So I came across this article on the BBC.

 

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/32957232

 

Arsene Wenger aside (and MK Dons by a month), you have to go down to League 2 before you even find a manager who has been in the job for over 5 years.

 

Including those two, there are only SIX managers who have held their jobs since before 2010.

 

Shocking really.

Which means short term switching doesn't work but clubs persist in doing it. In my view 5 years is minimum to sort out a club especially one who is struggling.

So 5 years of Megson or Doogie?

 

How about the lack of home grown managers being appointed?

 

Are they not good enough or too expensive

So 5 years of Megson or Doogie?

 

How about the lack of home grown managers being appointed?

 

Are they not good enough or too expensive

5 years of Megson and we'd still be a premiership club.

5 years of Megson and we'd still be a premiership club.

 

Nob

Which means short term switching doesn't work but clubs persist in doing it. In my view 5 years is minimum to sort out a club especially one who is struggling.

In that respect you could argue it does work and that's why teams do it, as there'll be teams who've done well in each division by chopping and changing

 

Norwich for example

 

And Like we thought around last Christmas after we binned off df after 2 years

 

Just a shame you can't sack shit players

So 5 years of Megson or Doogie?

 

How about the lack of home grown managers being appointed?

 

Are they not good enough or too expensive

And where has switching got us? Short term gain but long term problems that remain unaddressed and get worse.

And where has switching got us? Short term gain but long term problems that remain unaddressed and get worse.

So, you are attributing that to "switching"

 

Maybe it's because of "the wrong switching"

 

Or "despite the switching"

If there where more black managers around this would solve the problem as clubs would have to think about the racist card being played when they sacked the useless cunt

If there where more black managers around this would solve the problem as clubs would have to think about the racist card being played when they sacked the useless cunt

 

but that is (part of) why they don't appoint them in the first place!

Follow-up article:

 

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/32549408

 

So apparently the average tenure of a manager in the Championship is only 11 months, 17 months in the Premier League, and 18 months in Leagues 1 and 2.

 

THAT is definitely too much chopping and changing. You've hardly had time to assess the players and bring in recruits by the time you're fired.

So, you are attributing that to "switching"

 

Maybe it's because of "the wrong switching"

 

Or "despite the switching"

The wrong switching? If there was really great switches available then there'd be more clubs not switching and sticking longer term.

 

Fact is that managers have limited ability to change things round quickly nowadays. The balance is different. You can't turn a club around quickly unless you either have pots to spend or great players to sell and raise money.

 

It is seen as a quick fix. But none of our sackings have long term made us any better. In fact we've got progressively worse. At best that is inspite of switching and we'd have been better of just sticking and saving millions. At worst the switching has contributed towards the downfall.

Follow-up article:

 

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/32549408

 

So apparently the average tenure of a manager in the Championship is only 11 months, 17 months in the Premier League, and 18 months in Leagues 1 and 2.

 

THAT is definitely too much chopping and changing. You've hardly had time to assess the players and bring in recruits by the time you're fired.

The problem with averages though is its skewed by the likes of Leeds Blackpool Charlton

The wrong switching? If there was really great switches available then there'd be more clubs not switching and sticking longer term.

 

Fact is that managers have limited ability to change things round quickly nowadays. The balance is different. You can't turn a club around quickly unless you either have pots to spend or great players to sell and raise money.

 

It is seen as a quick fix. But none of our sackings have long term made us any better. In fact we've got progressively worse. At best that is inspite of switching and we'd have been better of just sticking and saving millions. At worst the switching has contributed towards the downfall.

I really do hope you're not in some way saying we shouldn't have go rid of either Owen Coyle or Douglas Freedman?

 

Please god no.

I really do hope you're not in some way saying we shouldn't have go rid of either Owen Coyle or Douglas Freedman?

Please god no.

I'm saying we are no better off. In fact worse. They may well have been terrible managers. But we've successively finished lower each season regardless. It makes the switching of managers either pointless or detrimental.

I'm saying we are no better off. In fact worse. They may well have been terrible managers. But we've successively finished lower each season regardless. It makes the switching of managers either pointless or detrimental.

So what if we'd have kept Douglas and were now in League 1?

So what if we'd have kept Douglas and were now in League 1?

We would be visiting new places & winning every week.....simples!!

We would be visiting new places & winning every week.....simples!!

And of course we would be seeing better football

The problem with averages though is its skewed by the likes of Leeds Blackpool Charlton

 

True, and I've not doubt as to why the Championship average is comparatively low even aside from those clubs... Ex-Premier League teams panicking at not returning to the top flight on the first try. Certainly would explain why the Premier League and Leagues 1 and 2 have longer averages.

I'm saying we are no better off. In fact worse. They may well have been terrible managers. But we've successively finished lower each season regardless. It makes the switching of managers either pointless or detrimental.

Each one left a trail of destruction in their path.

 

We are no better off? We'd have been relegated holding on to either any longer than we did.

Jeez! I shudder to think where we'd be if Coyle was still the manager. Kin'ell. 

Megson was wrecking the club, quicker off the pitch but that would have equalled out but wasn't as stupid/naieve as Coyle who finished the job off. Freedman was another disaster that took some longer than others to rumble. Gartside the constant in all of it.

Megson was wrecking the club, quicker off the pitch but that would have equalled out but wasn't as stupid/naieve as Coyle who finished the job off. Freedman was another disaster that took some longer than others to rumble. Gartside the constant in all of it.

Not that I'm sticking up for him, because I'm not precious either way, but if you're going to play this game you can add 10 years of success with allardyce and Lennon who is currently seen as about as good an appointment as we could have wished for. He's the constant in all of it.

We shouldn't have got rid of Phil Neal.

Pearson gone from Leicester