The case for keeping a struggling manager

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,135]

Sorry for the slightly misleading thread title but I couldn't fit my point into the headline. 

When have we as a club ever benefited directly by keeping a manager in post after the fans have turned and it's clear it isn't working? I genuinely want to find out if there have ever been examples of this in your opinion of when hanging other a manager after it's gotten really bad has ever been a good decision for us because my frame of reference only goes back to 2001. Note - I said directly, as in the effect of just keeping or not sacking the manager, what the next guy or guys did or didn't do is an independent factor. 

 

So keeping Nigel Worthington - Did we as a club or him as a manager benefit from all the dead man walking time? Our fortunes didn't improve under him after the fans had turned. We slowly got worse, he suffered horrendous abuse and tarnished his legacy here

Same question Glen Roeder - His borrowed time was much shorter than Worthy's mercifully but again we just continued to decline in results and performances and not even a spirited fightback under Gunn could save us after the damage had been done. 

Hughton - This is still fresh in every bodies memory, we all reached a similar consensus to where we are with Farke after the 7-0 Man City loss, we'd had enough it was clear he wasn't the right man for the club or set of players, the board voted to keep him on and despite winning the next two in the mid term we suffered, we ended up basically relegated with 5 games to go, again no positive outcome here. 

Neil - Results turned immediately after he was sacked and if it had happened 5 or 6 games ago even Russell Martin came out and admitted they probably would have made the play offs if the board acted sooner. Once again blind faith only led to a poor outcome.

The common theme here is also that the board only acted once the fans made the decision for them and got really nasty, I bet without the crowd turning each of these would have been given even longer to cause more damage. 

 

Now here we are again with Farke, we should have learned by now that no good comes from keeping on a manager once they've passed their sell by date, yes we need to get the replacement right, but can anyone seriously argue that based on the previous (and this is almost always the case for every other struggling manager at every other club as well) evidence that acting now wouldn't be the right move and that we should string out this sorry affair for much longer? 

[Robert N. LiM 4,320]

Thoughtful post. Not sure I have an answer.

When Trevor Bayliss was the England cricket coach he said he wanted to always give a player a game or two too many before dropping them rather than a game or two too few, and I like that we seem to adopt the same approach, rather than being a knee-jerk sacking club. But, as you say, little is gained by dead men walking clinging on.

Obviously in the cases you quote, they left in the end anyway, so it's a bit of a self-selecting group. Perhaps the more interesting question is whether we ever kept a manager on when others would have sacked him, and were glad we did. I remember thinking that Worthington had taken the club as far as he could when we finished eighth the year after the play off final loss. I'd have moved on then, but he obviously won the title the next season. Not sure I can think of any other examples. I guess most clubs would have sacked Farke during our last Prem season, and I still think bouncing back from that experience was a remarkable achievement. But it's very difficult not to see this situation becoming absolutely appalling. And apart from anything else, I wouldn't wish that on Daniel.

[Making Plans 936]

2 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

When Trevor Bayliss was the England cricket coach he said he wanted to always give a player a game or two too many before dropping them rather than a game or two too few, and I like that we seem to adopt the same approach, rather than being a knee-jerk sacking club

Sacking Farke now, with his appaling PL record, would hardly be " knee jerk"

He's already been cut more than enough slack

[Robert N. LiM 4,320]

Just now, Making Plans said:

Sacking Farke now, with his appaling PL record, would hardly be " knee jerk"

He's already been cut more than enough slack

Replying to my post without reading all of it is pretty knee-jerk, though. 

[Worthy Nigelton 1,043]

Sir Alex Ferguson.

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,135]

16 minutes ago, Worthy Nigelton said:

Sir Alex Ferguson.

There's a reason that is brought up so often it's because it's so rare.

@Robert N. LiM Sure it's selective,  I purposely selected managers with whom it got to the point where it turned really nasty and it was obvious for all to see that the club needed to make a change because that's the phase we're entering now with Farke. I didn't include 2017 Farke or Gunn pre Colchester for instance because it never got to that point despite being disappointing periods. You're point is valid about us doing well out of keeping managers that others would have sacked, but again the examples of Farke in 2017 or Worthy pre promotion, it never got to this type of turning point, it's keeping managers on when it gets to this level that I'm looking at.

