Academic Study on the Effect of Changing Football Manager

[dvaughanwilliams]

From: http://www.wbs.ac.uk/downloads/news/2009/10/what-is-the-impact-of-changing-football-manag.pdf

 

So in the Premier League, at least, there is a boost for a short honeymoon period

and then performance dips back – and indeed slightly below the level that it was

before the club changed manager. Between 12 and 18 games after appointment, the

points’ benefit of changing manager has vanished, suggesting that on average there

is only a short-term gain and a longer-term negative effect of changing manager.

Figure 4 shows the trends over time. Both peaks and troughs of performance seem

 

Whilst I know that this proves nothing, I thought it would be useful to put the calls from some people for a change in manager into context.

 

I can think of very few situations where a change in manager has produced a significant improvement in results in a team other than Redknapp taking over from Juande Ramos, but lots of times when a change produced no improvement or the team got worse: Terry Connor, Les Reed, Steve Kean, Sammy Lee, etc.

[sotonist]

It's never been the same since they introduced the 3d match engine.

[(not THE) Kevin Moore]

From: http://www.wbs.ac.uk/downloads/news/2009/10/what-is-the-impact-of-changing-football-manag.pdf

 

 

 

Whilst I know that this proves nothing, I thought it would be useful to put the calls from some people for a change in manager into context.

 

I can think of very few situations where a change in manager has produced a significant improvement in results in a team other than Redknapp taking over from Juande Ramos, but lots of times when a change produced no improvement or the team got worse: Terry Connor, Les Reed, Steve Kean, Sammy Lee, etc.

 

Interesting. It's interesting how people bang on about stability and yet after a (relatively) short run of poor form (i mean relative to the previous 100 games) the knives are out.

 

There was a similar business study into the 'hero CEO' effect, which said there was a 2 year cycle after which CEOs got binned, short term results improved then things reverted to where they had been, or got worse.

[Wade Garrett]

From: http://www.wbs.ac.uk/downloads/news/2009/10/what-is-the-impact-of-changing-football-manag.pdf

 

 

 

Whilst I know that this proves nothing, I thought it would be useful to put the calls from some people for a change in manager into context.

 

I can think of very few situations where a change in manager has produced a significant improvement in results in a team other than Redknapp taking over from Juande Ramos, but lots of times when a change produced no improvement or the team got worse: Terry Connor, Les Reed, Steve Kean, Sammy Lee, etc.

 

Ball, Hoddle, Strachan. That is all.

[dvaughanwilliams]

Ball, Hoddle, Strachan. That is all.

 

Improvements do happen, but it is not guaranteed and certainly not the norm. I could equally quote Poortvliet, Wigley and Wotte.

[PaulSaint]

Didn't Martin O'Neil have a big effect on Sunderland?

[Graffito]

Short term effect. QPR sack Hughes, appoint floppy chops and they beat us next week. You can just see it happening.

[CB Fry]

Improvements do happen, but it is not guaranteed and certainly not the norm. I could equally quote Poortvliet, Wigley and Wotte.

 

 

What about them? They should never have been sacked? Wotte should still be in charge now? Think how wonderfully stable we'd be if he was.

[dvaughanwilliams]

What about them? They should never have been sacked? Wotte should still be in charge now? Think how wonderfully stable we'd be if he was.

 

I meant the opposite. That they were appointments that lead to worse results rather than better.

Edited 11 November, 2012 by dvaughanwilliams

[CB Fry]

I meant the opposite. That they were changes in management that lead to worse results rather than better.

 

 

 

So it's Portvilet that should still be in charge now then? Because we were flying before Wotte came in and ruined it?

 

If sticking with the manager is so great why are you dismissing all the people who had so little time to bed in and become the next Alex Ferguson. We should not have changed the manager when Poortvilet was in charge, right?

 

Or is it just possible that changing the manager is the right thing to do? Sometimes? Just maybe?

Edited 11 November, 2012 by CB Fry

[eurosaint]

Didn't Martin O'Neil have a big effect on Sunderland?

 

He did but now they have slipped back again, which is kind of confirms what the report is saying !!

[the stain]

What about them? They should never have been sacked? Wotte should still be in charge now? Think how wonderfully stable we'd be if he was.

 

Youve got yourself all wound up and angry that you've misunderstood the post the chap made. Just calm down, don't be so eager to get cross and read what's said carefully.

 

So it's Portvilet that should still be in charge now then? Because we were flying before Wotte came in and ruined it?

