When managers go wrong (and right again)

[a1canary 0]

I''ve seen comparison''s to Chris Hughton''s time at city, including by Paddy D in his latest 6 things article. I am, generally, in the world of total polarisation, a "Happy Clapping Keep the Faither", rather than a "String him up and boot him outer". But I''m now on the "time''s up" side of the debate on Alex Neil. Which seems incredible to me after the effect he had around this time 2 years ago. Which has me thinking. Just what is it that goes wrong? Neil seems just as unable to arrest this alarming slide in form as Hughton was.  And yet look at Hughton now. How is it some managers only need to turn up at a different club and all the problems we see writ large right now with Neil and experienced with Hughton, dissolve away as they sail off to the Premiership!??For what it''s worth, my take on Neil and Hughton is that they are both managers who have a very specific idea of how they want to play and how they want their team to be in order to acheive success. And they are so specific about this that when they don''t get what they imagine they need, they have absolutely no flexibility or ways of adapting when the situation demands it. But I''m not sure how right that theory is tbh. Neil did try to make changes last year - after Newcastle for example - and initially it worked but these changes proved ill fated. Either way it seems more credit must go to Neil Adams than he ever got for delivering a squad to Alex Neil that he was able to take on and achieve immediate promotion with, with very little alteration. The ''galactico'' mangers also have very specific ways of playing that they change for no-one. Pep, Klopp, Wenger... they have ONE way of playing, and if players don''t adhere to it they''re out. Could it be that when you are Pep you can get exactly what you want, money no object, to deliver ''YOUR WAY''... but in the Champ, you don''t have that luxury to get what you want so you can''t have it your way very often?

[Guest]

I enjoyed your post and your pragmatic approach.

I believe you are correct in your analysis of AN. I believe he is limited in his scope and ability. He repeats the same message after each defeat. Which to me indicates he does not have the ability to change it.

A measure of a manager is how he reacts to adversity as much as who he signs or how many clean sheets he keeps. He chose his backroom staff and this is his squad now. So he can;t blame anything or anyone else.

Defeat isn''t the end of the world. Many teams have been in the bottom half at Christmas and gone up (we did in the 80''s) so losing 5 on the spin isn''t the end of it.

But the football is awful as well so there doesn''t seem to any excuse or reason. Other than the manager''s insistence on his tactics, his reluctance to drop certain players but would rather choose to drop Thompson and Murphy because it is the easiest thing to do. And leaving subs on the bench at the end of the game endorses my belief he cannot change.

And change is the one thing that must happen for us to progress.

[? 0]

A1 wrote;

The ''galactico'' mangers also have very specific ways of playing that they change for no-one. Pep, Klopp, Wenger... they have ONE way of playing, and if players don''t adhere to it they''re out. Could it be that when you are Pep you can get exactly what you want, money no object, to deliver ''YOUR WAY''... but in the Champ, you don''t have that luxury to get what you want so you can''t have it your way very often?

I have to disagree here. Conte at Chelsea was on bad run of form culminating in a 3-0 defeat to Arsenal. He saw the problem and rectified by going with a 3-4-3 formation and since then has gone unbeaten in 6 with zero goals conceded! I think this type of adaptability is what makes a great manager, the ability to identify the weakness but more importantly do something about it. With our current manager the weakness is all to apparent but he is unable to rectify it. It seems he is out of his depth.

[Tumbleweed 106]

I think it is very rare that managers can arrest a slide once it has set in. Sunderland have survived year on year recently by changing when form dropped and things got sticky. Watford however have even changed when things have gone well but felt that the existing man wasn''t the right one. In fact in the years of following City I don''t ever remember a manager turning anything round after the rot had been set. And I remember Dave Stringer who resigned saying he had reached his best before date. For some that date seems to come sooner rather than later.

[nutty nigel 7,530]

I think it''s as common for managers to arrest a slide as it is for a change in manager to arrest the slide. People just tend to drag up examples in history to support whatever their point of view is. Rather like the myth that new managers always win their first game. I actually researched this for Rays Funds and it''s, to use an AGM phrase, piffle.