 

I'm glad we give managers time, but that means not sacking them if they're not pulling up trees after 6 months or after average seasons like 2017, that's a problem in football, but after 4+ years with Farke or nearly 2 years with Hughton or over 2 years with Neil for instance...they've had time, they've shown their level and just like how clubs sometimes move on from players who have served them well in the past there comes a time when managers sometimes reach that point after it goes badly wrong and you pass the point of no return. When that time comes I'd argue we are painfully slow to react and often just bury our heads in the sand and carry on at the expense of the clubs well being and the managers reputation, we almost hang them out to dry a bit. 

[Robert N. LiM 4,320]

Appreciate the reply, @Christoph Stiepermann. I think we're in agreement, tbh. Struggling to see an argument for dragging this out any longer. Brentford at a push, but if we don't win that, the next home game could be a real cruelty.

[Worthy Nigelton 1,043]

49 minutes ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

There's a reason that is brought up so often it's because it's so rare.

@Robert N. LiM Sure it's selective,  I purposely selected managers with whom it got to the point where it turned really nasty and it was obvious for all to see that the club needed to make a change because that's the phase we're entering now with Farke. I didn't include 2017 Farke or Gunn pre Colchester for instance because it never got to that point despite being disappointing periods. You're point is valid about us doing well out of keeping managers that others would have sacked, but again the examples of Farke in 2017 or Worthy pre promotion, it never got to this type of turning point, it's keeping managers on when it gets to this level that I'm looking at.

 

I'm glad we give managers time, but that means not sacking them if they're not pulling up trees after 6 months or after average seasons like 2017, that's a problem in football, but after 4+ years with Farke or nearly 2 years with Hughton or over 2 years with Neil for instance...they've had time, they've shown their level and just like how clubs sometimes move on from players who have served them well in the past there comes a time when managers sometimes reach that point after it goes badly wrong and you pass the point of no return. When that time comes I'd argue we are painfully slow to react and often just bury our heads in the sand and carry on at the expense of the clubs well being and the managers reputation, we almost hang them out to dry a bit. 

Of course it's rare because managers are never given the chance to turn it around. It's the chicken and egg situation.

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,748]

45 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Appreciate the reply, @Christoph Stiepermann. I think we're in agreement, tbh. Struggling to see an argument for dragging this out any longer. Brentford at a push, but if we don't win that, the next home game could be a real cruelty.

Theres a 2 week int. break after Brentford...which for some might seem a logical time to act

...but its probably the worst time. A new manager could walk in on the Monday after the Brentford game but not see most of the players for a week and a half until they come back from international duty 48 hrs before the next game.

We've already wasted too much time.

Farke should have gone after Chelsea so we-ve already wasted a week. He should certainly have been gone tonight to be giving a new man a week with the players ahead of Brentford

[Helsinki canary 242]

He has been given ample time at this level. The argument to keep him on as he is great at getting us back the following season is wasted as what is the point of getting promoted again to the Premier league when he has clearly proven he is not upto this league with his tactics and moderate level players. If we manage to get promoted again next season it has to be with a new manager who may give us a fighting chance of staying up, unlike the incumbent.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

I guess it depends on what the plan is for a replacement. If Zidane had been on the phone to Delia, desperately begging to be given the job with the promise he's convinced Mbappe to join the project on a free in summer then bye bye Daniel.

Realistically though, what is it we are looking to achieve? We are basically down already with an unsettled, unmotivated dressing room so what can the new man actually achieve? 4 of the lads basically must already know they are off back to their parent clubs in January and the ones that remain and are motivated just aren't cut out for the prem.

What we might have to do is have a barren rest of the season with a caretaker on the cheap manager to just see the remaining games off. 28 games is a long time to do that for. On that note, there isn't really much of a rush to get rid of Farke but he's well into dead man walking territory.

