Robo61 Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 As Col has said, this season's promoted sides were led by managers who'd been in post for a max of two seasons, 2011/12 Adkins too Southampton up in successive seasons, Allardyce instant success, McDermot in his first full season, 2010/11 Warnock first full season, Lambert successive seasons, Rodgers first season 2009/10 Houghton first season, DiMatteo first season, Holloway first season 2008/09 McCarthy (THIRD SEASON), McLeish returned at first attempt, Coyle first full season 2007/08 Mowbray first full season, Pulis first full season, Brown first full season 2006/07 Keane first season, Bruce returned first attempt, Davies first season I could go on but instant success under your terms (i.e. as long as Pearson has currently had) is the norm. Undoubtedly 'instant' failure is probably also quite likely but either way, if you want out of this league then swapping managers frequently is the only way. This proves nothing accept the old saying - lies damn lies and statistics. Of the 24 managers that finished in last years championship just three managers had been in post for 2 full seasons or more.
Guest Col city fan Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 Of course it does look better when you say things like "instant success" and "Successive seasons" and "first full season". When in reality what that means is it's actually their second or even third season at the club. Most of the posts on here suggest, articulately, that this 'managerial consistency' thing is actually false, or pretty much so. Get 'the right man' in and he will do a job within a relatively short space of time. For some reason, you don't simply want to concur and agree that this is actually the case, but seem to want to 'defend' the pretty poor set of arguments, in my opinion, being put forward by MC.Lets be honest... First or second season.. Whichever surely implies 'short-term' doesn't it? It certainly doesn't suggest a bloke who's been at a club 10 years does it? It's not 'long-term' or 'consistent is it'?
fleckneymike Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 This proves nothing accept the old saying - lies damn lies and statistics. Of the 24 managers that finished in last years championship just three managers had been in post for 2 full seasons or more. If you read the last line of my post I acknowledge that
5waller5 Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 This proves nothing accept the old saying - lies damn lies and statistics. Of the 24 managers that finished in last years championship just three managers had been in post for 2 full seasons or more. Out of interest who were they??
Robo61 Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 If you read the last line of my post I acknowledge that No you don't you say "if you want out of this league then swapping managers frequently is the only way" It would also appear to be true that if you want to stay in this league or get relegated from changing the manager frequently is the only way, as we have proved over the last 12 years.
fleckneymike Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 No you don't you say "if you want out of this league then swapping managers frequently is the only way" It would also appear to be true that if you want to stay in this league or get relegated from changing the manager frequently is the only way, as we have proved over the last 12 years. You conveniently ignore the first part of me sentence Undoubtedly 'instant' failure is probably also quite likely but either way, "either way' indicating promotion OR relegation.
Robo61 Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 You conveniently ignore the first part of me sentence Undoubtedly 'instant' failure is probably also quite likely but either way, "either way' indicating promotion OR relegation. As you did by repeating the mantra that changing managers is the only way to success, your stats clearly do not show that.
fleckneymike Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 As you did by repeating the mantra that changing managers is the only way to success, your stats clearly do not show that. But they do. The overwhelming majority of clubs at our level 'change' managers, some clubs remain in the division, others gain promotion. Virtually none of the promoted sides in the last decade have had a man in position for more than two whole seasons, the 'majority' achieve success after a man has been in position for just one year.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 The question is, does one keep a manager who fails?. The answer is clearly no. If we fail again this season, then he will have to go, but let's wait until the new season is over. Then we will know for sure whether Pearson is our man, or not.
Leicester_Numan Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 Mr Numan it is obvious that I am new to this game....WHATEVER the circumstances of our dealings with them regarding players have no bearing on the fact that Hull did not try very hard to keep Nigel, which subsequently paid off with their aquisition of Steve Bruce who guided them to promotion I may not know much about the intricacies of messageboards but I have followed Leicester City for since 1942 and their plight still plays an enormous amount of my time in my life Really depends on what you consider to be fighting hard. We made a few approaches that were rebuffed. It took Pearson saying he wanted to leave for them to give in. They even accused us of unsettling him with unnofficial approaches.
Leicester_Numan Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 Sorry folks it looks like ive stirred up a hornets nest here (and I dont mean watford)Not really, this has been going on since the day he came back
Leicester_Numan Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 The question is, does one keep a manager who fails?. The answer is clearly no. If we fail again this season, then he will have to go, but let's wait until the new season is over. Then we will know for sure whether Pearson is our man, or not.Sanity prevails in the end. Can we close the thread now?