 

If sticking with the manager is so great why are you dismissing all the people who had so little time to bed in and become the next Alex Ferguson. We should not have changed the manager when Poortvilet was in charge, right?

 

Or is it just possible that changing the manager is the right thing to do? Sometimes? Just maybe?

 

Oh. So after the chap tells you you've misunderstood his point, rather than apologise, you even angrier about it. I think you just want to be a bit shouty today. You need a cuddle.

[CB Fry]

From: http://www.wbs.ac.uk/downloads/news/2009/10/what-is-the-impact-of-changing-football-manag.pdf

 

 

 

Whilst I know that this proves nothing, I thought it would be useful to put the calls from some people for a change in manager into context.

 

I can think of very few situations where a change in manager has produced a significant improvement in results in a team other than Redknapp taking over from Juande Ramos, but lots of times when a change produced no improvement or the team got worse: Terry Connor, Les Reed, Steve Kean, Sammy Lee, etc.

 

Thank god Blackburn stuck with Steve Kean for two seasons. He got better, and better and better.

 

Here's a few names for you:

 

Rioch out, Wenger in.

Ranieri out, Mourinho in.

Gray to Strachan.

Hughton to Pardew.

Gunn to Lambert.

Lee to Megson.

Hutchings to Martinez.

Perrin to Redknapp.

And the previously mention Hoddle, Ball and Gordon.

[the stain]

Nurse!

[dvaughanwilliams]

So it's Portvilet that should still be in charge now then? Because we were flying before Wotte came in and ruined it?

 

If sticking with the manager is so great why are you dismissing all the people who had so little time to bed in and become the next Alex Ferguson. We should not have changed the manager when Poortvilet was in charge, right?

 

Or is it just possible that changing the manager is the right thing to do? Sometimes? Just maybe?

 

The point I'm trying to make (badly it seems) is that firing a manager doesn't always produce a better outcome, in fact, the statistics show that it often leads to a worse one. The sackings of both Wigley and Poortvliet weren't enough to save us from relegation in the respective seasons and while there may have been some improvement afterwards, it wasn't enough.

 

Firing a manager only guarantees upheaval, uncertainty and cost. Since it's impossible to prove a counterfactual, who knows what the result of not changing the management would have been.

 

Could a different manager be getting better results from our current squad? Maybe. It's certainly a lot easier to fire a manager than hire one.

[colehillsaint]

From: http://www.wbs.ac.uk/downloads/news/2009/10/what-is-the-impact-of-changing-football-manag.pdf

 

 

 

Whilst I know that this proves nothing, I thought it would be useful to put the calls from some people for a change in manager into context.

 

I can think of very few situations where a change in manager has produced a significant improvement in results in a team other than Redknapp taking over from Juande Ramos, but lots of times when a change produced no improvement or the team got worse: Terry Connor, Les Reed, Steve Kean, Sammy Lee, etc.

 

Right. Well thats all well and good but consider this; why not just argue that we should keep faith with Nigel this season because it's just the right thing to do. I don't mean just in a sentimental way. I mean that if we look at where this club will be in five years time it will be better if we keep to good principles, and make the right long term decisions on a consistent basis.

 

 

If we ditch Nigel; We will most likely get another manager who is probably less committed for a start. We will be viewed by the world, (why should we care, I know!), as another cheap provincial yo-yo outfit that ditches two seasons of building at the onset of trouble. Clubs that change managers regularly are a joke. Who do you respect? Everton? Or Liverpool and Aston Villa? Liverpool built the greatest club in the land thoughout my childhood based on firm principles; pass and move; develop talent both on and off the pitch, and give it a proper chance, then supplement with only the very best when necessary. What are they now after ditching Roy Hodgson for Kenny Dalglish! They are too proud to settle for a few seasons mid table, to build a proper dynasty because they are Liverpool. Joke. Can we bring in the very best for our level to replace our popular, enthusiastic and driven young manager?

 

But if we stick with Nigel; We will on the balance of probability go down. I think that is the case anyway. It will be better use of our I assume limited resources both in terms of manager salary and player turnover. But if he starts to turn it around, every neutral in the country will be wishing us luck by February. When he fails, if he does, we will be taking down a manager that is determined to, and you would assume knows how to, get us back up. If he leaves, or we are seen as giving him every possible chance, other managerial talent will come for an interview at Southampton; a well run proper provincial football club that is run on strong values, for the long term benefit of its fans.

