egafd.com

David Johnson wrote:

> "Following on from my earlier post saying the so-called
> managerial merry-go-round at Chelsea wasn't all that unusual,"
>
> Your statistics might support your own point, but I don't think
> that this is the point being discussed.
>
> The point being made is that teams where there is a managerial
> merry-go-round lack consistency and are not as successful
> overall.
>
> If you look at your list of teams that have had 8, 9,10+
> managers during the period 2003- then you would see that these
> teams have hardly been successful in Europe in some cases by
> their own high standards e.g. Real Madrid.


My statistics show that regular changes of managers are not unusual, be it in England or elsewhere in Europe. Furthermore there is no correlation between "stability" and "success".

Are Man Utd successful BECAUSE they kept their manager for 25 years, or is SAF still there after 25 years because he's been successful? He was almost shown the door after 3 years, and it wasn't sentiment that kept him in the job. There was no-one else available, then a very fluky cup run saw an FA Cup trophy in the cabinet and the rest is history.

David Moyes has been at Everton for 10 years. Please tell me what trophies he has won in that time? Bad example because he has no money to spend? OK, what about Wenger at Arsenal... 60,000 seat stadium that is more often than not full; amongst the top earners in terms of both English and European TV money; excellent income from their actual and on-line club shops with a global marketing reach, so not exactly strapped for cash, plus a boardroom full of very wealthy people who could dip into their pockets if necessary... what have they won in the last 6 or 7 years?

Stability has NOT led to success at Arsenal, and for every Gooner who loves the style of football played by Wenger, there's another Gooner who wouldn't mind going back to the days of "boring, boring Arsenal" winning 1-0 almost every week and coming home with trophies in the cabinet.

You said "If you look at your list of teams that have had 8, 9,10+ managers during the period 2003- then you would see that these teams have hardly been successful in Europe" and then quoted Real Madrid as having largely failed by their own high standards. I notice, however, that you ignored Porto whose 9 different managers since 2003 haven't stopped them from winning 6 domestic titles and 2 UEFA/Europa cups in that time plus other assorted domestic and international trophies. Stability = Success? Not in Porto's case. They are successful IN SPITE of instability.

Managerial "stability" has a lot less to do with success than the strength of the squad itself, and the strength of other teams around them. Blackpool (your own club) could have Holloway as manger for the next 50 years and you still wouldn't win anything!

"Furthermore there is no correlation between "stability" and "success".

I don't think you have proved this, Bob, at all.

First it is worthwhile defining "success"

You state "Managerial "stability" has a lot less to do with success than the strength of the squad itself, and the strength of other teams around them. Blackpool (your own club) could have Holloway as manger for the next 50 years and you still wouldn't win anything!"

By success I mean a team doing much better than could be expected from an historical point of view. Quite right, Blackpool haven't won the Premier League since Holloway has been in charge, but they have got themselves into the Premier League for the first time for decades. Alas went down on one of the highest points totals ever in the Premier League and are vying for a playoff place with teams that could be regarded as much bigger. In Blackpool terms this could be viewed as a "success" by my book. To get into the Premier League with a stadium limit of 16,000 and tight wad owners was nothing short of miraculous.

Secondly you mention Man Utd and Arsenal. Admittedly Arsenal have stalled in the trophy winning game but they have routinely qualified for the Champions League of late. And my guess would be that in the case of Ferguson and Wenger, Arsenal and Man Utd have had the most successful time ever in terms of winning trophies under these managers.

Furthermore, if you look at the time that Liverpool dominated domestic and European football, stability was a key in terms of their managers. Typically, staff were promoted from within the setup and brought huge stability in the club.

You mention Moyes. Here is an example of a guy who has done exceptionally well given the substantial financial constraints operating at Everton and again can be viewed a "success".

Your example of Porto winning domestic titles is not very convincing. THe Portuguese League has only been won three times in the last 30 years by anyone other than Benfica and Porto. Not the best example!

In short there is a correlation generally between stability and success.

