Author Topic: Football Managers: Debate  (Read 687 times)

Jamie McLean

  • Posts: 3
Football Managers: Debate
« on: February 13, 2009, 01:08:49 pm »
Hey everyone

This is an article I wrote for my eRepublik newspaper, and I would like to know everyone's opinions. I'm not asking for feedback on the article, I just want to know how everyone feels about the subject - are managers given long enough in the job these days, what has changed, are chairmen right now to not accept failure or should the gaffers be given longer to establish a legacy at a club?

Please, discuss!

__________________________________________________________________

So there we go - the sun set on another day, and on another two Premiership managerial reigns.

Big Phil Scolari and Tony Adams were both axed from their respective managerial positions at Chelsea and Portsmouth. Big Phil was the longer serving manager of the two - having been appointed last summer.

This highlights the sheer panic which seems to grip Chairman up and down the land whenever his club is on the losing end of a result or two. For some reason, managers these days are literally given 3 or 4 months, as opposed to years gone by when the gaffers were actually given time to have an influence.

Take Sir Alex Ferguson for example - long ago in the days of yore, many years before the Queen brought her sword down onto his shoulders and induct him into the round table, the fans at Manchester United were more or less baying for his blood.

Results were not going his way after some months in the job, and indeed United could be seen battling at the wrong end of the table. The players seemed to lose their passion for the club, and supporters began to walk at an alarming rate.

But look at Old Trafford now - currently playing host to the most coveted trophy in club football in the world - the Champions League trophy. And this is the second time he has guided the Red Devils to such a feat!

Had he been brought to the red side of Manchester this summer, and things went the exact way they did when he started, he wouldn't be given a shot. He would most likely have been sacked already, or at least be on the verge of it - but look at what he has become largely thanks to the faith shown in him by the men upstairs at the club.

He has turned them into the most successful Premier League outfit since the competition was formed 17 years ago, guiding them to several trophies on the domestic, continental and world fronts to boot.

He is responsible for seeing through some of the modern day legends at Old Trafford - had Sir Alex not been appointed, Mark Hughes may have never returned to Old Trafford to partner Eric Cantona to the club's first league triumph in 26 years.

So, the question needs to be asked, what is different? Why, over two decades ago, did Manchester United see fit to stick by Alex Ferguson, who would later make them one of the most successful clubs in world history?

Should Mr. Abramovich not have stuck with Scolari? The man is proven, at least at international level, and wasn't doing too bad a job at Chelsea - granted, they aren't flying as high as they had been, but at times this season Chelsea have played football which made it look miraculous that they didn't have the league sewn up already!

Tony Adams, it could be argued, maybe wasn't right for the club. He has all the makings of a great manager one day - but it seems unfortunate that his stint at Portsmouth has been so sluggish, with only two wins from his 16 games in charge. Perhaps, if Pompey had the same mentality as Man United all those years ago, Adams could have guided them forward.

Sir Alex's reign is fast approaching its fourth decade, having been appointed in 1986 and seen the club through all of the nineties and (up until now at least) the first decade of the new millennium.

Please let me know your thoughts. Should managers be given more leeway, and more time to develop the clubs the way they feel is the best way forward? Or are chairmen finally getting it right in taking a zero tolerance approach to failure?

On the one hand, if something quite clearly is not working, it needs to be fixed. Granted - I don't think many would argue with that.

But surely appointing a new manager, allowing him to lay his own foundations and to start from scratch, only to sack him when the immediate results don't come - is that not a little harsh? Even from the club's perspective, does it not mean they must start from scratch all over again?

Please - share your opinions.

rastari

  • Posts: 5218
Re: Football Managers: Debate
« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2009, 05:43:52 pm »
it's all about shareholders/chairmen
2 boblo's for epic awesomeness 2008 and 2009

Quote from: "malta1990"
Well, I'll call it a victory to Jerry. Well Done! Gap is too large now.

Parrington

  • Posts: 305
Re: Football Managers: Debate
« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2009, 08:34:04 am »
Stating the obvious a bit
Quote from: "Necrosis"
You are the cancer that killed the UK

 

With Quick-Reply you can write a post when viewing a topic without loading a new page. You can still use bulletin board code and smileys as you would in a normal post.

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Name: Email:
Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image
Type the letters shown in the picture:
What precious metal is a currency in erepublik?:
How do you spell 'Frerk'?:
What social MMO is this forum linked to?: