I know it's Dutch but you can't argue with the science

[Greenhgate Owl]

So if man city had kept mark Hughes and not replaced him with manchini they still would have won the league

[cowl]

So if man city had kept mark Hughes and not replaced him with manchini they still would have won the league

 

Is that so outrageous a thought?

 

I'm assuming it wasn't Mancini funding those signings from his own pocket after all.

[Tyto Alba]

If you replace a football manager with a better one then results improve.

[Guest Distraught!]

Why are you, Mortimer who negs everyone when they make a valid point(I shall be negging away myself) and Distraught  so adamant changing managers wont work?

I'm willing to admit it might not but you three seem determined to keep jones.

Sacking megson did the job it was intended to do,rightly or wrongly and getting rid of jones may well do the same.

 

If you are going to name throw, make sure that you get facts correct.

 

Nowhere have I said that changing managers never results in a club performing better. Sheffield Wednesday have brought in managers that have done just that but they have been quality managers that have been able to impose themselves and bring about a change in club culture.

 

Changing managers for change's sake does not work. The two Sheffield clubs are sound examples of that. Both have made a number of managerial changes in the last twenty years and it reflects in the poor performance of the clubs for the majority of that time.

 

The most successful clubs over a large period of time tend to be those that have stable infrastructures and give managers time to do the job. Take for example, Pulis at Stoke. It took him four years to get promoted and he was there for about ten years. Maybe they are wrong letting him go.

 

Our most successful period came on the back of foundations laid by Charlton and Wilkinson. It took Charlton three seasons to get out of the old third division. Would a manager get that long now? The key being he was able to build the foundations he needed.

[Guest Distraught!]

not accordin to sum bellend in Holland

 

He is a foreign national but I bet that he can write a sentence in coherent English.

[themaskedowl]

So basically we should never have sacked Megson then

Edited October 14, 2013 by themaskedowl

[Guest Distraught!]

 

Alex ferguson would sort this club out in a few months.Not the young ferguson,the man he is now.He has so much experience he is head and shoulders above jones.

 

 

An interesting example to choose.

 

What if Manchester United had panicked and sacked him during the lean five or six seasons before winning his first trophy? A period when Manchester United woefully underperformed by their own standards. A period when he signed a number of players that were believed not to be of the standard expected at such a club.

 

They didn't panic, he stayed and they reaped the rewards.

[DJMortimer]

Our most successful period came on the back of foundations laid by Charlton and Wilkinson. It took Charlton three seasons to get out of the old third division. Would a manager get that long now? The key being he was able to build the foundations he needed.

 

I can't help wondering how Owlstalk with the increasingly impatient sensibilities of the modern fan would have reacted to the way we started 1989/90 (just 1 win and 2 goals in the first 12 league games, including a couple of thrashings). Towards the end of last season I recall a few posters saying that relegation should result in automatic dismissal with no excuses (can't beat a bit of good old spite and revenge eh?). No doubt plenty would have been calling for Atkinson's head, and who knows what long term effects that might have had?

 

Unfortunately, at this point I am forced to explain that I'm not suggesting Jones will necessarily go on to replicate what Big Ron did, nor am I denying that managerial change can sometimes result in positive outcomes too. Sigh. It was just an observation about how things have changed so quickly when it comes to how much leeway managers get these days.

[Weshallovercome]

We could do our own study over the last 50 years and the outcome would probably be the same.

 

Apart from Charlton and Big Ron, and maybe Wilkinson/Sturruck.......changing managers hasn't really achieved anything tangible.

 

We'll always be a Championship/L1 side until the finances change

[Guest Big Guns]

If you replace a football manager with a better one then results improve.

Yep all the study's in the word by all the brain boxes and the answer is that simple

I'm sure these people are very clever just like some on here think they are but just like in here

They have no common flippingsense

[Guest Distraught!]

Yep all the study's in the word by all the brain boxes and the answer is that simple

I'm sure these people are very clever just like some on here think they are but just like in here

They have no common flippingsense

 

Except if you read this report and several others similar to it, that is absolutely not what they are about.

 

Mind you, people would realize that if they had any common sense.

[DJMortimer]

Yep all the study's in the word by all the brain boxes and the answer is that simple

I'm sure these people are very clever just like some on here think they are but just like in here

They have no common flippingsense

 

It really isn't that simple though is it? Was Paul Jewell a good manager at Bradford and Wigan, but a poor one at Wednesday?

 

Brian Clough was considered a genius of his time, yet it didn't work at either Brighton or Leeds.

 

Ron Atkinson is obviously revered here but fans of Manchester United and Nottingham Forest might view him differently.

 

Like most things in life, simple rules can provide comfort but in reality they rarely present the full picture.

[Guest Distraught!]

I looked at this report and a similar one carried out in Italy, Germany and England. One thing very noticeable was the remarkable consistency. Whichever country is chosen, the same phenomenon exists.

