jpc796

The relationship between the sacking of a

manager and a football team
experiencing better results

IBDP Mathematics

Applications and Interpretation SL - Exploration

Personal Code: ___jpc796_________

Examination session: May 2022

1
 jpc796

Introduction: As a long-time fan of football and indeed the topflight of English football also

known as the Premier League, this current season (21-22) has been very interesting for many

reasons to say the least. One of the reasons has been the unprecedented amounts of

managerial sackings this season. As of November, the 21st, 6 out of the 20 premier league

clubs have fired their managers only 12 game weeks into a 38-game week season with the

latest casualty being Manchester United boss and legendary former player Ole Gunnar

Solksjaer1. For context, the most mid-season managerial departures in the premier league for

the whole season was only 10. In the footballing world, clubs are often said to experience a

phenomenon called a “new manager bounce” once they appoint a new boss. It is said that a

fresh face often inspires players to get their confidence back therefore the team starts

improving their results and the fans start to believe in their clubs once again. My goal in this

essay is to investigate whether this phenomenon is based in truth. I think this will be an

interesting topic to investigate and it might provide a justification for the absurd amount of

manager sackings that have recently taken place in topflight football.

Aim: My task here will be to determine whether the firing of a manager does in fact have a

direct corelation with a team experiencing better results. To do this, I will be comparing the

results of a team who has sacked their manager over a 10-game period; 5 games before and

after sacking their manager against a 10-game period for a team who hasn’t sacked their

manager at all. A: Aim seen

I will collect the data of the results experienced by a total of 40 teams over a 10-game period.

20 who sacked their manager mid-season, 5 before and after sacking their managers with 20

teams who didn’t sack their manager over a 10-game period for the control. I selected the 20

teams for the control group through a random generator mobile app while the 20 teams for

1
Desk, F. T. “What Managers Have Been Sacked This Season?” Www.footballtransfers.com,
www.footballtransfers.com/en/transfer-news/uk-premier-league/2021/10/what-managers-have-been-
sacked-this-season. Accessed 20 Dec 2021

2
 jpc796

the experimental groups are the 20 most recent teams to have sacked their manager. All the

results were gathered from the results section of the official premier league website while the

information on the teams that had sacked their managers midway through the season were

obtained from various websites which have all been cited at the end of the essay. The data is

organised in the form of tables showing the group (experimental or control), team names,

wins, losses and draws. I will then be calculating the mean as well as standard deviation.

Calculating the mean will help to simplify the understanding of the results achieved by each

group by showing the average results for teams before and after sacking managers, and for

teams who didn’t sack their managers at all. I will use standard deviation to see if there is a

wide measurement of variability in my hypothesis. It will show whether the theory is valid or

not. Lastly, I will use χ-square tests for independence to test how likely an observed

distribution is due to chance to reveal just how true the ‘new manager bounce’ is or if it is

simply a coincidence that it occurs. I believe we will find out that the boost in form teams

experience will not be due to a coincidence.

3
 jpc796

Raw Data: B: well labelled table

Table 1: Data of 5 games for Teams before sacking their manager2

Team Wins Losses Draws

Manchester United 1 4 0
Aston Villa 0 5 0
Norwich City 1 2 2
Tottenham Hotspur 2 3 0
Newcastle United 0 3 2
Watford 1 3 1
Tottenham Hotspur* 1 2 2
Sheffield United 1 4 0
Chelsea 1 3 1
West Bromwich 1 3 1
Albion

Watford* 2 3 0
West Ham United 1 4 0
Everton 1 3 1
Watford** 1 3 1
Arsenal 0 2 3
Tottenham Hotspur** 0 2 3

Watford*** 0 4 1
Fulham 1 4 0
Leicester City 0 4 1
Huddersfield Town 0 4 1
* indicates that another 5 game period is being considered for the same team under a different

manager.

2
“Premier League Football Scores, Results & Season Archives.” Www.premierleague.com,
www.premierleague.com/results?co=1&se=210&cl=11. Accessed 28 Jan. 2022.

