Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
GPs Beard

Ranieri sacked

Recommended Posts

That''s the same question I asked Hank.

I did once find some stats about the new managers first game. And despite the popular view the most likely scenario was a poor run continuing. But that was just one game and don''t answer the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn''t Chelsea sack Di Matteo not long after winning the Champions League?

Its all very well sayting he won them the league, but if he stayed and relegated them after, how would they then feel?

I would have walked after winning the league if I was him - he was never going to be able to get anywhere close after that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will be interesting to see who they get in. Have heard rumours if Mancini, but would a manager of that calibre go to a side in Leicesters league position?

Also heard Frank de Boer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Morty...

Nigel Pearson, he will go in, keep them up, get sacked & be replaced by Ranieri...

In all seriousness, I cannot see them getting a Mancini or even De Boer, regardless of last season they are still Leicester, a team who will probably go back to being a yoyo club

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote user="keelansgrandad"

Well a bacon factory near me is sacking 110 because results aren''t what they expected but the managers are staying.

i couldn''t think of a rasher decision than that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Herman wrote the following post at 2017-02-24 11:03 AM:

JF wrote:

morty wrote the following post at 23/02/2017 11:52 PM: I fail to see how this is any different to any of our fans wanting Hughton or Neil sacked when we were " sleepwalking towards relegation". Er, maybe because he had just delivered them the title?

So??

Alex had just got us to Wembley for the first time in decades but that didn''t stop people calling for his head pretty quickly.

Leicester have won only 5 games all season. I highly doubt the majority on here would be very lenient if it was us.

Did he get us to Wembley? The work done by Neil Adams, including putting the squad together, seems to be forgotten!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How Adams would have done if he''d been kept on is just speculation, as they say, let''s face it his record to that point for the season was far better than AN''s record this season.

 

Personally I think Adams would have got us in the playoffs, but not got us as close to automatic promotion as AN did, and I think our chances of going up via the playoffs would have been considerably worse under Adams.  But no one can say for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ridiculous. If someone told us now we could have a manager that would get us promoted, WIN US THE PREM TITLE, then get us relegated again the following season, I think every single one of us would snap there hand off. Even if we went down to League 1 again afterwards... who cares. Winning the Prem was a massive achievement for a club like Leicester and sacking Ranieri has dirtied it somewhat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="nutty nigel"]That''s the same question I asked Hank. I did once find some stats about the new managers first game. And despite the popular view the most likely scenario was a poor run continuing. But that was just one game and don''t answer the question.[/quote]

 

I read a football book which quoted some stats on this from research for the Dutch league.  They compared clubs on a bad run who changed their manager with clubs on an equally bad run who didn''t (the logic being you only tend to change your manager when doing badly).  They found in both cases the results tended "on average" to improve afterwards (simply because when you''re on a bad run, it tends to improve eventually in the natural course, as AN has shown us on a couple of occasions now) and the change of manager didn''t significantly improve the position.  Of course, what this doesn''t look at is why some clubs changed their manager and others didn''t.

 

My feeling is that it depends on a lot of variables so it''s not much help to look at averages - it depends on the setup at the club, general issues behind the scenes, and how good the club is at recruiting a manager who fits with the club and is right to turn things around.  Plus it depends on how much the current manager is under-performing, e.g. at Leicester if the squad are pretty close to their true level of performance right now, it would be difficult for a new manager to improve that.  Whereas if you had a squad who are under-performing (take Chelsea last season or say Norwich this season [:@]) then there''s a much better chance a new manager will be able to do better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]That''s the same question I asked Hank.

I did once find some stats about the new managers first game. And despite the popular view the most likely scenario was a poor run continuing. But that was just one game and don''t answer the question.[/quote]

As I never tire of telling you Nutty.[Y]They all run out of road in the end.[:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does changing your manager work? Well, if you look at the last three Premier League winners , Leicester, Chelsea and Man City - they all did so with relatively new managers - max two seasons. I would hazard a guess that this year again Chelsea will win with a new manager.

The Champions League too, gets won by teams with relatively new managers.