Robo61 Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 But they do. The overwhelming majority of clubs at our level 'change' managers, some clubs remain in the division, others gain promotion. Virtually none of the promoted sides in the last decade have had a man in position for more than two whole seasons, the 'majority' achieve success after a man has been in position for just one year. Virtually no side gets promoted with a manager who has been in place for more than 2 seasons simply because virtually no team has a manager that has been at the club for more than two seasons. You are entitled to argue subjectively that NP should have gone based on his lack of ability, but not on this flawed science.
fleckneymike Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 Virtually no side gets promoted with a manager who has been in place for more than 2 seasons simply because virtually no team has a manager that has been at the club for more than two seasons. You are entitled to argue subjectively that NP should have gone based on his lack of ability, but not on this flawed science. Where have I said I want him sacked? I don't. I just want good football, if we play shit football (regardless of where we are/finish) I'll want a new manager. My point is stability is a fallacy, no one does it. If we're going to have a new man every couple of years lets make sure it's someone who plays entertaining football as it'll make the time pass a damn site quicker.
indierich06 Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 Get 'the right man' in and he will do a job within a relatively short space of time. The problem is though, everyone seems to think there's some magic formula for finding the right man. Whenever a club appoints a manager, they do it in the belief that he's 'the right man' - why would they employ him otherwise? More often than not, the man you employ doesn't bring the immediate success the club is after, so he's sacked and the cycle goes on. Then you end up in a position like ours, with ten years outside of the top flight and no guarantee of returning any time soon. I don't believe in just sticking with a manager for the sake of stability, but I think it's just as damaging to a club to sack managers every 18 months in the hope that you'll stumble on the right guy who will do the business for you. There's no easy formula for achieving success and it doesn't help when you have people who have no idea about football in charge of appointing managers.
Robo61 Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 Sorry for not reading all the posts. Not sure I get the "because nobody does it" argument, perhaps we should and we may just be pleasantly surprised. Agree though with you on entertainment, but I reckon for a period last season we played the most entertaining football since Bloomfields day.
shade Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 for every season a manager finishes top ten, give him another season, eventually he will either get you promoted or slip below tenth, in which case, sack him. simple as that.
seenitall Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 I don't really get what 'demanding greatness' will do for our chances of getting promotion. It won't get the manager sacked, it won't make the players any better, it won't magic any cash up for new signings - if that was all that was required, I'd be outside the King Power Stadium every day 'demanding greatness'. Newcastle and Man City didn't achieve what they've achieved because their fans 'demanded' it - that's an absolutely ludicrous suggestion to make. I suppose it was the fans refusal to accept failure that won Man city a Premier League title? Not the hundreds of millions pumped into the club by the oil barons running the show? Why didn't they win the Premier League before? Oh, their fans must not have 'demanded' it enough. At the end of the day, NOTHING we do as fans will have any effect on whether our club will go on to be successful. We're run by a couple of duty free magnates who haven't got a clue about football or how to invest their money wisely in this game. Consequently we've had about 3 years of failure, accumulated more debt than when we were in administration and we've gotten absolutely nowhere. We've blown the best chance we've ever had to establish ourselves in the PL and it's absolutely criminal the amount of money we've wasted on shit. I'm happy to see Pearson stay for the time being, but that's because there is no-one out there for me who would want to come to this shambles of a club or who could do a better job - and that is a depressing thought. So you can all continue to demand success all you like, see if that helps with our financial situation, or with results on the pitch, or see if that'll do anything to convince the thais to write off their debts and **** off, giving someone who actually knows what they're doing a chance. I love this club and I'm as ambitious as anyone, but it sickens me to see what's being done to Leicester City. Nothing but a thai boy's plaything now and he doesn't know what to do with it to make it work. He's spent too much money on trying to get success and now there's none left. So we've got to make do with what we've got - a slightly above average championship squad and a slightly above average championship manager. And they're expected to work mircales? Well maybe if we 'demand success' a bit more vociferously, that will see us over the line. Excuse me if I don't hold my breath though. Two major faults with this...... No one suggested that Man City won the league because of their fans, you made that up. Their fans belief in them and what they could achieve and what their status should be kept the clubs owners and later prospective investors also believing that they were big clubs, they never accepted their lowly status, unlike many on here appear to have done with us. The fact that now, two years after slating me for suggesting our owners were struggling you now agree with me I will takevas a compliment...........
He's not bald Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 Two major faults with this...... No one suggested that Man City won the league because of their fans, you made that up. Their fans belief in them and what they could achieve and what their status should be kept the clubs owners and later prospective investors also believing that they were big clubs, they never accepted their lowly status, unlike many on here appear to have done with us. The fact that now, two years after slating me for suggesting our owners were struggling you now agree with me I will takevas a compliment........... Have to agree that pretty much nails it!
