Ranieri sacked

[sgncfc 1,228]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]No nutty, it''s a complete roll of the dice. However it''s one some owners feel is necessary. Swansea and Hull have both improved dramatically since their changes whereas Crystal Palace have gone backwards under Allardyce. Simiarliy Sunderland have made late changes and stayed up on more than a few occasions. There''s no definitive answer to the question.[/quote]

There is, actually. There have been several studies around the world over the last 20 or so years - have a look at a book called Soccernomics for instance. The consensus of all these studies is that changing the manager provides a very, very short term improvement, if any. Equally transfer fees spent do not result in improved results - it''s all about the wages you pay to attract the better players; the manager or coach has almost no impact in the vast majority of situations.

I suspect Ranieri had little impact on either last season or this - Kante, Mahrez, Drinkwater and Vardy effectively won them the title - Kante was sold, and Mahrez, Drinkwater and Vardy have stopped performing at that level.

[Hairy Canary 704]

If that is so sgncfc then why do managers command such high saleries? Are the studies suggesting that Gunn would have replicated Lambert achievements?

It''s a simple fact that some managers must be better than others.

[Van wink 2,994]

"I suspect Ranieri had little impact on either last season or this - Kante, Mahrez, Drinkwater and Vardy effectively won them the title"

What an extraordinary statement.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]If that is so sgncfc then why do managers command such high saleries? Are the studies suggesting that Gunn would have replicated Lambert achievements?

It''s a simple fact that some managers must be better than others.[/quote]Because it isn''t so! It is true that wages are almost certainly the single most important demonstrable factor in where a team finishes, although the amount of influence is usually less in any one season than over several. But in either eventuality there is still plenty of scope for managerial ability to make a significant difference. If that wasn''t the case then it would hardly be necessary to have a Premier League season at all - you would simply find out the wage bills of every club and draw up a final table accordingly.In reality (I did some research on this a few years ago) the majority of teams don''t finish where their wages say they should. From memory in our last several years in the PL Norwich City have never ended up in our supposedly appointed place. Why? Because some managers are better than others.

[Hairy Canary 704]

Exactly right purple. And this year we will end up lower than where our wage structure suggests we should finish because some managers are worse than others.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]Exactly right purple. And this year we will end up lower than where our wage structure suggests we should finish because some managers are worse than others.[/quote]Absolutely. Just looking back, in our last three seasons in the PL for which figures are available (this doesn''t include last season) we finished seven places ahead of where wages said we should, then six places ahead, then two places lower. That is an average of five places out of supposed kilter per season.

[westcoastcanary 173]

@Purple Canary

"From memory in our last several years in the PL Norwich City have never ended up in our supposedly appointed place. Why? Because some managers are better than others."

"Just looking back, in our last three seasons in the PL for which figures are available (this doesn''t include last season) we finished seven places ahead of where wages said we should, then six places ahead, then two places lower. That is an average of five places out of supposed kilter per season."

So those three seasons were the ones with Lambert and Hughton in charge? Considering Hughton''s two seasons, do we infer he was "a better manager than others" (first season) or worse than others (second season). Or maybe the Hughton of his first season was "a better manager" than the Hughton of his second season? This suggests to me that "better manager" is not a useful terminology in this context. It would make more sense to utilise the idea of value added or subtracted in any given season relative to wage spend? (Of course, in trying to calculate managerial added or subtracted value, other variables such as luck have to be factored in.)

[Highland Canary 76]

Or, simply, the belief that Lambert instilled in the team gradually ebbed away.