Whilst lots of people cite the desire to recreate Alex Ferguson, the reality is that this is long gone. The modern game , for what ever reason , subscribes to a belief that you have to keep changing to be successful. And the major honours seem to support this .

Leicester will have spent a fortune on new contracts in the summer - the wolves were gathering to take Vardy, Drinkwater and all - and I suspect they are incredibly vulnerable to relegation.

It just think it football. It''s not great, but these guys get paid better than ever before, and when they go , they get their cash.

Looking at the current trend , I can''t see it changing any time soon - in fact I think the life span will get shorter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Its Character Forming"]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]That''s the same question I asked Hank. I did once find some stats about the new managers first game. And despite the popular view the most likely scenario was a poor run continuing. But that was just one game and don''t answer the question.[/quote]

 

I read a football book which quoted some stats on this from research for the Dutch league.  They compared clubs on a bad run who changed their manager with clubs on an equally bad run who didn''t (the logic being you only tend to change your manager when doing badly).  They found in both cases the results tended "on average" to improve afterwards (simply because when you''re on a bad run, it tends to improve eventually in the natural course, as AN has shown us on a couple of occasions now) and the change of manager didn''t significantly improve the position.  Of course, what this doesn''t look at is why some clubs changed their manager and others didn''t.

 

My feeling is that it depends on a lot of variables so it''s not much help to look at averages - it depends on the setup at the club, general issues behind the scenes, and how good the club is at recruiting a manager who fits with the club and is right to turn things around.  Plus it depends on how much the current manager is under-performing, e.g. at Leicester if the squad are pretty close to their true level of performance right now, it would be difficult for a new manager to improve that.  Whereas if you had a squad who are under-performing (take Chelsea last season or say Norwich this season [:@]) then there''s a much better chance a new manager will be able to do better.

[/quote]If that it the Dutch survey I waded through once then it is pretty much discredited as an argument against changing the manager, which is how it was stupidly used by pundits. It looked at clubs that sacked the manager after a poor run of only four games, and contrasted them with clubs that kept their nerve. It did indeed find there was not much difference in what happened over the next four games.No great surprise. There could indeed be any number of short-term factors that precipitate a bad run, and four games is no indication of whether there are much deeper-lying problems with the club and/or the manager. No two clubs are the same and the reasons for and against sacking a manager are never quite the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
''Whilst lots of people cite the desire to recreate Alex Ferguson, the reality is that this is long gone. The modern game , for what ever reason , subscribes to a belief that you have to keep changing to be successful. And the major honours seem to support this . ''

Completely agree - look at Wenger now. Arsenal have done the bare minimum for 3 years now - qualify for the Champions League, but never really challenge for the league or CL.

An Arsenal team with a new manager would challenge for the league within 2 years but they seem stuck in the same cycle with Wenger. Mourihnio is another example of a manager having a shelf life, success followed by implosion wherever he has been

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Its Character Forming"]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]That''s the same question I asked Hank. I did once find some stats about the new managers first game. And despite the popular view the most likely scenario was a poor run continuing. But that was just one game and don''t answer the question.[/quote]

 

I read a football book which quoted some stats on this from research for the Dutch league.  They compared clubs on a bad run who changed their manager with clubs on an equally bad run who didn''t (the logic being you only tend to change your manager when doing badly).  They found in both cases the results tended "on average" to improve afterwards (simply because when you''re on a bad run, it tends to improve eventually in the natural course, as AN has shown us on a couple of occasions now) and the change of manager didn''t significantly improve the position.  Of course, what this doesn''t look at is why some clubs changed their manager and others didn''t.

 

My feeling is that it depends on a lot of variables so it''s not much help to look at averages - it depends on the setup at the club, general issues behind the scenes, and how good the club is at recruiting a manager who fits with the club and is right to turn things around.  Plus it depends on how much the current manager is under-performing, e.g. at Leicester if the squad are pretty close to their true level of performance right now, it would be difficult for a new manager to improve that.  Whereas if you had a squad who are under-performing (take Chelsea last season or say Norwich this season [:@]) then there''s a much better chance a new manager will be able to do better.