Anyway looking at our club, Saunders out Bond in - we were relegated and finished bottom. The next slide and calls for the managers head came after we were relegated in 1981 and by the middle of Feb 1982 we were bottom half 14 points from 3rd top and 7 points from 3rd bottom. We kept faith with Ken Brown went on an incredible run and got promoted. I don''t think we were really on a slide when Ken Brown was sacked, when Stringer resigned or when Walker walked. Megson replacing Deehan didn''t stop a slide. O''Neil didn''t stick around long enough to really know. Walker Mk2 didn''t arrest any slide. I guess the next one to turn it round was Worthy. After him Grant, Roeder and Gunn didn''t turn it around. Lambert did.

So if this is a long term slide then what are the chances of a change of manager halting it?

[Guest]

Agree about Conte. Do you think he is under fierce pressure so has to be able to adapt, accepting he has that ability? And if so, then shouldn''t AN be put under similar pressure?

[simmo_2 6]

[quote user="Ron Manager"]A1 wrote;

The ''galactico'' mangers also have very specific ways of playing that they change for no-one. Pep, Klopp, Wenger... they have ONE way of playing, and if players don''t adhere to it they''re out. Could it be that when you are Pep you can get exactly what you want, money no object, to deliver ''YOUR WAY''... but in the Champ, you don''t have that luxury to get what you want so you can''t have it your way very often?

I have to disagree here. Conte at Chelsea was on bad run of form culminating in a 3-0 defeat to Arsenal. He saw the problem and rectified by going with a 3-4-3 formation and since then has gone unbeaten in 6 with zero goals conceded! I think this type of adaptability is what makes a great manager, the ability to identify the weakness but more importantly do something about it. With our current manager the weakness is all to apparent but he is unable to rectify it. It seems he is out of his depth.[/quote]

3-4-3 is Conte system its just at the start of the season he didnt have the personel, they then signed David Luiz

[i,coopius 0]

Nutty.

Roeder definitely turned it around in his first season. Even managed to sign our next hero -like he said hearlier would. It was just after that he was complete carp.

[a1canary 0]

Sunderland have been extraordinary in recent seasons and I don''t think are a typical example to point to. Although it''s still worth reflecting on how they have become apparent masters of the new manager symdrome. They have got in to the habit of using the managerial change tactically - and successfully - each season to engineer their PL survival!This is one of the few recent seasons where they have STARTED with a new manager rather than started with the manager who was new with 10 games to go of the previous season! Who then fails to reproduce their survival form the following season and gets sacked 10 games in. If they turn their customary terrible start around by sticking with Moyes this time, it won''t be the norm for them but a welcome change no doubt.  New managers don''t seem to have the same instant impact at CR. The current manager is the most obvious example we have of one who turned things around after a degree of rot had set in. But he seems to have been the exception rather than the rule at CR. And a look up and down the Championship confirms similarly. New manager syndrome has not worked at all at Leeds, Forest, Cardiff, Wolves, Blackburn to name a few and that covers probably 30 managers in those five clubs alone in the last three or four years. The overwhelming evidence from a purely statistical point of view i.e. number of managerial changes that result in a dramatic turn around vs number of managerial changes that make no material difference to the club''s position, suggest a change rarely helps. BUT, what you don''t have is any evidence or statistics to tell you what would have happened if you had stuck with the manager instead of made a change. In the end you just have to take each situation on its merit. Neil''s failure to not only arrest our slide but to stop the players making the same basic mistakes that result in loss after loss points to something very wrong that needs changing.

[nutty nigel 7,530]

The thing is when there''s an ongoing decline there always comes a time where the manager is sacked. Different clubs have different ideas about how soon it happens. As do different fans. The longer the decline goes on the more fans will be in the out camp. Right now I''d guess mabe 3/10 clubs would have done the deed. Our philosophy was to have him here long term. And it''s rumoured that the board had to persuade him to stay in the summer. Taking all that into account I think that unless he walks Alex will be here unless we drop out of contention or the home fans make it too uncomfortable. The best option would still be that he turns it around but he needs it to happen quickly.

Hope you''re well a1 and good to see you posting.

[Cantiaci Canary 556]

I think it depends how the players feel. If they can''t bring themselves to push through the pain barrier for their manager then the slide won''t halt and he''s on borrowed time.

I fear that in this case too many players won''t hit 90% for him out of resentment at being held here or over his bullish manner and age.

