Championship 2018-19

[RevidgeBlue]

26 minutes ago, JHRover said:

I think some people want to re-write history with Lambert or pin all the blame for what happened on his shoulders rather than the owners. The very same owners who responded to his departure by bringing in Coyle. If ever you needed evidence that the people running this club weren't fit for purpose that was it.

Let's blame it all on Lambert. Nothing at all to do with the owners who sold all our decent players and put us into the 3rd division through a lack of investment, neglect and appalling decisions. 

Quite clear he was brought in on the basis of doing a certain job and at some stage or other the goalposts moved. Is Lambert a saint? No, he's an odd bloke whose career is in danger of falling by the wayside after taking poor jobs and not sticking around, but Venkys take the blame in my book. They appointed him, God knows what they promised him, or what they expected of him, but quite clear that the budget wasn't and still isn't good enough to demand promotion and yet they appear to still seek it or claim to do. Lambert didn't spend anything on players and only brought in frees and loans.

We are back at square one though - supposedly the owners are ambitious and want promotion, supposedly they have made a good budget available for players to achieve that, yet lo and behold money doesn't actually get spent. Where have we heard that one before?

How did we exploit him? We rescued him off the managerial scrapheap, got him back on the managerial merry go round, and allowed him (extremely unusually) to insert a get out clause in his contract which he exercised.

He didn't pull up any trees while he was here, didn't sort out the contracts of anyone who needed sorting out, signed a lot of rubbish on loan, and sold our most valuable player on the last day of the transfer window before walking out leaving us at the end of the season without a single senior striker on the books.

You could possibly say he'd been unlucky and blame it on our owners if he'd been a raging success everywhere else he'd been since  but if anything it's been more of the same or even worse.

Edited February 11, 2019 by RevidgeBlue

[JHRover]

8 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

How did we exploit him? We rescued him off the managerial scrapheap, got him back on the managerial merry go round, and allowed him (extremely unusually) to insert a get out clause in his contract which he exercised.

He didn't pull up any trees while he was here, didn't sort out the contracts of anyone who needed sorting out, signed a lot of rubbish on loan, and sold our most valuable player on the last day of the transfer window before walking out leaving us at the end of the season without a single senior striker on the books.

You could possibly say he'd been unlucky and blame it on our owners if he'd been a raging success everywhere else he'd been since  but if anything it's been more of the same or even worse.

Again I think it depends on which way you look at it. How much ability did Lambert have issue new contracts? How much freedom did he have in January to sign new players and not loans? Did he get rid of Rhodes because he really wanted to or because he was led to believe by someone that if he did he would get the cash to reinvest? As far as I can recall the only contract issue around that time was Ben Marshall, and he still had 12 months to go after Lambert departed so plenty of time to get that sorted. His departure was followed by those of Duffy and Hanley to rivals - that suggests to me one of two things - either those players wanted out after Lambert's departure and the path the club was taking became clear or alternatively the plan from above had been to sell them and that was why Lambert packed his bags.

I think his record with signings with no money was better than Mowbray's has been. He only had a January window yet delivered us Graham, Bennett with a 10 million profit. The rest were mainly loans that left the following summer. Meanwhile Mowbray tells us it isn't possible to strengthen the squad in January as it is too expensive despite the owners making money available.

Didn't pull up any trees but realistically what position would have been? Promotion or play offs? Never going to happen with that squad given our start to the season. His record was better than Jokanovic at Fulham who took over at a similar time yet with backing and a proper structure did ok. 

[Tom Stinny]

Lambert is a piss poor manager whose made his career off the back of a purple patch at Norwich where he got promoted twice. He's done nothing anywhere else.

[Dreams of 1995]

Just now, Tom Stinny said:

Lambert is a piss poor manager whose made his career off the back of a purple patch at Norwich where he got promoted twice. He's done nothing anywhere else.

Perfectly summarised Tom Stinny. Clear, concise and correct. Just what we like around here.

[DE.]

