It's not an easy time to be an Everton supporter at the moment, with the defeat last night to Spurs having a saddening air of expectation about it.  There have always been many that seem to have their negative switch stuck on but the chorus of negativity gushing forth from the terraces is deafening at the moment.  I'd like to use this post to focus on a couple of the psychological fallacies that befall Everton fans (and quite possibly fans of other teams too).  Both of these revolve around the fate of the teams manager David Moyes, and to an extent his wider coaching staff.

Exhibit A – The halo effect

First off we have the halo effect.  This basically suggests that if we see one positive attribute in an individual we take that attribute and curiously assume that they are therefore good at all manner of things.  In footballing circles it rears its head often when players retire and fans discuss their coaching possibilities. Duncan Ferguson is a common example amongst Evertonians.  Clearly he was a fine player and an icon amongst Evertonians, but we know absolutely nothing about his coaching abilities.  That doesn't stop fans suggesting that famous ex players should be added to the coaching staff, or even installed as manager.  Chairmen seem equally guilty of this, as shown by the regular hiring of famous players as coaches, even though they often have a pretty poor track record.  It is rare for an unknown name to reach the top of the game, especially if they haven't played at a high level.

Exhibit B – WYSIATI

WYSIATI stands for What You See Is All There Is and it is a habit most of us have for assuming our very incomplete information about something is all there is, and therefore basing our decisions on that poor information.  Everton assistant manager Steve Round is often on the receiving end of this.  Fans will take a dislike to his behaviour on the touchline, and based on this miniscule amount of information regard him as poor at his job.  Likewise fans will take a match result and based upon that limited information make judgements about how well the club is run.  In both instances the knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes is often miniscule, yet it doesn't stop fans having their say.

Exhibit C – Overlooking luck

This one is not  confined to football fans, and indeed was the basis of an article earlier this week on the role of luck in life.  People in all walks of life like to believe that actions lead to results.  If you do the right things you will get the right results.  It's a simple belief that makes us feel good about life.  It also leads us to place on pedestals those that achieve great things, whilst slamming those that fail.  What this overlooks however is the role of luck in what we do, and the inevitability that eventually we regress towards the mean.  A well told example of this are the companies trumpeted in Jim Collins Good to Great.  Within a few years many of those lauded as great examples of management practice had come a cropper and slumped alarmingly.  Had their managers gone from great to crap?  Unlikely.  A more plausible explanation is that they enjoyed luck on their way up, and the luck ran out hence their fall from grace.

Football fans apply a similar logic.  They instil in managers superhuman powers to turn clubs around, and when they don't achieve these feats they're booted out as supporters chivvy nervous chairmen into hitting the ejector switch.  The reality is that in such a complex world, the manager has less influence over things than we would like to believe, be that for good or ill.

Conclusion

Of course most of these mental fallacies occur because we like to debate these things with our fellow fans using our emotions rather than applying logic and reason to our thinking.  We go onto discussion forums and call radio stations and say the first thing that comes to our head.  Whilst it makes for great content for forum owners and radio stations however, it doesn't really do much to help the average fan understand the game.