 

If a representative sample of struggling or out of form clubs are taken, some will retain the manager and hope things get better, some will sack the manager and get another.

 

If measured against thousands of clubs in the same predicament, there is no meaningful statistical difference in fortune between the clubs that retained the manager and those that decided to change the manager given the follow up results.

 

Therefore, each of the authors of the papers concluded in almost all cases, changing the manager is just a waste of time, money and resources. It achieves nothing meaningful at all for the clubs that chose sacking as the preferable option.

 

This is fully borne out by the outcome of numerous sackings at both us and the pigs during the last twenty years.

 

Sheffield Wednesday and Sheffield United have absolutely followed this trend.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Distraught!

[Jim]

Somewhere along the line we have to be strong enough to give someone enough time in the managers chair to do the job that is required.

I don't suppose we'll ever have a manager who is 100% liked by the fanbase but I suspect until we get a combination of a capable manager and a competitive budget we'll continue to yo-yo between the championship and League 1.

[DJMortimer]

I don't suppose we'll ever have a manager who is 100% liked by the fanbase...

 

I've posted it several times before but I'll do it again here as I believe it's pertinent.

 

Since 1991, all 14 managers that we have had (with the possible exception of Ron Atkinson's second spell) have faced considerable and prolonged calls for their dismissal, regardless of what they might have achieved previously with ourselves or other clubs.

 

And many of the criticisms levelled at them have been remarkably consistent, if not clichéd. 

[Guest Fedor]

If you are going to name throw, make sure that you get facts correct.

 

Nowhere have I said that changing managers never results in a club performing better. Sheffield Wednesday have brought in managers that have done just that but they have been quality managers that have been able to impose themselves and bring about a change in club culture.

 

Changing managers for change's sake does not work. The two Sheffield clubs are sound examples of that. Both have made a number of managerial changes in the last twenty years and it reflects in the poor performance of the clubs for the majority of that time.

 

The most successful clubs over a large period of time tend to be those that have stable infrastructures and give managers time to do the job. Take for example, Pulis at Stoke. It took him four years to get promoted and he was there for about ten years. Maybe they are wrong letting him go.

 

Our most successful period came on the back of foundations laid by Charlton and Wilkinson. It took Charlton three seasons to get out of the old third division. Would a manager get that long now? The key being he was able to build the foundations he needed.

Jones benefitted from foundations laid by Megson.

Those foundations have since been smashed to pieces.

[Handball_!!]

I posted this thread because it pretty much sums up how I feel about manager sackings at SWFC.

 

I'm not overly fussed if we sack Jones or not, I've never really pushed for any of our managers to be sacked, for the simple reason that with a couple of exceptions in my lifetime we've replaced them with someone similar and it's had little impact on the club in the medium to long term.

[Guest Distraught!]

I posted this thread because it pretty much sums up how I feel about manager sackings at SWFC.

 

I'm not overly fussed if we sack Jones or not, I've never really pushed for any of our managers to be sacked, for the simple reason that with a couple of exceptions in my lifetime we've replaced them with someone similar and it's had little impact on the club in the medium to long term.

 

Which is an absolutely accurate and fair conclusion to come to.

[steelowl]

I posted this thread because it pretty much sums up how I feel about manager sackings at SWFC.

 

I'm not overly fussed if we sack Jones or not, I've never really pushed for any of our managers to be sacked, for the simple reason that with a couple of exceptions in my lifetime we've replaced them with someone similar and it's had little impact on the club in the medium to long term.

 

My thought process about a manager starts with results and style of play,  = sack

also factored in are:       

do I perceive him to have been workiing with his hands tied in the transfer market,  = jury out (not enough info) cant believe he actually had much to do with it

have we been unlucky with injuries,  = possibly (Antonio Reda JJ gardner buxton )

Does he seem to have an inspiring motivational personality that can turn around bad runs, = doesnt inspire me at least in fact the reverse

Does he make understandable  decisions transfer and selection = No but I dont have the inside story

Do I like his public persona and the way he comes across under pressure , = awful bordering on embarrassing

and finally do I think that the timing is right = No with the possibility of new owners sometime (this next week ) the leadership vacuum could go either way

 

Despite those misgivings I think I would keep him on assuming new owners may have a workable budget

IF MM keeps on for sometime, especially with this 'make do and mend' level of support , I'm afraid we need someone else

[Guest Big Guns]

It really isn't that simple though is it? Was Paul Jewell a good manager at Bradford and Wigan, but a poor one at Wednesday?

 

Brian Clough was considered a genius of his time, yet it didn't work at either Brighton or Leeds.

 

Ron Atkinson is obviously revered here but fans of Manchester United and Nottingham Forest might view him differently.

 

Like most things in life, simple rules can provide comfort but in reality they rarely present the full picture.

like i said clever but no common sense