[/quote]

If that it the Dutch survey I waded through once then it is pretty much discredited as an argument against changing the manager, which is how it was stupidly used by pundits. It looked at clubs that sacked the manager after a poor run of only four games, and contrasted them with clubs that kept their nerve. It did indeed find there was not much difference in what happened over the next four games.

No great surprise. There could indeed be any number of short-term factors that precipitate a bad run, and four games is no indication of whether there are much deeper-lying problems with the club and/or the manager. No two clubs are the same and the reasons for and against sacking a manager are never quite the same.

[/quote]

Thanks Purple, I''m pretty sure it is the same one and I''m glad to find out it is rubbish as it seemed dubious to me.

 

Similarly for the point about managers who''ve won the CL being relatively new - isn''t the point that managers at the top level all have a short shelf life nowadays,  so I''d guess on average most of the teams that are in the CL knockout stages will have relatively new managers.  Once Wenger goes, how long will the longest serving PL manager have been with his club ? not long at all I suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="lake district canary"]Just shows what a parless state football is in.  Disgraceful and degrading and bad for the sport. 

[/quote]Too right. I am going to throw my feces at the KP''s boardroom windows when we play them in the Championship next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What goes wrong here. We have a manager who created a winning mentality and lifted player and team performances way above the level of expectancy. That is a rare talent and the key to top management, as Sir Clive Woodward says, management is all about get each individual to be as good as he possibly can be, achieve that and the team pretty much looks after itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Its Character Forming"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Its Character Forming"]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]That''s the same question I asked Hank. I did once find some stats about the new managers first game. And despite the popular view the most likely scenario was a poor run continuing. But that was just one game and don''t answer the question.[/quote]

I read a football book which quoted some stats on this from research for the Dutch league.  They compared clubs on a bad run who changed their manager with clubs on an equally bad run who didn''t (the logic being you only tend to change your manager when doing badly).  They found in both cases the results tended "on average" to improve afterwards (simply because when you''re on a bad run, it tends to improve eventually in the natural course, as AN has shown us on a couple of occasions now) and the change of manager didn''t significantly improve the position.  Of course, what this doesn''t look at is why some clubs changed their manager and others didn''t.

My feeling is that it depends on a lot of variables so it''s not much help to look at averages - it depends on the setup at the club, general issues behind the scenes, and how good the club is at recruiting a manager who fits with the club and is right to turn things around.  Plus it depends on how much the current manager is under-performing, e.g. at Leicester if the squad are pretty close to their true level of performance right now, it would be difficult for a new manager to improve that.  Whereas if you had a squad who are under-performing (take Chelsea last season or say Norwich this season [:@]) then there''s a much better chance a new manager will be able to do better.

[/quote]

If that it the Dutch survey I waded through once then it is pretty much discredited as an argument against changing the manager, which is how it was stupidly used by pundits. It looked at clubs that sacked the manager after a poor run of only four games, and contrasted them with clubs that kept their nerve. It did indeed find there was not much difference in what happened over the next four games.

No great surprise. There could indeed be any number of short-term factors that precipitate a bad run, and four games is no indication of whether there are much deeper-lying problems with the club and/or the manager. No two clubs are the same and the reasons for and against sacking a manager are never quite the same.

[/quote]

Thanks Purple, I''m pretty sure it is the same one and I''m glad to find out it is rubbish as it seemed dubious to me.

Similarly for the point about managers who''ve won the CL being relatively new - isn''t the point that managers at the top level all have a short shelf life nowadays,  so I''d guess on average most of the teams that are in the CL knockout stages will have relatively new managers.  Once Wenger goes, how long will the longest serving PL manager have been with his club ? not long at all I suspect.

