Managerial choice in the Championship

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

Some research (not double-checked so there may be errors but...) on

managerial choices, following on from debunking the prevalent myth that

Smith and Jones always go for the supposedly cheap option of an internal

appointment.Firstly I looked at Nottingham Forest. By any

measure a bigger club than Norwich City, with consequently a better

chance of attracting talented managers.Forest got relegated from

the Premier League in May 1999. So this is their 16th season out of the

top flight, three of which were spent in the third tier. In that time,

excluding caretakers and leaving out Pearce, the incumbent, they have

had 15 managers, with an average lifespan of a year, none of whom, to

emphasise the point has got them back to the top flight.They are

David Platt, Paul Hart, Joe Kinnear, Mick Harford, Gary Megson, Frank

Barlow and Ian McParland, Colin Calderwood, John Pemberton, Billy

Davies, Steve McClaren, Steve Cotterrill, Sean O''Driscoll, Alex

McCleish, Billy Davies again, and Gary Brazil.Of

those, Platt has not managed a club since. Hart''s career afterwards was a

succession of disasters and he hasn''t managed since 2011. Kinnear was

out of work for four years after Forest, before having what might be

described as an interesting time at Newcastle.Mick Harford had

mangerial spells lower down at Rotherham and Luton (his old cub) before

slipping further down to coaching. Megson had a decent later career with

Leicester, Bolton and Sheffield Wednesday. Barlow and McParland pretty

much disappeared straight away. Calderwood had a year in charge at

Hiberian but has not managed since. Pemberton has not managed since.

Davies did not manage betwen his two spells and has not managed since

(although his prickly personality is probably a factor there, since he

has some talent for the job).McClaren went abroad to resurrect

his career and may be taking Derby to the Premier League. Cotterill, a

classic second/third tier manager, is at Bristol City.  O''Driscoll had

less than a year at Bristol City and is now with the England U19s. After

a gap of more than a year McCleish got the job at Genk. Gary Brazil has

not had a managerial or coaching job since Forest. (As to the latest

choice, Pearce had a tough time at Man City and this is his first club

job since 2007, although he was in charge of the England U21s).Not

one of those was poached to manage in the the Premier League. On the

contrary, most of those have either fallen done to the third or fourth

tiers or below, or into coaching, or out of the game entirely. For a

Forest fan it must be a dispiriting list. For a Norwich City fan it

should emphasise just how limited is the talent pool from which we have

to pick. If Forest, with with their greater clout, can choose failure

after failure, then it is not surprising if we sometimes get it wrong.Of

Smith and Jones'' picks, Rioch, no spring chicken, managed for another

eight years. Hamilton, Gunn, Grant and Roeder have not managed since.

Worthington had a reasonably creditable four years as the Northern

Ireland manager and then moved to York. Lambert was poached by Premier

League Aston Villa. Hughton has just got the job at Brighton. Neither

club''s record is impressive, but of the two one would pick ours over

Forest''s any day, apart from anything else because we had in Lambert the

one manager who moved on up.And Forest are not untypical. A

look at the managers brought in by Championship clubs this season

demonstrates the thinness of the gene pool and how much of a gamble

appointments are.Riga at Blackpool, after a so-so record with

Charlton, already gone. Now Lee Clark, who looks like a decent

Championship manager but not better than that. Hyppia, new to English

management at Brighton, and also gone sacked. Peeters at Charlton also

new to England. Ditto Watford and Jokanovic, after the brief reign of

Garcia, who had resigned/been sacked by Brighton. Hockaday, plucked by

Leeds from Forest Green, to be replaced by new-to-England Milanic, to be

replaced by coach Redfearn. Relegated Cardiff settling for Russell

Slade, a classic lower-league manager. Also-relegated Fulham going for

coach Symons (proof that not only Norwich choose managers who would not

be picked by any other club). Birmingham taking a punt on Rowett from

League Two. Wigan less of a punt on Mackay. Ditto Brighton and Hughton.

Both known factors in the Championship. Reading a kind of in-between

punt on Clarke. And Bolton, unlike  all those above (including Leeds several times...) who passed on the idea, taking a gamble on Lennon, a manager with no worthwhile league experience.At the risk of stating the obvious there are

quite a few names on that list who would have united this message-board

(a rarity) in anger if they had been chosen by the directors this

summer. And other names that would have either split opinion or prompted

a cry of "Who?" followed by "Why?". This is not to defend the choice of

Adams, which was a gamble. Only to show that virtually all such choices

available to Championship clubs are to a greater or lesser extent a

gamble, and those that are not are only so because they represent a kind

of predictable mediocrity.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

It is a thoroughly good point PC. Perfection is not on offer.

