Managerial Changes?

[love4ffc]

Does having a lower manager turnover rate equate to being more successful? 

Sorry if this has been discussed before but I've been thinking about this for a while now.  I have done a little bit of research hopefully my info is correct. 

I found an interesting article from The Telegraph dated June 2015. 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/11667571/Revealed-Premier-League-clubs-have-hired-and-fired-215-managers-since-1995.html

If we look at the period discussed in the article from 1995 to present Fulham have had 15 managers including Jokanović.  If we compare that to some of the top Premier League teams; Arsenal who have only had 2, Manchester United 4 and Liverpool at 8 than one must assume that fewer managerial turnovers equals more stability and more success. 

Yet we look at Manchester City who have had 13 (only two less then FFC) and Chelsea who have 17 (two more then FFC) one would have to say the above argument does not hold any truth.  That the number of managerial changes has no real effect on a clubs success.  Rather club success has to do with the quality managers hired and a clubs ability to make changes. 

So which is it?  Fewer managers equals more stability along with more success?  Or is it that the number of manager changes doesn't matter at all for a clubs success and stability? 

[dannyboi-ffc]

Neither imo. Sticking with a manager for 25 years just because it worked with Sir Alex at Utd doesn't mean they will turn into a world beater. Likewise not every club can manage to consistently be successful with a turnover like Chelsea.

It's all about the quality of the manager and suitability for that particular club. Every club has different needs, approaches and traditions. It's the same with players. Was Berbatov more gifted than McBride? Reluctantly I have to say yes, yet McBride was the package perfect for Fulham and Berbatov didn't belong here.

People criticise the club for changing managers so often lately but I believe that's not the problem. The problem is always recruiting a poor choice. It's not an easy job finding the right manager but that's our downfall.

If you look at the era you refer too- none of our managers lasted more than 4 years, actually only Cookie did last that long. Micky Adams and Keegan one year each, one sacked, one left. Tigana, Hodgson 3.5 years and 2.5 years, one sacked, one left.

And they were all successful so I think that answers your question. Adams and Keegan were replaced by Wilkins and Bracewell. Both were given 1 season to prove their worth, both were sacked. Both were replaced by managers who achieved promotion as champions first time of asking and both entered the 100 points club. Sanchez lasted half a year and was replaced by the man who took us to a European final.

So its all about the quality of the manager. Southamton- Adkins achieved back to back promotions and was then sacked, replaced by Pochettino who did amazing, he left and was replaced by Koeman who continued that success. All in the space of 3 years. In contrast Villa have had a big turnover since Martin O'Neil left, including Lambert to Sherwood to Remy Gard in the space of a few months.  But they have gradually got worse each time.

It depends on how well the club is run, if the club appoint the right fit and like with anything else a bit of luck along the way. Since Khan came in you could probably argue all 3 points have been a no.

[love4ffc]

I like your response Danny but it makes me wonder another question.  How long should a club give a new manager now a days to prove his worth?  Does it matter if he comes in at the beginning, middle or end of the season as to the amount of time he should be given? 

Also what should be reasonable criteria for a manger to prove his worth?  If said manager gets a 10th place finish his first year, a 7th place finish his second year and then a 9th place finish his third year should he be sacked?  Does it matter if the above scenario takes place in the Championship verse the Premier League? 

[Andy S]

It all proves to me that stats say whatever you want to make them say. From what I have seen an ambitious young manager can do well especially if he has a good eye for a player he wants to bring in and his club can afford. When you get to the bigger clubs it seems that the money thing is less important and it is more that you need a good organiser who can command respect from right across the club. I think that when you employ more expensive players then the coaching side is less important than at the lower end of the scale. In the end though it is all about the players on the pitch. There is no magic formulae.
When we were successful under Tigana a lot of sides tried to copy us. However that neutralises everyone and other ideas are needed

[dannyboi-ffc]

I like your response Danny but it makes me wonder another question.  How long should a club give a new manager now a days to prove his worth?  Does it matter if he comes in at the beginning, middle or end of the season as to the amount of time he should be given?  