He was pretty good at Wycombe tbf, and imo at least did a solid job at Villa. His career hasn't gone anywhere since then though. A short stint here which basically just got him back into the spotlight, an average tenure at Wolves followed by really poor spells at Stoke and Ipswich. He now has little choice but to stay at Ipswich (who seem happy to keep him for the foreseeable future) and try to get them promoted from League 1. It won't be as easy as it was for Mowbray though, as Ipswich don't have a Danny Graham, an Elliott Bennett, a Charlie Mulgrew, a Darragh Lenihan or a Corry Evans to hold on to. They have a much worse playing squad than we had when we went down, and Marcus Evans hasn't invested in a long time, so it could be a tough slog for Ipswich next season. I can see them being similar to Rotherham and ending up in the playoffs. 

[K-Hod]

14 minutes ago, DE. said:

He was pretty good at Wycombe tbf, and imo at least did a solid job at Villa. His career hasn't gone anywhere since then though. A short stint here which basically just got him back into the spotlight, an average tenure at Wolves followed by really poor spells at Stoke and Ipswich. He now has little choice but to stay at Ipswich (who seem happy to keep him for the foreseeable future) and try to get them promoted from League 1. It won't be as easy as it was for Mowbray though, as Ipswich don't have a Danny Graham, an Elliott Bennett, a Charlie Mulgrew, a Darragh Lenihan or a Corry Evans to hold on to. They have a much worse playing squad than we had when we went down, and Marcus Evans hasn't invested in a long time, so it could be a tough slog for Ipswich next season. I can see them being similar to Rotherham and ending up in the playoffs. 

Much more accurately summed up.

Also, Ipswich really are bad and won't find it easy next season. 

[chaddyrovers]

9 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

I dont know if you are being purposely obtuse or just ignorant. I know Ipswichs squad isnt very good, but Lambert has done even worse than Hurst with it, just as he did worse thn Hughes at Stoke. The "general play" is objectively not better because its churning out slightly worse results. The fact that rumours of squad morale issues and player-manager fall outs or whatever under Hurst only add additional context to how bad Lambert is doing, you would think a fresh face with no bad blood with his players would lead to better results, not worse!

If Ipswich fans are happy with him, fooled by his gimmicks, his interviews, his personality or whatever, then good for them, but im just glad that he is not our manager anymore because he isnt a very good one. 

The difference is, my argument is based on results and facts, yours is based on personal bias, supporter opinion, baseless predictions, and a total ignorance of results.

It turns out the same over the same game period. 

You cant just keep changing managers every 6 months. Look at Stoke as example of going nowhere of note despite spending over 50 millions pounds on new players. Or you appoint someone who you trust and believe him and allow that to make the changes needed in short, medium and long term to the club. Similar to what Norwich did with Farke. 

But you have always answered your point earlier in your post. The squad isn't good and that will only improve in the summer. Hurst spent the money in the summer on poor quality and signed to many lower league players. 

Ipswich fans are happy with him for various reasons but you haven't even look in to. why? cos you aren't interested in fans views of their own fans. You are only interested in fans views when they were unhappy with McCarthy. very much double standards. 

Like I have said I think going down might help Ipswich as they can clear of deadwood out then rebuild a new squad. Like we did 

[chaddyrovers]

9 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Ive not seen one person suggest that Venkys were anything other than villains.

Lambert may have been promised finances the owners didnt keep, thats one thing we will never know. His actual spell here was the definition of underwhelming, bringing in plenty of loans, the football was pretty dull, and his results were average, which is admittedly far better than horrendous which his record has been in his last 2 jobs.

His cleverest move was his timing of departure and the way he went about it; Venkys were undoubtedly the primary villains and activating a very curiously placed release clause in his contract when the club was lingering in the bottom half and perhaps justifiably criticising the owners in the media was a PR masterstroke, with fans chanting his name not because he was Paul Lambert, or a competent manager, but because he went publically against the villains of the piece, Venkys.

The way he left aside, his brief spell here was neither successful or a failure, it was instantly forgettable. 

The job he has done in his last 2 roles is subject to most debate. To be unable to coax any improvement at all from managers who had either started to go stale and stagnate (Hughes at Stoke) or managers who were out of their depth from the start and rumoured to have fallen out with key players already (Hurst at Ipswich) is really poor. Look at Mowbray, he took over a limited squad running at a rate of less than a point per game following a woeful manager. With the same squad he caused a considerable improvement.

plenty of loans? he bought in 4 loans. Graham who signed permanently in the summer, Gomez who did very well, Grimes who was poor and Tony Watt who was signed a loan with a view to permanent deal in that summer. Plus we signed  3 permanent signings in Bennett, Ward and Jackson. 