I have reason to understand the workings and intentions at Forest and they are an excellent example. They try to create a bootroom model and have had excellent development coaches, Paul Hart was superb for a period, however wedding yourself to any fixed, impermeable process is ultimately unwise. Change and events must by necessity be factors. Stand-popular names - such as Pemberton - were ill-suited to the top job, despite appearing to fit the blueprint for the outside and getting good press.

Equally it is not possible to explain every action publicly, nor the reason for every failure, tactic or selection. All information cannot be disclosed, some of which would move goalposts, opinions and approaches of those in the stands considerably.

It is also worth noting that evey Paul Hart, Paul Lambert, Alex Ferguson or Neil Adams must get a start somewhere. This would tend to be at a place of employment where they are in situ. Taking an opportunity of timing, failure or suitability as it arises from within. This really is much like any business, indeed no one would ever receive a promotion at work were it not so.

Parma

[lake district canary 4,531]

Good research PC.   It does prove it is a gamble, whoever you get.   Football management is something of a lottery - but Ipswich have done the right thing in getting a manager who is proven - and it looks as if it might pay off for them. I hope not, but people like McCarthy are few and far between.  McClaren is another - and Derby look on track too. It is ironic that we sacked the one manager who looks - on paper - to be

one of the best qualified to get us back to the prem, but that is

life.  Hughton had his chance and had to go, under the circumstances.  

A league 1 manager who is doing well would be an option, as when we got Lambert and maybe less of a gamble than some others. Cotterill, Cooper at Swindon, Clough etc.   All could well be good championship managers, some have good experience there already.  But the bottom line, as you say, is that it is a gamble and no-one is a certainty to succeed.   Adams?  He now has half a season experience and is still there, so if he manages to get us at least to the play offs, his stock will rise - albeit as a triple act with Holt and Phelan.  Still time to succeed.......

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="lake district canary"]but Ipswich have done the right thing in getting a manager who is proven - and it looks as if it might pay off for them.[/quote]Keanne and Jewel were also ''proven'' Lakey, so again it shows as with Lambert, getting the right guy in the right place at the right time is still a lottery.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]It is a thoroughly good point PC. Perfection is not on offer.

I have reason to understand the workings and intentions at Forest and they are an excellent example. They try to create a bootroom model and have had excellent development coaches, Paul Hart was superb for a period, however wedding yourself to any fixed, impermeable process is ultimately unwise. Change and events must by necessity be factors. Stand-popular names - such as Pemberton - were ill-suited to the top job, despite appearing to fit the blueprint for the outside and getting good press.

Equally it is not possible to explain every action publicly, nor the reason for every failure, tactic or selection. All information cannot be disclosed, some of which would move goalposts, opinions and approaches of those in the stands considerably.

It is also worth noting that evey Paul Hart, Paul Lambert, Alex Ferguson or Neil Adams must get a start somewhere. This would tend to be at a place of employment where they are in situ. Taking an opportunity of timing, failure or suitability as it arises from within. This really is much like any business, indeed no one would ever receive a promotion at work were it not so.

Parma[/quote]Interesting background on Forest, Parma. I picked them because of their long spell out of the Premier League, but I didn''t know until I started my research just how starkly their managerial choices would illustrate the argument! I very much take the point about the hidden workings at a club. Some managers fail through no fault of their own, or at least because blame should be shared around, and this may be the case at Forest. I suspect, though, it cannot explain away everything that has gone wrong at the City Ground.One point to add is this. There is a common argument here that we should have gone for someone with experience and that if we had we would be doing better. Look at that list of Forest managers. With a couple of exceptions they all had previous managerial experience, and some, such as Kinnear, Megson, McCleish, McClaren, Cotterill and O''Driscoll were vastly experienced. Yet none worked to the extent of promotion, apart that is from promotion out of the third tier...

[Horse Renoir 1]

I was happy with Adams at the time because even though he had no experience I believed he was a bright, young, tactically aware coach who could (with the help of a PL team) utilize our assets, formulate effective gameplans/tactical approaches and use his passion for the club to pick the team up and inspire. I''ve never criticised the board for the initial appointment as I thought it made sense.

I was wrong though, unfortunately he appears to be cut from the Redknapp/Sherwood/Keegan mould of "Right lads, 4-4-2, give it to our flair players and cross your fingers, don''t worry about the opposition just go out and play, if it all goes t1ts up I''ll just lump more forwards on''

...the last bit something people mistakenly remember Lambert doing, yes he went for it, but it was thought out and often worked. I don''t remember us being overly offensive under him, we were pragmatic, extremely hard working and our attacking players always linked up a treat, we were rarely gung ho as is often believed.

But like others have alluded to, if we were to replace him now there''s no one out there. Rosler is the only one I''d want anywhere near the club and he''s still a huge gamble. I want a pragmatic tactician (just not an overly negative one like Hughton) with a bit of an edge and charisma to inspire......but who the hell could that be!?