Also what should be reasonable criteria for a manger to prove his worth?  If said manager gets a 10th place finish his first year, a 7th place finish his second year and then a 9th place finish his third year should he be sacked?  Does it matter if the above scenario takes place in the Championship verse the Premier League?  

Football fans now want the full package. We are needy and picky. Is a CV of proven success for what we want to achieve enough? No because Fulham is a nice family club who conducts itself in a gentlemen Hodgson like manor. So no to Pearson but also no to McDermott who is a really nice guy but not as successful as we'd like him to be. We demand both just like other clubs demand a big name or a certain style of football.

Look at Big Sam and West Ham. Promoted first season after relegation in Sam's first season. He didn't relegate the club, you could argue he saved them. Up and down in the prem form table but ultimately established them back as a solid prem club and laid the foundations for their Olympic stadium future. Do West ham fans care? No because he didn't play the 'West ham' way.

These kind of scenarios occur at 90% of clubs in this country and I'm one of those who is guilty of this attitude. But that just adds to how difficult it is to find the right fit. It's taken a long time but I think we have found the right guy.

As for how long you give them..... not sure if you're aware of this saying in America but "how long is a piece of string?" This basically means impossible to give a time scale because it varies.

If you can't see potential or improvement over 10 games then I think the alarm bells start ringing. Is this right? No. But managers aren't paid peanuts and football is a strange business based on instant success. You could argue that Chelsea have changed the future for managers by being successful. It now shows long term isn't always the solution and managers now get sacked every week.

If a manager comes in half way through a season especially in our position where we will probably have nothing to play for. It gives you a 6 month trial period to assess his management and make a decision whether he is good enough OR more importantly whether you trust him to rebuild in the summer, probably why Joka only got an 18month contract. You should always start a season with someone you have full faith in and sadly I think that has killed us ever since Khan bought us. Did anyone have total faith in Jol, Magath or Kit? The answer is no. And all 3 were sacked when it was too late to sign players or allow the replacement to rebuild the team.

Another argument against long term appointments would be, sure it worked for Utd, it worked for Arsenal. It could probably work for Liverpool, Chelsea or Man City. But would Pochettino turn down Real Madrid if he gets Spurs into the top 4 and potential title contenders? No I very much doubt it just like Modric and Bale didn't.  Would Martinez stay at Everton if Man Utd came calling? No I doubt it.

So if clubs like Everton and Spurs can't really rely on building around a long term manager, how on earth can a club our size? If they are to be a good appointment like we all hope they will then the bigger clubs will come down on us like vultures. Just like they did with Keegan, like they did with Sean Davis, Steed, Finnan, Smalling, Saha, Dempsey, Dembele, Hodgson and now McCormack possibly but more to the point Dembele who has only played 30 odd games for the club.

I think the best way is to be sustainable. Not to rely on all a clubs success coming from the manager. Our role models should be Southampton. Continuously develop talent and sell it on to maintain a healthy financial status and reinvest wisely in the team. As long as the club is run well then you aren't depending on the miracles of one person, you just don't have to consider a replacement as quick as others if they are doing well. Plus not sure if FFP plays a part in short term contracts as clubs have to consider excessive compensation if they realise they've appointed a donkey lol.

Short term fixes. Our aim - promotion.  Being ready for the prem is something the club will deal with when we eventually get there.

[YankeeJim]

Managing a club like FFC is wildly different than a pay to play club like Chelsea. Sir Alex and Wenger have lasted far longer than others because they are the club. Players know that going in. You don't go to Manu or Arsenal and try to be the biggest ego. You'd simply be deflated and moved on. At the scum, you have an owner who is the ego and buys players based on what he wants rather than a coherent vison as exposed by the likes of Wenger or Sir Alex. 

[dannyboi-ffc]

Managing a club like FFC is wildly different than a pay to play club like Chelsea. Sir Alex and Wenger have lasted far longer than others because they are the club. Players know that going in. You don't go to Manu or Arsenal and try to be the biggest ego. You'd simply be deflated and moved on. At the scum, you have an owner who is the ego and buys players based on what he wants rather than a coherent vison as exposed by the likes of Wenger or Sir Alex.  

