Pearson In/Out

[FLINTHAMFC]

I understand the frustrations or City fans, I am one too. The first stint under Pearson was easily our best period since Micky Adams promotion and the cracking Prem year that followed (even though we went down, still memorable). HIs win ratio is possibly the highest of any in recent times. I wouldn't say I was a fan of Pearsons appointment the first time, but he and the team won me over. Winning league one and then getting us in the play offs the next season, with next to no cash, was a job well done. Surely nobody can disagree with that. We then made the worst mistake in recent times and sacked him. I believe had we backed him then, we would be in the Prem now. I fear the same thing is going to happen again. I can already envisage a succession of highly paid managers getting us nowhere over the next few years. If the past has taught us anything, it is that we must stand by Pearson, back him and he will get us there. You know when you meet someone and you can instantly tell whether they are a winner or a loser, well Pearson is a winner.

It seems our neighbours Forest did the same thing with Billy Davies. Everyone who knows anything about football, knows he is a winner. Perhaps not the nicest bloke but you can't have everything. HE got them in the play offs how many times, with no cash. What did they do, sacked him and bought in a succession of high profile, highly paid managers who got nowhere. Then they get Davies back and hey presto Forest are a force again. Had they not sacked him the first time they too would be a Prem team already.

It is easy to be disappointed with recent displays, but our team is just no quite there yet. It will get there though and when it does we will get promoted. We have to stop thinking we have the automatic right to win matches. We are not Real Madrid or Man Utd, we cannot roll teams over. On a good day we can beat anyone in the league easily. We will become more consistant just keep the faith. We have creamed Cardiff twice and got 1 point. We creamed Blackburn twice and got 3 points. I can go on and on. The team is getting there. Don't let a bad spell make you lose focus. We are still in the play offs and whilst I agree the last 4 games are tricky on paper, we can do it. If anything we are better against the better teams, so the run in could benefit us.

[_Fatboyslow_]

Like most posters, I've spent the weekend wondering what the best course of action is,

I for one spent most of my time trying to work out how I went out with £90 cashed up £270 in the casino but only had £105 in my wallet when I woke up Sunday

[Happy Fox]

Nigel Adkins yes please athough we probably wouldn't get promoted this season I would feel a fair more confident that Adkins would deliver promotion next season compared to NP.

[TrentFox]

I for one spent most of my time trying to work out how I went out with £90 cashed up £270 in the casino but only had £105 in my wallet when I woke up Sunday

Do you have a strange, irritable rash anywhere ???????

[nickelbyfox]

I still think promotion is well within in our grasp - and think Pearson should get one more game. If we lose against Millwall he should really get the sack as we still have a decent chance this year and think that a change in manager could spark us into the play-offs and even up.

[_Fatboyslow_]

Do you have a strange, irritable rash anywhere ???????

Not yet

[Manwell Pablo]

And as you are aware sometimes results get worse when a manager is sacked.

They can't really get any worse at the minute though so we don't have to worry about that.

[Babylon]

They can't really get any worse at the minute though so we don't have to worry about that.

Ha yeah fair point.

[Leicesterpool]

It's the mirror today Adkins lined up!

[Danno]

I think we have a team very similar to Southamptons when they went up

[Guest shearfox]

I still think promotion is well within in our grasp - and think Pearson should get one more game. If we lose against Millwall he should really get the sack as we still have a decent chance this year and think that a change in manager could spark us into the play-offs and even up.

If we are going to change the manager yet again after not really giving him a full season, then we should get rid now while we have the international break...

[_Fatboyslow_]

It's the mirror today Adkins lined up!

One day it may be right but most will forget about the countless times it was wrong

[Leicester_Numan]

Don't know if this has been posted anywhere but it's an interesting piece from the Guardian.

Football

Sunday 17 March 2013 23.00 GMT

Dropping pilot doesn't stop ship going down – Reading, please note

Sacking a manager is, on average, more harmful to a team's performance in the short term than doing nothing

Brian McDermott paid the price for poor results at Reading but all chairmen should have a realistic idea of their team's likely performance before the season starts. Photograph: Dan Rowley/ Dan Rowley/Colorsport/Corbis

Sean Ingle

Your club is sinking faster than a drunk's standards. Its recent points tally looks like binary code, and when the mob again snarls that the manager doesn't know what he's doing, the chairman decides: enough. Reprise, repeat.