I just a huge shame Adams

[Horse Renoir 1]

* hasn''t worked out

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Darth Catbeard"]* hasn''t worked out[/quote]

.......yet.

[Horse Renoir 1]

I''ve seen enough already to know he''s not an asset to us as a manager. Yes, he could inspire the team to go on a run and win the league, it might work out in the end, but I don''t believed he''s having much of a beneficial effect being in charge.

I''m not calling for his head as I don''t think we could attract anyone half decent anyway.

What I really should have said is it''s a shame Adams hasn''t turned out to be the type of manager I thought he was going to be

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Darth Catbeard"]I''ve seen enough already to know he''s not an asset to us as a manager. Yes, he could inspire the team to go on a run and win the league, it might work out in the end, but I don''t believed he''s having much of a beneficial effect being in charge.

I''m not calling for his head as I don''t think we could attract anyone half decent anyway.

What I really should have said is it''s a shame Adams hasn''t turned out to be the type of manager I thought he was going to be[/quote]

I''d agree with that.   However, with Phelan there too, it could develop into something more valuable over a period of time.  Adams has been thrown (or jumped) into the deep end and had to learn to swim, or sink.   He''s still swimming, but its a bit like the doggy paddle at the moment.....[:S]

[Holtcantshoot 0]

Interesting article. I would still have preferred to have seen a manager with at least an average track record at Championship level in as Hughton''s permanent replacement as I feel this is a way of at least shortening the odds for the lottery.However now we''ve got Adams and have an experienced coach alongside him I''d personally let him run out the season and see what he can do. The calls for him to be sacked after losing our first game in five games do seem a bit over the top. We''re currently outperforming both of the other relegated clubs with Cardiff (12th) and Fulham (17th) This would presumably be the litmus test on how much of a divine right we have as a relegated club to go straight back up.

[Newton 0]

Purple Canary this is another pointless thread of yours based on this wild assumption & therefore completely irrelevance

You said:-

Firstly I looked at Nottingham Forest. By any measure a bigger club than Norwich City, with consequently a better chance of attracting talented managers.

On what basis do they have a better chance of attracting more talented managers than Norwich, I would have thought that size would not be the key criteria but that is all u have based your epilogue on ?????

[Jim Smith 2,314]

Regardless of who other clubs may or may not have appointed in the past it makes no difference to the ultimate point which is that Adams appointment was a stupid, unecessary risk whichever way you look at it and there is no way he can credibly be regarded as the best candidate available. No way. We could have got Lennon. For me that decision was a no brainer.

[Highland Canary 76]

Quite Jim.

[FCC 76]

Spot on Jim.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]Regardless of who other clubs may or may not have appointed in the past it makes no difference to the ultimate point which is that Adams appointment was a stupid, unecessary risk whichever way you look at it and there is no way he can credibly be regarded as the best candidate available. No way. We could have got Lennon. For me that decision was a no brainer.[/quote]Jim, so could all those other Championship clubs who changed manager in the summer and/or have changed since. They could have gone for Lennon. Possibly some lower down the pecking order did and he turned them down, but it is hard to see him rejecting quite of few of them, such as Cardiff or Leeds or Forest if they had been interested. Plainly they were not. And it is not surprising. There was a genuine doubt - which still exists - about whether he is any good as a manager in a serious league. He also would have been a gamble and one rival clubs were not prepared to take.

[lake district canary 4,531]

Beam me up Jim.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="lake district canary"]Beam me up Jim.[/quote]Oh god, that didn''t work. Its a Star Trek quote....[:''(]

[whoareyou? 0]

Yep I think Jim has it spot on too. Equally I think Pulis would have got us promoted this season had he been appointed at the start of December. The fact he has gone to WBA says to me that he would have come to Norwich too.What will be will be now and i think its a certainty that Adams will be here until May regardless of results. It will be interesting to see what will happen on the manager in the summer if we miss out on promotion this year  as there will be some big names leave in the summer then.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="whoareyou"]Yep I think Jim has it spot on too. Equally I think Pulis would have got us promoted this season had he been appointed at the start of December. The fact he has gone to WBA says to me that he would have come to Norwich too.What will be will be now and i think its a certainty that Adams will be here until May regardless of results. It will be interesting to see what will happen on the manager in the summer if we miss out on promotion this year  as there will be some big names leave in the summer then.[/quote]I think that says to pretty such everyone else that he would not have. Since West Brom are in the Premier League and we are, well, not.

[Herman 9,717]

[quote user="whoareyou"]Yep I think Jim has it spot on too. Equally I think Pulis would have got us promoted this season had he been appointed at the start of December. The fact he has gone to WBA says to me that he would have come to Norwich too.What will be will be now and i think its a certainty that Adams will be here until May regardless of results. It will be interesting to see what will happen on the manager in the summer if we miss out on promotion this year  as there will be some big names leave in the summer then.[/quote]I''m not sure on that. WBA are a Premiership side with Premiership money. We''re not.

