How long are you willing to give a manager before declaring they were the wrong choice

[dontcallme]

If you can tell inside of 3 months that you have the wrong manager - then you sack the person who hired the manger.

ANd, sometimes -its the players who are the problem, not the manager.

That's why I laughed when someone said above that Poch did not alienate the players - when there was a huge shift at the club, where Poch and several senior players had a falling out early in his tenure...

In Poch's case, it always seemed he identified the players with a really good attitude in Kane, Eriksen and others and put them to the front.

He identified players like Adebayor and Kaboul as coasting and pushed them to the side.

If the new manager identifies the problem players and pushes them to one side, then great. It's what we need.

Poch did not alienate the wrong players in his first season, that was the difference.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

In Poch's case, it always seemed he identified the players with a really good attitude in Kane, Eriksen and others and put them to the front.

He identified players like Adebayor and Kaboul as coasting and pushed them to the side.

If the new manager identifies the problem players and pushes them to one side, then great. It's what we need.

Poch did not alienate the wrong players in his first season, that was the difference.

But you only know that in hindsight.

Poch came in - sold the club captain the first summer.

Pushed aside the new captain, and also key striker within the first few months.

Gave Poch time, and he came good.

Any manager that you hire, should be vetted before you hire him, but once you do - have the courage of your convictions and let him do the things you hired him to do. If he can't - then the person who hired the manager made a bad decision, but you aren't going "just know".

 

[dontcallme]

But you only know that in hindsight.

Poch came in - sold the club captain the first summer.

Pushed aside the new captain, and also key striker within the first few months.

Gave Poch time, and he came good.

Any manager that you hire, should be vetted before you hire him, but once you do - have the courage of your convictions and let him do the things you hired him to do. If he can't - then the person who hired the manager made a bad decision, but you aren't going "just know".

Our performances in Poch's first season were good. His results in the 2nd season was excellent.

So for an outsider, he was never in danger of getting fired.

He wasn't given time at the beginning as results were consistently good. So I don't think your point is backing up your opinion, it's backing up mine.

 

[Flobadob]

Pochettino didn’t have us anywhere close to competing in his first season but we were clearly well coaches, playing good football and he was building around young players with high ceilings rather than sticking with average players that would maybe be more consistent. If our new manager achieves something along the same lines I’d be more than happy to give them the time they need to build.

I feel like as a fan base we generally know as a group what the lay of the land is with coaches. We wanted Nuno out because the players weren’t playing for him, it was clear, there was no fight. We were willing to give Mourinho and Conte so long because they had credit in the bank from elsewhere but it got to a point where there were no glimmer’s of hope anymore, it was just dull, negative football that inspired no one, not the players or the fans. If our next manager wants to play attacking, possession football and that’s clear from the start then I’d happily give them a couple seasons at least to get it right as I think our squad is far better suited to that style of football and the fans would get behind it. We need the next Poch to get the best out of this club again, I so hope the board get it right

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

He wasn't given time at the beginning as results were consistently good.

Poch had 14 points from the 1st 11 games...that not exactly consistently good...

 

[wrd]

So I'll be transparent and say, this debate is what I hoped would manifest because I think what Bluto said is a really important point, that by having two different answers based on two different contexts, then you see how long you're willing to give a manager time to show you the very points that cause the feeling that you need for two answers. So I hope reveals to people what actually matters to them and that actually if we're honest, we realise we have certain things that significantly decrease the amount of time we'd actually give a manager and then we get to our actual answer. I think the discomfort in seeing that is a good thing.

Before I started writing the thread, I thought I'd give a manager 2 seasons, then I thought well I'd like to see things taking shape so 18 months but actually, if I'm totally honest, I'm probably at 8 months because I want to see that their ideology is actually showing some sprouts and that I can begin to see the vision. If I don't see that inkling that something is starting to take hold after 8 months and I'm talking the absolute bare minimum of upward improvement, that they can find solution with what they have available and they're not going to be throwing in the towel every time they don't have everything they think they need then I think that's when I'd start to waver. There's discomfort in realising I'm not as patient as I thought but it reveals to me what actually matters.

Signs of improvement, signs of adaptability, signs their ideology can fit with the club and signs that they're creating a unit that works together. I'm happy for counter attacking ideology or pressing ideologies but what's key for me is how we use the ball and if I don't see that we use it fast in turnover also, then I'd be concerned. I also want to see the players trust themselves under the manager and that they're growing not shrinking, metaphorically not literally.

I felt this question was a good place to start as we'd start to reveal more questions to consider.

 

[dontcallme]

Pochettino didn’t have us anywhere close to competing in his first season but we were clearly well coaches, playing good football and he was building around young players with high ceilings rather than sticking with average players that would maybe be more consistent. If our new manager achieves something along the same lines I’d be more than happy to give them the time they need to build.

I feel like as a fan base we generally know as a group what the lay of the land is with coaches. We wanted Nuno out because the players weren’t playing for him, it was clear, there was no fight. We were willing to give Mourinho and Conte so long because they had credit in the bank from elsewhere but it got to a point where there were no glimmer’s of hope anymore, it was just dull, negative football that inspired no one, not the players or the fans. If our next manager wants to play attacking, possession football and that’s clear from the start then I’d happily give them a couple seasons at least to get it right as I think our squad is far better suited to that style of football and the fans would get behind it. We need the next Poch to get the best out of this club again, I so hope the board get it right

We also finished 5th, one place better than the previous seaosn.

