Du Malone writes: In a previous post (‘Your performance on #FM20 isn’t all down to you: irrational bias on Football Manager’) I argued that there are stochastic factors built into match performance.
If, for example, you play a match, then exit without saving, and the load up again and replay it, you’re likely to find the two score lines differ.
A corollary of this is that we often over-react, feeling we have to make changes in response to unsatisfactory outcomes.*
I was, therefore, interested to read an analysis of football ITRW entitled ‘When you should change a winning team’. The article, by Omar Chaudhuri, argues that managers over-react when their side loses matches they didn’t deserve to.
The article begins as follows: ‘If you’re a cautious driver, but happened to be involved in an accident, you probably wouldn’t change the way you drive. Accidents happen, and you were unlucky this time. On the other hand, if you’re a reckless driver, and recently had a few near-misses, you might think it’s time to reevaluate your approach even before the inevitable collision takes place. So why don’t we think the same way when we’re lucky and unlucky in football?‘
It is available online, here.
* Essentially, my argument was that, if we compare games, we can arrange them on a spectrum according to the contribution that luck makes. At the one end, chess; at the other, snakes and ladders. A look at FM content and, I suggest, reflection on our own thought processes, reveals that we constantly act as though FM is closer to chess, and further from snakes and ladders, than is actually the case.