A question for those who would see Pearson sacked

[Matt_B]

This isn't intended to start another us vs them argument but I am interested to know the answers to the following.

Since Martin O'Neill left 12 years ago we have only had 3 managers for more than 12 months; Adams, Levein and Pearson. Two of these are the only managers who have achieved anything approaching promotion in those 12 years. Despite regularly changing our manager, owner and players, the highest position achieved by any of the others was 9th (Sven/Pearson).

Based on this 12 year period, we have a success rate (success being determined by reaching the playoffs minimum) of 66% when we give a manager more than 12 months and a 0% success rate when we don't. We also have a 0% Championship success rate in a manager's first season, though admittedly that can only be based on one manager.

a) On what reason or evidence do you base your belief that this time will be different?
b) What makes you believe that the next manager will get longer or be more successful immediately?

This trend pre-dates KP and Mandaric so I'd be interested to hear the reasons.

 

[FoxCovert]

You make a very good point Matt. Pearson must be given at least 10-12 games, unless we drop into the bottom 6. I feel that there is something fundamentally wrong behind the scenes that has remained despite changes of ownership/manager. The problem with Sven and Levein was lack of knowledge of this league. What is signifcant is that we have not in that time had a manager who is proven at getting teams out of this division. If and when he does go he musst be replaced by someone such as Davies or McArthy

 

[RHYDAL]

a) & b) Cos Arry's comin innit.

 

[LeeCovFox]

I'm not in the Pearson out club, even though I've been quite vocal in my belief that he is going to end up sacked quite soon, but I'll give this a go.

First of all, I'd say that the sample size is far too small to identify any cause/effect relationship between long-term managers/success and short-term managers/failure. There are examples in my time supporting City of managers coming in and making a difference almost right away; Brian Little and Martin O'Neill both finished in the top six in their first seasons in charge. It might just be as simple as saying Micky Adams and Nigel Pearson are better managers than the rest. Anyway:

a) There is no way of knowing that 'this time will be different', and I don't think that's the logic behind it anyway. I think it's more a case of making an educated guess as to whether the current incumbent can improve things. Pearson's record with us so far (this time around) does nothing to suggest that he will improve things so it isn't unreasonable to want somebody in who will. Of course, that's the difficult bit, but it isn't completely down to chance as...

b) Managers have records and you can make an evidence-based judgement as to how likely it is that they will bring success to the club. Look for instance at currently available managers such as Kevin Keegan, Mick McCarthy, Alan Curbishley and Steve Coppell. All of those have records of winning this league, let alone promotion from it, and keeping their clubs in the top flight afterwards. Pearson has none of that on his side, so it makes some sense to decided that they are more capable of achieving the owners' objectives than Pearson is. In terms of the next manager getting longer, anybody who thinks that would be the case has run mad; the evidence we have is completely at odds with the notion.

My own position, when I'm not being over-emotional in the immediate aftermath of a match, is that Pearson should be given the whole season unless we look to be in danger of relegation. His performance can be reviewed at the end of the season and his position either terminated or extended as a result of it. I think an entire season is the least a manager should expect unless it is proving to be disastrous. But I also have no faith that our owners share my view of what is correct. Sven's record was quite a reasonable one and they sacked him early. That's all we have to go on when considering their attitude towards the hiring and firing of managers, and I've seen nothing to suggest that anything has changed. Unless we're in the top six when we disappear for the next international break, I think he's done. Unless of course we lose a couple in a row between now and then, in which case I think that will be enough.

 

[homer]

All previous (listed) changes failed, therefore every future change is bound to fail

You couldn't make it up

 

[Matt_B]

All previous (listed) changes failed, therefore every future change is bound to fail

You couldn't make it up

Good, concise answer as always.

 

[Matt_B]

All previous (listed) changes failed, therefore every future change is bound to fail

You couldn't make it up

All previous changes failed therefore the next one just has to work, doesn't it? Please?

Indeed you can't make it up.

 

[homer]

All previous changes failed therefore the next one just has to work, doesn't it? Please?

Indeed you can't make it up.

I'm not the one predicting future failure (or success) based on what has gone before, involving a range of completely different people and different circumstances

It's like the morons who witter on about how we couldn't possibly win at some ground or other, because we haven't won there for twenty five years. It really is utter nonsense

 

[RHYDAL]

Nom de plume.

You couldn't make it up. No, wait.

 

[cafe]

Sack him before he signs up his gran

 

[londonfox]

Like Homer say's, you can't base any future decision solely on what has happened in the past. Yes it is sensible to learn from history but the fact that when we sacked Craig Levein and brought in Rob Kelly there was no positive upturn in the fortunes of our club, does not mean that any future change will result in the same outcome.

A cliche that is often brought out in football debate is that you only get success if you give a manager time and the examples that are always used as justification for this belief are Arsene Wenger and Alex Ferguson. I ageee, if you have a manager with the talent of either of these two and you can see a long-term plan and a successful long-term future then of course you should stick with.

