What does Sacking a Manager achieve?

[Col_M]

This season has been like every other, where some clubs hit a crisis patch and take one of two courses of action:
1) Stick with their Manager
2) Sack him and replace.
The decision of course, is primarily based on two things, Expectations and Past Performance, although other factors come into play such as Time, Cost, Availability of replacements, Outside influences.

To define "Crisis", I have looked at their Expectations and concluded that the following teams met the criteria at some stage or other this season.

If you look at the STICK clubs, in most cases the decision has proved right with the odd exception.

• Arsenal, on course to meet season's realistic expectation, but will be disappointed to have not won silverware.
• Pool, Failed to qualify for CL again, this was the primary target. However it is a club in transition, have already won a trophy and reached the FA Cup final. Still not good enough. Dalglish still has strong support from the players, board and the fans but somebody had to be accountable. Comolli has been the scapegoat on this occasion.
• Stoke, On the back of their best season for a long time last year, did well in Europa but the games v squad ratio has been too much for them. Since Christmas they have hit some appalling form, but they are safe and need to regroup.
• Wigan, target is premiership survival on a budget...On Course
• Villa, struggling to achieve mid table mediocrity and still at risk from relegation. Jury Out.
• Rovers, This is the enigma for me. They looked Doomed from the start of the season. I really do not know what the Venky's strategy is.
• Spurs, Started badly, then reached for the title, then Capello resigned sending shockwaves through the club. Despite the awful recent form, Still on target for CL qualification.

We now look at the Sack clubs. I would argue

• Chelsea - The squad "needs an Overhaul". Well, whilst most non Chelsea fans were critical of Roman's ruthlessness in sacking a potentially brilliant coach, there is absolutely no doubt that it has proved to be the correct decision. Target, Win the CL, Win the League, Win a Domestic trophy. Realistic target, Qualify for CL and Win a cup. I have been stunned by the turnaround in fortunes that RDM has achieved in such a short period. He might even achieve the ultimate goal that Roman Abromovich has been trying to get his hands on simce he invested his fortune in the club.
• Wolves - Strange decision to sack McCarthy, were they really that far out of the race for premiership survival when they made the decision? He is a proven Relegation fighter, who, if relegated will get you promoted again fairly quickly. works well with the resources available. His replacement, despite the Chairman's promises was underwhelming, and I think the underwhelming has rubbed off on the players. They don't care.
• QPR - I understand this decision. Warnock is a Fruitcake of the highest order and spent a lot. I believe their target was a top half finish and to achieve greater success in the following season. His replacement was supposed to match the ambitions of the club, but so far he has matched his performance as a manager everywhere else he has been. I don't think players like him, i don't think Fans like him. I would be delighted to see QPR relegated, purely because of Hughes.

So, conclusion.......... Beats me. You need a combination of Talent, Vision, Luck and Money to do well in the league. Which Manager/Club has all 4, Manchester United.

 

[Armstrong_11]

change is good. companies reorganize and merge on a regular basis, most COE will stay in a company a few years before moving on..

i guess changing the manager gives the team something new when it needs it the most. when a new manager comes all the players know it's a clean slate and will start to fight for first time spots. and sometimes, that could be enough motivation to win games.

i think a good fit is important, some times the manager just isn't suited to a particular club, be it either political, or the players just do not understand or are not able to play like the manager wants them too.

 

[tototoner]

Chopping and changing your manager is fine if you have a rich owner , otherwise the grass isn't always greener

 

[Adam]

Every managerial change is a risk, whether its Guardiola to manchester United or Terry Connor getting the wolves job, they all have a big risk attached, as you just don't know what will happen. There are many instances where a manager has to go and the risk is worth taking though, so i guess it comes down to a decision of do we stick with what we've got even though it probably wont go well, or risk changing him which might work out brilliantly or not change a thing. Lot of pressure for any chairman to make that call

 

[Adam]

You've also missed out Sunderland, which was a great change

 

[kazzah9]

Warnock has worked wonders with Leeds...

 

[Col_M]

You've also missed out Sunderland, which was a great change

I knew there was someone missing!

 

[Bill_Oddie]

Part of the problem is that the very bestest best thing that a football club could have according to Conventional Wisdom is a legacy, something for one manager to oversee and infiltrate throughout the club.

However, the ONLY thing that matters is results. Clubs aren't going to put up with underperformance. A legacy is only possible WITH results. So they come first. So you can only actually appoint a manager with - at best - the next 2 seasons in mind. Maybe you can let the manager get away with moderately below average results for one season if the direction for the second season is better. But that's your lot. Hence why I don't think there's too much wrong with managerial changes if done sensibly and with an overall vision in mind, every 2-4 years or so.

That's why Redknapp was an excellent appointment for us. But if we asked him to reapply for the post this summer, he probably wouldn't get the job.