How long should a manager get?

[Bruce Wayne]

I read a study this week that looked at leadership and luck. Long story short, the researchers reckoned that around 70% of the success of a company is down to luck rather than the talents of their leaders, and because leaders don't tend to last long enough for the luck to even itself out, it's difficult to tell how good they actually are.

Given football managers tend to last considerably less time than CEOs, how can we really say whether (for instance) Sherwood is a good manager or an (un)lucky one? Should managers get more time at clubs to really prove their worth?

 

[Seamus Colemole]

Of course.

Managers (wrongly) get judged on short term results even though their can be numerous factors outside their own ability which can influence how well they are deemed to have done.

4-5 years should be at least the minimum a manager gets at a club to show what they can do, but even then results still aren't an accurate indicator of how good a manager is.

 

[Tubey]

I think managers in football have a lot more influence over success than a 'normal' company.

My thoughts - no, they shouldn't. Given it is a position where a Louis Van Gaal can develop a side quickly well beyond the point of the likes of David Moyes, and again the gulf in quality between a Moyes and a Ferguson in the same league is so vast, then it'd be silly for a business to sit and watch underperformance when a managerial change can result in dramatic changes in fortune.

 

[Tubey]

Of course.

Managers (wrongly) get judged on short term results even though their can be numerous factors outside their own ability which can influence how well they are deemed to have done.

4-5 years should be at least the minimum a manager gets at a club to show what they can do, but even then results still aren't an accurate indicator of how good a manager is.

It's a business though - why 'should' a manager get three years to underperform, on the off chance they come good by the fourth?

If it's a case of, say, Martinez, where he earned the good will in the first season to justify the disastrous second to an extent, then that's fine, but saying a manager should be given 4-5 years no matter what is daft. Moyes would still be the United manager, for example. How smart a decision would that be for business at United?

 

[mlyons]

I think managers in football have a lot more influence over success than a 'normal' company.

My thoughts - no, they shouldn't. Given it is a position where a Louis Van Gaal can develop a side quickly well beyond the point of the likes of David Moyes, and again the gulf in quality between a Moyes and a Ferguson in the same league is so vast, then it'd be silly for a business to sit and watch underperformance when a managerial change can result in dramatic changes in fortune.

Did Louis van Gaal develop the side, or did the £150 million they spent in the last season and a half develop the side? How do you suss out what's due to the manager and what's due to the different players?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It's a business though - why 'should' a manager get three years to underperform, on the off chance they come good by the fourth?

If it's a case of, say, Martinez, where he earned the good will in the first season to justify the disastrous second to an extent, then that's fine, but saying a manager should be given 4-5 years no matter what is daft. Moyes would still be the United manager, for example. How smart a decision would that be for business at United?

I suppose that was the point of the study, that this could be a result of bad luck, just as an excellent season could be the result of good luck. It's hard to tell either way unless someone is given enough time for good and bad to even themselves out.

 

[Tubey]

Did Louis van Gaal develop the side, or did the £150 million they spent in the last season and a half develop the side? How do you suss out what's due to the manager and what's due to the different players?

Rodgers spent massive too, look how that worked out.

What I'm saying is, as a business, the owners have the right to change their managerial personnel if they feel they can get better results from someone else in that role. Otherwise you'd end up with Tim Sherwood for five years.

 

[Eggs]

....presume this is RM specific in the Everton thread.

 

[ijjysmith]

In very very simple terms the answer to the question is 'depends'.

 

[Toffeelover]

In very very simple terms the answer to the question is 'depends'.

Quite right but I would have to say a minimum of 3 years, not seasons but years then to be judged.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

....presume this is RM specific in the Everton thread.

Wasn't thinking specifically of RM mate, more just a general question, but by all means add your thoughts on it in relation to RM if you want

 

[Seamus Colemole]

It's a business though - why 'should' a manager get three years to underperform, on the off chance they come good by the fourth?

If it's a case of, say, Martinez, where he earned the good will in the first season to justify the disastrous second to an extent, then that's fine, but saying a manager should be given 4-5 years no matter what is daft. Moyes would still be the United manager, for example. How smart a decision would that be for business at United?

From a business perspective, sure, it's understandable why if a manager isn't achieving the desired results that the owners would replace him.

I've said before when people have seen a manager doing a decent job yet still get sacked (think like Adkins at Southampton) that they weren't sacked because they were bad managers or doing a bad job, just that the owners thought they could get someone in to do even better.

But simply looking at a managers results and using them with no context to judge a manager (espeically over a short time period) is ridiculous. But fans do it all the time.

A manager needs a significant amount of time in a job before they can fairly be judged. Unless they are blatantly awful obviously.

But even after being in a job for 4-5 years it's still not always simply a managers ability which is responsible for results.

There a huge amount of factors that determine how well a manager does at a club.

 

[Joey66]

I would not know as I have not seen Villa over 90 mins MOTD highlights are a joke, half of events in our game missed last night!

 

[Saint Domingo]

4 seasons. If you can't implement what you want to by then then let somebody else have a go.

 

[Jags..class]

Depends on the money as well, if the board sell the best players and dont invest then the manager should have longer, mannu mangers have so much money so those managers will be judge on a shorter time then Martinez who will need time to build a team as we have less money.