Hardly plenty of loan is it? 

[roversfan99]

11 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

It turns out the same over the same game period. 

You cant just keep changing managers every 6 months. Look at Stoke as example of going nowhere of note despite spending over 50 millions pounds on new players. Or you appoint someone who you trust and believe him and allow that to make the changes needed in short, medium and long term to the club. Similar to what Norwich did with Farke. 

But you have always answered your point earlier in your post. The squad isn't good and that will only improve in the summer. Hurst spent the money in the summer on poor quality and signed to many lower league players. 

Ipswich fans are happy with him for various reasons but you haven't even look in to. why? cos you aren't interested in fans views of their own fans. You are only interested in fans views when they were unhappy with McCarthy. very much double standards. 

Like I have said I think going down might help Ipswich as they can clear of deadwood out then rebuild a new squad. Like we did 

They do need a clearout and a rebuild but they need a competent man to do it. I am judging a manager on results, I know the squad is poor but there was no point changing from Hurst to Lambert as his results with the same set of players (plus hes been able to add 7 more) has been no better. (in fact moderately worse) Lambert has done nothing to earn that trust.

The best example is when we had Coyle, surely by your above logic we should have stayed patient and kept with Coyle rather than appoint Mowbray.  No, because Coyle hadnt earnt any trust. Mowbray then managed to get a significant IMPROVEMENT IN RESULTS WITH THE SAME PLAYERS even though the squad was crap because he is a better manager than Coyle. As a direct comparison. Lambert has not got any improvement in results with the same players. Simple as that. What the fans think, what sort of bloke he is, its irrelevant, judge a manager on results.

[DE.]

The problems with Hurst went beyond just results on the pitch - I think if it was just results they may have stuck with him longer. Unfortunately for him he managed to alienate a lot of players and backroom staff as well, and that added pressure to an already delicate situation. Lambert hasn't improved Ipswich's results but he's a good politician which gets him a lot more leeway from the supporters and usually the owners as well. Hurst was very naive in that respect. 

As if things aren't bad enough for Ipswich, now Freddie Sears, their top scorer, is out for 12 months with a knee injury. 

 

[Dreams of 1995]

7 minutes ago, DE. said:

The problems with Hurst went beyond just results on the pitch - I think if it was just results they may have stuck with him longer. Unfortunately for him he managed to alienate a lot of players and backroom staff as well, and that added pressure to an already delicate situation. Lambert hasn't improved Ipswich's results but he's a good politician which gets him a lot more leeway from the supporters and usually the owners as well. Hurst was very naive in that respect. 

As if things aren't bad enough for Ipswich, now Freddie Sears, their top scorer, is out for 12 months with a knee injury. 

 

Ouch. He tore League 1 up last time he was in it too. Would have been a saving grace for Ipswich in their season down there.

To be truthful though I saw Paul Lambert's Villa week in week out when I was in the Midlands and they were tragic. An extremely poor side that played some mind numbing football. It's a fine line between whether he did a good job or whether he put them in that position. There is only so long you can blame owners for your poor performance as manager. He has brought players in everywhere he went, whether they cost or not is irrelevant, and most of the time they have been poor(er) players. As a rounding up excercise I guarantee you that Paul Lambert has left more clubs in a worse state than when he took over than he has improved them. To me that is the sign of a poor manager.

[DE.]

1 minute ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Ouch. He tore League 1 up last time he was in it too. Would have been a saving grace for Ipswich in their season down there.

To be truthful though I saw Paul Lambert's Villa week in week out when I was in the Midlands and they were tragic. An extremely poor side that played some mind numbing football. It's a fine line between whether he did a good job or whether he put them in that position. There is only so long you can blame owners for your poor performance as manager. He has brought players in everywhere he went, whether they cost or not is irrelevant, and most of the time they have been poor(er) players. As a rounding up excercise I guarantee you that Paul Lambert has left more clubs in a worse state than when he took over than he has improved them. To me that is the sign of a poor manager.

The Villa/Lambert debate reminds me a bit of the Ipswich/McCarthy debate - was the shit football down to the manager's preference or a neccessity in order to get the best out of very limited players with hardly any resource to strengthen? As far as Ipswich and McCarthy were concerned I'd say the latter, I can't say I saw enough of Villa under Lambert to make a solid judgement - but they've been going downhill since he left which suggests a structural problem rather than it being purely down to the manager. 