4
 jpc796

Table 2: Data of 5 games for the same Teams after sacking their manager3

Team Wins Losses Draws

Manchester United 3 0 2
Aston Villa 3 2 0
Norwich City 1 2 2
Tottenham Hotspur 3 0 2
Newcastle United 0 2 3
Watford 2 3 0
Tottenham Hotspur* 3 2 0
Sheffield United 1 4 0
Chelsea 4 0 1
West Bromwich Albion 1 3 1
Watford* 1 4 0
West Ham United 1 3 1
Everton 3 0 2
Watford** 1 2 2
Arsenal 1 2 2
Tottenham Hotspur** 4 1 0
Watford*** 0 2 3
Fulham 0 5 0
Leicester City 4 1 0
Huddersfield Town 0 5 0
* indicates that another 5 game period is being considered for the same team under a different

manager.

Calculating the mean:

Table 3: Average results for teams who sacked their manager

Teams Average Wins Average Losses Average Draws

First 5 games (before 0.75 3.25 1
sacking the manager)
Next 5 games (after 1.8 2.15 1.05
sacking the manager)

“Premier League Football Scores, Results & Season Archives.” Www.premierleague.com,

3

www.premierleague.com/results?co=1&se=210&cl=11. Accessed 28 Jan. 2022.

5
 jpc796

Example of calculating mean:

Average Wins for teams 5 games before sacking their manager:

1+1+2+1+1+1+1+1+1+2+1+1+1+1
= 0.75
20

Table 4: Data of 5 games for teams who did not sack their manager4

Team Wins Losses Draws

Wolverhampton Wanderers 1 2 2
Burnley 1 0 4
Brighton and Hove Albion 4 1 0
Leeds United 1 2 2
Chelsea 2 1 2
Newcastle United 2 2 1
Liverpool 3 0 2
West Ham 2 2 1
Leicester City 3 2 0
Manchester City 2 1 2
Bournemouth 0 5 0
Manchester United 2 1 2
Southampton 3 2 0
Crystal Palace 2 2 1
Arsenal 3 1 1
Liverpool* 5 0 0
Manchester City* 5 0 0
Burnley* 0 4 1
Cardiff City 1 4 0
Everton 1 1 3
* indicates that another 5 game period is being considered for the same team under a different

manager.

4
“Premier League Football Scores, Results & Season Archives.” Www.premierleague.com,
www.premierleague.com/results?co=1&se=210&cl=11. Accessed 28 Jan. 2022.

6
 jpc796

Table 5: Data of further 5 games for the same Teams who they did not sack their manager5

Team Win Losses Draws

Wolverhampton Wanderers 3 1 1
Burnley 0 2 3
Brighton and Hove Albion 0 1 4
Leeds United 1 4 0

Chelsea 3 2 0

Newcastle United 2 2 1

Liverpool 5 0 0

West Ham 3 1 1

Leicester City 1 3 1

Manchester City 3 1 1

Bournemouth 2 2 1

Manchester United 1 2 2

Southampton 2 0 3

Crystal Palace 2 1 2

Arsenal 1 3 1

Liverpool* 3 0 2

Manchester City* 5 0 0

Burnley* 2 2 1

Cardiff City 2 3 0

Everton 3 2 0

* indicates that another 5 game period is being considered for the same team under a different

manager.

5
“Premier League Football Scores, Results & Season Archives.” Www.premierleague.com,
www.premierleague.com/results?co=1&se=210&cl=11. Accessed 28 Jan. 2022.

7
 jpc796

Table 6: Average results for teams who retained their manager

Teams Average Wins Average Losses Average Draws

First 5 games 2.15 1.65 1.2
Next 5 games 2.2 1.6 1.2
(retaining the
manager)

Standard Deviation:

“Standard deviation is a measure of how spread-out numbers are. Its symbol is 𝜎, the Greek

letter Sigma”6. Calculating the standard deviation will show the difference between the

number of wins, losses and draws before and after sacking a manager or while not sacking

them at all.