And if you don't want to believe me, here's a study from Warwick Business School, one of many that link managerial stability with football success

http://www.wbs.ac.uk/downloads/research ... s-0106.pdf

I draw you attention to the conclusion for Section 14

"Clubs with lower numbers of managers have an average win percentage of 40.91%
compared with 32.53% of clubs with frequent changes of manager during the period.
Moreover, there is a positive correlation between the amount of experience which a
manager has and the number of years in post and the win percentage, suggesting
that managers need time to learn and that stability favours success

Finally, I just want to let you know I have applied for the Chelsea job, demanding a long term contract as a prerequisite - 10 years for ?40 million, including volume discount. This should give me the time to build success and help Chelsea win that elusive CHampions League!

David, you no doubt manage to continue to convince yourself that you are always right, as you do in all your other arguments on these forums, but just to take Porto as an example... the fact that the same few clubs constantly win the Primeira Liga and that Porto is one of those clubs in spite of all the different managers they have had surely proves that "stability" has no effect on "success". Their results are not likely to have been marginally better or worse had they had just, say 3 managers instead of 9. As I said, it's down to the strength of their squad compared to their rivals, not how many or how few managers they've had.

If Alex Ferguson had had a massive heart attack in 2003 and been unable to continue as manager, would Man Utd have been any more or less successful these last eight or nine seasons than they have been? I doubt there would have been much difference in their record given their financial clout, scouting system and academy, even if they had changed manager every few years.

You say Moyes has been successful given his lack of funds, punching above his weight, so to speak. But you also implied earlier that Real Madrid could be considered as not being as successful as they should be given their lofty standards. I remember in the 1970s and 1980s Everton winning Championships, FA Cups and the Cup Winners Cup. So one could argue that Moyes' 10 years in charge (where Everton haven't won anything) has seen this "stability" result in "success" far below what might reasonably be expected. The truth is that stability or no stability, what has actually held Everton back is lack of funds.

In one, earlier, post you imply Real Madrid can be considered as having fallen short of their expectations to argue your point that lack of stability has cost them winning trophies they would reasonably have otherwise been expected to win. Yet that same lack of success (in terms of no trophies for 7 years) is actually twisted into great success (by dint of regular qualification for the Champions League) when it comes to Arsenal, as that suits your argument in favour of stability. You can't have it both ways. With 13 1st Division/Premiership titles and 10 FA Cup wins to their name, is mere qualification for the Champions League REALLY a sign of success? Or, just like Real Madrid, only more so, a sign of abject failure given their past history and current expectations? One has changed manager 10 times since 2003 so in your book is a prime example of how instability is bad; the other has had only one manger and is therefore good!!!

Keep lying to yourself and to others if you want, but stability has nothing to do with success in the modern game.

"David, you no doubt manage to continue to convince yourself that you are always right, as you do in all your other arguments on these forums"

I am not always right. Sometimes I am wrong. Like anybody else really.

"Keep lying to yourself and to others if you want, but stability has nothing to do with success in the modern game."

A rather over-dramatic turn of phrase, Bob. I disagree with you. If you want to describe disagreeing with you as "lying to myself and others" you are making yourself look rather foolish.

"the fact that the same few clubs constantly win the Primeira Liga and that Porto is one of those clubs in spite of all the different managers they have had surely proves that "stability" has no effect on "success".

Bob, the basic point is you do not appear to have grasped my argument.

1. I am not saying that all that matters at a club is managerial stability. Have managerial stability and success is guaranteed is not what I am saying. It is a factor amongst others like expenditure etc. Crewe had Dario Gradi as manager for God knows how long and surprise, surprise, Bob, they never won the Premier League or Champions League!

2. THere are clearly going to be exceptions. Porto may be an exception but for all I know they might have an income, being the second city. which far exceeds other clubs apart from Benfica. As I state in 1. above there are other factors like expenditure which impact on "success".

3. There are a number of academic studies of which I gave you one that detect a link between managerial stability and improved performance.

4. All of the people in these academic studies may well to use your way of looking at things "be lying to themselves and others" but until I hear something more coherent from you I will go with my own and their views, thanks.


