks, two months, five months, four months, four months, nine months and three months, and he's been unemployed for the last 13 months.

Curious.

Club statement says “We’re really, really pleased to have secured the club’s number one target from the start of the process (...) To be fully transparent, we ran a fair and full interview process. We spoke to a lot of head coaches who were both in and out of employment. The interviewed candidates were all strong contenders, but the unanimous decision was to appoint Jose, who instilled the full board with the belief that he is the right man to lead us up the table, whilst bringing excitement back to the club with an attacking style and goals for the fans to enjoy."

Someone who doesn't know the league....

Either going to be a spectacular (but short lived success) and they romp to safety, or an unmitigated disaster.

I'd suggest odds are this might be good for us.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Aye, BWFCi, I agree. Could work but I'd guess it won't.

If I were a Barnsley fan trying to spin it positively, I'd be thinking he's had a wide range of experiences, doesn't need to be at the top level, quite used to being parachuted in, that sort of thing. But as a Bolton fan (with nothing in particular against Barnsley except the survival principle), I have to admit I'm hopeful this is a gigantic mistake. They were linked with Mick McCarthy (Barnsley-born, played c300 games for them) and to my mind that would have been a safer hire.

Notable that the statement refers to an "attacking style". So far they've got the fourth-lowest goals scored (more than us, mind) but only the sixth-highest goals conceded, so I'd say it'd be unwise to tweak the dial too far toward Gung-Ho. Idealism can get you in trouble.

[BWFC_Insane]

Aye, BWFCi, I agree. Could work but I'd guess it won't.

If I were a Barnsley fan trying to spin it positively, I'd be thinking he's had a wide range of experiences, doesn't need to be at the top level, quite used to being parachuted in, that sort of thing. But as a Bolton fan (with nothing in particular against Barnsley except the survival principle), I have to admit I'm hopeful this is a gigantic mistake. They were linked with Mick McCarthy (Barnsley-born, played c300 games for them) and to my mind that would have been a safer hire.

Notable that the statement refers to an "attacking style". So far they've got the fourth-lowest goals scored (more than us, mind) but only the sixth-highest goals conceded, so I'd say it'd be unwise to tweak the dial too far toward Gung-Ho. Idealism can get you in trouble.

All about the "new manager bounce" if they get that the confidence and lift will see them safe.

If they don't then its hard to make a case this guy is qualified for a championship relegation dogfight.

Having said that perhaps he's picked something up from Jose, before Jose went a bit shit?

[TANGODANCER]

All about the "new manager bounce" if they get that the confidence and lift will see them safe. If they don't then its hard to make a case this guy is qualified for a championship relegation dogfight.

This is what makes me laugh about manager assessment. There are so many things that contribute to a team's relegation: injuries, players leaving, being sold, poor attendence etc, and not the least finance ( take Bolton Wanderers for example, cough" ) and the players themselves. Oh, a bit of luck here and there maybe. Then the board and fans expect someone to come in and save the day or they're labelled "not qualified". Is anybody really qualified to work miracles?

[BWFC_Insane]

All about the "new manager bounce" if they get that the confidence and lift will see them safe. If they don't then its hard to make a case this guy is qualified for a championship relegation dogfight.

This is what makes me laugh about manager assessment. There are so many things that contribute to a team's relegation: injuries, players leaving, being sold, poor attendence etc, and not the least finance ( take Bolton Wanderers for example, cough" ) and the players themselves. Oh, a bit of luck here and there maybe. Then the board and fans expect someone to come in and save the day or they're labelled "not qualified". Is anybody really qualified to work miracles?

By qualified I mean someone who has demonstrated they've done it before. Mick McCarthy, Neil Warnock etc....

I'd certainly put Barnsley as more than likely safe with one of those. What they've got is an unknown quantity and well, its a risk at best.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

All about the "new manager bounce" if they get that the confidence and lift will see them safe.

If they don't then its hard to make a case this guy is qualified for a championship relegation dogfight.

Having said that perhaps he's picked something up from Jose, before Jose went a bit shit?

