How long to give a manager?

[RogerTCB]

This is to a large extent a general question and not jsut Poch' specific but obviously is a question relevant to our situation.

Koeman came in and did what all fans want; he achieved instant results. Whether they last and how far he can take it are the next questions. How long should he get if it all goes wrong?
Ferguson, I was reminded by this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29364056, was nearly out on his ear after 'three years of excuses' at United. I'll repeat that: THREE YEARS! Only Mike Ashley seems to have that level of patience these days.
So, how long SHOULD we wait for any new manager to turn things arround and why?

My tuppence worth:
I don't buy that any manager worth his salt can adapt to the players he has. He needs the 'right' players for the way he thinks.
So, he needs enough time to build 'his team', i.e. work out how well the current personnel can fit into his way of playing and then make the relevant changes and introduce the new players to his way of thinking.
After that he needs time for confidence to build and for that team to play to its full potential.
That has to be years not months.

If the chairman picks a tallented manager but the 'wrong' manager for the current squad, it's possible to see a marked slump before it gets better. That would be the chairman's fault and not the manager. If what you want is improvement with the current squad, you need a manager tailored to thier ability. Similarly, if the manager is not backed, the situation may never really improve - again the chairman's fault.

Over to you.

 

[CheeseGromit]

Different time allowed at different clubs. Somewhat depends on expectations Watford it seems is very short ( at the moment)

Low expectation eg Soton means ordinary results look good

Todays situation where money is so important means a really poor part of the season will put any manager under presuure

 

[Stavrogin]

My tuppence worth:
I don't buy that any manager worth his salt can adapt to the players he has. He needs the 'right' players for the way he thinks.
So, he needs enough time to build 'his team', i.e. work out how well the current personnel can fit into his way of playing and then make the relevant changes and introduce the new players to his way of thinking.
After that he needs time for confidence to build and for that team to play to its full potential.
That has to be years not months.

But demonstrably they don't need the right players. How many managers come into a club and get what they want immediately? How many managers (in modern competitive situations) are allowed to underachieve for years before they get everything just so?

What you're describing just doesn't correspond with reality. Things are not so black and white; it's very unlikely a squad of players cannot remotely do what their manager wants; it's very unlikely a manager will have a way of playing that he cannot adapt to the situation at hand.

So the answer, I think, is simple: a manager should be employed until it becomes evident he won't succeed.

Now, that might take years and they may underachieve for a while but where's there's a sense of progress managers should and usually do keep their jobs.

 

[Mouse!]

I think as long as progression is steady or there are positive signs, then a manager should be given time. Under AVB, we were quite clearly getting worse, the longer his tenure went on. He had to go before we ended up in an irrecoverable position.

 

[Montasura]

It all very much depends on results and performances though.

Normally I'd say two to three years but if the team is getting thumped every week with no sign of improvement then much earlier needs to be expected. Other things need to be considered as well such as the managers relationship with players and owners.

To keep it Spurs related I think we got rid of Ramos and harry at the right time, Jol at the wrong time, and I'm totally on the hence with AVB.

From recollection the article about Ferguson is wrong. From what I remember he was only a few matches from being sacked in his first season. Might be wrong on that though as it was a while ago now.

 

[ultimateloner]

If we are not top 6 by winter he's out.

Reasons:
1) Ultimately results determine team progress. It's unlikely you lose 1-0 3 times in a row playing good football.
2) More time doesn't mean the manager will get it right.
3) Not having the right players isn't a good enough excuse either. Managers need to work with what they have, not what they want.

 

[TottenhamMattSpur]

I'd quite happily ditch a manager after 8 games if we'd only got 2 points.

 

[thinktank]

If we are not top 6 by winter he's out.

Reasons:
1) Ultimately results determine team progress. It's unlikely you lose 1-0 3 times in a row playing good football.
2) More time doesn't mean the manager will get it right.
3) Not having the right players isn't a good enough excuse either. Managers need to work with what they have, not what they want.

My god.

 

[CornerPinDreamer]

I think the answer is 6.5 feet

 

[LexingtonSpurs]

This is not a one-size fits all question.

But, in general, you give a manager as much time as he deserves based on your expectations and the quality of the squad at his disposal, including any injury issues.

Good coaches are hard to find, and you should keep the good ones as long as you can, even if there is a dip in performance (unless you determine that the dip in performance is related to the manager). Coaches who demonstrate the ability to teach and lead a squad do not generally forget how to do that - sometimes dips in performance are not related to the skills of the manager.