Teams that sacked the manager:

Table 7: Total number of results (wins, losses and draws) before and after teams sacked their

managers7

Results of the game Before sacking the After sacking the Total
manager manager
Wins 15 36 51
Losses 65 43 108
Draws 20 21 41
Total 100 100 200
Formula:

∑(𝑥𝑖−𝜇)2 8
𝜎2 =
𝑁

Where 𝜎 is standard deviation

𝜎 2 is the variance
B: clear
mathematical
xi is the value of the ith observation
communication
𝜇 is the mean of the data

6
mathisfun. “Standard Deviation and Variance.” Mathsisfun.com, 2017, www.mathsisfun.com/data/standard-
deviation.html. Accessed 28 Jan. 2022.
7
“Premier League Football Scores, Results & Season Archives.” Www.premierleague.com,
www.premierleague.com/results?co=1&se=210&cl=11. Accessed 28 Jan. 2022.
8
mathisfun. “Standard Deviation and Variance.” Mathsisfun.com, 2017, www.mathsisfun.com/data/standard-
deviation.html. Accessed 28 Jan. 2022.

8
 jpc796

N is the total number of observations.

For my data:

∑(𝑥𝑖−𝜇)2
𝜎2 =
𝑁

(15−33.33)2 +(36−33.33)2 +(65−33.33)2 +(43−33.33)2 +(20−33.33)2 +(21−33.33)2 =

𝜎2 =
6

1769.33 = 294.8889
𝜎2 = E: correct use of
6
mathematics
𝜎 = √294.8889 = 17.1723295 = 17.2

Hence,

Standard deviation, 𝜎: 17.1723295

Count, 𝑁: 6

Sum, ∑ 𝑥: 200

Mean, µ: 33.33

Variance, 𝜎2: 294.8889

Teams that did not sack the manager:

Table 8: Total number of results (wins, losses and draws) while teams didn’t sack and

retained their managers9

Results of the game Teams 5 games not Teams 5 games Total

sacking manager further not sacking
manager
Wins 43 44 87
Losses 33 32 65
Draws 24 24 48
Total 100 100 200

9
“Premier League Football Scores, Results & Season Archives.” Www.premierleague.com,
www.premierleague.com/results?co=1&se=210&cl=11. Accessed 28 Jan. 2022.

9
 jpc796

Standard deviation, 𝜎: 6.85290382

Count, 𝑁: 6

Sum, ∑ 𝑥: 200

Mean, µ: 33.33

Variance, 𝜎2: 46.9622908

(Same steps as for ‘sacking the manager)

χ 2 test for independence

The χ 2 test for independence is used to determine if there is a significant difference between

expected and observed frequencies in one or more categories. I will be using to determine

whether or not there exists a relationship between sacking a manager and experiencing better

results. A χ 2 test for independence can be used to attempt rejection of the null hypothesis that

the results of a team are independent of the sacking of a manager.

(𝑜−𝑒)𝑐
Formula: χ 2 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐 = ∑ ,
𝑒

where o is the observed value and e is the expected value while c stands for the degrees of

freedom

Table 9: Observed values for χ 2

Results of the game Before sacking the After sacking the Total
manager manager

Wins 15 36 51
Losses 65 43 108
Draws 20 21 41
Total 100 100 200

𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑜𝑚 = (𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑠 − 1) × (𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛𝑠 − 1)

In this case, 𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑠 = 3; 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛𝑠 = 2

10
 jpc796

Hence, 𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑜𝑚 = (3 − 1) × (2 − 1) = 2 × 1 = 2

Significance level: 0.05

E: use of relevant
Critical value: 5.99
mathematics seen
Null Hypothesis (H0): Results of the game are independent of the sacking of the manager.

Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Results of the game are dependent on the sacking of the

manager.
𝑟𝑜𝑤 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑋 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
Expected Value (E.V): 𝐸. 𝑉 =
𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙

Table 10: Expected values for χ 2

Results of game Before sacking the After sacking the

manager manager
Wins 25.5 25.5
Losses 54 54
Draws 20.5 20.5

Table 11: χ 2 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐 for when teams sack their managers

o e o-e ∑ (𝑜 − 𝑒)2
e

15 25.5 -10.5 4.32

36 25.5 10.5 4.32
65 54 11 2.24
43 54 -11 2.24
20 20.5 -0.5 0.012
21 20.5 0.5 0.012
Total: 13.144

χ 2 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐: 13.144

𝐷𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑜𝑚 = 2

Conclusion: Since χ 2 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐 (13.144) > χ 2 critical (5.99), there is statistical significance.

Hence, we reject the null hypothesis. This means that the results of the game are dependent

on the sacking of the manager.

11
 jpc796

χ 2 test for independence control

I will also use a χ 2 test for independence to determine whether there is a relationship between

the results of games while not sacking the manager. The test can be used to reject the null

hypothesis that the results of a team is independent of not sacking their manager.

Table 12: Observed values for χ 2

Results of the game Teams 5 games not Teams 5 games Total

sacking manager further not sacking
manager
Wins 43 44 87
Losses 33 32 65
Draws 24 24 48
Total 100 100 200

𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑜𝑚 = (3 − 1) × (2 − 1) = 2 × 1 = 2

Significance level: 0.05

χ 2 critical: 5.99

Null Hypothesis (H0): Results of the games are independent of the retainment of the manager

Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Results of the game are dependent on the retainment of the

manager.

Expected Value: The expected number value of Teams 5 while or further while not sacking

the manager resulting in total number of wins, losses, or draws are given below:

Table 13: Expected values for χ 2

Results of game Before “not sacking” the After “not sacking” the
manager manager
Wins 43.5 43.5
Losses 32.5 32.5
Draws 24 24

12
 jpc796

Table 14: χ 2 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐 for when teams retain their managers

o e o-e ∑ (𝑜 − 𝑒)2
e

43 43.5 -0.5 0.005

44 43.5 0.5 0.005
33 32.5 0.5 0.007
32 32.5 -0.5 0.007
24 24 0 0
24 24 0 0
Total: 0.012

χ 2 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐: 0.012

𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑜𝑚 = 2

Conclusion: Since χ 2 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐 (0.012) < χ 2 critical (5.99), there is no statistical significance and

hence we failed to reject the null hypothesis on account of insufficient evidence. Teams 5

games while or further not sacking the manager and results of games are independent.
D: reflection seen

The conclusions of this exploration clearly show that there is a strong relationship between

the sacking of a manger and the club experiencing better results. It seems as if the ‘new

manager bounce’ effect is indeed true. The χ2 test for independence showed that there is a

relationship between a team sacking their manager and results of wins, losses, and draws.

This supported my previous hypothesis that they are not independent.

Although I was able to carry out my project smoothly, there were a few limitations. Firstly,

my sample size was not nearly large enough as I focused on only a singular domestic league

so it is highly possible that this conclusion may in reality only be applicable to the Premier

League and not to the entire population. I might have used teams from all over the world to

find out if this phenomenon affected the wider footballing world in general. Another

limitation I experienced had more to do with the sport itself. In football, more so than maybe

any other sport, simple numbers like the number of wins and losses often do not tell the

13
 jpc796

whole story however I do not feel as if that is a problem as my exploration is only concerned

with how the sacking of a manager affects the results a team experiences and not how it

affects their performance.

Even though the sample size taken is quite big for the premier league itself, it should only be

considered valid for the premier league and not the whole of the footballing world.

14
 jpc796

Bibliography
“2019–20 Premier League.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 13 Jan. 2022,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Premier_League#Managerial_changes.
Accessed 25 Jan. 2022.

“2020–21 Premier League.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 20 Jan. 2022,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%9321_Premier_League#Managerial_changes.
Accessed 21 Jan. 2022.

Desk, F. T. “What Managers Have Been Sacked This Season?” Www.footballtransfers.com,

www.footballtransfers.com/en/transfer-news/uk-premier-league/2021/10/what-managers-
have-been-sacked-this-season. Accessed 25 Jan. 2022

mathisfun. “Standard Deviation and Variance.” Mathsisfun.com, 2017,

www.mathsisfun.com/data/standard-deviation.html. Accessed 28 Jan. 2022.

“Premier League Football Scores, Results & Season Archives.” Www.premierleague.com,

www.premierleague.com/results?co=1&se=210&cl=11. Accessed 28 Jan. 2022.

Wikipedia Contributors. “2018–19 Premier League.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 16 Jan.

2022, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%9319_Premier_League#Managerial_changes.
Accessed 28 Jan. 2022.

15
1