This season 31 managers have been sacked, or agreed 'by mutual consent' – that bizarre footballing spontaneous combustion – to disappear in a puff of smoke with a huge payoff. The latest, Reading's Brian McDermott, left to the sound of bewildered gasps and sorry sighs. He will be back. Football is increasingly good at recycling its managers.

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 League information. Their conclusion was startling.

Sacking a manager is, on average, more harmful to a team's performance in the short term than doing nothing.

Their workings are advanced but you don't need a maths PhD to understand the fundamentals. For every club that dispensed of a manager they created a control group – another team with a similar sequence of results as the one making the dismissal, but with one crucial difference: they stuck with their coach.

The researchers' diligence didn't end there. They also controlled for variables such as the league position at the time of the dismissal, the timing within the season and the length of time a manager had spent in the job.

When the data was churned and crunched and spat out, they found that while appointing a new manager did, on average, lead to an improvement in his first 13 games, it was marginally less than the control group. Sticking with your manager was worth an extra league point over the same period. Studies on the Eredivisie by Bas ter Weel of Maastricht University, and on La Liga by David Forrest of Salford University, have found similar results.

The reason? Football is more random than we think. Dismissals usually follow a poor run of results but those defeats are often down to random bad luck, injuries, a tough run of fixtures and such like, all of which eventually revert to the mean. When they do, those frustrating defeats and draws suddenly become wins.

Of course, change is sometimes necessary. No one disputes that. And an average is just that – some new managers will perform better than it, others worse. But the research is clear: sacking shouldn't be based solely on recent results.

Too often, however, chairmen stick their finger in their air and see which way the wind is blowing. Sometimes it isn't even that scientific.

All chairmen should have a realistic idea of their team's likely performance before the season starts. Reading, for instance, were even- money favourites for relegation with Sporting Bet last summer, who also forecast they would get 37-40 points. McDermott wasn't ripping up giant oaks, but only a visitor from the planet Zog – and, apparently, the club's owner Anton Zingarevich – would have been surprised at Reading's results.

Some knowledge of recent history helps too. Nine managers have been sacked by clubs in the relegation places in March or later since the Premier League began – and all nine went down.

As Forrest suggests, if you are going to wield the axe, do it when a new manager still has a chance, and the funds, to turn things around, as with QPR. Or, alternatively, do it when all hopes for the season are extinguished and the new man can rebuild for the following campaign.

Another key point, as Rob Mastrodomenico of Global Sports Statistics points out, is that a manager's success is largely dependent on his players: "Teams are essentially a function of what players they have – and while a manager can improve tactics and morale, if you sack someone there are usually some underlying problems." Problems that are unlikely to be resolved with the same staff. Does anyone believe that Pep Guardiola, for all his genius, could lead Reading into the Champions League?

Of course, there will be times when internal squabbles boil over, or when a manager loses the dressing room, or when he turns out to be rubbish. But too often we – clubs, fans and, yes, journalists – overreact to bad results, which, over time, will even out. The research suggests that unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise, those with the power might do best to let their fingers rest longer on the trigger before squeezing – as you suspect Zingarevich may soon discover.

Worth thinking about for anyone wanting us to sack another manager at such a crucial stage of the season.

[Guest Col city fan]

Don't know if this has been posted anywhere but it's an interesting piece from the Guardian.

Football

Sunday 17 March 2013 23.00 GMT

Dropping pilot doesn't stop ship going down – Reading, please note

Sacking a manager is, on average, more harmful to a team's performance in the short term than doing nothing

Brian McDermott paid the price for poor results at Reading but all chairmen should have a realistic idea of their team's likely performance before the season starts. Photograph: Dan Rowley/ Dan Rowley/Colorsport/Corbis

Sean Ingle

Your club is sinking faster than a drunk's standards. Its recent points tally looks like binary code, and when the mob again snarls that the manager doesn't know what he's doing, the chairman decides: enough. Reprise, repeat.