[whoareyou? 0]

Had he come to us and got us promoted he would have had a club and team on the up as it is he has gone to a club on the way down with a notoriously difficult chairman who is averse to spending money and quite happy to let his best players leave for big money. He was also happy to talk to Brighton over their job which says he was not averse to a Championship job. My money is on him leaving West Brom before the start of next season.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Cracking post as usual Purple. And I''m sure you could have chosen any number of comparable clubs and come to the same conclusion. Even the idea that we''d be better off now with Lennon is only a fact in posters heads. There''s nothing to suggest it''s true. Our choice of manager is making a better fist of getting back this season than the choices of Cardiff and Fulham.

 

But to take this back to the original point the appointments under Smith and Jones are no worse than most other clubs and better than many. I find it incredible that people fail to understand that. And even more incredible that a couple of numpties even suggested their managerial appointments were the reason for thge debts we had to pay off last year.

 

How does continually trying to portray the club in a worse light than the truth fit in with the word supporting?

 

 

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

Yes, Jim is correct.Adams''s appointment was akin to a rally team entering the Paris-Dakar rally. They''ve got the funding to afford a top grade Audi or Merc tuned car adapted for the harsh conditions of the sahara. But they decide not to,and enter a 1987 Ford Escort instead.Madness.

[whoareyou? 0]

We can argue about DS and MWJ for ever but my opinion is they have only made two successful managerial appointments during their tenure in Worthington and Lambert.What perhaps is more pertinent is what happens to the club when they are no longer here or fit enough to have any useful input into the board and what happens to their shareholdings as they have no family to leave them to as far as i am aware. At the age they are at the very best they have perhaps 5 more years where this is possible.I''m sure there will be some contingency plans in place but i wonder what they are?

[Nuff Said 5,089]

It could be argued that Roeder and Hughton were both successful appointments as well - in the short term. Roeder kept us up, and Hughton did this and more in his first season.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Cracking post as usual Purple. And I''m sure you could have chosen any number of comparable clubs and come to the same conclusion. Even the idea that we''d be better off now with Lennon is only a fact in posters heads. There''s nothing to suggest it''s true. Our choice of manager is making a better fist of getting back this season than the choices of Cardiff and Fulham.

 

But to take this back to the original point the appointments under Smith and Jones are no worse than most other clubs and better than many. I find it incredible that people fail to understand that. And even more incredible that a couple of numpties even suggested their managerial appointments were the reason for thge debts we had to pay off last year.

 

How does continually trying to portray the club in a worse light than the truth fit in with the word supporting?

 

 

[/quote]

I''m not commenting on their other managerial appointments Nutty merely this one. It is of course not possible to prove whether we would have done better or worse than Lennon but can you hand on heart say that you don''t think he would have been a better bet than Adams given his experience not just in the Scottish league (don''t buy the argument that makes him a risk, managing players is the same whatever country although I accept it makes his domestic "success" less pressure given he managed the only decent team) but also in Europe against some very good sides?

Any manager may be a risk but the boards job this summer was to take the smallest risk possible and give us the best chance to bounce back. With the appointment if Adams they appear to me to have done the opposite. Our league position and Boltons performance under Lennon are persuasive indicators.

[whoareyou? 0]

[quote user="Nuff Said"]It could be argued that Roeder and Hughton were both successful appointments as well - in the short term. Roeder kept us up, and Hughton did this and more in his first season.[/quote]

If we judge success purely on avoiding relegation, then the club will never win anything.

[Newton 0]

Purple Canary this is another pointless thread of yours based on this wild assumption & therefore completely irrelevance

You said:-

Firstly I looked at Nottingham Forest. By any measure a bigger club than Norwich City, with consequently a better chance of attracting talented managers.

On what basis do they have a better chance of attracting more talented managers than Norwich, I would have thought that size would not be the key criteria but that is all u have based your epilogue on ?????

Purple is this another attempt of yours to justify ongoing support for Delia and the clowns she has a habit of appointing

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="whoareyou"]We can argue about DS and MWJ for ever but my

opinion is they have only made two successful managerial appointments during

their tenure in Worthington and Lambert.[/quote]

 

That''s such a narrow view point. Hughton achieved the highest league position of their tenure but ultimately couldn''t make it last. That doesn''t make him a bad appointment. All managers eventually fail. But if they achieve something first they surely have been successful.

 

Rioch helped bring about the whole ne sports science age at Colney. He also had success on the pitch where only injury prevented a probable play-off place. Roeder was sucessful in keeping us up. I''m sure after Grant you would have settled for that and called it as success at the time.

 

 

So that''s Hamilton, Grant and Gunn that were poor appointments. Now go and look through the appointments at other clubs.....