PDA

View Full Version : Don't Sack the Manager



keem-o-sabi
09-25-2009, 07:06 AM
Didn't know where to put this, but thought it was an interesting study:

From Nottingham University - Don’t sack the manager (Part 1).

Experts at The University of Nottingham and Loughborough University have produced research which proves that Premier League clubs who have long-term managers are more successful than those who change their managers on a frequent basis.

The study, which uses data from the inception of the Premier League in 1992 until 2004, focuses on the short-term and long-term impact of manager change in the top flight of English football.

The research has been produced alongside academics from the University of Sheffield and UWE in Bristol.

The average tenure for a Premiership manager is now 1.38 years, compared to 3.12 years in 2002, with many departures attributed to the fear of relegation to the Football League Championship. This can create a revenue gap of £56- £70 million, according to figures from Deloitte.

Research shows that because of this, there is immense pressure on managers to succeed in the Premier League, with poor results typically resulting in a scapegoating reaction by sacking the manager. Scapegoating theory holds that changing managers will not affect performance and is simply a ritual to apportion blame.

Paul Hughes, from Loughborough University’s Business School, believes that the research underlines the desire in top-flight football to achieve instant success.

“Our research illustrates that alongside the obvious examples of Arsenal and Manchester United, those Premiership clubs who retain the services of their manager for a longer period of time are more likely to have successful results. Sam Allardyce’s tenure at Bolton Wanderers is an excellent example of this. More recently, David Moyes’ tenure at Everton shows how giving managers sufficient time and allowing them time to address the problems within a club can lead to far greater achievements.”

Co-researcher and lead author Mat Hughes, from The University of Nottingham, said:

“The research leads us to question how effective sacking a manager really is to teams. Getting rid of the manager means clubs lose a lot of tacit knowledge and although the new manager will quickly change things, those changes might not be the best or right ones.

“Football managers forever state that they need more time in the post to have an effect and our findings show there is much truth to their arguments. It takes time for the managers to reshape the team, its infrastructure, the scouting network, learn about players and the opposition. One of the dangers is that sacking the manager, and the almost inevitable rotation of the coaching staff that goes with that event, causes a lot of important knowledge about the team’s strengths, weaknesses, preferences and capabilities to be lost. While the new manager comes in and will quickly seek to reshape the team’s style and tactics to suit the new manager’s preferred style and ways of doing things, that initial ‘shock’ does seem to jolt performance away from the rate of decline seen previously.

“Our findings encourage boards and fans to better manage their expectations of the consequences of change. In saying that, we don't dispute that change is often needed — but it should not be a rash response to performance declines.”

‘Vicious circle theory’ posits that changing managers can lead to a decline in performance, because change disrupts well-established processes and brings instabilities and tensions which can have a detrimental effect on results.

Key findings indicate ‘illusion effects’, where the illusion of a short-term reprieve — when results typically improve following an appointment of a new manager — makes managers and owners believe that things are improving at the club. However, underlying weaknesses and strategic problems, which have not typically been addressed, dictate that performance typically drops to previous standards until problems have been resolved.



This was published in my Football Partnerships group

VPjr
09-25-2009, 07:08 AM
Someone should send Mo to Notts University, preferably for a LONG TIME. Sign him up for one of those 10 year undergrad programs.

Lucky Strike
09-25-2009, 08:50 AM
Good find. This is something I used to say about TFC if Cummins is replaced. That would be 4 managers in 4 years and I didn't think it would be beneficial for the club. But since then, I have become convinced we need a new manager despite the research in this article.

TFC Tifoso
09-25-2009, 09:00 AM
sure, change just for the sake of change is no good......but it looks like the study does not take into account mangers who are tactically retarded, or the people who hire them......

Whoop
09-25-2009, 09:02 AM
It doesn't take a study to realize that stability is good.

Beach_Red
09-25-2009, 09:32 AM
Good find. This is something I used to say about TFC if Cummins is replaced. That would be 4 managers in 4 years and I didn't think it would be beneficial for the club. But since then, I have become convinced we need a new manager despite the research in this article.