This season 31 managers have been sacked, or agreed 'by mutual consent' – that bizarre footballing spontaneous combustion – to disappear in a puff of smoke with a huge payoff. The latest, Reading's Brian McDermott, left to the sound of bewildered gasps and sorry sighs. He will be back. Football is increasingly good at recycling its managers.

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 League information. Their conclusion was startling.

Sacking a manager is, on average, more harmful to a team's performance in the short term than doing nothing.

Their workings are advanced but you don't need a maths PhD to understand the fundamentals. For every club that dispensed of a manager they created a control group – another team with a similar sequence of results as the one making the dismissal, but with one crucial difference: they stuck with their coach.

The researchers' diligence didn't end there. They also controlled for variables such as the league position at the time of the dismissal, the timing within the season and the length of time a manager had spent in the job.

When the data was churned and crunched and spat out, they found that while appointing a new manager did, on average, lead to an improvement in his first 13 games, it was marginally less than the control group. Sticking with your manager was worth an extra league point over the same period. Studies on the Eredivisie by Bas ter Weel of Maastricht University, and on La Liga by David Forrest of Salford University, have found similar results.

The reason? Football is more random than we think. Dismissals usually follow a poor run of results but those defeats are often down to random bad luck, injuries, a tough run of fixtures and such like, all of which eventually revert to the mean. When they do, those frustrating defeats and draws suddenly become wins.

Of course, change is sometimes necessary. No one disputes that. And an average is just that – some new managers will perform better than it, others worse. But the research is clear: sacking shouldn't be based solely on recent results.

Too often, however, chairmen stick their finger in their air and see which way the wind is blowing. Sometimes it isn't even that scientific.

All chairmen should have a realistic idea of their team's likely performance before the season starts. Reading, for instance, were even- money favourites for relegation with Sporting Bet last summer, who also forecast they would get 37-40 points. McDermott wasn't ripping up giant oaks, but only a visitor from the planet Zog – and, apparently, the club's owner Anton Zingarevich – would have been surprised at Reading's results.

Some knowledge of recent history helps too. Nine managers have been sacked by clubs in the relegation places in March or later since the Premier League began – and all nine went down.

As Forrest suggests, if you are going to wield the axe, do it when a new manager still has a chance, and the funds, to turn things around, as with QPR. Or, alternatively, do it when all hopes for the season are extinguished and the new man can rebuild for the following campaign.

Another key point, as Rob Mastrodomenico of Global Sports Statistics points out, is that a manager's success is largely dependent on his players: "Teams are essentially a function of what players they have – and while a manager can improve tactics and morale, if you sack someone there are usually some underlying problems." Problems that are unlikely to be resolved with the same staff. Does anyone believe that Pep Guardiola, for all his genius, could lead Reading into the Champions League?

Of course, there will be times when internal squabbles boil over, or when a manager loses the dressing room, or when he turns out to be rubbish. But too often we – clubs, fans and, yes, journalists – overreact to bad results, which, over time, will even out. The research suggests that unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise, those with the power might do best to let their fingers rest longer on the trigger before squeezing – as you suspect Zingarevich may soon discover.

Worth thinking about for anyone wanting us to sack another manager at such a crucial stage of the season.

Nah!

Sack the cvnt..

Innit...

[_Fatboyslow_]

Interesting post Numan

[indierich06]

come around to the sensible side so to speak

So anyone who thinks that sacking the manager is a bad idea while we're in the playoffs after a bit of a poor run isn't 'sensible'?

He's made a bit of a hash of things recently, but there would be nothing remotely 'sensible' about sacking him with just 8 games to go. If we don't get promoted I'm sure the Thais will consider his position and rightly so. Personally, I'd stick with him even if we don't get promoted, purely because I don't think there are many managers out there that would want to come here, or who would be significantly better than Pearson.

I've seen Adkins' name banded about, as well as Di Matteo and Di Canio... Well for me, Adkins is very overrated and is quite a similar manager to Pearson anyway. If you want diferent tactics then you won't want this guy because he plays 4-4-2 99% of the time as well. Yes, he managed to get a very good Southampton side promoted (after Pardew laid the foundations and did all the hard work for him) but he struggled severely in the Premier League.

As for Di Matteo, well that's just a non-starter. Why would any manager with a Champions League trophy to his name drop down into the Championship? It would be a huge step back for him, we'd have to pay a fortune in wages to get him and we wouldn't be able to offer much in the form of a transfer kitty either.