But what if you don't see success in either the short or long-term? Peter Taylor was given less than 12 months. Should we have given him longer in charge? Whether Dave Bassett did a better job or not is a matter of debate but whether he did or not, were we wrong to sack Taylor?

Under the logic that it is always wrong to sack a manager before he has had at least 12 months, what do you think the current clubs owners should do in the following hypothetical situation: Jose Mourinho had enquired about taking charge and he had lined up Ronaldo, Messi, Ibrahimovic, Joe Hart, Vidic and Xabi Alonso to sign for us all on free transfers and all were willing to play for free and all want to sign 5 year contracts. However, Mourinho wants to take charge now and the current manager has not been in charge for 12 months or more.

We should say "No", right?

 

[Matt_B]

Like Homer say's, you can't base any future decision solely on what has happened in the past. Yes it is sensible to learn from history but the fact that when we sacked Craig Levein and brought in Rob Kelly there was no positive upturn in the fortunes of our club, does not mean that any future change will result in the same outcome.

A cliche that is often brought out in football debate is that you only get success if you give a manager time and the examples that are always used as justification for this belief are Arsene Wenger and Alex Ferguson. I ageee, if you have a manager with the talent of either of these two and you can see a long-term plan and a successful long-term future then of course you should stick with.

But what if you don't see success in either the short or long-term? Peter Taylor was given less than 12 months. Should we have given him longer in charge? Whether Dave Bassett did a better job or not is a matter of debate but whether he did or not, were we wrong to sack Taylor?

Under the logic that it is always wrong to sack a manager before he has had at least 12 months, what do you think the current clubs owners should do in the following hypothetical situation: Jose Mourinho had enquired about taking charge and he had lined up Ronaldo, Messi, Ibrahimovic, Joe Hart, Vidic and Xabi Alonso to sign for us all on free transfers and all were willing to play for free and all want to sign 5 year contracts. However, Mourinho wants to take charge now and the current manager has not been in charge for 12 months or more.

We should say "No", right?

Some would moan about the salaries being paid that's for sure.

I haven't said that the past means all future managers will fail, have I? I've pointed out that continuously getting rid of managers after less than a year hasn't worked before, what reason do you have to think it might be different this time. You have yet to give me one beyond, it might be.

 

[RHYDAL]

Wibble wobble wibble wobble jelly on a plate.

 

[FryattFox]

It's like the morons who witter on about how we couldn't possibly win at some ground or other, because we haven't won there for twenty five years. It really is utter nonsense

They woz right.

 

[londonfox]

You can never say with 100% certaintly in life what the outcome of any decision will be. It might be different this time, it might not be different this time. Who Knows? But that in itself is not a reason not to make a change. And I know, you didn't say that it was.

 

[Matt_B]

You can never say with 100% certaintly in life what the outcome of any decision will be. It might be different this time, it might not be different this time. Who Knows? But that in itself is not a reason not to make a change. And I know, you didn't say that it was.

Exactly though, we don't know what might happen. The people around me were saying how we had no chance of coming back against Burnley and we'd never score. We did and won the game. There is no reason we won't do the same with the season.

The fans haven't been behind the team all season. The atmosphere has continued to be shit and negative since Peterborough. It would be nice, for once, to have positivity.

 

[londonfox]

The fans haven't been behind the team all season. The atmosphere has continued to be shit and negative since Peterborough. It would be nice, for once, to have positivity.

I understand that. If I was fortunate enough to see City play live as I used to I would rather have positivity around me too. And yes, one of the jobs of us fans is to get behind the team. I agree with that. But sometimes we need something positive to get behind.

 

[Matt_B]

I understand that. If I was fortunate enough to see City play live as I used to I would rather have positivity around me too. And yes, one of the jobs of us fans is to get behind the team. I agree with that. But sometimes we need something positive to get behind.

I agree.

I also think it's worth noting that all of the changes in manager bring a big change in squad. Soussa, Sven and the Pearson all brought in 7/8 players. Most of the previous regime's are now gone. Is it any wonder that the players don't seem to have the same passion or desire for the club that Walsh etc used to have? For a start, most haven't been here 6 months and for another, they know that when the next manager comes in they'll probably be off to another club. What is there to get attached to?

 

[Northants_Fox]

Not really sure the arguement is valid. Most were sacked because they were not performing. Generally it was very reasonable to assume that they were not going to take the club forward. At least one left for a Prem league team. One left after getting us relegated. Allen, Taylor and Sousa were sacked for cast iron reasons. There aren't too many others aside from that, so I think owners should judge current managers on current performances.

Apart from Sven, I dont think any of the mangers sacked since the MON days should have been given much more time.

Anyway, I would give Pearson until Christmas at least before even considering another change.

 

[OldGit]

So when do we play Watford? (Plymouth not being an option)