I think it's impossible for us to have a long term plan around one group of players or 1 manager. The long term vision has to be the structure of the whole club, whether that be the academy set up, a philosophy, a director of football. If a manager or players do brilliant then they won't stay. If Bournemouth stay up they will probably lose their manager and 3/4 key players like Ritchie. Unless you're the big gun there is always someone waiting to take your assets and those assets want to go to the big clubs. Long term will never work unless you aren't noticed as being successful and in most cases if you aren't successful you will be sacked. So either way everything in the strange ruthless world of football is short term.

Unless you're Arsenal or Utd because you already play champs football, you already compete for silverware and there's no one bigger than you to leave for. The only way is down from them and it's a different world to the one we face.

[love4ffc]

I think Jim and Danny have hit on an important fact.  Every club needs a focus point beyond just there name that attracts players.  For ManU it was Sir Alex.  For Arsenal it is Wenger.  Currently Fulham don't seem to have that.  All we really currently have is our good name.  While that is still a name more then worthy enough to play for I do hope Slav can become our new focal point.  Someone who attracts great players that help FFC not neccessarily get promoted but rather bring back both our team pride and winning ways. 

[RaySmith]

I think some teams have had a system and players in place, with a good youth set up, though the latter doesn't matter with the top clubs who can simply buy the best players, so that another manager can carry on where the last one left off -if the general set-up at the club is good.

But, after Tigana, sacked when the team seemed in danger of relegation from the Prem, Fulham have gone from failing with one manager to failing with the next, recently with managers hardly given any time to accomplish anything. But was this failure,  culminating in relegation, the fault of  these managers?

You could  argue that Kit steadied the ship, and our fortunes began to change, after a long period of decline; but hopefully the new man will really turn things round for the club.

But I think it is a regrettable fact of modern football life that as soon as a team has a poor run of form, the call is always to sack the manager. Apart from the fact that often this doesn't make much difference to the fortunes of the club, it also adds to the soulless, impersonal, money machine aspect of the modern game.
I really felt for Kit - a good servant  to the club, and doing well in his first managerial appointment I thought, summarily sacked when he didn't meet a points target.

[BestOfBrede]

Very interesting read and excellent thought provoking posts by all.
It really is unfortunate but what you all say shows how far from a sport football has become, and more a business.
It is quite depressing really and I become far less interested by the year.
I now find that I'm getting closer and closer to other sports and supporting England in those sports, rather than what I have always been proud I'd doing - supporting my local team, the super Whites!
I'm now watch England Cricket, Rugby, Rowing, Cycling more than ever and feel this is something I thought would never be more important than Fulham, but am getting that way.
Mind you, if anyone slates the Whites I'm still very quick in our defence!
Maybe I just need things to start getting back to how they were.
I'll never not love our club, just need to realise that maybe the good times are over. We have been mixing with the big boys probably falsely? But it was blooming fantastic while it lasted!

[Burt]

I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all answer to this.

The two longest serving managers have been Dario Gradi MBE and Sir Alex of the Fergy. One led a small club that yo-yo'd between the bottom two divisions with an occasional foray in to the second tier. One led a large club that dominated the Premier League and tasted European glory.

It's all a question of resources, the "fit" that a manager has with the culture of the club, the operating model (business v. community enterprise), and the patience of the owners and supporters (which gets less the more successful a club becomes).

Which is why what Gradi will be most remembered for is nurturing young players at Crewe who then went on to bigger and better things elsewhere.

[H4usuallysitting]

What we should be trying to achieve (in my humble) is a style of play.......meaning everyone fits into that style, including new Managers/Players right down to the under 8 team.....the style could even be called Fulhamish

[love4ffc]

What we should be trying to achieve (in my humble) is a style of play.......meaning everyone fits into that style, including new Managers/Players right down to the under 8 team.....the style could even be called Fulhamish

This I like and would love to see happen.   :54: