|
Post by Wolvensam on Mar 24, 2009 13:03:09 GMT
Steve Gibson is widely regarded as one of, if not the best chairman in English football due to how he backs his managers to the hilt and provides funds for them. Despite Middlesbrough's lowly league position and them, at this current moment in time, looking odds on to go down Gibson has still reiterated his support for Gareth Southgate, reasoning that he's trying his hardest to turn it around and has full faith in his ability to turn it around. www.mfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/News/NewsDetail/0,,1~1601207,00.html Pundits say that sacking a manager early is a bad thing, however are Middlesbrough an example of how sometimes a change of management is a positive move? Spurs sacked Juande Ramos early and are now in 11th place. Newcastle sacked Kevin Keegan and admittedly are still in the relegation zone but not quite as "deep in poo" as Middlesbrough. Blackburn sacked Paul Ince and although still in the dog fight, are a lot more solid under Big Sam. Portsmouth sacked Tony Adams and seem to have picked up a bit since. At the moment for me Middlesbrough only look to be heading one way under Southgate, so is Gibson right to give this vote of confidence? I think this is a prime example of when sacking a manager early is a good thing. Southgate could have gone earlier, and definitely would have done if Gibson wasn't the chairman of Middlesbrough, but it seems Middlesbrough are in too deep now and maybe Gibson figures Southgate may as well see the job through whether they head one way or the other - but for me Southgate should have gone long ago, and should still go, as there's every chance the new manager could have put together a honeymoon period of results which made Middlesbrough look a better bet of clinching Premier League survival. At this current moment they look far away from doing that. Gibson has been proven right to put his faith in Southgate in the past, but is now finally the time to push the button for the ejector seat and get a new man in?
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Mar 24, 2009 13:05:39 GMT
I think if you sack the manager early and get the right replacement in quckly then it can be a good thing.
But if you do a Newcastle and have a conveyor belt of managers then it just destroys the club.
|
|
|
Post by arover on Mar 24, 2009 13:10:48 GMT
This Steve Gibson is a very good chairman in many ways showing an admirable faith in Southgate. He did the same thing with Bryan Robson when it was obvious that even though Robson had spent millions of his money he still couldn't cut it as a manager.
Loyalty can be taken too far, in Robson's case it was not sure about Southgate yet.
|
|
|
Post by Wolvensam on Mar 24, 2009 13:29:06 GMT
But if you do a Newcastle and have a conveyor belt of managers then it just destroys the club. I don't agree with Newcastle's way of going about things at all, I think a manager needs at least two seasons to assemble a squad together (unless they're just simply not up to it a la Tony Adams) and then you usually reap the rewards in the third. If you're still no further forward in the manager's third season then that's the time to act.
|
|
|
Post by Dawsey on Mar 24, 2009 13:32:57 GMT
I think if you sack the manager early and get the right replacement in quckly then it can be a good thing. Very true. If we had sacked Thicky in December and brought Danny Wilson in, I don't think we'd be going down this season. There aren't many people down here who didn't want him to go, yet most also think the timing was awful (just after the transfer window closed and five hours before a game!).
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Mar 24, 2009 13:35:00 GMT
But if you do a Newcastle and have a conveyor belt of managers then it just destroys the club. I don't agree with Newcastle's way of going about things at all, I think a manager needs at least two seasons to assemble a squad together (unless they're just simply not up to it a la Tony Adams) and then you usually reap the rewards in the third. If you're still no further forward in the manager's third season then that's the time to act. But when a Newcastle chairman has fifty odd thousand plastic mags breathing down his neck he doesn't have that kind of time. That's why they're in the poo.
|
|
|
Post by Wolvensam on Mar 24, 2009 15:44:01 GMT
I imagine Steve Gibson is under immense pressure from their fans to sack Southgate, difference being he's not as trigger happy as Newcastle's chairman.
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Mar 24, 2009 16:03:47 GMT
Here are the actual stats of the Net...
What strategy should a football (soccer, in American parlance) club adopt when deciding whether to sack its manager? This paper introduces a simple model assuming that a club's objective is to maximize the number of league points that it scores per season. The club's strategy consists of three choices: the length of the honeymoon period during which it will not consider sacking a new manager, the level of the performance trapdoor below which the manager get the sack, and the weight that it will give to more recent games compared to earlier ones. Some data from the last six seasons of the English Premiership are used to calibrate the model. At this early stage of the research, the best strategy appears to have only a short honeymoon period of eight games (much less than the actual shortest period of 12 games), to set the trapdoor at 0.74 points per game, and to put 47% of the weight on the last five games. A club adopting this strategy would obtain on average 56.8 points per season, compared to a Premiership average of 51.8 points
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Mar 24, 2009 16:05:04 GMT
I am not paying the $40 for the total text!
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Mar 24, 2009 16:06:59 GMT
Also,sometimes it hinges on the individual...look at this...
Alan Curbishley won 39 per cent of his games at Upton Park; Gianfranco Zola's record is a meagre 21 per cent...so why is he still there?
|
|
|
Post by Wolvensam on Mar 24, 2009 16:11:38 GMT
You shouldn't keep someone in a job just because they're a nice bloke though or sack them because they're a twat, it's a results business at the end of the day.
I imagine Zola is exceeding expectation, thus why he's still in the job?
|
|
|
Post by Wolvensam on Mar 24, 2009 16:16:37 GMT
Very true. If we had sacked Thicky in December and brought Danny Wilson in, I don't think we'd be going down this season. There aren't many people down here who didn't want him to go, yet most also think the timing was awful (just after the transfer window closed and five hours before a game!). So that's an example of sacking a manager early being a good thing. Middlesbrough have been in a dog fight since pretty much the kick off, so why is Gibson persisting with a losing formula? Backing your managers is a good thing, but as it stands his blind loyalty is going to be a serious detriment on the club's future and to be honest I can't see Middlesbrough turning it around under Southgate.
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Mar 24, 2009 16:23:11 GMT
Yeah,it's the vogue to give managers ten minutes to achieve success or get rid,but look at some who were given time...the best in the business,Sir Alex no less!!
Dean Saunders picked up a total shambles here at Wrexham and from the off was given the almost impossible task of turning it around and gaining us promotion at the first attempt because some 'supporters'believe we have some god given right to be in the Football League...we f*cking don't!
|
|
|
Post by Wolvensam on Mar 24, 2009 16:25:52 GMT
Yeah,it's the vogue to give managers ten minutes to achieve success or get rid,but look at some who were given time...the best in the business,Sir Alex no less!! I have said that giving a manager three seasons is for me imperative, unless they're clearly not up to the job like for example Tony Adams wasn't. However, the likes of Alex Ferguson are for me the exception rather than the general rule. During Southgate's reign Middlesbrough have largely been in relegation dog fights and not really made any progress, so why does Gibson persist with his regime?
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Mar 24, 2009 16:42:30 GMT
Because he loves him...
|
|
|
Post by Wolvensam on Mar 24, 2009 16:43:00 GMT
He is a nice bloke I suppose...
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Mar 24, 2009 16:44:35 GMT
I mean
|
|
|
Post by Wolvensam on Mar 24, 2009 16:46:35 GMT
I figured.
|
|
|
Post by stealth1039 on Mar 24, 2009 17:13:27 GMT
Generally I would say stability is the best thing for a club but we sacked Ramos fairly quickly & I think it was the right thing to do. I believe he had real communication problems and his own and the players body language towards the end showed the complete lack of confidence. I don't see that especially with Boro though - just poor performances.
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Mar 24, 2009 17:30:39 GMT
Never overestimate stability - i can testify to that...
|
|