Di Canio - unproven in this league and too unpredicatable. I'm sure people would 'enjoy' his crazy rants and constant fallouts with players - it would certainly make a change from dour Pearson, but do we really want that kind of manager at a club which is crying out for stability?

Who else is there? Seriously, what manager would want to come to a club where the fans are crying out for their manager to be sacked on the back of one poor run in the club's best season for ten years? I think Nigel Pearson has severe limitations, I think people would be right to question his future here if we don't get promoted this season, but Pearson also has a lot of strengths too - with recruitment right at the top of the list, which is important with the advent of FFP. So on the balance of things, I'd keep him purely because I think his strengths outweigh his weaknesses and will be particularly valuable in the coming seasons where we need to recruit quality players for sensible fees and wages and I don't think there is anyone on the market who would come to us and do a significantly better job.

[ealingfox]

So anyone who thinks that sacking the manager is a bad idea while we're in the playoffs after a bit of a poor run isn't 'sensible'?

He's made a bit of a hash of things recently, but there would be nothing remotely 'sensible' about sacking him with just 8 games to go. If we don't get promoted I'm sure the Thais will consider his position and rightly so. Personally, I'd stick with him even if we don't get promoted, purely because I don't think there are many managers out there that would want to come here, or who would be significantly better than Pearson.

I've seen Adkins' name banded about, as well as Di Matteo and Di Canio... Well for me, Adkins is very overrated and is quite a similar manager to Pearson anyway. If you want diferent tactics then you won't want this guy because he plays 4-4-2 99% of the time as well. Yes, he managed to get a very good Southampton side promoted (after Pardew laid the foundations and did all the hard work for him) but he struggled severely in the Premier League.

As for Di Matteo, well that's just a non-starter. Why would any manager with a Champions League trophy to his name drop down into the Championship? It would be a huge step back for him, we'd have to pay a fortune in wages to get him and we wouldn't be able to offer much in the form of a transfer kitty either.

Di Canio - unproven in this league and too unpredicatable. I'm sure people would 'enjoy' his crazy rants and constant fallouts with players - it would certainly make a change from dour Pearson, but do we really want that kind of manager at a club which is crying out for stability?

Who else is there? Seriously, what manager would want to come to a club where the fans are crying out for their manager to be sacked on the back of one poor run in the club's best season for ten years? I think Nigel Pearson has severe limitations, I think people would be right to question his future here if we don't get promoted this season, but Pearson also has a lot of strengths too - with recruitment right at the top of the list, which is important with the advent of FFP. So on the balance of things, I'd keep him purely because I think his strengths outweigh his weaknesses and will be particularly valuable in the coming seasons where we need to recruit quality players for sensible fees and wages and I don't think there is anyone on the market who would come to us and do a significantly better job.

No, actually he was doing extremely well considering. They weren't in the bottom 3 when he got chopped and had spent much of the season putting in big performances. He would have kept them up this season, I'm sure of it.

[indierich06]

As your aware sometimes when a new manager comes in players want to impress and there can be improved results as a result. The Thais might believe that this is a risk worth taking in order to stay in and win the play offs, If i had to bet one way or another i would bet that he will be sacked sometime in the next fortnight.

If they were going to sack him the ideal time would have been after the Derby game. We could have gotten a new manager in to work with the team during the international break and to assess the squad etc. I can't believe they'll sack him before the end of the season now and if they do, they've missed the best opportunity to do it which would be ridiculous.

[indierich06]

No, actually he was doing extremely well considering. They weren't in the bottom 3 when he got chopped and had spent much of the season putting in big performances. He would have kept them up this season, I'm sure of it.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree then, I have severe doubts over whether he would have kept them up... so did the owners apparently, as they were the ones who pulled the trigger.

[Babylon]

So anyone who thinks that sacking the manager is a bad idea while we're in the playoffs after a bit of a poor run isn't 'sensible'?

He's made a bit of a hash of things recently, but there would be nothing remotely 'sensible' about sacking him with just 8 games to go. If we don't get promoted I'm sure the Thais will consider his position and rightly so. Personally, I'd stick with him even if we don't get promoted, purely because I don't think there are many managers out there that would want to come here, or who would be significantly better than Pearson.