Take a look at Everton right now - did Roberto Martinez somehow forget how to coach this year?

 

[jezz]

If we are not top 6 by winter he's out.

Reasons:
1) Ultimately results determine team progress. It's unlikely you lose 1-0 3 times in a row playing good football.
2) More time doesn't mean the manager will get it right.
3) Not having the right players isn't a good enough excuse either. Managers need to work with what they have, not what they want.

You're worse than Levy and that's saying something.
By the way we're plus 6 goals and plus one point on last season corresponding fixtures.

 

[eViL]

3 years as long as we're beyond risk of relegation at any point.

 

[mpickard2087]

Ignoring the extreme disaster relegation battle scenarios, I'd say two seasons is a fair enough amount of time. That allows for changes and transition in the first season and an improvement towards the end of that campaign, and then at the end of the second season we should be able to see an established way of playing that the players have learnt and understood that is proving effective and hopefully good to watch. If at this point its still inconsistent and a bit chaotic, I'd be looking elsewhere...

I'm not one for setting targets such as league position, if we say battled all the way and stayed in contention with the front runners but finished 6th I wouldn't consider that grounds to sack the manager. As long as I keep seeing signs of progress on the pitch and am of the opinion that the manager knows what he is doing to keep pushing the team forward.

 

[Krafty]

Given the position our club is in right now, I think we should talk about transfer windows, and it will take probably 4 windows for Pochettino (or a manager in his situation) to sort the team out

1st window - offload those you know you don't want irrespective of anything else, sign two or three crucial players for the first team.
2nd/3rd window - marginalise senior players you have realised you don't fancy, try to sell them, bring in youth players, sign two-four players to replace or improve senior positions.
4th window - get rid of the last of the deadwood, bring in the last missing piece, have a balanced squad.

If I was to put in players for Poch this is how it goes:

OUT:
1st Dawson, Sandro
2-3 Lennon, Adebayor, Soldado, Naughton, Paulinho, Chiriches
4 - Dembele, perhaps Townsend/Bentaleb/Academy graduates that haven't made the grade.

IN:
1 - Davies, Fazio, Stambouli, Yedelin, Vorm
2/3 - Schneiderlin, Rodriguez, Moreno, another forward
4 - Another CM, Another winger (dependant on any youth prospects)

 

[danielneeds]

The problem with us as a club is that there is a culture of players thinking they can just down tools and there will be a new manager in a matter of months.

But then backing a manger to change the make up of the squad is no guarantee that in 2-3 years time you will be where you want to be.

Basically you have to know you have the right guy, and back him totally. The criteria for a right guy for me is - does he have a clear vision for what he wants to accomplish at the club? Does that vision fit in with the ethos and tradition of the club, and match the hopes and dreams of the fans? Is he prepared to be the first one in the door and last one out every single day? Is he a leader of men?

 

[dondo]

We usually give managers 18months . One average season and a poor start and your out . Rinse repeat rinse repeat

 

[TottenhamMattSpur]

The problem most of you miss is that there really is fuck all out there.

Just giving any chump time because he came over well in an interview and talks a good game doesn't mean you'll end up winning the title.
Hell, even his cv isn't always a true indication of his ability as he may have succeeded with another man's squad (AVB at Porto) or may not stay at many clubs to show his true colours long enough (LVG everywhere)

 

[LexingtonSpurs]

I have determined there is only one correct answer here:

π

 

[Nine while nine]

I have determined there is only one correct answer here:

π

Much as I love Poch, it would appear from his waistline that he has already been offered - and indeed accepted - Pi on a fair number of occasions.

 

[dontcallme]

Time isn't really the issue.

It's correct judgment and if the manager fits the club. If the manager wants a couple of players who we buy and then flop then you have to question whether you continue to trust him with your money.

If he's struggling to fit into the club and bad stuff is happening behind the scenes then you have to consider making a change regardless of time.

But this is why the hiring process has to be smart. Hiring a manager with an impressive CV, like Ramos, is not a guarantee of success if you haven't correctly judged other factors. Same as hiring a rookie who knows the club well at lower levels, like Sherwood, is not always a good idea.

Poch needs to be supported at the beginning which is why I believe we should have made a serious bid for Schneiderlin but keep signings, in quantity, to a low level in the 1st window. But if he isn't working out, not just in terms of results, then the board have to consider moving him on and maybe themselves.