I think your conclusion is harsh to be honest but I'm not interested enough in Lambert's career to start researching in depth! I think he was a good manager in his younger days, the Villa job ground him down and now he's an average manager at best. Put him in a mid-table team and he'll basically keep them mid-table. Put him in a relegation-threatened team and they'll more or less stay in the same position. I don't think he's a bad manager but I don't think he's a good one at the moment either. Just somewhere in between. 

[chaddyrovers]

Isnt Sears out of contract in the summer at Ipswich? 

[DE.]

19 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Isnt Sears out of contract in the summer at Ipswich? 

They extended it for a year a couple of months ago. https://www.eadt.co.uk/sport/freddie-sears-contract-extended-1-5818710

[JHRover]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

It turns out the same over the same game period. 

You cant just keep changing managers every 6 months. Look at Stoke as example of going nowhere of note despite spending over 50 millions pounds on new players. Or you appoint someone who you trust and believe him and allow that to make the changes needed in short, medium and long term to the club. Similar to what Norwich did with Farke. 

But you have always answered your point earlier in your post. The squad isn't good and that will only improve in the summer. Hurst spent the money in the summer on poor quality and signed to many lower league players. 

Ipswich fans are happy with him for various reasons but you haven't even look in to. why? cos you aren't interested in fans views of their own fans. You are only interested in fans views when they were unhappy with McCarthy. very much double standards. 

Like I have said I think going down might help Ipswich as they can clear of deadwood out then rebuild a new squad. Like we did 

You CAN chop and change managers regularly if you have a structure that allows it. If you have a stable board, expertise at the club, a recruitment structure that the head coach fits into - then you can seamlessly change head coach whenever you feel like it - Watford are the experts at it but others like Chelsea and Brentford have it down to a fine art, and also Southampton, previously Swansea, probably now Wolves and Derby - high turnover in manager yet the clubs continue on a positive trajectory regardless - because they have the backroom structure to handle it regardless of which man is in the dugout on matchday.

When you are dominated by a manager who controls most aspects of the club it is lovely whilst that manager is doing well and can hold it all together - Wenger at Arsenal, Fergie at United - but when that manager moves on or has to be sacked after a poor run then you hit problems as there is more pressure on getting the replacement right - Stoke in this category - dominated by Pulis then Hughes during the good times and then when things turn sour they don't know which way to turn - hence Lambert, Rowett and Jones who can't hack it. Villa another lot in that boat.

[Ewood Ace]

12 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

You don't care for Ipswich fans opinions because you cant stand them cos they back Lambert. 

I'll ask again Chaddy as you must have missed the question when I asked it previously. Are these Ipswich fans that are backing Lambert the same ones that wanted McCarthy out?

[roversfan99]

2 hours ago, DE. said:

The problems with Hurst went beyond just results on the pitch - I think if it was just results they may have stuck with him longer. Unfortunately for him he managed to alienate a lot of players and backroom staff as well, and that added pressure to an already delicate situation. Lambert hasn't improved Ipswich's results but he's a good politician which gets him a lot more leeway from the supporters and usually the owners as well. Hurst was very naive in that respect. 

As if things aren't bad enough for Ipswich, now Freddie Sears, their top scorer, is out for 12 months with a knee injury. 

 

The fact that Hurst had fallen out with and alienated the players and staff and presumably Lambert has not done that yet his results are ever so slightly worse surely is all the judgement that is needed! Lambert is a politician as you say rather than a football manager.

Totally agree on McCarthy playing how he did due to restricted resouces and quality, the only way he could play and the most effective way

[Dreams of 1995]

1 hour ago, JHRover said:

You CAN chop and change managers regularly if you have a structure that allows it. If you have a stable board, expertise at the club, a recruitment structure that the head coach fits into - then you can seamlessly change head coach whenever you feel like it - Watford are the experts at it but others like Chelsea and Brentford have it down to a fine art, and also Southampton, previously Swansea, probably now Wolves and Derby - high turnover in manager yet the clubs continue on a positive trajectory regardless - because they have the backroom structure to handle it regardless of which man is in the dugout on matchday.

