You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why is everyone obsessed with managerial stability?
- Thread starter daztrueblue91
- Start date
BoyBlue_1985
Well-Known Member
JoWNRH said:Wayne Bridge, Santa Cruz, Adebayor, Craig Bellamy.
GaudinoMotors
Well-Known Member
Stopped reading at WTF is stability - was it any good or was it an attempted pseudo intellectual coup d'etat ?
ColinBellsjockstrap
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2009
- Messages
- 8,468
Big flaw in the argument (imo).
New managers usually bring their own backroom staff, eg, Hughes/Bowen, big upheaval allround, but also the players have to adapt to new tactics and a way of working every year or so...plus managers may not fancy a player simply because "he didn't sign him"..........
No, stability all the time for me....
New managers usually bring their own backroom staff, eg, Hughes/Bowen, big upheaval allround, but also the players have to adapt to new tactics and a way of working every year or so...plus managers may not fancy a player simply because "he didn't sign him"..........
No, stability all the time for me....
GTJGWilding
Active Member
Broken down to it's simplest form, the decision to sack a manager is almost like a game of blackjack.
Stick or twist?
In most cases where a manager's position is questioned I am in the stability camp as often an unnecessary managerial change can totally destabilise a club and it can take a while for the manager to build his own team. Obviously, occasionally there will come moments when a decision needs to be made. What the club needs to decide in these moments is whether the risk of destabilising the club is smaller than the probability of the current manager succeeding in his methods
I don't like the idea of changing manager just because there is someone supposedly better available. Look at some of the reputations ruined at Chelsea. Scolari was the greatest manager in world football when he joined Chelsea and by the time he left his reputation was in tatters.
Some people have pointed to Moyes and Wenger as examples. There is surely only so much Moyes can do with the resources at his disposal. Frankly I'd be concerned about Everton's position if they were to change manager. Wenger has basically just got sucked up into his own preposterous ideologies of the game and prefers to operate financially in the transfer market of 10 -15 years ago.
Stick or twist?
In most cases where a manager's position is questioned I am in the stability camp as often an unnecessary managerial change can totally destabilise a club and it can take a while for the manager to build his own team. Obviously, occasionally there will come moments when a decision needs to be made. What the club needs to decide in these moments is whether the risk of destabilising the club is smaller than the probability of the current manager succeeding in his methods
I don't like the idea of changing manager just because there is someone supposedly better available. Look at some of the reputations ruined at Chelsea. Scolari was the greatest manager in world football when he joined Chelsea and by the time he left his reputation was in tatters.
Some people have pointed to Moyes and Wenger as examples. There is surely only so much Moyes can do with the resources at his disposal. Frankly I'd be concerned about Everton's position if they were to change manager. Wenger has basically just got sucked up into his own preposterous ideologies of the game and prefers to operate financially in the transfer market of 10 -15 years ago.
daztrueblue91
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 4,068
Is everyone's view on managerial stability still the same or have a lot more people started to believe in the DoF model of stability?
city91 said:Is everyone's view on managerial stability still the same or have a lot more people started to believe in the DoF model of stability?
I don't think I read the original post when it was made back in December but I'm fairly certain I wouldn't have agreed with it then. As an English football fan I've been brought up with the idea that managerial stability is good and chopping and changing is bad.
However, when you consider clubs like Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, Juventus etc, you see that United and previously Arsenal are the exceptions. Fergie was a one off. If you actually step back and logically consider the two approaches, the continental method makes much more sense. I'm much happier we're going down the holisitic route.
it is just the new slogan of the deluded in football like ahh look money is ruining foot ahh look this club have no class ... ah look you sold your sool ...
City have right now a director (DOF) which mean the 1st team manager is working under his authority( don't know why mancini didn't want to say it when he was asked ) and you have to iplement what you are asked to do (tiki taka, counters,...)
the stability is more about the structure
how many times barca, real(a bite much), bayern fired their managers ? are they ruined right now? no
stability is good, there are some exceptions but nowadays but being a manger (paid millions) you take into account this risk that you are not staying permanent! like a politician if you don't deliver bye bye
Even Roman :) despite his interference and sacking see how many trophies they won
City have right now a director (DOF) which mean the 1st team manager is working under his authority( don't know why mancini didn't want to say it when he was asked ) and you have to iplement what you are asked to do (tiki taka, counters,...)
the stability is more about the structure
how many times barca, real(a bite much), bayern fired their managers ? are they ruined right now? no
stability is good, there are some exceptions but nowadays but being a manger (paid millions) you take into account this risk that you are not staying permanent! like a politician if you don't deliver bye bye
Even Roman :) despite his interference and sacking see how many trophies they won
managerial stability? is there such a thing anymore in football apart from the swamp can anybody else name a club that has managerial stability that wins trophy's year in year out?
we could look at the stability of arsenal and wenger who over the past 6 years has just become a very good book keeper for the club!
we could look at the stability of arsenal and wenger who over the past 6 years has just become a very good book keeper for the club!