Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
!M.u.s.t.a.r.d_M.a.t.t.e.r.s!

"New Manager Syndrome" - Myth or Reality?

Recommended Posts

I think today''s lead article in the Pink''un is well worth a read:"As Norwich City face Tony Pulis'' Crystal palace in crunch game, is ''New Manager Syndrome'' myth or reality." The key extract for me was: "Between 12 and 18 games after appointment, the points benefit of changing manager has vanished, suggesting that on average there is only a short-term gain and a longer-term negative effect of changing manager''.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nonsense article. It suggests it is all about the players, but surely the poor squad is inherited from the original manager - and that''s why they are sacked.

Every successful manager must also have replaced a sacked manager, as very few retire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is it nonsense all the facts from numerous studies show the manager has limited influence. I fully agree with someone who pointed out my views on this matter are tedious but then what is the repeated denial on here that managers have limited influence as their available budget primarily determines a teams position and the view that fans know more about players and tactics than CH even if it is not a tedious failure to grasp reality. All you have to do is put the wage bill and the points down for each premier club and the reality that the manager has limited influence becomes painfully obvious. The are many on here who simply failing to grasp or deny reality and that really is tedious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it is nonsense and I made no reference to any particular manager. The article does imply that keeping Gunn would have ended in consecutive promotions though.

Perhaps the relevance is in making sure you appoint a more suitable manager than the one you sack. It may not be a better manager - just different attributes more relevant to a club or existing squad of players if no money is available.

Neither my original comment, or the article, provide any clue as to the best course of action regarding the current manager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to the expert whose view on this subject I most trust the correlation between finance and league position is only 75 per cent.

Leaving 25 per cent for other factors, of which this expert rated the competence or otherwise of the manager as the most important. Assessing it at between 10 per cent and 15 per cent of the whole.

Which over a Premier League season works out as a highly significant difference of between 11 and 17 points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="T"]Why is it nonsense all the facts from numerous studies show the manager has limited influence. I fully agree with someone who pointed out my views on this matter are tedious but then what is the repeated denial on here that managers have limited influence as their available budget primarily determines a teams position and the view that fans know more about players and tactics than CH even if it is not a tedious failure to grasp reality. All you have to do is put the wage bill and the points down for each premier club and the reality that the manager has limited influence becomes painfully obvious. The are many on here who simply failing to grasp or deny reality and that really is tedious.[/quote]Have you actually read the paper being cited this time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there are many factors to take into account..Holloway and then Millen could have been disliked by some players, who will like Pulis and want to play for him, this of course works the other way round too. there could be players in the Palace side who don''t buy into Pulis and will look to leave...The style of football will differ, every manager does it differently. Pulis plays a physical game, Holloway went all out attack. even managers who play passing football will have a preferred way. start off wide in your own half before playing through the middle in the opposition? Pass to the wings and let tem attack? slow tempo "bore ball" like Italian sides in the 90''s were famous for.the freedom of expression that Palace will have could get them a few early wins.its the same at any job.. if a new manager comes in to your work, I would wager your productivity and output increases for the first few weeks while you suss each other out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Expected points total for club like Norwich is just over 40 points so as a manger makes a difference of 10 to 15 pc in premier league then that is 4 or 5 points in the case of Norwich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of this stems from the Harry Houdini Myth for Pompey in 2005/6. They had 10 points after 15 games and ended up with 38 by the end of the season. So 28 points from 23 games which to my mind is OK but hardly on a par wuth the loaves and fishes. Coupled with that he spent a fortune and broke the club.It''s a myth, you can''t argue with the data.

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  

×
×
  • Create New...