• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

sacking managers

Forums Unread posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
spider-Neil

spider-Neil

Well-Known
Member
your opinions please;

this has nothing to do with our own manager just your opinion in general do you think its

a) better to stick with a manager hoping consistant at the top will help a situation improve
examples can be giving by clubs that stuck with managers and reape the benefits

b) better to sack the manager get in no blood an push on from there
examples can be given in regars to releasing managers with the new manager coming in an making an instant impact

on example is whinger who can actually be use as a good example for both a) (sacking the former arsenal manager an hiring wihinger and b) sticking with whinger despite nothing for four years.
 
This isn't really a question you can generalize.

It wholly depends on the circumstances.
 
Agree with keni. It all depends what collateral the manager has to work with.
 
There's no right answer. It's a risk either way.

The greatest example of "sticking with a manager" - and one that is trotted out by Liverpool fans most often - is Slur Alex.
Fine, get that.

But really, just because sticking with old purple nose worked, doesn't mean it always will.

Look at Ranieri. Should Chelsea have stuck with him? Given him time? Nope. What about Ramos at Spurs?

Should we have given Houllier (yet another) final season? Hmmm. Not sure about that, either.

I keep reading all the experts trotting out that line "You have to give managers more time" but there's no empirical evidence that suggests this is true.

Sometimes change works. Sometimes it doesn't.

What is absolutely true that change after change after change doesn't work, but that's just evidence of a club making several poor decisions one after the other, and being badly run.
 
[quote author=Brendan link=topic=37043.msg983507#msg983507 date=1257758681]
There's no right answer. It's a risk either way.

The greatest example of "sticking with a manager" - and one that is trotted out by Liverpool fans most often - is Slur Alex.
Fine, get that.

But really, just because sticking with old purple nose worked, doesn't mean it always will.

Look at Ranieri. Should Chelsea have stuck with him? Given him time? Nope. What about Ramos at Spurs?

Should we have given Houllier (yet another) final season? Hmmm. Not sure about that, either.

I keep reading all the experts trotting out that line "You have to give managers more time" but there's no empirical evidence that suggests this is true.

Sometimes change works. Sometimes it doesn't.

What is absolutely true that change after change after change doesn't work, but that's just evidence of a club making several poor decisions one after the other, and being badly run.
[/quote]

I think it's important to see where the manager is going and have some belief that things are going in the right direction. I think with Rafa you can see that, despite his errors and our recent poor form, there's alot to consider and the problems upstairs don't help either. I don't think we've particularly got anything to sell to prospective managers right now. So at least in the current climate, it's a case of 'better the devil you know'.

Like I've said, the end of the season is the time assess things properly and to make decisions, if need be.
 
[quote author=Brendan link=topic=37043.msg983507#msg983507 date=1257758681]
There's no right answer. It's a risk either way.

The greatest example of "sticking with a manager" - and one that is trotted out by Liverpool fans most often - is Slur Alex.
Fine, get that.

But really, just because sticking with old purple nose worked, doesn't mean it always will.

Look at Ranieri. Should Chelsea have stuck with him? Given him time? Nope. What about Ramos at Spurs?

Should we have given Houllier (yet another) final season? Hmmm. Not sure about that, either.

I keep reading all the experts trotting out that line "You have to give managers more time" but there's no empirical evidence that suggests this is true.

Sometimes change works. Sometimes it doesn't.

What is absolutely true that change after change after change doesn't work, but that's just evidence of a club making several poor decisions one after the other, and being badly run.
[/quote]

good post bren
 
my personal opinion is a manager should be given three seasons, regardless (unless you are flirting with relagation), I think three years is the time needed to transform the squad into your squad with your players. I would then look for a league challenge (by that I mean in the hunt for the title until march/april). if a manager has shown he can challenge for the title I would keep faith with him after one poor season (finishing outside the top 4), two poors is probably time to part ways.

year 1 - assess the squad, bring in players
year 2 - bring in players, get rid of players that fit your style of play
year 3 - fully your sqaud and players
year 4 - challenge for the league

after that I would expect the team to challenge year in year out.
 
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=37043.msg983588#msg983588 date=1257762022]
my personal opinion is a manager should be given three seasons, regardless (unless you are flirting with relagation), I think three years is the time needed to transform the squad into your squad with your players. I would then look for a league challenge (by that I mean in the hunt for the title until march/april). if a manager has shown he can challenge for the title I would keep faith with him after one poor season (finishing outside the top 4), two poors is probably time to part ways.

year 1 - assess the squad, bring in players
year 2 - bring in players, get rid of players that fit your style of play
year 3 - fully your sqaud and players
year 4 - challenge for the league

after that I would expect the team to challenge year in year out.
[/quote]

How about the likes of Sunderland, Villa, Wigan et al? What's the target for Year 4?
 