It's a huge shame we didn't at least get a few points to build on before we got everyone going after the lack of preseason and late arrivals but I feel with 2 points from 10 games, our race is run before its even really started.

For me, we need the next manager to show a bit more fight, both with words and with their style. Things like admitting defeat before the games were even played vs the big 6 are absolutely atrocious mentality. You'd never have seen Lamberts sides wave the white flag in them games or Hughtons. Sure we might end up losing some of them badly but there's points to be won there as well.

I suspect this will be 1 yo too many for our current project so now is the time to change the system around a bit. Farkeball doesn't work on the cheap in the Premier league.

[Canary Jedi 579]

Don’t forget we’re not a normal club! Normal clubs base their performance on league results. Success for us is not just league results but the ability to bring on young players and sell them at a decent profit et cetera et cetera. So from that perspective there is no problem right?

Not saying I agree with this but that’s how it is

[lake district canary 4,531]

I still can't see any point in changing the manager. As @Canary Jedi says, we are not a normal club.  

Could someone else do better with what we've got?  Not sure they would. It could be that Farke is getting the best out of the players that anyone could, given the circumstances of the league and it's massive finances.

Would  a new manager bounce happen? It might, but it doesn't always happen - sometimes does, sometimes doesn't - and if the players aren't good enough, less chance ofthat anyway.

Is there a long term benefit in allowing Farke to carry on and improve the team as the season progresses?  Could be. He is no fool and as the young players acclimatise, we could see results improve and he has a good record of bringing youngsters through, which is good for the club. It's tough, I can see why people might want to change, but given our resources, it is clear that whoever is in charge is going to struggle to get us up the table.

We all want to see the team winning and picking up points in the PL, but it will - imo - only happen if we stick to our guns and stay with a stable management and work with what we've got. Change is easy - success is not - and it could be that staying with the current manager is still the best option. I think we will start picking up points and improving, even if we eventually go down - improving to the point that if we do go down, we will be strong again next season. But changing the manager, could mean the opposite - we still struggle, then go down and not be any good next season.

DF is still a success story at championship level - one of the best managers there, if our last two promotions are anything to go by. It could still be a key part of our next few seasons to keep him. It may not give us PL success - but as many have said, we may just not be able to compete well enough to stay up, whoever is in charge. 

I would back him to improve us this season as it goes on - no evidence for that of course - sometimes you just have to believe. 

Some people believe you have to change things when they go sour, I do too, if there is a clear way forwards if you do change. I don't believe there is a clear way forwards with a change, unless Webber can pull out another Daniel Farke from somewhere.......but then we've already got one of those!

 

Edited October 31, 2021 by lake district canary

[JB 115]

10 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Could someone else do better with what we've got?  Not sure they would. It could be that Farke is getting the best out of the players that anyone could, given the circumstances of the league and it's massive finances.

 

 

I think the contents of an overused ashtray might do better right now. Went in today with so much positivity but was let down again - we all were. Why not roll the dice and see if another manager does the trick. Nothing to lose now at all. We either stick with what we've got and go down, or, we take a punt and we might still go down, BUT we may also put up more of a fight, which is something that simply won't happen with Farke in the Premier League.

Edited October 31, 2021 by JB

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,748]

You'd have to question whether Farke himself would really have the motivation for another Championship slog for a third promotion push

...plus next season there are a couple of extra factors that could make the Championship more of an unknown.

1) we could have one of Europes richest clubs down there with us in Newcastle...thats one promotion spot already gone

2) there's a world cup in the middle of the season which could throw the whole thing into chaos

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

3 hours ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

Sorry for the slightly misleading thread title but I couldn't fit my point into the headline. 

When have we as a club ever benefited directly by keeping a manager in post after the fans have turned and it's clear it isn't working? I genuinely want to find out if there have ever been examples of this in your opinion of when hanging other a manager after it's gotten really bad has ever been a good decision for us because my frame of reference only goes back to 2001. Note - I said directly, as in the effect of just keeping or not sacking the manager, what the next guy or guys did or didn't do is an independent factor. 

