Kenshin
Player Valuation: £40m
Talking to lads in work brought up a good point between us regarding short vs long term managers in the modern era of the game. It all started from the typical sacking koeman discussion but I feel there is a good argument either side of the coin.
When you look at the modern era of the game there has been a distinct division between the successful clubs and the also rans. Occasionally you get a manager going the extra step and winning a trophy but generally the same clubs have been the ones who have had the most success. Linking it to us, there is the argument between sacking koeman in the short term and sticking with him and giving him time. Cards on the table, I would see him gone simply if nothing else because he strikes me as a manager in crisis currently for many reasons I have probsbly posted elsewhere. I can understand the argument for sticking with him as well and to be honest both sides are right in this regard. So it really isn't a black and white argument for us fans right now and the discussion is great on the subject.
Going back to the topic, short vs long term managers, is there any value in sticking with a manager thick and thin anymore? Granted this doesn't really apply to koeman fully unless you take the extreme viewpoint on him but in a way you can argue the case. Basing the case either side since the era of money really began here, around 2004, look at the 'top' clubs in the country
Man United - Ferguson being one if the best of all time finally retires. United sacked 2 managers for not being good enough until they got the one they wanted and are reaping the benefits.
Chelsea - famously ruthless , it hasn't stopped their success though no matter how many they sack.
Both those clubs have spent the most out so a fair point is that the expensive players have helped there fair enough. Looking at further down.
Man city - new to the game. Despite having the players they have not settled on what they had and changed and upgraded when they felt things weren't where they wanted them to be.
Spurs. Have sacked a few managers in the modern era until the right one clicked for them. Would potch be there if he had started as bad as koeman has? Chances not.
So two clubs who didn't settle for what they had and pushed for better and again had success as a result. Then we move into two clubs who valued stability and backing their manager.
Arsenal- Wenger still there and the club happy for him to be. Won the fa cup a few times but it's fair to say the longevity of his stay at arsenal has not benefited the success on the pitch to be point where the fans have turned on a manger who 15 years earlier were invincible under him.
Everton- you know the story with us. We backed moyes for 11 years and won nothing, no educating needed here.
So the point is, over that time the club's quick to change and not settle have had the success and the club's who have valued stability have fell by the way side. In our case , backing Martinez was fine due to that first season but seeing it happen again under koeman, is it a case that we should cut losses before the end of the season and not settle for what we have? Then again sticking by koeman could benefit us long term for all we know. There is also them lot but they are their own worst enemy dealing with the devil so they don't matter.
So looking forward, should the club be more ruthless and just cut losses when it looks like we aren't moving forward? Perhaps we might find our potch, perhaps the small bursts of new managers might lead us to success, perhaps we can upgrade each time? Or perhaps it won't? Just a discussion to have, no right or wrong answers.
When you look at the modern era of the game there has been a distinct division between the successful clubs and the also rans. Occasionally you get a manager going the extra step and winning a trophy but generally the same clubs have been the ones who have had the most success. Linking it to us, there is the argument between sacking koeman in the short term and sticking with him and giving him time. Cards on the table, I would see him gone simply if nothing else because he strikes me as a manager in crisis currently for many reasons I have probsbly posted elsewhere. I can understand the argument for sticking with him as well and to be honest both sides are right in this regard. So it really isn't a black and white argument for us fans right now and the discussion is great on the subject.
Going back to the topic, short vs long term managers, is there any value in sticking with a manager thick and thin anymore? Granted this doesn't really apply to koeman fully unless you take the extreme viewpoint on him but in a way you can argue the case. Basing the case either side since the era of money really began here, around 2004, look at the 'top' clubs in the country
Man United - Ferguson being one if the best of all time finally retires. United sacked 2 managers for not being good enough until they got the one they wanted and are reaping the benefits.
Chelsea - famously ruthless , it hasn't stopped their success though no matter how many they sack.
Both those clubs have spent the most out so a fair point is that the expensive players have helped there fair enough. Looking at further down.
Man city - new to the game. Despite having the players they have not settled on what they had and changed and upgraded when they felt things weren't where they wanted them to be.
Spurs. Have sacked a few managers in the modern era until the right one clicked for them. Would potch be there if he had started as bad as koeman has? Chances not.
So two clubs who didn't settle for what they had and pushed for better and again had success as a result. Then we move into two clubs who valued stability and backing their manager.
Arsenal- Wenger still there and the club happy for him to be. Won the fa cup a few times but it's fair to say the longevity of his stay at arsenal has not benefited the success on the pitch to be point where the fans have turned on a manger who 15 years earlier were invincible under him.
Everton- you know the story with us. We backed moyes for 11 years and won nothing, no educating needed here.
So the point is, over that time the club's quick to change and not settle have had the success and the club's who have valued stability have fell by the way side. In our case , backing Martinez was fine due to that first season but seeing it happen again under koeman, is it a case that we should cut losses before the end of the season and not settle for what we have? Then again sticking by koeman could benefit us long term for all we know. There is also them lot but they are their own worst enemy dealing with the devil so they don't matter.
So looking forward, should the club be more ruthless and just cut losses when it looks like we aren't moving forward? Perhaps we might find our potch, perhaps the small bursts of new managers might lead us to success, perhaps we can upgrade each time? Or perhaps it won't? Just a discussion to have, no right or wrong answers.
