Sacking staff vs results - long term

The forum has been littered with threads in the past few months about sacking Mladen, Clarke, Flatman, the board...and anyone else for that matter. I just wonder whether the fans who are asking for staff to be sacked have reflected on whether previous sackings have had the desired impact?

In general, teams who have had mid-long term success (relative to their size) have kept managers for longer. Similarly, clubs that have stable backroom teams, including recruitment teams, DOF, CEO, Board, academy staff, physios etc generally do better. Why do you think that is?

In my opinion, teams that keep managers/staff for longer do better because fewer things are changing at any one time. That means that the teams can make incremental improvements over a period of time. Instead of selling players and getting a brand new squad (at great cost), those clubs are using multiple transfer windows to get incrementally better. Now the results might not always be immediate, I have a feeling our recent windows have been focused on signing players who are good value for money, have potential to be championship standard, and are on significantly lower wages (due to our year-on-year operational losses). But over time they move us closer to our medium term goals (getting to the Championship and staying there).

So why have we not kept our good managers for longer? Quite obviously, it's because those who do well are poached from higher up the food chain. For me, that was one of the main reasons to keep Clarke. He's done OK, albeit not always inspiring, he isn't fashionable - so unlikely to be poached from higher up, and he was working with a squad that is heavily in transition. I genuinely believe that a few better windows would have seen him shown incremental improvements.

Now he's gone, I think the club need to focus on a period of stability. We need to sign players and treat them well (too many players have slated us after leaving). Keeping good players for longer will make us better. We need to develop ourselves on and off the pitch. Hopefully the fanzone and other initiatives (like the boxing) will help us there. We need clear, stable progression from the academy into the first team - so someone who appreciates the opinions of those who work in it. And finally, we need a manager who will stick around. To me that points to an internal candidate - someone who is respected internally but unfashionable enough to not be poached.

In short, stop sacking everyone and we might find that stability (on and off the pitch) begins to create results. We've hired and fired for years - there has to come a time we question whether making the same decision again will help (in the medium term).

 

So do we need to sack Mladen for sacking managers that shouldn't be sacked

 

Well he's only sacked two so far!

I'd question whether Mladen intends to stay here in the long term (I suspect not). If that's the case, we'd be justified in sacking him and appointing someone with a long term affinity for the club, who recognises the value of our recruitment method, promotes youth, and knows how to deal with transfers. Again, could be an internal candidate.

 

You touch on the other issue we have. We have the issue of sacking lots of people, but we also have the flipside that lots of people leave of their own choice.

It's hard to get stability when only one is happening, just about impossible when both are. And all through the club too. Media, analysis, fitness, coaching, executive. Doesn't feel a happy floating vessel, the not so good ship, 'all's well at oakwell'.

 

Because they made good appointments rather than bad ones. I think it's as simple as that.

**** analogy time. People in long term relationships tend to be happier and more successful family wise. They get married and have kids together. Why? Because they met the right person and got with them. It doesn't mean that Sarah should stay with the workshy slob of a boyfriend she's got now just for the sake of continuity even though they constantly argue.

 

It’s one of the reasons I’d go for Duff, ironically

 

We're in that difficult position though aren't we.
If a manager/coach does well, he's going to get poached away by bigger and better clubs.
And Micky Duff is just one example there.
But if he and the team don't do well, we're stuck with him, and eventually it costs us more to sack him.
We can't keep on doing this to ourselves of course. But on the other hand, I really don't know how or if we can stop it happening.

 

I suppose the only thing that we could do differently is to be more patient and let the manager have more than 10 months to build something.

 

Yeah I'm all for us trying to do that more often, but I bet its harder to do than what we think.
And depending on our own expectations as well.

 

No we need to sack him for the recruitment **** show that he's been in charge of.

 

No matter who gets the gig they too would struggle with this squad apart from a couple non are good enough for the championship in my opinion. Should we get promoted
It appears to be organised decline through incompetence from the owners year after year.
Replacing too many with lesser standard players than the ones they get shut off
Unfortunately we are the modern day answer to Crew Alexander under Dario Gradi who developed players and sold sold sold anything they could.
Division 2 beckons unless something drastic alters attitudes upstairs.

 

And when thinking about the Championship, it seems like its a thousand miles away from us at the moment.

 

I agree It Does, but we shouldn't be in this situation at all
Nobody upstairs seems to learn from previous mistakes, to the point it can only be described as incompetence on a grand scale

 

Yeah and I've also thought the same, so many times.
A managed decline ehh lol, well that would suggest that they actually know what they are doing!.
This is mostly a poor quality league isnt it.
With a few good ex Championship and a few better than average Lg One teams, in it.
But we're now struggling to even stay in the top half.

 

If you were inept at your job would you expect to keep it?

 

Its a highly performance based industry. You do well and you get opportunities to climb the ladder quickly. Dont do well you fall down the ladder quickly. The choices clubs make and individuals make in this environment means its typical for high turnover. I agree a longer term option is perhaps good but we need to be better at working in these industry dynamics. I don't think football will evolve to a general long term tenure of managers.

some people call the Hourihane stint a free hit. I dont see it that way. His ability to be a manager over this coming period will govern his future over the next few years. The caretaker roles havent been free hits for Devaney for example and propelled his career beyond his current and past coaching positions. I fear the role is right now more of a poison chalice more so than a no risk opportunity.