Raw Dykes Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 Two major faults with this...... No one suggested that Man City won the league because of their fans, you made that up. Their fans belief in them and what they could achieve and what their status should be kept the clubs owners and later prospective investors also believing that they were big clubs, they never accepted their lowly status, unlike many on here appear to have done with us. The fact that now, two years after slating me for suggesting our owners were struggling you now agree with me I will takevas a compliment........... It is possible for someone to struggle two years after they had been coping fine.
Dan Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 Most of this is wrong (as usual) Both Newcastle and Man City became Premier League clubs before their current owners took over. Their fans demanded and expected better things of them and their owners knew they had the following if they believed......we are a 32,000 supporters club when the team is right (there was even talk of another tier at Walkers to get more in once). The club has been mismanaged at both board and team level for years - you accept it, I don't. Can't be arsed to look it up but this has to be the longest out of the topflight in the last 50 years. Not acceptable for a team of our history, support and size.......it is only the acceptance by the beaten down supporters that allows it to be so...support the club not the idiots in charge, you are part of the problem otherwise I think the majority of our fanbase accept we've been mis-managed. I just think a lot also appreciate that we're far closer than we were. Chopping and changing every year has done us absolutely nothing.
john ridley Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 look ,the way the pre season's shaped up and the general negativity around we're not going to be on about this for too long ,if things carry on from last season maybe 10 games at most,then most on here will be happy
paulsherwood1 Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 I find it difficult to subscribe to the 'give him time' school of thought. Look at Bournemouth, bottom 3 of league one, brought Eddie Howe back and got promoted the same season. Forest, flirted with relegation, bring Billy back and miss out on the play offs on the last day. Hull, Pearson couldn't make it to the play offs, Bruce gets them promoted. The best example of a manager being given time ( and it is the closest example out there ) is Malkay Makay at Cardiff. The board allowed him to build his team and that worked. I have been extremely critical of NP on here, but we are where we are now. He has been given the same time as Makay, and kept his squad together like Makay did after cardiffs play off failure. So it is not unreasonable to expect that this is the season NP delivers. I think he has been a very lucky man given the appalling run of form last season, so lets see how we start and re-assess in October.
indierich06 Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 Two major faults with this...... No one suggested that Man City won the league because of their fans, you made that up. Their fans belief in them and what they could achieve and what their status should be kept the clubs owners and later prospective investors also believing that they were big clubs, they never accepted their lowly status, unlike many on here appear to have done with us. The fact that now, two years after slating me for suggesting our owners were struggling you now agree with me I will takevas a compliment........... Firstly, I have never slated you for criticising the owners and I've done it myself on many occasions. I was extremely vocal about my disappointment in them when we were being linked with the crook Redknapp last season. Secondly, I stand by my point about Man City - the fans might have played a small part in the owners decision to invest in the club, but to suggest that the owners bought into the Man City 'big club' mentality is ridiculous, Man City have always been a fairly small club and besides a bit of success in the 60s/70s, they've never really won anything. They've always been the noisy neighbours, always in the shadow of Man United. Before the money came along, they were not a big Premier League club - they always had good attendances - but before Shinawatra turned up, they were a club fighting relegation with a poor squad and an inept manager in Stuart Pearce. They are unrecognisable today from the club they were in 2007. If demanding success and pretending you're a massive club when you're not is all it takes to get success (and success in Man City's case has only come via a sheikh throwing hundreds of millions of pounds at them) then why aren't clubs like Leeds, or Sheffield Wednesday flying up the table? Where are the investors who want to come and lavish cash on these massive clubs? Every fan of this club wants success, but we won't get it by simply demanding it. And whether we demand it or not, it will have little effect on events on of off the pitch.
Babylon Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 Forest, flirted with relegation, bring Billy back and miss out on the play offs on the last day. They were six points off the top six, I would hardly call that flirting with relegation. The fact they ended up 1 point off the play offs was as much to do with ours and Boro's spectacular collapse as much as it was anything he did. Over the last 8 games they had worse form than us... and apparently we are going to get relegated. Hull, Pearson couldn't make it to the play offs, Bruce gets them promoted. He had one full season and had to rip his squad apart to get their finances in shape, when he left they were looking good for a play off place. His time there is hardly a fair comparison to Bruce who walked into a team with a decent core and was given a shit load of cash to spend. He has been given the same time as Makay, and kept his squad together like Makay did after cardiffs play off failure. So it is not unreasonable to expect that this is the season NP delivers. I think he has been a very lucky man given the appalling run of form last season, so lets see how we start and re-assess in October. If only the owners could give him £12m to spend this summer like they did Makay.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.