 

So keeping Nigel Worthington - Did we as a club or him as a manager benefit from all the dead man walking time? Our fortunes didn't improve under him after the fans had turned. We slowly got worse, he suffered horrendous abuse and tarnished his legacy here

Same question Glen Roeder - His borrowed time was much shorter than Worthy's mercifully but again we just continued to decline in results and performances and not even a spirited fightback under Gunn could save us after the damage had been done. 

Hughton - This is still fresh in every bodies memory, we all reached a similar consensus to where we are with Farke after the 7-0 Man City loss, we'd had enough it was clear he wasn't the right man for the club or set of players, the board voted to keep him on and despite winning the next two in the mid term we suffered, we ended up basically relegated with 5 games to go, again no positive outcome here. 

Neil - Results turned immediately after he was sacked and if it had happened 5 or 6 games ago even Russell Martin came out and admitted they probably would have made the play offs if the board acted sooner. Once again blind faith only led to a poor outcome.

The common theme here is also that the board only acted once the fans made the decision for them and got really nasty, I bet without the crowd turning each of these would have been given even longer to cause more damage. 

 

Now here we are again with Farke, we should have learned by now that no good comes from keeping on a manager once they've passed their sell by date, yes we need to get the replacement right, but can anyone seriously argue that based on the previous (and this is almost always the case for every other struggling manager at every other club as well) evidence that acting now wouldn't be the right move and that we should string out this sorry affair for much longer? 

A well reasoned post.

In response to your final paragraph, I think all bar a handful of the most diehard apologists on here realise that the time has come for a change. The biggest problem is that the people who make this decision are in the same boat as the apologists and they just never learn. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and our owners refuse to take lessons from previous experience from relegation battles, so round and round we go. To my memory, we have never successfully survived any full on relegation battle under our current owners, always due to their dithering, and I see no evidence that they will break that habit any time soon.

The other issue is that, having just signed a new 4 year deal, Farke is very unlikely to fall on his own sword as he will lose a big chunk of the money coming this way. After all, with his reputation within the game now so tarnished at the top level, he is hardly likely to be offered a job on a similar wage at another top flight European club.

 

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

59 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

I still can't see any point in changing the manager. As @Canary Jedi says, we are not a normal club.  

Could someone else do better with what we've got?  Not sure they would. It could be that Farke is getting the best out of the players that anyone could, given the circumstances of the league and it's massive finances.

Would  a new manager bounce happen? It might, but it doesn't always happen - sometimes does, sometimes doesn't - and if the players aren't good enough, less chance ofthat anyway.

Is there a long term benefit in allowing Farke to carry on and improve the team as the season progresses?  Could be. He is no fool and as the young players acclimatise, we could see results improve and he has a good record of bringing youngsters through, which is good for the club. It's tough, I can see why people might want to change, but given our resources, it is clear that whoever is in charge is going to struggle to get us up the table.

We all want to see the team winning and picking up points in the PL, but it will - imo - only happen if we stick to our guns and stay with a stable management and work with what we've got. Change is easy - success is not - and it could be that staying with the current manager is still the best option. I think we will start picking up points and improving, even if we eventually go down - improving to the point that if we do go down, we will be strong again next season. But changing the manager, could mean the opposite - we still struggle, then go down and not be any good next season.

DF is still a success story at championship level - one of the best managers there, if our last two promotions are anything to go by. It could still be a key part of our next few seasons to keep him. It may not give us PL success - but as many have said, we may just not be able to compete well enough to stay up, whoever is in charge. 

I would back him to improve us this season as it goes on - no evidence for that of course - sometimes you just have to believe. 

Some people believe you have to change things when they go sour, I do too, if there is a clear way forwards if you do change. I don't believe there is a clear way forwards with a change, unless Webber can pull out another Daniel Farke from somewhere.......but then we've already got one of those!

 

We expected you to find some relief after today but it is misguided and ill thought out.

Yours thoughts are all speculation. The fact is, with DF in charge, we have played 48 EPL games and accumulated 23 points. How do you reconcile that?

And why do you assume he would get us back up? Why do you assume no other coach could work with these players? 

Too many assumptions rather than facing the facts.

