I've never been impressed with the clubs which constantly chop and change

I know you only posted that because you saw an opportunity to have a go at me, but there's actually a serious debate to have here.

You can chop and change every season only if you can afford it - Spurs and Chelski being the two leading examples. If you're hard up, like us, you just end up with the club in a constant state of change which is the utter enemy of progressing on the footballing side. Worse, in fact, than retaining an unpopular manager and giving him time to execute his plan.

It's such a predictable circle. The new bloke clears out all the previous bloke's deadwood, but then he hasn't got enough money to get really GOOD new players (unlike Spurs and Chelski). So he ends up getting a whole load of players who are some or all of unknown, unproven, inexperienced, over the hill, on loan. So Grant brings in Murray and co, and Roeder gets rid of them and brings in his lot, and Gunn gets rid of them and brings in his lot, and on and on and on.

Sometimes you have to give someone a longer spell in the job - like Sralex - to enable them to build something. But the consequences of relegation are so hideous that no-one wants to take the risk, so managers get sacked in November.

Of course, this approach means the board having made their appointment with a long term plan in mind. And having chosen someone who is capable of fulfilling that plan (which Grant wasn't, but Roeder might have been).

Basically, sacking your manager every 18 months really shoudl be regarded as a badge of failure by the board, not as good tough decision-making.

Posted By: Old Git on March 24th 2009 at 13:40:11

Message Thread

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.

Log in