[Yorkshire Canary 118]

With the great benefit of hindsight hughton was a manager we should have persisted with. He was successful at Newcastle and Birmingham and Norwich in his first season and has gone on to do a fine job at Brighton. Had we been relegated under him he would probably have got us up again. Neil was a young energetic confident but inexperienced manager. He carried on his Scottish success in his first 6 months here when he motivated a decent squad. Since then he has been found out. His signings and substitutions have been poor and his confident uncompromising manner was shattered after the 6-2 loss at Newcastle and it has by and large been downhill from there with some exceptions players and supporters have lost confidence in him and I guess he has lost confidence in himself. He does not gave the experience personality or mentors to get through difficult times

[Tumbleweed 106]

There seem many inconsistencies to me which I don''t understand. The signing and then non-playing of Andreu was odd, almost like he needed a "comfort blanket" of someone he knew from Hamilton. Then the whole Lafferty thing. It really shouldn''t matter whether he likes the guy or not- good management is about working out how to get the best from him- O''Neill seems to be able to do that. But that itself is a contrast from Bassong- cast into the wilderness by Adams and brought back into the fold looking very competent when Neil first arrived. It signalled a mature and rounded man manager. There can be no doubt that the team looked very happy and cohesive in those first few months, was that relief at coming through the Adams period or a little AN freshness?

Things seem to have gone awry and because of Neil''s inexperience: he just does not have that bank of knowledge to fall back in dealing with these situations. How could he? Not his fault. But maybe the best thing is for him to agree an exit, step back to take stock and build somewhere again at another level. It won''t do him or the club any good to flounder along making a mess of things.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,161]

There certainly are examples of managers being on a terrible run where all seems lost and then turning it round in spectacular fashion. The most glaring example in recent seasons has been Nigel Pearson at Leicester. They looked absolutely dead and buried in the Premier League and then won 7 and drew 1 out of their last 9 games to stay up (and we all know what happened the following season).

[a1canary 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="Yorkshire Canary"]With the great benefit of hindsight hughton was a manager we should have persisted with. He was successful at Newcastle and Birmingham and Norwich in his first season and has gone on to do a fine job at Brighton. Had we been relegated under him he would probably have got us up again. Neil was a young energetic confident but inexperienced manager. He carried on his Scottish success in his first 6 months here when he motivated a decent squad. Since then he has been found out. His signings and substitutions have been poor and his confident uncompromising manner was shattered after the 6-2 loss at Newcastle and it has by and large been downhill from there with some exceptions players and supporters have lost confidence in him and I guess he has lost confidence in himself. He does not gave the experience personality or mentors to get through difficult times[/quote]

I''m not at all convinced this is true about Hughton.  People forget one of the most important things in football management is the relationship between the manager and the players - he needs to get them motivated and playing together the way he wants.  When a team has gone through a long spell of poor results, like we had under Hughton (and I''m afraid, like we''ve now had under AN) they lose faith in the manager, so it''s not as simple as saying that Hughton has done well with Brighton this season, so he would have got us promoted if we''d kept him.  You can''t simply come back next season and start again with a clean slate.

 

When you get in a new manager, especially when you''ve been doing badly, it gives that fresh start and gives everyone the chance to start again.  That doesn''t mean all new managers will work out.  If a new manager is mediocre, that fresh start isn''t going to last long (or it could all go wrong even for a good manager - like Clough when he went to Leeds).  If we look back to the late 90s, we had a fairly average Championship squad and when we changed manager, we didn''t get in any exceptional managers, so we continued to have average Championship results.  That''s pretty much been the story of the last 20 years until Lambert arrived.  When Worthy got us promoted, IMO it was a case of everything coming together for a season, not something he was able to sustain.  When Lambert arrived, we had a perfect blend of a club setup and squad which suited his management style (and the crushing defeat his team had just inflicted on our players gave him instant credibility and respect).  He was able to exploit those factors to get three fantastic seasons - success breeds success.  Towards the end there were signs of problems on the horizon, but he left at the top so we''ll never know, although of course he has failed to repeat that success at subsequent clubs.

 

Unfortunately I agree with your conclusion about AN - I think his confidence is shot and the players realise this.  The difference between now and (say) the late 90s is that we have a squad that''s among the best in the division, so if we get in a decent manager, the chances are good that we''ll get results reflecting that.