How long should a manager get?

[WA Toffee]

How many times has our Chairman proved 'incapable of hiring the right manager?'

I rest my case

 

[1966efc]

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?

When anyone recommended a man for senior command, Napoleon didn't ask what his man management skiulls or tactical savvy were like, he asked, "Is he lucky?"

 

[SpurtingLesbian]

When anyone recommended a man for senior command, Napoleon didn't ask what his man management skiulls or tactical savvy were like, he asked, "Is he lucky?"

there is the standard old apocryphal story about the the Manager looking to hire a new employee, who start by shuffling all the CV's, splitting them into two, then throwing half of them immediately in the bin with out looking at them. He does this because he doesn't want to hire anyone who isn't lucky.

 

[SpurtingLesbian]

I rest my case

No, it doesn't it.
Answer the question, which of the two managers he's hired do you think wasn't a satisfactory appointment?

 

[PhilM]

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

Exactly. It all depends on the expectations of the club, how much money has been spent and whether proof of progress is evident.

 

[WA Toffee]

No, it doesn't it.
Answer the question, which of the two managers he's hired do you think wasn't a satisfactory appointment?

Didn't he hire 4 - Kendall, Smith, Moyes and Martinez?
Not really sure what point you're trying to make though

 

[SpurtingLesbian]

Didn't he hire 4 - Kendall, Smith, Moyes and Martinez?
Not really sure what point you're trying to make though

Sorry my mistake, he took over as Chairman on 1 June 2004 which means he's only been Chairman for the hiring of exactly one manager Bobby.

Or to turn the question around, how long should a chairman be given if he/she is incapable of hiring the right manager time and time again?

to which I replied 'How many times has our Chairman proved 'incapable of hiring the right manager?'
it's quite simple really.

Or are you not trying to imply that Bill has hired a long line of 'not right' managers and should go?
He may be guilty of a lot of things and should arguably go because of it, but finding 'not decent' managers isn't one of the reasons.

 

[Ashtonian]

It's down to both the results and effects off the pitch to be honest. Manager might be struggling on the pitch but if the team back him then yhou give him time to change things. If the players aren't up for the manager then nothing will change over time, no matter how much you throw at the problem.

Make martinez as the example, you can see the players do back him right now and therefore you give him time. If half the team don't look like they believe in the tactics (like moyes at united) then it does more harm than good to keep going with them, that is the clear reason why rodgers was sacked. They knew he wasn't going to change things so they cut and run with him before he could do real damage to the season.

 

[WA Toffee]

Sorry my mistake, he took over as Chairman on 1 June 2004 which means he's only been Chairman for the hiring of exactly one manager Bobby.

to which I replied 'How many times has our Chairman proved 'incapable of hiring the right manager?'
it's quite simple really.

Or are you not trying to imply that Bill has hired a long line of 'not right' managers and should go?
He may be guilty of a lot of things and should arguably go because of it, but finding 'not decent' managers isn't one of the reasons.

lol
I was thinking more along the lines of the Real Madrid, West Ham, average Russian type of chairman. The ones who chop and change managers and can never seem to get the right guy.

I would say Kenwright has a good track record of hiring managers.

 

[Darth Toffeeman]

Managers and coaching staff do have traits though so it isn't all luck, though you need luck to go your way.

Martinez has shown he can and will try his best to keep our best players at the club. We have some very confident players with the ball at their feet now too.
But we have a glaring weakness at set pieces both in attack and defence. In this league set pieces win games and a real emphasis is put on them. In his first season Baines, Mirallas and Barkley where leathal. The past 2 seasons we have been useless.
This needs addressing.
Also the complete overlooking of the goalkeeping situation is poor management.

Is this down to the manager, the coaching staff, or both. Either way clubs have sussed out our weaknesses and are exploiting them. The best managers adapt to counter this, or results take a downward turn and then they get sacked.

 

[The Cowboy]

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?

I don't really like the term 'luck' and how it's used as a justification. But saying that, I'd say 'luck' (favourable bounce, wicked deflection etc) are far more relevant as a justification of performance than in normal business situations. The LIBOR scandal wasn't down to bad luck. Enron wasn't down to bad luck. The fall and rise of M&S in the 90s/00s wasn't down to good or bad luck. It was down to straight-up good/bad business decisions.

 

[Jimmywhack]

Not much longer if things keep going as they are

 

[babyhayley]

Three full seasons should be enough for any manager, provided he doesn't threaten the existential demise of a football with a real relegation battle that is a clear and present danger.

 

[Muggins]

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?

I honestly believe injuries play a massive part, which involves luck to an extent.

I read this:

http://www.insideworldfootball.com/...-you-down-it-is-not-a-question-of-if-but-when

And couldn't argue with the theory. Injuries cost you places, and some teams have more than others.

All managers talk about it but often it is removed from pre and post match interviews as the media consensus is that people don't want to hear it anymore...

 

[banno]

4-5 seasons IMO unless rooted in the relegation zone. Time is needed for any manager without the resources of the rich clubs. We have to see what they are trying to build and give it time to see if its putting the club in a stronger position from youth to first team and beyond. Long term is the key and I don't think RM would have took the job unless he knew he would have time to build. I reckon when his contract is up he will be offered a new one.....with my blessings.