 

 

You can say that modern football is results driven and quick success is essential, but ultimately we the supporting public of Southampton are the arbiter of that. If we are prepared to stick with him, you would think that this should be good enough. Maybe NC is an ego maniacal idiot. I don't know for one, but when yesterday is viewed through the clear filter of history in a few years time some important and less important things happened. We dropped two points. We deserved three points and from my seat 91% of the team looked to be improving week on week. The northam sang out the name of our young manager, to the general approval of the rest of the ground, and I thought he must be taking real heart from that and wanting to fight harder than ever.

[Turkish]

Thank god Blackburn stuck with Steve Kean for two seasons. He got better, and better and better.

 

Here's a few names for you:

 

Rioch out, Wenger in.

Ranieri out, Mourinho in.

Gray to Strachan.

Hughton to Pardew.

Gunn to Lambert.

Lee to Megson.

Hutchings to Martinez.

Perrin to Redknapp.

And the previously mention Hoddle, Ball and Gordon.

 

You've conviniently ignored the FACT the Stuart Gray could have been the new Alex Fergsuson if only we'd stuck with him. In 1989 Ferguson had a run of results much worse than Stuart Gary did once or something.

[dvaughanwilliams]

Right. Well thats all well and good but consider this; why not just argue that we should keep faith with Nigel this season because it's just the right thing to do. I don't mean just in a sentimental way. I mean that if we look at where this club will be in five years time it will be better if we keep to good principles, and make the right long term decisions on a consistent basis.

 

 

If we ditch Nigel; We will most likely get another manager who is probably less committed for a start. We will be viewed by the world, (why should we care, I know!), as another cheap provincial yo-yo outfit that ditches two seasons of building at the onset of trouble. Clubs that change managers regularly are a joke. Who do you respect? Everton? Or Liverpool and Aston Villa? Liverpool built the greatest club in the land thoughout my childhood based on firm principles; pass and move; develop talent both on and off the pitch, and give it a proper chance, then supplement with only the very best when necessary. What are they now after ditching Roy Hodgson for Kenny Dalglish! They are too proud to settle for a few seasons mid table, to build a proper dynasty because they are Liverpool. Joke. Can we bring in the very best for our level to replace our popular, enthusiastic and driven young manager?

 

But if we stick with Nigel; We will on the balance of probability go down. I think that is the case anyway. It will be better use of our I assume limited resources both in terms of manager salary and player turnover. But if he starts to turn it around, every neutral in the country will be wishing us luck by February. When he fails, if he does, we will be taking down a manager that is determined to, and you would assume knows how to, get us back up. If he leaves, or we are seen as giving him every possible chance, other managerial talent will come for an interview at Southampton; a well run proper provincial football club that is run on strong values, for the long term benefit of its fans.

 

 

You can say that modern football is results driven and quick success is essential, but ultimately we the supporting public of Southampton are the arbiter of that. If we are prepared to stick with him, you would think that this should be good enough. Maybe NC is an ego maniacal idiot. I don't know for one, but when yesterday is viewed through the clear filter of history in a few years time some important and less important things happened. We dropped two points. We deserved three points and from my seat 91% of the team looked to be improving week on week. The northam sang out the name of our young manager, to the general approval of the rest of the ground, and I thought he must be taking real heart from that and wanting to fight harder than ever.

 

I agree totally with what you have written. I was attempting a direct rebuttal to people whose comments seem to imply that a change in manager would improve results, when the typical result is that things get worse after a brief honeymoon period.

[Graffito]

Right. Well thats all well and good but consider this; why not just argue that we should keep faith with Nigel this season because it's just the right thing to do. I don't mean just in a sentimental way. I mean that if we look at where this club will be in five years time it will be better if we keep to good principles, and make the right long term decisions on a consistent basis.

 

 

If we ditch Nigel; We will most likely get another manager who is probably less committed for a start. We will be viewed by the world, (why should we care, I know!), as another cheap provincial yo-yo outfit that ditches two seasons of building at the onset of trouble. Clubs that change managers regularly are a joke. Who do you respect? Everton? Or Liverpool and Aston Villa? Liverpool built the greatest club in the land thoughout my childhood based on firm principles; pass and move; develop talent both on and off the pitch, and give it a proper chance, then supplement with only the very best when necessary. What are they now after ditching Roy Hodgson for Kenny Dalglish! They are too proud to settle for a few seasons mid table, to build a proper dynasty because they are Liverpool. Joke. Can we bring in the very best for our level to replace our popular, enthusiastic and driven young manager?