[lake district canary 4,531]

34 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

We expected you to find some relief after today but it is misguided and ill thought out.

Yours thoughts are all speculation. The fact is, with DF in charge, we have played 48 EPL games and accumulated 23 points. How do you reconcile that?

And why do you assume he would get us back up? Why do you assume no other coach could work with these players? 

Too many assumptions rather than facing the facts.

I only see the next game and what has gone in the past is not exactly irrelevant, but 48 pL games and 23 points might suggest something else - that we cannot afford the necessary players to do well in the PL - and that to lose a manager who is proven to get us up not once but twice, even taking into account a terrible PL season in between, might be considered not very sensible given that is quite possibly what we'll need next season. 

 

Edited October 31, 2021 by lake district canary

[kingsway 94]

Like the original starter of this thread says Norwichs recent track record of hanging on to struggling managers for too long is atrocious and is very time wasting and painful for all involved. - Unfortunately I suspect the Board will go down the same route with Farke  who'll end up finishing his time here in a similar manner to what Worthy did in 2006 which will be tragic and undeserved after his two title winning campaigns.

 

Today against Leeds, the team gave it their all, were very spirited and focussed YET still proved not good enough and this was against a poor Leeds team who will be almost certainly be in the bottom 6 come the end of the season. Thats why I doubt any managers going to get much more about out of this current crop this season BUT in order to lift the spirits of the fans and players, be seen to do something and try and get some respectability by attempting to get more points than Derbys 2007/08 worst ever top flight total of 11pts, Farke needs to go. 

 

This is not a kneejerk reaction cause Farkes Premier League record is atrocious after 48 games this level!

 

I'm also sick of hearing the old chestnut about us being self funded with non wealthy owners being used as the reason for recent struggles in the top flight. While this model makes it difficult to survive it shouldn't instantly mean we will be cannon fodder in the Premier cause we were self funded with the same owners in 2011/12 when we came 12th under Lambert (with a few lower League journeymen players) then the following season 11th under Hughton.

 

Farke out.

Edited October 31, 2021 by kingsway

[nutty nigel 7,528]

5 hours ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

Sorry for the slightly misleading thread title but I couldn't fit my point into the headline. 

When have we as a club ever benefited directly by keeping a manager in post after the fans have turned and it's clear it isn't working? I genuinely want to find out if there have ever been examples of this in your opinion of when hanging other a manager after it's gotten really bad has ever been a good decision for us because my frame of reference only goes back to 2001. Note - I said directly, as in the effect of just keeping or not sacking the manager, what the next guy or guys did or didn't do is an independent factor. 

 

So keeping Nigel Worthington - Did we as a club or him as a manager benefit from all the dead man walking time? Our fortunes didn't improve under him after the fans had turned. We slowly got worse, he suffered horrendous abuse and tarnished his legacy here

Same question Glen Roeder - His borrowed time was much shorter than Worthy's mercifully but again we just continued to decline in results and performances and not even a spirited fightback under Gunn could save us after the damage had been done. 

Hughton - This is still fresh in every bodies memory, we all reached a similar consensus to where we are with Farke after the 7-0 Man City loss, we'd had enough it was clear he wasn't the right man for the club or set of players, the board voted to keep him on and despite winning the next two in the mid term we suffered, we ended up basically relegated with 5 games to go, again no positive outcome here. 

Neil - Results turned immediately after he was sacked and if it had happened 5 or 6 games ago even Russell Martin came out and admitted they probably would have made the play offs if the board acted sooner. Once again blind faith only led to a poor outcome.

The common theme here is also that the board only acted once the fans made the decision for them and got really nasty, I bet without the crowd turning each of these would have been given even longer to cause more damage. 

 

Now here we are again with Farke, we should have learned by now that no good comes from keeping on a manager once they've passed their sell by date, yes we need to get the replacement right, but can anyone seriously argue that based on the previous (and this is almost always the case for every other struggling manager at every other club as well) evidence that acting now wouldn't be the right move and that we should string out this sorry affair for much longer? 