TFC is now well enough established that it should be looking to sign a coach to a long-term contract. Making that kind of offer will certainly increase the number and quality of candidates for the job.

Let's face it, taking over a team with the core we have now of JDG, DeRo, OBW, good young players, etc., is a lot different that coaching an expansion team.

Oldtimer
09-25-2009, 10:08 AM
NYRB/MetroStars is the perfect example in MLS. How many coaches have they had? It's almost 1 a year.

jabbronies
09-25-2009, 10:17 AM
Having a coach for more than a year is definatly the way to go.

I think TFC need to find someone who can take what we have now and build from there. At this point in time, bringing in someone who will tear the whole ship apart and rebuild is not the best route.

Kaz
09-25-2009, 10:23 AM
Carver would have been kept for a season or two more if he hadn't quit I suspect. Cummins is not a signed coach, he is an interim coach, TFC needs a fully experience senior team coach at least to the level of League 1 in the UK, preferably one familiar with MLS or a ground game and not from the UK.

A fluent english speaking German or Spanish coach would be nice. One of the long term assistance from one of the other MLS clubs would be good too.

And then we should keep them for a while.

in the case of MLS we have had Mo who was "promoted" JC who "quit" and Cummins who was forced into the position as a Interm coach.

I will be happy when we have a qualified Head Coach who was hired to preform that position.

brad
09-25-2009, 10:34 AM
It doesn't take a study to realize that stability is good.

Only when the base is solid though.

nobodybeatsthewiz
09-25-2009, 10:41 AM
chicken or the egg........maybe part of it is that the club is good enough, somewhat independent of tactical moves/managerial competence, to justify retaining the manager??

i dunno.

Bobo
09-25-2009, 10:54 AM
Maybe CC can find an amateur side somewhere that he can spend many years at and learn how to coach.

jloome
09-25-2009, 11:09 AM
This study is ridiculous, as posted.

1) If a manager is successful, he will be employed longer. So while a cursory study of that team may tie longetivity to success, it'll only mean something if it comes after an initial period of failure.

2) Even in that circumstance, you'd have to chart the rate of failure of early managers who were allowed to stay on against the rate of failure for those fired quickly, and it would be hard to do, given that there'd be much less reliable data on one than the other.

Don't people think of this shit when they write this stuff? Ever?

Kaz
09-25-2009, 01:48 PM
of course it was part of a summary of a larger authored work..
why not find the full paper and determine if it has value that way?

If the summary article , however simplified is accurate to the papers actual findings then the summary article doesn't make the paper less valid simply by not being as well worded or in depth in it's points.

http://research.nottingham.ac.uk/NewsReviews/newsDisplay.aspx?id=626
I'm sure if you contacted Jo Lumani at the University they would be happy to put you in touch with Mat Hughes or a copy of the actual work rather then the article about it, so you can judge the information directly.

mmmikey
09-25-2009, 05:57 PM
This study is ridiculous, as posted.
Don't people think of this shit when they write this stuff? Ever?

no kidding.. you beat me to this post :P

typically being a good manager = you keep your job longer (unless the club is crazy). making some inference that a manager who keeps his job for longer will MAKE them a good manager is a leap.

if u get a totally incompetent guy who gets deservedly fired 3 months in, statistically it will bring down the average term of "bad managers" and further enforce the position that long term = good manager.

it's a ridiculous idea made plausible by basing it on common sense..

Shakes McQueen
09-26-2009, 02:17 AM
Does the study in any way account for the fact that good managers tend to stay with their clubs, instead of getting fired?

If not, then of course the study shows not changing managers is a good thing. If a manager is getting the job done, then he doesn't get removed. Therefore, the results of a study like this will always be skewed that way.

- Scott

Oldtimer
09-26-2009, 07:43 AM
No point taking this discussion any further, Dobson reports Cummins is as good as gone.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/soccer/2009/09/25/cummins_blog_dobson/#