When you are dominated by a manager who controls most aspects of the club it is lovely whilst that manager is doing well and can hold it all together - Wenger at Arsenal, Fergie at United - but when that manager moves on or has to be sacked after a poor run then you hit problems as there is more pressure on getting the replacement right - Stoke in this category - dominated by Pulis then Hughes during the good times and then when things turn sour they don't know which way to turn - hence Lambert, Rowett and Jones who can't hack it. Villa another lot in that boat.

Watford aside how many of them clubs are on a positive trajectory?

Brentford and Derby have wallowed in their respective places for quite a few seasons, Southampton have gone hugely downhill, Swansea have been relegated and Chelsea are in their worst position since Mourinho. Chelsea's success lies more in the fact they can spend circa £60m on a striker any transfer window they please as opposed to regular changes in managers.

Wolves, again, have benefited from lots of money (plus the advise of super agents...) as opposed to a policy of chopping and changing managers.

Two clubs have had continued success throughout my entire lifetime (26 years) and they are Man Utd and Arsenal. Both clubs had one thing in common in that they were stable in the manager department. Since the sacking of Fergie Utd haven't won a thing despite having a great board - we are yet to see whether Arsenal's fortunes benefit from a change in manager.

I think you'll find that any club (again save Watford) that have high manager turnover + high success are usually always clubs that can splash huge sums of money on replacing players as and when they please. Clubs like us, for example, couldn't fund a change in philosophy every 12 months and so would suffer - and did suffer - with a high turnover of managers/coaches

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Watford aside how many of them clubs are on a positive trajectory?

Brentford and Derby have wallowed in their respective places for quite a few seasons, Southampton have gone hugely downhill, Swansea have been relegated and Chelsea are in their worst position since Mourinho. Chelsea's success lies more in the fact they can spend circa £60m on a striker any transfer window they please as opposed to regular changes in managers.

Wolves, again, have benefited from lots of money (plus the advise of super agents...) as opposed to a policy of chopping and changing managers.

Two clubs have had continued success throughout my entire lifetime (26 years) and they are Man Utd and Arsenal. Both clubs had one thing in common in that they were stable in the manager department. Since the sacking of Fergie Utd haven't won a thing despite having a great board - we are yet to see whether Arsenal's fortunes benefit from a change in manager.

I think you'll find that any club (again save Watford) that have high manager turnover + high success are usually always clubs that can splash huge sums of money on replacing players as and when they please. Clubs like us, for example, couldn't fund a change in philosophy every 12 months and so would suffer - and did suffer - with a high turnover of managers/coaches

Stability and patience are only worthwhile and only work if the manager is any good to begin with. 

Based on the example being discussed, Lambert may have suggested that x, y and z was wrong when he was appointed (he does that at every club he turns up to) and that may be seen as a man who knows the problems and is saying exactly what the fans are thinking. But ultimately, results show that he is incapable of doing anything to halt the slide. And you look at the way at hes going about his job to maybe find glimmers that hes thinking longer term, that hes doing things that may not prove instantly fruitful but give them hope for the future. Signing 7 players on short term deals and playing them is quite the opposite.

When Mowbray came in, results improved. The main thing that has caused us to progress as we have under Mowbray is Mowbray himself, not the fact that we kept a manager for x amount of time. If we had offered Coyle the courtesy of a full season, being patient, do we think results would have improved? No because hes a poor manager. Kean did get plenty of time, did things ever improve? No.

Ironically, they had the very definition of stability under Mick McCarthy, didnt appreciate it, drove him out and are seemingly craving it again as the answer to their problems.

Stability is a good thing for a while, up until the point it becomes stagnant. You mentioned Arsenal and things stagnated terribly for a number of years. At Chelsea, the manager is still crucial even with the money he has, former managers like Mourinho and Conte have been incredibly successful but their managerial style has caused a quick burn out of player manager relations and requires a more short term approach. But stability is only useful if the manager is good and shows sign of improvement. Lambert hasnt and doesnt meet that requirement.

[K-Hod]

20 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Stability and patience are only worthwhile and only work if the manager is any good to begin with. 