[/quote]

Also thinking about it, if they had tried to do the study based on poor runs as long as those AN has had (this season and last season) I suspect they''d have given up because they couldn''t find enough comparable examples where the manager wasn''t sacked....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
[quote user="djc"]quote user="keelansgrandad"

Well a bacon factory near me is sacking 110 because results aren''t what they expected but the managers are staying.

i couldn''t think of a rasher decision than that![/quote]

Well, the owners, Cohens, have said they aren''t telling Porkies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Its Character Forming"][quote user="Its Character Forming"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Its Character Forming"]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]That''s the same question I asked Hank. I did once find some stats about the new managers first game. And despite the popular view the most likely scenario was a poor run continuing. But that was just one game and don''t answer the question.[/quote]

I read a football book which quoted some stats on this from research for the Dutch league.  They compared clubs on a bad run who changed their manager with clubs on an equally bad run who didn''t (the logic being you only tend to change your manager when doing badly).  They found in both cases the results tended "on average" to improve afterwards (simply because when you''re on a bad run, it tends to improve eventually in the natural course, as AN has shown us on a couple of occasions now) and the change of manager didn''t significantly improve the position.  Of course, what this doesn''t look at is why some clubs changed their manager and others didn''t.

My feeling is that it depends on a lot of variables so it''s not much help to look at averages - it depends on the setup at the club, general issues behind the scenes, and how good the club is at recruiting a manager who fits with the club and is right to turn things around.  Plus it depends on how much the current manager is under-performing, e.g. at Leicester if the squad are pretty close to their true level of performance right now, it would be difficult for a new manager to improve that.  Whereas if you had a squad who are under-performing (take Chelsea last season or say Norwich this season [:@]) then there''s a much better chance a new manager will be able to do better.

[/quote]If that it the Dutch survey I waded through once then it is pretty much discredited as an argument against changing the manager, which is how it was stupidly used by pundits. It looked at clubs that sacked the manager after a poor run of only four games, and contrasted them with clubs that kept their nerve. It did indeed find there was not much difference in what happened over the next four games.No great surprise. There could indeed be any number of short-term factors that precipitate a bad run, and four games is no indication of whether there are much deeper-lying problems with the club and/or the manager. No two clubs are the same and the reasons for and against sacking a manager are never quite the same.[/quote]

Thanks Purple, I''m pretty sure it is the same one and I''m glad to find out it is rubbish as it seemed dubious to me.

Similarly for the point about managers who''ve won the CL being relatively new - isn''t the point that managers at the top level all have a short shelf life nowadays,  so I''d guess on average most of the teams that are in the CL knockout stages will have relatively new managers.  Once Wenger goes, how long will the longest serving PL manager have been with his club ? not long at all I suspect.

[/quote]

Also thinking about it, if they had tried to do the study based on poor runs as long as those AN has had (this season and last season) I suspect they''d have given up because they couldn''t find enough comparable examples where the manager wasn''t sacked....

[/quote]
And also thinking about it if we''d have sacked Neil on Boxing Day and the new manager had 18 points from his first 10 games it would most likely be viewed as a positive change...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That''s true, in the same way that those who still back AN were hoping he''d turned things around. 

 

But defeats at Rotherham and Burton would have taken the shine off the record of a new manager for most people.  And those who observe closely would have noticed that 1.8 ppg average (hardly fantastic for a team aspiring to top 2 form which is normally taken to need 2 points per game) came against 10 teams of which 9 are outside the top 10...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Its Character Forming"]

That''s true, in the same way that those who still back AN were hoping he''d turned things around. 

 

But defeats at Rotherham and Burton would have taken the shine off the record of a new manager for most people.  And those who observe closely would have noticed that 1.8 ppg average (hardly fantastic for a team aspiring to top 2 form which is normally taken to need 2 points per game) came against 10 teams of which 9 are outside the top 10...

[/quote]
That is all pretty much true. Which just goes to show that when people have made their mind up there''s no way back. 
So to keep the fans happy the club would be better served by continually changing the manager until they hit gold. It''s worked for Leeds. Maybe....
What I do know isn''t a given is that whole we couldn''t do worse anybody would be better. And because I don''t know I have no hard and fast opinions as to whether we should make a change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you can never know that NN because there are no guarantees about anything in football, so if the Board followed that line of thinking they''d never make a change.

 

Ummm.... you''re not on the board are you ?

 

Seriously, I set out a while back what it would take for me to be convinced that AN had turned the corner and I should change from wanting him out to backing him, which was along the following lines :

 

  • Getting the defence (including the DMs and flank players for their defensive responsibilities) well drilled and organized so that our defenders are playing as well as we can reasonably expect given their ability (which is good for the Championship).  No sign of any improvement here.
  • Improved tactical awareness in team/formation selection and substitutions.  At the moment AN normally comes off second best in these duels with the other manager.  If a team sets up to close down our flair players (by fair means or foul), keep it tight, and attack us on the break, then under AN we are normally struggling especially away from home, and we have a squad that is good enough we should be able to overcome that in most cases (as indeed we were able to, mainly, in his first season).  I can''t say this has got any better.
  • Ability to control the game and play sensibly to protect a lead.  AN was able to do this in his first season with us, the playoff final being the best (but by no means the only) example but for over a year now we have struggled in this area and we still let teams back into games all too easily.
  • Attacking players working well together to create chances rather than relying on individual brilliance for goals.  IMO the team looks better in this area compared to its nadir a couple of months back but we are still not performing to our abilities.
  • Overall things have improved from a couple of months back when the players looked utterly disorganised and unsure what they were meant to be doing, and were clearly (IMO) expecting the manager to be gone before long.  Since  then they have improved as I suspect they, like us, go the message the manager wasn''t being sacked any time soon.  But that''s an improvement from a depressingly low base.

Overall on my tests AN hasn''t yet got near to the level where he would change my opinion.  The Forest game was great but just showed how good our players are, and for every performance like that, we have a Burton or a Rotherham to show him up.

Can''t remember if that was all of my shopping list, and I can''t be bothered to look it up, but this is pretty much how I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn''t say I wouldn''t change. I simply said I didn''t know.

Your list is great but how long do you give the new manager to deliver?

I''m not sure what the average time a manager stays in his job. Probably not much more than a year? So the way football does it''s business means managers spend a lot of time out of work earning big bucks. So perhaps the way forward is one year contracts with conditions to be met before it rolls over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many actually are that successful though. And for those that are the contract doesn''t keep them at the club anyway. Which I think is what you are saying. So it''s all about compensation. However there are many more failures than successes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Paul Lambert has had far more failures than successes.

But while he was with us it was success.

Of course if he had of failed with us, he would not have got the Villa job so he might not be managing at all right now.

Surely the directors of a club like us must have an idea of what they want in a manager? And they are the only ones who can gauge success.

Supporters will be divided of course and trophies will the base line for some and decent football to watch will be enough for others.

So obviously Leicester''s directors/owners have a different concept to Burnley, and no doubt Norwich.

And it appears most directors and it is predominantly in the lower leagues, do not have the time or patience to let a manager linger for long on a bad run. Some clubs have up to four managers in a season!

So consequently the list of apparent failures is far greater than successes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“Yesterday my dream died,” Ranieri wrote this evening in a heartfelt and poignant farewell.

“After the euphoria of last season and being crowned Premier League Champions all I dreamt of was staying with Leicester City, the club I love, for always.

“Sadly this was not to be.

“I wish to thank my wife Rosanna and all my family for their never ending support during my time at Leicester. My thanks go to Paolo and Andrea who accompanied me on this wonderful journey. To Steve Kutner and Franco Granello for bringing me the opportunity to become a champion

“Mostly I have to thank Leicester City Football Club. The adventure was amazing and will live with me forever. Thank you to all the journalists and the media who came with us and enjoyed reporting on the greatest story in football. My heartfelt thanks to everybody at the club, all the players, the staff, everybody who was there and was part of what we achieved.

“But mostly to the supporters. You took me into your hearts from day one and loved me. I love you too. No one can ever take away what we together have achieved and I hope you think about it and smile every day the way I always will.

“It was a time of wonderfulness and happiness that I will never forget.

“It’s been a pleasure and an honour to be a champion with all of you.”

A real Gent treated like $HIT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×