- Aug 23, 2006
- 8,386
- 3,122
found it: well worth a read.
According to Sue Bridgewater, who runs the football management course at Warwick University, the average tenure of those dismissed fell from 3.12 years in 1992-93 to 1.36 in 2009-10. Sacking has become as frequent as the weekly shop. But a fundamental question is rarely asked: does getting rid of a manager actually improve performance?
Punters certainly believe so. Sporting Bet's Mark O'Haire confirms they usually see an increase in betting on sides with new managers. The idea certainly sounds logical; enticing even. A new man comes in, provides a Wada-compliant injection of fizz and fight, results improve. The theory even has a name: new manager syndrome.
There is one problem. The evidence doesn't back it up.
John Goddard, a professor of financial economics at the University of Bangor, and his co-author Stephen Dobson, of the University of Hull, tested the theory by using statistical models and regression analysis on a database with 40 years of Premier League and Football Leagueinformation. Their conclusion was startling.
Sacking a manager is, on average, more harmful to a team's performance in the short term than doing nothing...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2013/mar/17/manager-sacking-reading-premier-league
This is dealt with in the excellent book Soccernomics, excellent book if you like this sort of thing.
Anyway, glad to see another football dinosaur got rid of. Sunderland are an atrocity to watch.