Now, just to highlight a small number of the misconceptions in your argument

"If Alex Ferguson had had a massive heart attack in 2003 and been unable to continue as manager, would Man Utd have been any more or less successful these last eight or nine seasons than they have been? I doubt there would have been much difference in their record given their financial clout, scouting system and academy, even if they had changed manager every few years."

This is sheer Gypsy Rose Lee crystal ball gazing so there is nothing to comment about.

"You say Moyes has been successful given his lack of funds, punching above his weight, so to speak. But you also implied earlier that Real Madrid could be considered as not being as successful as they should be given their lofty standards. I remember in the 1970s and 1980s Everton winning Championships, FA Cups and the Cup Winners Cup. So one could argue that Moyes' 10 years in charge (where Everton haven't won anything) has seen this "stability" result in "success" far below what might reasonably be expected."

This strikes me as nonsensical. In the 1970's and 80's there was much more of a level playing field in UK football. IN the late 60's Celtic won the European Cup with a team brought up in Scotland. The Premiership money and Sky payments which backed success, the huge foreign funding made by the likes of Abramovich and the Man City owners make it much less of a level playing field. This is not just my view about Everton punching above their weight and Moyes being successful but appears to have been the view of every football commentator reporting on the 10th anniversary of Moyes coming to Everton.

Of course they could all be lying to themselves.

"In one, earlier, post you imply Real Madrid can be considered as having fallen short of their expectations to argue your point that lack of stability has cost them winning trophies they would reasonably have otherwise been expected to win. Yet that same lack of success (in terms of no trophies for 7 years) is actually twisted into great success (by dint of regular qualification for the Champions League) when it comes to Arsenal, as that suits your argument in favour of stability.

Again this point is not logical. Real Madrid have had huge funds pumped into them to create the Galaticos and not been anywhere near as successful as their glorious history. If you compare the net spend of Arsene Wenger with Abramovich, the Man City owners and Liverpool and you will find that it is far, far, far lower. And yet under Wenger, unlike Real Madrid, Arsenal have had their most successful time in their entire history as a result of both stability and the genius of Wenger.

I suspect that not only the academic studies but the vast majority of seasoned football commentators believe that managerial stability improves performance.

Of course we could all be self-delusional.

Thanks for pointing it out, Bob. I will pass on the message

David Johnson wrote:


> Of course we could all be self-delusional.



I'm glad to see you're finally admitting to your biggest failing.

I have passed on your comments about people who believe that managerial stability leads to improved performance being delusional and lying to themselves and others. I have pointed out the connection between that analysis and the fact that you disagree.

The relevant football commentators and writers of academic studies say they are grateful for your psychological analysis.

Sack the Mannager and they pull one out of the top draw and progress to the next round of the champions league 5-4 on aggregate

4-1 over Napoli on the night

Next stop selling or loaning out Torres and admit 50million was badly burned

Deuce Bigolo wrote:

> Sack the Mannager and they pull one out of the top draw and
> progress to the next round of the champions league 5-4 on
> aggregate
>
> 4-1 over Napoli on the night
>
> Next stop selling or loaning out Torres and admit 50million was
> badly burned


I wonder what result we'd have achieved with "managerial stability"? Perhaps we might have done as well as Man Utd have in Europe this season?

As for Torres, I never wanted him at Chelsea, and certainly not for ?50m!!! Once a dipper always a dipper and not welcome at the Bridge

"I wonder what result we'd have achieved with "managerial stability"? Perhaps we might have done as well as Man Utd have in Europe this season?"

Good point, Bob - argument proven. If only Man Utd had sacked Ferguson last week they might have had a chance of winning tonight and err......not going top of the Premier League last Sunday.

!wink!

David Johnson wrote:

> I have passed on your comments about people who believe that
> managerial stability leads to improved performance being
> delusional and lying to themselves and others. I have pointed
> out the connection between that analysis and the fact that you
> disagree.
>
> The relevant football commentators and writers of academic
> studies say they are grateful for your psychological analysis.


Well you clearly are lying and delusional if you think I believe you've forwarded on my posts to various journalists, academics etc.

You truly are a sad cunt, aren't you David?