dons50 wrote:
FilthyDon wrote:
I think the concept of stability and giving managers time is rubbish in football. It's all about the right fit, not giving managers time for the sake of it.
Teams bring in managers all the time. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. You could bring in a manager and he does rubbish, sack him after 6 months and bring in someone else who does brilliantly. You could change managers 3 or 4 times in a short space of time before getting someone in that the team just clicks with.
Give me an example of when giving a manager time for the sake of it after a shaky start has actually paid off.
Conversely, I can give several examples of when getting rid of several managers in a short space of time has resulted in one that works out:
- Huddersfield changed managers eight times in 3 years before getting David Wagner and are now in the Prem.
- Sheffield United changed managers six times in 4 years before getting Chris Wilder and it just clicked for them.
- Bournemouth changed managers seven times in 5 years before getting Eddie Howe who took them from L1 to the Prem.
Bottom line is, giving a manager time for the sake of it offers no benefit over frequent changes until you get the right one in.
Why does football think it's different from the rest of the world?
Because football is more of a short term results oriented business at this level.
Fans and stakeholders want instant results, when they are paying money to watch and support a team, investing so much time and energy following a club, there is only so much lack of progress they can put up with, especially when a manager like Neilson appears to have taken us one step forward, one step backwards since taking over
I don't have a problem with it, its how it is and it will never change. I have never been a fan of giving managers time, plenty have proven you don't need to give managers a transition season or anything like that. We don't owe these managers a career or sympathy, and contracts mean nothing in football these days.