Why fire the manager . . . ?

[Owlswing]

In the last twelve days four managers have been fired - David Flitcroft - Swindon Town; Steve Cotterill - Birmingham City; Jon Whitney - Walsall and Mauricio Pellegrino - Southampton.

I cannot understand why, when a team fails to play well, it is the manager who is sacrificed.

What is he suppoxsed to do? Clone himself eleven and go out and play in every position on the field so that he really is responsible for wins, losses and draws.

It is the players who are responsible for bad results surely, not the manager, he sends out the best team he can muster but if they screw up it is the manager that losses his job.

I just cannot seen the justification or even the common sense behind this process.

[ProfessorDavey]

In the last twelve days four managers have been fired - David Flitcroft - Swindon Town; Steve Cotterill - Birmingham City; Jon Whitney - Walsall and Mauricio Pellegrino - Southampton.

I cannot understand why, when a team fails to play well, it is the manager who is sacrificed.

What is he suppoxsed to do? Clone himself eleven and go out and play in every position on the field so that he really is responsible for wins, losses and draws.

It is the players who are responsible for bad results surely, not the manager, he sends out the best team he can muster but if they screw up it is the manager that losses his job.

I just cannot seen the justification or even the common sense behind this process.

The manager has to take overall responsibility for performance on the pitch so when things go badly the manager gets the boot - and of course when things go well the manager gets the praise.

But there is another point - I suspect that changing a manager gives a boost to the team - suddenly players become a touch more motivated as they need to impress the 'new guy' while the old guy has already made a judgement. There is some evidence that replacing a manager does give a (temporary) boost to the team's performance - over about 6 games or so. But if those 6 games are the ones which make the difference between relegation and safety, the I guess it makes perfect sense.

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11096/11128604/does-sacking-a-premier-league-manager-improve-results

You can worry about what happens the following season down the line.

[Nearly Sane]

Leaving aside a question of regression to the mean after a set of particularly bad results, there is relatively little else a club can do than sack the manager. The players may be being arses but youh cannot buy/sell outside the transfer windows except in extraordinary circumstances, and given that managers are paid to achieve, lack of achievement is always going to justify action. 

[ad_orientem]

Players only take responsibility for individual performance. Important, yes, but the manager takes responsibility for team performance. The team doesn't perform then sacking is a reasonable option. There are other factors, of course, such as investment by owners etc. I think transfer windows should be scrapped, by-the-way.

[Maeght]

In the last twelve days four managers have been fired - David Flitcroft - Swindon Town; Steve Cotterill - Birmingham City; Jon Whitney - Walsall and Mauricio Pellegrino - Southampton.

I cannot understand why, when a team fails to play well, it is the manager who is sacrificed.

What is he suppoxsed to do? Clone himself eleven and go out and play in every position on the field so that he really is responsible for wins, losses and draws.

It is the players who are responsible for bad results surely, not the manager, he sends out the best team he can muster but if they screw up it is the manager that losses his job.

I just cannot seen the justification or even the common sense behind this process.

The manager picks the team, decides the tactics, and motivates the players. Most managers decide what players are signed, though less so these days. The manager is the obvious choice to go if a team is performing poorly.

[Rhiannon]

I think that to some extent the transfer window means that the manager can be scapegoated for the players not putting it in.

[Owlswing]

I still don't get it.

The manager dos his job, sends the players onto the field to do theirs, they fail, the manager gets fired . . . ? ? ?

I suppose that this is one of those conundrums that will never be solved.

[Maeght]

I still don't get it.

The manager dos his job, sends the players onto the field to do theirs, they fail, the manager gets fired . . . ? ? ?

I suppose that this is one of those conundrums that will never be solved.

The role of the manager is much more significant than I think you understand, hence your puzzlement.

[ProfessorDavey]

The manager dos his job, sends the players onto the field to do theirs, they fail, the manager gets fired . . . ? ? ?

The managers job is to decide what the players should be doing on the filed and then to ensure that the players do what they are expected to do on the field.

So if the team fails, either because the tactics/team selection was wrong or if the players failed to follow the managers instructions, the blame rests with the manager just as much as the players.

[Rhiannon]

Sky Sports News had an interesting segment on whether replacing the manager gets results or not. Recent history may vindicate the sacking of Ranieri, possibly. But there’s been no improvement at Watford, only a place at West Ham and Stoke have dropped back even further since replacing Mark Hughes (now snapped up by Southampton) with Paul Lambert.

[Grace of God]

In the last twelve days four managers have been fired - David Flitcroft - Swindon Town; Steve Cotterill - Birmingham City; Jon Whitney - Walsall and Mauricio Pellegrino - Southampton.

I cannot understand why, when a team fails to play well, it is the manager who is sacrificed.

What is he suppoxsed to do? Clone himself eleven and go out and play in every position on the field so that he really is responsible for wins, losses and draws.

It is the players who are responsible for bad results surely, not the manager, he sends out the best team he can muster but if they screw up it is the manager that losses his job.

I just cannot seen the justification or even the common sense behind this process.

I agree it can do little good but the fact that 40 odd players with long contracts would be impossible to get rid of it seems the manager is the obvious choice...

[Harrowby Hall]

I agree it can do little good but the fact that 40 odd players with long contracts would be impossible to get rid of it seems the manager is the obvious choice...

Are not players regarded as assets, with saleable values? There are only limited periods when players may be sold. Managers can be sacked at any time.