Nah, I never buy this as a stone-cold reason to hire someone: touching the hem doesn't guarantee excellence. Ask Fulham fans about Rene Meulensteen, or Hull fans about Mike Phelan. Or for that matter, ask (via Google Translate) fans of Académico Viseu, Santa Clara, Assyriska, Al-Hazm, Stade Tunisien, Yemen, Esperance, Al-Shabab, Antalyaspor and AEK Athens about this guy, who has come to them with Mourinho's number in his phone and words in his ears, but hardly seems to have set the world alight.

While I'm having a go at things (not you, I know you don't hold them dear): New-guy bounce is another poor reason to hire, and although I don't have extensive statistics to hand I'd guess it may be one of those confirmation-bias things in which we remember the positive examples while conveniently forgetting the things that don't fit the pattern. (See also: Old Boys Inevitably Scoring Against Former Clubs, which hardly worked for Sammy and Alf the other night.)

For instance, Hull hired Nigel Adkins on 7 Dec; they won two days later but his first 10 league results were W1 D4 L5 (0.7ppg = 32.2p over a 46-game season) and they didn't even score in seven of those games.

Birmingham hired Steve Cotterill on 29 Sep; his first 10 league games were W2 D2 L6 (0.8ppg = 36.8ppg over 46) and they didn't score in six of them.

Sheff Weds hired Jos Lukuhay on 5 Jan; his first five league games were W0 D4 L1 (3-1 at home to Birmingham), or 0.8ppg = 36.8p over 46. Kudos for Tuesday's 2-0 win over Derby but if that's a new-man bounce it took five weeks to appear.

Forest hired Aitor Karanka on 8 Jan; they've had five league games since, W1 D0 L4, and while plenty will have noticed the 2-0 win at Wolves they might not have fixated upon his team being beaten to nil by Villa, Preston, Fulham and Hull.

For the record, and in the interests of fairness, Sunderland hired Chris Coleman on 17 Nov; his first 10 league games were W3 D3 L4 (1.2ppg = 55.2pts over 46). But even there, over his 15 games so far he's W4 D3 L8 (1ppg), which is hardly Zebedee. Not that I'm complaining...

[BWFC_Insane]

All about the "new manager bounce" if they get that the confidence and lift will see them safe.

If they don't then its hard to make a case this guy is qualified for a championship relegation dogfight.

Having said that perhaps he's picked something up from Jose, before Jose went a bit shit?

Nah, I never buy this as a stone-cold reason to hire someone: touching the hem doesn't guarantee excellence. Ask Fulham fans about Rene Meulensteen, or Hull fans about Mike Phelan. Or for that matter, ask (via Google Translate) fans of Académico Viseu, Santa Clara, Assyriska, Al-Hazm, Stade Tunisien, Yemen, Esperance, Al-Shabab, Antalyaspor and AEK Athens about this guy, who has come to them with Mourinho's number in his phone and words in his ears, but hardly seems to have set the world alight.

While I'm having a go at things (not you, I know you don't hold them dear): New-guy bounce is another poor reason to hire, and although I don't have extensive statistics to hand I'd guess it may be one of those confirmation-bias things in which we remember the positive examples while conveniently forgetting the things that don't fit the pattern. (See also: Old Boys Inevitably Scoring Against Former Clubs, which hardly worked for Sammy and Alf the other night.)

For instance, Hull hired Nigel Adkins on 7 Dec; they won two days later but his first 10 league results were W1 D4 L5 (0.7ppg = 32.2p over a 46-game season) and they didn't even score in seven of those games.

Birmingham hired Steve Cotterill on 29 Sep; his first 10 league games were W2 D2 L6 (0.8ppg = 36.8ppg over 46) and they didn't score in six of them.

Sheff Weds hired Jos Lukuhay on 5 Jan; his first five league games were W0 D4 L1 (3-1 at home to Birmingham), or 0.8ppg = 36.8p over 46. Kudos for Tuesday's 2-0 win over Derby but if that's a new-man bounce it took five weeks to appear.

Forest hired Aitor Karanka on 8 Jan; they've had five league games since, W1 D0 L4, and while plenty will have noticed the 2-0 win at Wolves they might not have fixated upon his team being beaten to nil by Villa, Preston, Fulham and Hull.