Based on the example being discussed, Lambert may have suggested that x, y and z was wrong when he was appointed (he does that at every club he turns up to) and that may be seen as a man who knows the problems and is saying exactly what the fans are thinking. But ultimately, results show that he is incapable of doing anything to halt the slide. And you look at the way at hes going about his job to maybe find glimmers that hes thinking longer term, that hes doing things that may not prove instantly fruitful but give them hope for the future. Signing 7 players on short term deals and playing them is quite the opposite.

When Mowbray came in, results improved. The main thing that has caused us to progress as we have under Mowbray is Mowbray himself, not the fact that we kept a manager for x amount of time. If we had offered Coyle the courtesy of a full season, being patient, do we think results would have improved? No because hes a poor manager. Kean did get plenty of time, did things ever improve? No.

Ironically, they had the very definition of stability under Mick McCarthy, didnt appreciate it, drove him out and are seemingly craving it again as the answer to their problems.

Stability is a good thing for a while, up until the point it becomes stagnant. You mentioned Arsenal and things stagnated terribly for a number of years. At Chelsea, the manager is still crucial even with the money he has, former managers like Mourinho and Conte have been incredibly successful but their managerial style has caused a quick burn out of player manager relations and requires a more short term approach. But stability is only useful if the manager is good and shows sign of improvement. Lambert hasnt and doesnt meet that requirement.

You've got a right bee in your bonnet with Paul Lambert, haven't you? Christ!

I thought it was just because it was something else to talk to Chaddy about......

Edited February 12, 2019 by K-Hod

[Dreams of 1995]

45 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Stability and patience are only worthwhile and only work if the manager is any good to begin with. 

Based on the example being discussed, Lambert may have suggested that x, y and z was wrong when he was appointed (he does that at every club he turns up to) and that may be seen as a man who knows the problems and is saying exactly what the fans are thinking. But ultimately, results show that he is incapable of doing anything to halt the slide. And you look at the way at hes going about his job to maybe find glimmers that hes thinking longer term, that hes doing things that may not prove instantly fruitful but give them hope for the future. Signing 7 players on short term deals and playing them is quite the opposite.

When Mowbray came in, results improved. The main thing that has caused us to progress as we have under Mowbray is Mowbray himself, not the fact that we kept a manager for x amount of time. If we had offered Coyle the courtesy of a full season, being patient, do we think results would have improved? No because hes a poor manager. Kean did get plenty of time, did things ever improve? No.

Ironically, they had the very definition of stability under Mick McCarthy, didnt appreciate it, drove him out and are seemingly craving it again as the answer to their problems.

Stability is a good thing for a while, up until the point it becomes stagnant. You mentioned Arsenal and things stagnated terribly for a number of years. At Chelsea, the manager is still crucial even with the money he has, former managers like Mourinho and Conte have been incredibly successful but their managerial style has caused a quick burn out of player manager relations and requires a more short term approach. But stability is only useful if the manager is good and shows sign of improvement. Lambert hasnt and doesnt meet that requirement.

Of course you need to have a good manager in order to see the benefits of long term management. I'm not trying to say that any manager, given enough time, will go on to achieve great things at a club. Just that history suggests if you have the right manager then firing them in the hope of a new manager bounce often proves unsuccessful. 

I'm not talking about Lambert or any manager in particular really. Likewise there's an obvious difference between sacking a manager that has your team in bottom place than sacking a manager that is sitting mid table. Or, as you put it, stagnating. I was just arguing the point that board structure doesn't really have much to do with it save an owner with deep pockets. Clubs that go through a big turnover of staff invariably under perform compared to clubs that retain a good manager with a vision. Chelsea got rid of Conte after a season of not winning anything (SAVE A FUCKING FA CUP); Tottenham stick by Poch despite being "close" a few years. Who is in the better position now?

Yet despite that it is entirely possible that Chelsea sack Sarri and bring in a huge managerial name next season. The success won't be down to the manager change, it will be down to the fact they will more than likely spend £100+ million on players the new superstar manager has brought in. Meanwhile Championship clubs will inevitably get rid of their managers having failed to achieve promotion and, due to being unable to spend approx 50m on players, will reset their progress by 2 years as the new manager looks to change the philosophy of the club.

All of the above is of course from my own non-expert thoughts. My discussion has nowt to do with firing/retaining Lambert but more the sentence JH said that "you can chop and change managers regularly" - I don't think that's the case.

[JHRover]

2 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Watford aside how many of them clubs are on a positive trajectory?