[quote author=DHSC link=topic=37043.msg983596#msg983596 date=1257762109]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=37043.msg983588#msg983588 date=1257762022]
my personal opinion is a manager should be given three seasons, regardless (unless you are flirting with relagation), I think three years is the time needed to transform the squad into your squad with your players. I would then look for a league challenge (by that I mean in the hunt for the title until march/april). if a manager has shown he can challenge for the title I would keep faith with him after one poor season (finishing outside the top 4), two poors is probably time to part ways.

year 1 - assess the squad, bring in players
year 2 - bring in players, get rid of players that fit your style of play
year 3 - fully your sqaud and players
year 4 - challenge for the league

after that I would expect the team to challenge year in year out.
[/quote]

How about the likes of Sunderland, Villa, Wigan et al? What's the target for Year 4?
[/quote]

obviously 'challenge' means different things to different clubs. for villa 'challenge' is push for a CL place in year four, for s'land challenge is push for europe in year four.
 
[quote author=Brendan link=topic=37043.msg983507#msg983507 date=1257758681]
What is absolutely true that change after change after change doesn't work, but that's just evidence of a club making several poor decisions one after the other, and being badly run.
[/quote]
NUFC
 
[quote author=dossena link=topic=37043.msg983610#msg983610 date=1257762413]
[quote author=Brendan link=topic=37043.msg983507#msg983507 date=1257758681]
What is absolutely true that change after change after change doesn't work, but that's just evidence of a club making several poor decisions one after the other, and being badly run.
[/quote]
NUFC
[/quote]

On the flipside, if you have enough money and clout, you can get away with it: Real Madrid.
 
[quote author=keniget link=topic=37043.msg983632#msg983632 date=1257763424]
[quote author=dossena link=topic=37043.msg983610#msg983610 date=1257762413]
[quote author=Brendan link=topic=37043.msg983507#msg983507 date=1257758681]
What is absolutely true that change after change after change doesn't work, but that's just evidence of a club making several poor decisions one after the other, and being badly run.
[/quote]
NUFC
[/quote]

On the flipside, if you have enough money and clout, you can get away with it: Real Madrid.
[/quote]

are real 'getting away with it' though?
 
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=37043.msg983659#msg983659 date=1257765313]
[quote author=keniget link=topic=37043.msg983632#msg983632 date=1257763424]
[quote author=dossena link=topic=37043.msg983610#msg983610 date=1257762413]
[quote author=Brendan link=topic=37043.msg983507#msg983507 date=1257758681]
What is absolutely true that change after change after change doesn't work, but that's just evidence of a club making several poor decisions one after the other, and being badly run.
[/quote]
NUFC
[/quote]

On the flipside, if you have enough money and clout, you can get away with it: Real Madrid.
[/quote]

are real 'getting away with it' though?
[/quote]

Absolutely not by their high standards, but when you consider that their last Galactico cycle was coming to an end just as this current [brilliant] Barcelona cycle was beginning and they've still picked up two of the last five titles.... well, it's not all that bad.
 
no hard and fast rule. I actually thought gh should have been allowed to see out his contract but he was fucked off, in comes rafa and wins the CL in his first season. if so if rafa were to fail to reach top four if difficult to decide whether he should be given another season or not.
 
[quote author=Brendan link=topic=37043.msg983507#msg983507 date=1257758681]
There's no right answer. It's a risk either way.

The greatest example of "sticking with a manager" - and one that is trotted out by Liverpool fans most often - is Slur Alex.
Fine, get that.

But really, just because sticking with old purple nose worked, doesn't mean it always will.

Look at Ranieri. Should Chelsea have stuck with him? Given him time? Nope. What about Ramos at Spurs?

Should we have given Houllier (yet another) final season? Hmmm. Not sure about that, either.

I keep reading all the experts trotting out that line "You have to give managers more time" but there's no empirical evidence that suggests this is true.

Sometimes change works. Sometimes it doesn't.

What is absolutely true that change after change after change doesn't work, but that's just evidence of a club making several poor decisions one after the other, and being badly run.
[/quote]



When you counter the 'give them more time' argument with examples of Maureen or Wenger winning the PL Crown in their first seasons, some dullard usually comes out with the 'kermit could win the league with that cash' bollox.

Same with Wenger's debut title winning season. He apparently inherited not only a 'rock solid defense' but a team that were already used to winning PL's.


Christ.
 
[quote author=Terrier link=topic=37043.msg983692#msg983692 date=1257767315]
[quote author=Brendan link=topic=37043.msg983507#msg983507 date=1257758681]
There's no right answer. It's a risk either way.

The greatest example of "sticking with a manager" - and one that is trotted out by Liverpool fans most often - is Slur Alex.
Fine, get that.

But really, just because sticking with old purple nose worked, doesn't mean it always will.

Look at Ranieri. Should Chelsea have stuck with him? Given him time? Nope. What about Ramos at Spurs?

Should we have given Houllier (yet another) final season? Hmmm. Not sure about that, either.

I keep reading all the experts trotting out that line "You have to give managers more time" but there's no empirical evidence that suggests this is true.

Sometimes change works. Sometimes it doesn't.

What is absolutely true that change after change after change doesn't work, but that's just evidence of a club making several poor decisions one after the other, and being badly run.
[/quote]



When you counter the 'give them more time' argument with examples of Maureen or Wenger winning the PL Crown in their first seasons, some dullard usually comes out with the 'kermit could win the league with that cash' bollox.

Same with Wenger's debut title winning season. He apparently inherited not only a 'rock solid defense' but a team that were already used to winning PL's.


Christ.


[/quote]

whinger clearly had a VERY good defense to work with so could concentrate on building the attack and midfield. you could argue the same with rafa and the defense that gh left him.
 
I find the Middlesbro saga endlessly amusing. One has to admire Steve Gibson's loyalty to his previous managers Bryan Robson and gareth Southgate BUT they were dreadful appointments in the first place and there is no point in being loyal to someone who is patently not upto the job.

Now he has gone and done it again, Strachan will no doubt be given 4 or 5 seasons and I am 100% sure he will not get them promoted and poor Boro will then get in another loser.
 
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=37043.msg983711#msg983711 date=1257768301]
[quote author=Terrier link=topic=37043.msg983692#msg983692 date=1257767315]
[quote author=Brendan link=topic=37043.msg983507#msg983507 date=1257758681]
There's no right answer. It's a risk either way.

The greatest example of "sticking with a manager" - and one that is trotted out by Liverpool fans most often - is Slur Alex.
Fine, get that.

But really, just because sticking with old purple nose worked, doesn't mean it always will.

Look at Ranieri. Should Chelsea have stuck with him? Given him time? Nope. What about Ramos at Spurs?

Should we have given Houllier (yet another) final season? Hmmm. Not sure about that, either.

I keep reading all the experts trotting out that line "You have to give managers more time" but there's no empirical evidence that suggests this is true.

Sometimes change works. Sometimes it doesn't.

What is absolutely true that change after change after change doesn't work, but that's just evidence of a club making several poor decisions one after the other, and being badly run.
[/quote]



When you counter the 'give them more time' argument with examples of Maureen or Wenger winning the PL Crown in their first seasons, some dullard usually comes out with the 'kermit could win the league with that cash' bollox.

Same with Wenger's debut title winning season. He apparently inherited not only a 'rock solid defense' but a team that were already used to winning PL's.


Christ.


[/quote]

whinger clearly had a VERY good defense to work with so could concentrate on building the attack and midfield. you could argue the same with rafa and the defense that gh left him.
[/quote]

I always thought Denis Bergkamp was a top top player and Ian Wright wasn't a bad goalscorer. Wenger inherited David Seaman, David Platt and Paul Merson too who weren't too shabby... well Merson wasn't too shabby when he wasn't drunk, gambling, snorting drugs or whatever he was indulging himself in.

Wenger is one manager who's definitely benefited from being given time even though his results may not have necessarily deserved it. Remember the 6-1 thrashing they had at Old Trafford and by the late 90s when the players Wenger inherited were getting too old, Arsenal used to finish such a long way behind United that Ferguson thought his legacy was safe and could retire.

Wenger's teams hasn't always challenged for the title season after season but Arsenal's board stuck with him and maybe they will benefit from that again in the near future.
 
one thing people don't understand is that longevity is important IF you have the right manager

should Houllier be given another year? No, because his team was fucking awful, his buys were all shit and we were going no where

Raineri was a good manager but Abramocunt is trigger happy and remember he supports them with the biggest transfer budget in the history of the game (or did back then)

Benitez has earn't time because he has got 86 points, he has WON a european cup (easily forgotton) + done so well in the competition in the past, notwithstanding current horrible blip. The team isnt underperforming, it is because of injuries and lack of resources. IF you gave Benitez the money he would fix it, he can fix it if you give him time. No one else is going to come in and fix it and no one else has accumulated 5 years league experience, they're going to be chancers. the experience and longevity factor is important UNLESS there is a shit load of money and a big squad, then you can interchange managers like chelsea or Madrid but that is NOT Liverpool
 
[quote author=rebel23 link=topic=37043.msg983821#msg983821 date=1257774469]

one thing people don't understand is that longevity is important IF you have the right manager

[/quote]

Wow, fucking hell, really?