For the record, and in the interests of fairness, Sunderland hired Chris Coleman on 17 Nov; his first 10 league games were W3 D3 L4 (1.2ppg = 55.2pts over 46). But even there, over his 15 games so far he's W4 D3 L8 (1ppg), which is hardly Zebedee. Not that I'm complaining...

Quite agree. Sometimes managers have those weird short term effects though. Sometimes players do as well.

I'm not a big believer in management skills rubbing off either UNLESS the person in question actively seeks out learning from the best. I believe Allardyce used to try and do that when he was early on in his coaching career.

[Prufrock]

I think in this country we overestimate the effect a manager has (much like we put too much emphasis on the captaincy).

We also think of their effects too simplistically.

Bad managers can have really good runs (to FA Cup semi finals for example). Good managers can struggle at certain clubs.

Yes, bad managers can ruin clubs, and good ones can save them, but most of the time most of them are mostly muddling through.

I think lots of it is fine margins around the outside. I don't think working with another great manager can make you one if you haven't got it in you, but I think it can help if the potential is there. Worth pointing out that Jose himself is a classic assistant turned number one whose had, yeah, some success

[BWFC_Insane]

I think in this country we overestimate the effect a manager has (much like we put too much emphasis on the captaincy).

We also think of their effects too simplistically.

Bad managers can have really good runs (to FA Cup semi finals for example). Good managers can struggle at certain clubs.

Yes, bad managers can ruin clubs, and good ones can save them, but most of the time most of them are mostly muddling through.

I think lots of it is fine margins around the outside. I don't think working with another great manager can make you one if you haven't got it in you, but I think it can help if the potential is there. Worth pointing out that Jose himself is a classic assistant turned number one whose had, yeah, some success

Wow. I agree with a lot of what you've said but not the first part. I think the manager is the single most important thing in a football club. You look at Man Utd post Ferguson, some of the teams Fergie won the league with (some really average teams), effects of a manager like Allardyce on most clubs he's been at, Mourinho and the impact he's had early in his career everywhere he went.

I think managers are crucial. There are just a whole load of bad ones compared to ones who are very good.

We're living proof of how a good manager can overcome ridiculous obstacles to leave a club overachieving. We're doing so right now.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I'm somewhere between the two of you. For every managerial change which massively alters a club's trajectory – for better or worse – there are probably five, ten, maybe 20 which do very little in real terms. I think it's understandable but counterproductive that the average managerial spell is now shorter, often considerably so, than the average player contract; idealistically this should lead by necessity to better man-management and coaching but you'll still get management by chequebook – up to and including Guardiola's wooing of Mahrez and pathetic sub-Megson six-subs dummy-spits. (He's far better than that, as his coaching shows.)

But the cult of the super-manager, as in one man who controls a club (Sam here, Alex there, Arsene over yonder) is disappearing. Just read a long but interesting Guardian piece on the City Football Group, including the following telling quote:

At the time, Soriano himself was disappointed to find English football so in thrall to a model in which managers such as Arsène Wenger and Alex Ferguson appeared to run their own clubs, while “the level of conceptualisation of the business model was zero”. Even the language was telling. “They called the coach ‘manager’, as if he managed everything,” Soriano recalled.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/d ... an-soriano

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm somewhere between the two of you. For every managerial change which massively alters a club's trajectory – for better or worse – there are probably five, ten, maybe 20 which do very little in real terms. I think it's understandable but counterproductive that the average managerial spell is now shorter, often considerably so, than the average player contract; idealistically this should lead by necessity to better man-management and coaching but you'll still get management by chequebook – up to and including Guardiola's wooing of Mahrez and pathetic sub-Megson six-subs dummy-spits. (He's far better than that, as his coaching shows.)

But the cult of the super-manager, as in one man who controls a club (Sam here, Alex there, Arsene over yonder) is disappearing. Just read a long but interesting Guardian piece on the City Football Group, including the following telling quote:

At the time, Soriano himself was disappointed to find English football so in thrall to a model in which managers such as Arsène Wenger and Alex Ferguson appeared to run their own clubs, while “the level of conceptualisation of the business model was zero”. Even the language was telling. “They called the coach ‘manager’, as if he managed everything,” Soriano recalled.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/d ... an-soriano

My argument is that is because there is a very small pool of good managers. The rest are average or sub-par or just atrocious.

[Prufrock]

I think in this country we overestimate the effect a manager has (much like we put too much emphasis on the captaincy).

We also think of their effects too simplistically.

Bad managers can have really good runs (to FA Cup semi finals for example). Good managers can struggle at certain clubs.

Yes, bad managers can ruin clubs, and good ones can save them, but most of the time most of them are mostly muddling through.

I think lots of it is fine margins around the outside. I don't think working with another great manager can make you one if you haven't got it in you, but I think it can help if the potential is there. Worth pointing out that Jose himself is a classic assistant turned number one whose had, yeah, some success

Wow. I agree with a lot of what you've said but not the first part. I think the manager is the single most important thing in a football club. You look at Man Utd post Ferguson, some of the teams Fergie won the league with (some really average teams), effects of a manager like Allardyce on most clubs he's been at, Mourinho and the impact he's had early in his career everywhere he went.

I think managers are crucial. There are just a whole load of bad ones compared to ones who are very good.

We're living proof of how a good manager can overcome ridiculous obstacles to leave a club overachieving. We're doing so right now.

I'm going to be doubly contrarian here and say I disagree with you both thinking there is a real disagreement here, as I think we broadly agree.

I'm not saying they aren't important; I'm saying their importance is overplayed by the press who like to talk about it as if it is a 1v1 contest. I agree they are the single most important person, but they aren't puppet-master geniuses locked in a battle of mind games. They aren't the be-all or end-all. Coyle is one of the worst managers I have ever seen, but he was a goal away from keeping us up. Parky is, IMO very good, but that is no guarantee for us this year.

Nor, really any more, are there many Ferguson type control every aspect of a club sorts.

There are some are utterly inept (Coyle) that mean their lack of tactical awareness is such a hindrance that they make a team substantially worse. There are some who are excellent and capable of making a noticeable difference. But even there there are so many other factors involved that mean success is never guaranteed, even for good managers.

[TANGODANCER]

My argument is that is because there is a very small pool of good managers. The rest are average or sub-par or just atrocious.

So are you taking in the factors of rich club poor club and the fact that Parky (for instance) has had unbelievable hills to climb in terms of finance against other managers, even ex Bolton ones, and that if you buy a Jaguar to race against a Fiat Panda it's pretty nailed on which one will win, and why, and that the best team manager in the business is only as good as a driver, who is only as good as his mechanics etc, etc. Know what makes me really laugh? We have this committee and that commitee investigating betting scams in football (sport) and banning, even jailing folk for being involved in it, yet the top end of the game (maybe in every league) spend huge sums on players and managers to influence results. I find that hypocritical to say the very least.

There are 22 teams in the Premier League, and another 72 in the leagues plus the half-a-million other teams in the various leagues that make up English football. In all that you reckon there are only a very small pool of good managers?

[BWFC_Insane]

My argument is that is because there is a very small pool of good managers. The rest are average or sub-par or just atrocious.

So are you taking in the factors of rich club poor club and the fact that Parky (for instance) has had unbelievable hills to climb in terms of finance against other managers, even ex Bolton ones, and that if you buy a Jaguar to race against a Fiat Panda it's pretty nailed on which one will win, and why, and that the best team manager in the business is only as good as a driver, who is only as good as his mechanics etc, etc. Know what makes me really laugh? We have this committee and that commitee investigating betting scams in football (sport) and banning, even jailing folk for being involved in it, yet the top end of the game (maybe in every league) spend huge sums on players and managers to influence results. I find that hypocritical to say the very least.

There are 22 teams in the Premier League, and another 72 in the leagues plus the half-a-million other teams in the various leagues that make up English football. In all that you reckon there are only a very small pool of good managers?

Yes. Thats why I rate Parky very highly.

But there aren't a lot of good managers. There is a relatively small pool. Its why lots of clubs go through managers like the clappers. Most out there simply aren't very good.

Think of it this way. How many people in the general working population are capable (genuinely capable) of managing a large team of operatives, assistants and support staff. Making decisions, putting the right structures and systems (I'm talking business operational systems here) in place? It's probably not as large a pool as you might think.

Given football managers are generally selected from within the game (i.e. ex players) who I would argue generally will have an even lower percentage who have those genuine managerial skills, is it all that surprising?