 

But if we stick with Nigel; We will on the balance of probability go down. I think that is the case anyway. It will be better use of our I assume limited resources both in terms of manager salary and player turnover. But if he starts to turn it around, every neutral in the country will be wishing us luck by February. When he fails, if he does, we will be taking down a manager that is determined to, and you would assume knows how to, get us back up. If he leaves, or we are seen as giving him every possible chance, other managerial talent will come for an interview at Southampton; a well run proper provincial football club that is run on strong values, for the long term benefit of its fans.

 

 

You can say that modern football is results driven and quick success is essential, but ultimately we the supporting public of Southampton are the arbiter of that. If we are prepared to stick with him, you would think that this should be good enough. Maybe NC is an ego maniacal idiot. I don't know for one, but when yesterday is viewed through the clear filter of history in a few years time some important and less important things happened. We dropped two points. We deserved three points and from my seat 91% of the team looked to be improving week on week. The northam sang out the name of our young manager, to the general approval of the rest of the ground, and I thought he must be taking real heart from that and wanting to fight harder than ever.

 

Fair point well made. Sticking with the manager would seem to be in keeping with ethos of a stable sustainable club building for the future unless to do so would undermine those ambitions. Equally it could be argued that the structure of the club should allow for managers to be replaced without impacting on the longer term ambitions. I'm for keeping NA right now.

[colehillsaint]

DVW. I know. I was shamelessley using your OP as a pivot to force a point about the bigger picture. I can't see us doing better with any other manager we could realistically land this season. I think the weird way our summer transfer business ended up, we would be more likely to screw up a replacement at the moment to be honest.

[Wade Garrett]

Improvements do happen, but it is not guaranteed and certainly not the norm. I could equally quote Poortvliet, Wigley and Wotte.

 

True, appointing poor coaches out of their depth is never a good idea. Ball, Strachan and Hoddle were not out of their depth and were not inexperienced, the three you mention were.

Edited 11 November, 2012 by Wade Garrett

[St_Tel49]

The point I'm trying to make (badly it seems) is that firing a manager doesn't always produce a better outcome, in fact, the statistics show that it often leads to a worse one. The sackings of both Wigley and Poortvliet weren't enough to save us from relegation in the respective seasons and while there may have been some improvement afterwards, it wasn't enough.

 

Firing a manager only guarantees upheaval, uncertainty and cost. Since it's impossible to prove a counterfactual, who knows what the result of not changing the management would have been.

 

Could a different manager be getting better results from our current squad? Maybe. It's certainly a lot easier to fire a manager than hire one.

And there's the rub. Delldays clearly thinks that there is one. I don't share his optimism about that.

[RobM]

True, poor appointing coaches out of their depth is never a good idea. Ball, Strachan and Hoddle were not out of their depth and were not inexperienced, the three you mention were.

 

Which is the most important point in this - sacking Adkins only makes sense if we can bring in somebody better and more experienced in this league. If we can't do that, or are changing to somebody equally as good, what's the point?

[Wade Garrett]

Which is the most important point in this - sacking Adkins only makes sense if we can bring in somebody better and more experienced in this league. If we can't do that, or are changing to somebody equally as good, what's the point?

 

I definitely agree that Adkins shouldn't be sacked unless we are able to appoint the right replacement.

[colehillsaint]

I definitely agree that Adkins shouldn't be sacked unless we are able to appoint the right replacement.

 

I agree that we should sack him if we are able to appoint the right replacement. That will be in the back end of 2013 probably, if his luck hasn't changed by then.

[david in sweden]

Improvements do happen, but it is not guaranteed and certainly not the norm. I could equally quote Poortvliet, Wigley and Wotte.

 

these three were handed the shi**y end of the stick at very short notice and at (that) time we had no other options.

 

the clubs finances were in a critical state that I believe the short list of possible replacements actually included .. Norm.

[SaintBobby]

My guess would be a change of manager works best when the incumbent has "lost the dressing room".

 

Not sure how this could be measured, but it's a hunch.

[shurlock]

My guess would be a change of manager works best when the incumbent has "lost the dressing room".

 

Not sure how this could be measured, but it's a hunch.

 

Agree -there are a whole lot of things you would want to test for -the extent to which the incumbent has lost the dressing room but also the timing of the appointment (early vs later on in the season); the extent to which the new appointment has the power to make a difference, say, a transfer kitty/the benefit of a transfer window; and the 'quality' of the replacement, including whether they are an inside or outside appointment - all these things could be measures one way or another.

