Why can't teams stick with their manager for longer?

[Prodigy]

Now being a huge Football fan I have recently noticed the short time in which managers have stuck with the club they manage. I don't know if this happens in other sports but I really think that managers getting sacked or leaving after only a short spell at the club is nit good for the team at all. Now I will not go into huge detail on teams because in some cases it is right but I think teams will not succeed if they keep bringing in managers with different tactics every six months and if they don't work they get sacked. I say all managers should be given at least a year and a half to get the right squad build relations and settle down before they start questioning their worth...Discuss.

 

[Keith]

I think it does depend on the set up, when they take over, and how much danger they are in under that manager, but yeah as a rule, a new manager should get at least a year.

Also what sort of squad the manager is left with is a factor, one thing I don't like is how about Gerrand Hoiuller has been doing, is that he took over already a pretty decent set of players, and yet has tried to make big changes where they are not nescerry.

To answer your question, the reason is a mixture of the owners lack of understanding of football and price of fauilre in mordern football.

 

[Deezy]

I take it this is about soccer, don't follow it. Have some Arsenal gear, only because I like the name and jerseys.

But if its about a revolving door for coaches/managers, it's fairly simple. Win or else.

Fickle fans are in every sport and when a team doesn't reach expectations that are thrust on to them fairly or unfairly. It means a drop off in attendance, and the bottom line for any team in any sport is making money. Pretty much sums up all professional sports.

 

[Keith]

The trouble is deezy, you can't really treat sport like buiness or every day work, at least not completely, there are certain factors that must be taken into account. And history says that the most successful teams are the ones with a long term version, and who stick by their managers when he needs support.

Another thing is I don't think it has always been like this in english football. Yes the game has always been results driven, and there has been this sacking culture, but to a lesser extend. If you look back twenty or even ten years ago, the avenge manager was given far more time than he is today, and there was not the same sort of pressaure after just a few bad results. I just think the price for sucess and failure has gotten too high

 

[Troy]

If it is meant to be a long term appointment then I don't understand why they would sack a manager within less than a year. It would take at least that time to get the team organised the way that they want. They would want to change the roster, the game plans and the training regime for the players. It doesn't always click right away and time needs to be taken in order for the team to gel with the manager. But with the amount of money these clubs spend it is unfortunate, but somewhat understandable, that they want results immediately and if the new manager can't give them that then it is onto the next manager.

 

[Dod Draper]

Sometimes getting rid of a manager isn't so cut and dry. People always assume it's a ruthless axe on managers, but sometimes that's not the case.

Judging by when this was posted, I'm guessing it's about Liverpool sacking Hodgson, so I'll get right into it.

Firstly, Hodgson was not the long term manager. He was there to steady the ship over the course of the season and oversee the team whilst the ownership situation was resolved.

Hodgson was never the right man for the club though, for many reasons. He was a midtable manager who lacked ambition; a Liverpool manager should never lack ambition. Hodgson continually downplayed our chances and was more than happy to settle for mediocrity. He called our 2-0 defeat against Everton our best performance of the season. He called our 1-0 victory against Bolton "famous" and was generally content with the poor results he was causing.

Then there was his contradiction in interviews. One week, he'd come out and claim he inherited a squad with too many players. The next week, he literally came out and claimed we didn't have enough players. He alienated players and fans alike by refusing to rule out rumours which claimed United were after Torres. Any manager worth the suit on his back would have definitively ruled out that possibility; not Roy though. He said "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it". Speaking of United and Torres; when Alex Ferguson called Torres a cheat after the match in September, Hodgson refused to back Torres. Instead, he stayed silent in the fear that he may upset his dear friend Alex Ferguson. Once again, any man with a backbone would have defended his star striker (who had done nothing wrong against United); not Roy though. After all that, when speaking to one of his other dear friends in the tabloids (since Roy is a good friend to journalists), he comes out and attacks Glen Johnson's form in a national newspaper. He doesn't have a quiet word with him, he uses a newspaper.

Then there were his signings; Konchesky is the worst player Liverpool have had for 10 years. Poulsen is nearly as bad and the only good signing he made, Meireles, was played on the wing by Hodgson. To anybody unaware, that's completely out of position.

As for the football we played under Hodgson... it was dreadful. Utterly dreadful.

Perhaps most frightening was Roy's refusal to evolve. He's been using the same tactics for 30 years and had no intention of changing that at Liverpool. Any long term plan he had would be forever blighted by his negativity.

I went to matches whilst he was in charge, in fact, I was at his final game against Blackburn, and it was awful to watch.

The man was a flat out bad fit for Liverpool, and that's why he was sacked.

I'm willing to wager anybody that whatever happens this season, Liverpool fans will stay loyal to Dalglish. Mark my words.