You missed the latest one which was Farke's first and second seasons. There were boos and calls for Farke out at the end of 2017/18 and for the first few weeks of 2018/19. In fact there was more unrest about him then than there is now.

Can he turn this around? Let's just say we don't know. I certainly don't know but I'd love it if he could.

Webber is the man who will make the decision and he wasn't involved in the other examples you gave. 

[Beefy is a legend 224]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

You missed the latest one which was Farke's first and second seasons. There were boos and calls for Farke out at the end of 2017/18 and for the first few weeks of 2018/19. In fact there was more unrest about him then than there is now.

Can he turn this around? Let's just say we don't know. I certainly don't know but I'd love it if he could.

Webber is the man who will make the decision and he wasn't involved in the other examples you gave. 

Also worth pointing out that Worthington's dismissal set the club on a nosedive that ended in L1. Change isn't always a good thing.

The issue with the OP however, is the premise. I have seen very little evidence in the ground of fans really turning on Farke. Apart from some boos at the end of the game I felt the crowd was right behind the team. I didn't hear a single anti-Farke word said during the whole game. 

[nutty nigel 7,528]

1 minute ago, Beefy is a legend said:

Also worth pointing out that Worthington's dismissal set the club on a nosedive that ended in L1. Change isn't always a good thing.

The issue with the OP however, is the premise. I have seen very little evidence in the ground of fans really turning on Farke. Apart from some boos at the end of the game I felt the crowd was right behind the team. I didn't hear a single anti-Farke word said during the whole game. 

There wasn't. There was more booing and unrest during the Preston game in 2018.

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,540]

4 hours ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

There's a reason that is brought up so often it's because it's so rare.

@Robert N. LiM Sure it's selective,  I purposely selected managers with whom it got to the point where it turned really nasty and it was obvious for all to see that the club needed to make a change because that's the phase we're entering now with Farke. I didn't include 2017 Farke or Gunn pre Colchester for instance because it never got to that point despite being disappointing periods. You're point is valid about us doing well out of keeping managers that others would have sacked, but again the examples of Farke in 2017 or Worthy pre promotion, it never got to this type of turning point, it's keeping managers on when it gets to this level that I'm looking at.

 

I'm glad we give managers time, but that means not sacking them if they're not pulling up trees after 6 months or after average seasons like 2017, that's a problem in football, but after 4+ years with Farke or nearly 2 years with Hughton or over 2 years with Neil for instance...they've had time, they've shown their level and just like how clubs sometimes move on from players who have served them well in the past there comes a time when managers sometimes reach that point after it goes badly wrong and you pass the point of no return. When that time comes I'd argue we are painfully slow to react and often just bury our heads in the sand and carry on at the expense of the clubs well being and the managers reputation, we almost hang them out to dry a bit. 

It has actually turned pretty negative with Farke in the past. There were a lot of people saying he should go around about the time Leeds beat us 3-0 in the 2018/19 season where we were promoted. 

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,135]

7 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

You missed the latest one which was Farke's first and second seasons. There were boos and calls for Farke out at the end of 2017/18 and for the first few weeks of 2018/19. In fact there was more unrest about him then than there is now.

Can he turn this around? Let's just say we don't know. I certainly don't know but I'd love it if he could.

Webber is the man who will make the decision and he wasn't involved in the other examples you gave. 

I kind of addressed that in my second post but the difference in our opinions here probably amounts to how we remember that situation. I remember there being unrest and some supporters wanting him out,  booing and lots of people hated how we played out from the back but it wasn't as bad as it is now, not even close and like we've discussed before by that point he hadn't really had time to work with a squad that he had assembled. If you remember it being like the current situation with 95% wanting him out, a completely defeated and depressing atmosphere around the players and all with the consideration that he's had over 4 years now and this is his squad then fine, but I wouldn't put that era in the same camp as this one (or Worthy/Hughton/Neil etc's dead man walking periods) 

If you're judging it purely on booing then I think from memory we probably did boo louder after the Preston and Leeds games that year, but this is worse because the fans aren't angry, we're depressed and have given up, we've completely lost faith and that for me is more damning on the manager and more damaging to the club.