 

There is also no way of knowing what things would have been like had the club stuck with the incumbent. Perhaps they would have been a lot worse.

Edited 11 November, 2012 by shurlock

[Wade Garrett]

these three were handed the shi**y end of the stick at very short notice and at (that) time we had no other options.

 

the clubs finances were in a critical state that I believe the short list of possible replacements actually included .. Norm.

 

I don't think Wigley was appointed under those circumstances.

[eelpie]

I agree that we should sack him if we are able to appoint the right replacement. That will be in the back end of 2013 probably, if his luck hasn't changed by then.

 

If it's in the back end of 2013 there is hardly any point as we would be in the Championship (and under NA likely to be doing well (imo)). And his credentials are well proven as a Championship manager. And in my opinion we would be more likley to have hung on to more players after relegation if NA were still in charge.

I guess that was a typo error.

[aintforever]

From: http://www.wbs.ac.uk/downloads/news/2009/10/what-is-the-impact-of-changing-football-manag.pdf

 

 

 

Whilst I know that this proves nothing, I thought it would be useful to put the calls from some people for a change in manager into context.

 

I can think of very few situations where a change in manager has produced a significant improvement in results in a team other than Redknapp taking over from Juande Ramos, but lots of times when a change produced no improvement or the team got worse: Terry Connor, Les Reed, Steve Kean, Sammy Lee, etc.

 

Surely that is a compelling case IN FAVOUR of sacking he manager, a honeymoon period of 12-18 games could be enough to save the season.

[the stain]

My guess would be a change of manager works best when the incumbent has "lost the dressing room".

 

Not sure how this could be measured, but it's a hunch.

 

If he is seen giving the team talk in an empty corridor he's probably lost the dressing room.

[dvaughanwilliams]

Surely that is a compelling case IN FAVOUR of sacking he manager, a honeymoon period of 12-18 games could be enough to save the season.

 

Honeymoon period typically only lasts 8-12 games, according to the study.

[Whitey Grandad]

Honeymoon period typically only lasts 8-12 games, according to the study.

 

So, 27 games left, 3 new managers, sorted!

[aintforever]

Honeymoon period typically only lasts 8-12 games, according to the study.

 

And then results return to pretty much what they were. The 8-12 game honeymoon could be the difference between staying up or not.

 

Stats like this are always pretty meaningless anyway, each situation is different. If the team is not getting results and the manager has tried all he can it's either accept your fate or try and make a change. Look at the difference Eddie Howe has made to Bournemouth, same players as the ones that were losing under Groves.

[colehillsaint]

If it's in the back end of 2013 there is hardly any point as we would be in the Championship (and under NA likely to be doing well (imo)). And his credentials are well proven as a Championship manager. And in my opinion we would be more likley to have hung on to more players after relegation if NA were still in charge.

I guess that was a typo error.

 

It wasn't a typo, and exactly!

[Give it to Ron]

Ask Bompey...seems to have worked for them!

[RobM]

And then results return to pretty much what they were. The 8-12 game honeymoon could be the difference between staying up or not.

 

Stats like this are always pretty meaningless anyway, each situation is different. If the team is not getting results and the manager has tried all he can it's either accept your fate or try and make a change. Look at the difference Eddie Howe has made to Bournemouth, same players as the ones that were losing under Groves.

 

Howe is clearly a better manager though, he wasn't doing terribly where he was and could comfortably manage at a higher level than he has accepted. Also, he is a local legend, the club, players and fans love him, so it's win-win for Bournemouth - they get a better manager and somebody everyone loves and wants to play for.

 

If we had an option like this, it would make perfect sense. But we don't.

[Dangermouth]

Well, cba to read a lot of the carp above but did read the piece. Not particularly 'scientific' or 'expert' but did appear to show that if a club is, say, good enough to get 1.3 points a game in the long term, it will overall get 1.3 points when you average it out. I seem to recollect they stated 18 months as being the long-term measurement.

 

They did, to a large degree say that the manager wasn't as important as some would have and that other factors e.g. calibre of playing staff had a large effect (and probably a bigger one than the manager - my extrapolation).

 

And the calibre of the manager would have an effect too, so those saying we should have stayed with people who couldn't manage like Wigley are missing the point as are those who say that replacing a good manager with a bad one plainly doesn't mean you're going to win the league. Unless your name's 'Mancini' of course. But then he replaced Hughes.