Brentford and Derby have wallowed in their respective places for quite a few seasons, Southampton have gone hugely downhill, Swansea have been relegated and Chelsea are in their worst position since Mourinho. Chelsea's success lies more in the fact they can spend circa £60m on a striker any transfer window they please as opposed to regular changes in managers.

Wolves, again, have benefited from lots of money (plus the advise of super agents...) as opposed to a policy of chopping and changing managers.

Two clubs have had continued success throughout my entire lifetime (26 years) and they are Man Utd and Arsenal. Both clubs had one thing in common in that they were stable in the manager department. Since the sacking of Fergie Utd haven't won a thing despite having a great board - we are yet to see whether Arsenal's fortunes benefit from a change in manager.

I think you'll find that any club (again save Watford) that have high manager turnover + high success are usually always clubs that can splash huge sums of money on replacing players as and when they please. Clubs like us, for example, couldn't fund a change in philosophy every 12 months and so would suffer - and did suffer - with a high turnover of managers/coaches

I'd argue that Derby, Brentford and Chelsea have done quite well out of managerial instability. Not necessarily that they set out to do it, but that in doing so it hasn't prevented them progressing and developing as clubs. Brentford even now are massively overachieving for the size of their club and financial power, despite making some eyebrow-raising managerial decisions. Southampton have managed to stay in the Premier League for years despite going through more than a manager a year on average.

Huddersfield are another lot who made a bold decision to fire off Powell when they were floating towards the bottom of the Championship, brought in an unknown coach and within 18 months were in the Premier League. They didn't stick with Powell out of loyalty or stability, they had a vision and got their man to deliver on it. Wolves - could have stuck with Jackett or Lambert but wanted to go to the next level so fired them both off despite decent results to appoint Zenga (failure) and Santo (big success). Wolves could have done what Villa and Forest have which is spend obscene money and drift into mid-table but they made a positive change rather than stand still.

I'm not saying I'm a fan of hiring and firing but some clubs have structures in place to cope with it without it de-railing the club. I'm not convinced we do, as I think the manager at this club, ever since Kean rocked up, has had too much power over the operation. It's ok as long as a positive trajectory is maintained, but when things go sour then it becomes a problem as the changing of manager affects more areas here than it would at e.g. Brentford.

[SBlue]

Didn’t Brentford get nearly 3 years each out of Rosler, Warburton and Smith with just a couple of caretakers (Carsley etc) in-between? 

I may be remembering that wrong but I certainly wouldn’t call that instability (certainly not by our standards anyway)

[JHRover]

Just now, S8 & Blue said:

Didn’t Brentford get nearly 3 years each out of Rosler, Warburton and Smith with just a couple of caretakers (Carsley etc) in-between? 

I may be remembering that wrong but I certainly wouldn’t call that instability (certainly not by our standards anyway)

Yeah, but they axed Warburton after he got them to the Championship play-offs. Most thought that to be an insane decision yet they managed, then they appointed that Dutch bloke who was a disaster but quickly got shut as it wasn't working and put Carsley in charge,

Brentford are very good at coping with departures and change. They've been picked off for their best players for years, had to make managerial changes and yet have still punched above their weight through shrewd management behind the scenes, not because all their managerial appointments have been good.

[Ewood Ace]

3 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Watford aside how many of them clubs are on a positive trajectory?

Brentford and Derby have wallowed in their respective places for quite a few seasons, Southampton have gone hugely downhill, Swansea have been relegated and Chelsea are in their worst position since Mourinho. Chelsea's success lies more in the fact they can spend circa £60m on a striker any transfer window they please as opposed to regular changes in managers.



Wolves, again, have benefited from lots of money (plus the advise of super agents...) as opposed to a policy of chopping and changing managers.

Two clubs have had continued success throughout my entire lifetime (26 years) and they are Man Utd and Arsenal. Both clubs had one thing in common in that they were stable in the manager department. Since the sacking of Fergie Utd haven't won a thing despite having a great board - we are yet to see whether Arsenal's fortunes benefit from a change in manager.

 

Not sure that Arsenal have had continued success at one point they went 9 seasons without a trophy and haven't won the League in 15 years. In the last 26 years Chelsea (with multiple managers) have had a lot more success than Arsenal (with one manager).

Edited February 12, 2019 by Ewood Ace