I've seen Adkins' name banded about, as well as Di Matteo and Di Canio... Well for me, Adkins is very overrated and is quite a similar manager to Pearson anyway. If you want diferent tactics then you won't want this guy because he plays 4-4-2 99% of the time as well. Yes, he managed to get a very good Southampton side promoted (after Pardew laid the foundations and did all the hard work for him) but he struggled severely in the Premier League.

As for Di Matteo, well that's just a non-starter. Why would any manager with a Champions League trophy to his name drop down into the Championship? It would be a huge step back for him, we'd have to pay a fortune in wages to get him and we wouldn't be able to offer much in the form of a transfer kitty either.

Di Canio - unproven in this league and too unpredicatable. I'm sure people would 'enjoy' his crazy rants and constant fallouts with players - it would certainly make a change from dour Pearson, but do we really want that kind of manager at a club which is crying out for stability?

Who else is there? Seriously, what manager would want to come to a club where the fans are crying out for their manager to be sacked on the back of one poor run in the club's best season for ten years? I think Nigel Pearson has severe limitations, I think people would be right to question his future here if we don't get promoted this season, but Pearson also has a lot of strengths too - with recruitment right at the top of the list, which is important with the advent of FFP. So on the balance of things, I'd keep him purely because I think his strengths outweigh his weaknesses and will be particularly valuable in the coming seasons where we need to recruit quality players for sensible fees and wages and I don't think there is anyone on the market who would come to us and do a significantly better job.

Eh... Pardew laid the foundations? They were near the bottom of league one when he took over.

[indierich06]

The only manager out there who I think would do a good job here is Paul Lambert. If he gets Villa relegated, he'll be sacked without a doubt and we might be able to lure him here. He's a very good manager who has been severely handicapped and hamstrung by the conditions he's had to work under at Villa and I think we could do a lot worse.

[indierich06]

Eh... Pardew laid the foundations? They were near the bottom of league one when he took over.

Yeah, they were near the bottom of the table when Pardew was sacked. It was also just three games into the season and after Saints had just beaten Bristol Rovers 4-0. The table means nothing at that point in the season.

The season before they finished 7th despite a ten point deduction and - apart from a couple of additions - it was the squad that Pardew built, including their talisman, Rickie Lambert, which acheived promotion. So yes, I think it's fair to say that Pardew laid the foundations for Adkins success.

[ealingfox]

Well we'll have to agree to disagree then, I have severe doubts over whether he would have kept them up... so did the owners apparently, as they were the ones who pulled the trigger.

The difference being that I'm going on empirical evidence, such as their performances, results and league position prior to his sacking, and you are going on 'severe doubts'.

Do you also disagree that he didn't deserve the sack?

[indierich06]

The difference being that I'm going on empirical evidence, such as their performances, results and league position prior to his sacking, and you are going on 'severe doubts'.

Do you also disagree that he didn't deserve the sack?

I never said he deserved the sack, I'm going on empirical evidence as well; my doubts came from watching a lot of their games and thinking that, while they put in some plucky performances and got a few good results, they lacked the quality and Adkins lacked the tactical acumen to keep them up in the end. That's my belief, whether you agree or not doesn't particularly matter much to me.

I've seen nothing from him to suggest that he'd be a significantly better option than Pearson IMO, and - personally - I wouldn't be that excited about his appointment.

[Rusko187]

So if Pearson or Wood wouldn't come out and talk to the press or public about it, how the **** would anyone ever know? Just more proof that these rumours are bollocks. People say there's no smoke without fire. Well, I could post on twitter every day that Billy Davies likes to strum himself senseless while watching the boys in the showers after a Forest match. If I post it enough, and other people pick up on it and post it too, does that make it true?

It's fact isn't it, Pearson has had previous with falling out with players ala Gradel, St Ledger and Mills. I'm not saying that perhaps their attitudes didn't contribute to it but the fact remains that fallouts have been more frequent. Did NP come out in the press to say he's had a bust up on those 3 examples..... nope, they will always deny accusations like that. Don't get me wrong NP and Wood probably didn't have a fallout but can you 100% confirm that they didn't?