You've clearly put a lot of thought into that, which is evident in the startling insights you share with us.

Many, many thanks.
 
[quote author=Brendan link=topic=37043.msg983507#msg983507 date=1257758681]
There's no right answer. It's a risk either way.

The greatest example of "sticking with a manager" - and one that is trotted out by Liverpool fans most often - is Slur Alex.
Fine, get that.

But really, just because sticking with old purple nose worked, doesn't mean it always will.

Look at Ranieri. Should Chelsea have stuck with him? Given him time? Nope. What about Ramos at Spurs?

Should we have given Houllier (yet another) final season? Hmmm. Not sure about that, either.

I keep reading all the experts trotting out that line "You have to give managers more time" but there's no empirical evidence that suggests this is true.

Sometimes change works. Sometimes it doesn't.

What is absolutely true that change after change after change doesn't work, but that's just evidence of a club making several poor decisions one after the other, and being badly run.
[/quote]

Could easily be argued, it was actually Ranieris acquisition of Robben and Duff which was instrumental in winning them the first league under Mourinho who obvioulsy claimed all the credit. Drogba was a comparative flop in his first season, much of the groundwork was done by Ranieri guiding them to second and agreements in place for robben and duff.... i think he may well have won the league for them, without being an obnoxious glory grabbing cunt in the process. Just my opinion you understand...
 
Could easily be argued, it was actually Ranieris acquisition of Robben and Duff which was instrumental in winning them the first league under Mourinho who obvioulsy claimed all the credit. Drogba was a comparative flop in his first season, much of the groundwork was done by Ranieri guiding them to second and agreements in place for robben and duff.... i think he may well have won the league for them, without being an obnoxious glory grabbing cunt in the process. Just my opinion you understand...
Click to expand...

It's not a very good one.

Ranieri has won zero league titles in 22 years of management, and three or four poxy domestic cups.

Sacking him was a masterstroke by Chelsea.
 
[quote author=Molbystwin link=topic=37043.msg983869#msg983869 date=1257777858]
[quote author=Brendan link=topic=37043.msg983507#msg983507 date=1257758681]
There's no right answer. It's a risk either way.

The greatest example of "sticking with a manager" - and one that is trotted out by Liverpool fans most often - is Slur Alex.
Fine, get that.

But really, just because sticking with old purple nose worked, doesn't mean it always will.

Look at Ranieri. Should Chelsea have stuck with him? Given him time? Nope. What about Ramos at Spurs?

Should we have given Houllier (yet another) final season? Hmmm. Not sure about that, either.

I keep reading all the experts trotting out that line "You have to give managers more time" but there's no empirical evidence that suggests this is true.

Sometimes change works. Sometimes it doesn't.

What is absolutely true that change after change after change doesn't work, but that's just evidence of a club making several poor decisions one after the other, and being badly run.
[/quote]

Could easily be argued, it was actually Ranieris acquisition of Robben and Duff which was instrumental in winning them the first league under Mourinho who obvioulsy claimed all the credit. Drogba was a comparative flop in his first season, much of the groundwork was done by Ranieri guiding them to second and agreements in place for robben and duff.... i think he may well have won the league for them, without being an obnoxious glory grabbing cunt in the process. Just my opinion you understand...
[/quote]

And Cech.
 
Ranieri's Mam would have shot him in the face for a son like Mourinho so Chelsea sacking him was no biggy. Proof, Pudding, Proven right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

localny
    • Like
Pinch Me (5)
Replies
8
Views
393
Modo
Modo
MomoWASright
    • Like
  • Locked
Top Slot secured
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Replies
300
Views
10K
737Max
737Max
Squiggles
    • Like
  • Locked
05/10/2024 - Weeks Other Games Thread
2 3
Replies
60
Views
1K
rubans
rubans
rurikbird
    • Like
Different Gravy
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Replies
458
Views
12K
darkstarexodus
darkstarexodus
Squiggles
    • Like
    • Wow
  • Locked
Disaster Planning
2
Replies
31
Views
747
bluebell
bluebell
Back
Top Bottom