So the argument that he was given time is pure nonsense.

 

[dontcallme]

Poch had 14 points from the 1st 11 games...that not exactly consistently good...

Unless things are drastically bad, it's very rare for a manager to get fired after 11 games. Again, I don't think you're making a strong argument here.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

Unless things are drastically bad, it's very rare for a manager to get fired after 11 games. Again, I don't think you're making a strong argument here.

Nuno was sacked after 10 - and had more points than Poch...

 

[dontcallme]

So I'll be transparent and say, this debate is what I hoped would manifest because I think what Bluto said is a really important point, that by having two different answers based on two different contexts then you see how long you're willing to give a manager time to show you the very points that causes the desire for two answers. So I hope reveals to people what actually matters to them and that actually if we're honest, we realise we have certain things that significantly decrease the amount of time we'd actually give a manager. I think the discomfort in seeing that is a good thing.

Before I started writing the thread, I thought I'd give a manager 2 seasons, then I thought well I'd like to see things taking shape so 18 months but actually, if I'm totally honest, I'm probably at 8 months because I want to see that their ideology is actually showing some sprouts and that I can begin to see the vision. If I don't see that inkling that something is starting to take hold after 8 months and I'm talking the absolute bare minimum of upward improvement, that they can find solution with what they have available and they're not going to be throwing in the towel every time they don't have everything they think they need then I think that's when I'd start to waver. There's discomfort in realising I'm not as patient as I thought but it reveals to me what actually matters.

Signs of improvement, signs of adaptability, signs their ideology can fit with the club and signs that they're creating a unit that works together. I'm happy for counter attacking ideology or pressing ideologies but what's key for me is how we use the ball and if I don't see that we use it fast in turnover also, then I'd be concerned. I also want to see the players trust themselves under the manager and that they're growing not shrinking, metaphorically not literally.

I felt this question was a good place to start as we'd start to reveal more questions to consider.

It's certainly an interesting point. As fans we are always on the outside. We can judge by performance and results but outside of 2nd hand information, we don't know what is going on within the club.

In Arteta's first 2 seasons they finished 8th. If the players weren't behind him and there was no sign of improved play, I think there was some justification in firing him. But I assume someone saw good things were happening and they gave him more time.

 

[wrd]

Nuno was sacked after 10 - and had more points than Poch...

I think that was probably when we should have realised how much we as fans impact the club's decisions. We already had it revealed during the Gattuso debacle but it should have been clear to us that we actually have more impact than we think. I remember somebody saying, they don't sack the manager when you chant for his head, they sack the manager when you chant for the owners.

 

[dontcallme]

Nuno was sacked after 10 - and had more points than Poch...

He was replaced by Conte the following day. We clearly wanted Conte ahead of Nuno.

 

[Flobadob]

We also finished 5th, one place better than the previous seaosn.

So the argument that he was given time is pure nonsense.

He was clearly doing a good job and had done an excellent one at Southampton. I don’t really remember the period but apparently people weren’t impressed with his appointment? I find that funny tbh because I was fucking delighted. His Southampton side were so well coached. He was a great appointment from the start and he didn’t need to be “given time” because he was clearly doing a good job. The first few seasons under Poch was a no brainer, it was clear we were heading for good things

 

[dontcallme]

He was clearly doing a good job and had done an excellent one at Southampton. I don’t really remember the period but apparently people weren’t impressed with his appointment? I find that funny tbh because I was fucking delighted. His Southampton side were so well coached. He was a great appointment from the start and he didn’t need to be “given time” because he was clearly doing a good job. The first few seasons under Poch was a no brainer, it was clear we were heading for good things

I think like any appointment we didn't really know who was best.

Some wanted De Boer, some Poch, some wanted other candidates. So there's always some trepidation with untested managers.

But as results were consistently pretty good, he was never really under pressure in his first few seasons.

 

[Flobadob]

Nuno was sacked after 10 - and had more points than Poch...

To be fair we had an easy run of fixtures to start where we amassed a sub par amount of points, performed badly and played shit football. Tougher tests then came and the players rolled over and had their tummies tickled with zero fight, they weren’t playing for him. His sacking was 100% deserved IMO

 

[Tucker]

We gave Sherwood time.

Lol. Sherwood was only ever an interim manager. We didn’t give him “time” we let him limp to the end of the season when he was always going to be replaced.

You’re talking out of your arse and pretending that everything is a binary black and white choice.

Some managers get time to ride out poor form because there’s clearly a process that’s going to work for both the players and the club. Others show that they’re unsuitable to work within the framework that’s present and aren’t given time.

I’ll leave it at that.

 

[wrd]

It's certainly an interesting point. As fans we are always on the outside. We can judge by performance and results but outside of 2nd hand information, we don't know what is going on within the club.

In Arteta's first 2 seasons they finished 8th. If the players weren't behind him and there was no sign of improved play, I think there was some justification in firing him. But I assume someone saw good things were happening and they gave him more time.

It's interesting you say from the outside because, I really enjoyed the Arsenal documentary that Amazon did. I hate to say it but they came across a lot better than we did in ours but who impressed me the most was the American Owner's Son who seemed to be the person making decisions, I think his name was Josh. I remember thinking this guy is saying the right things and wondered whether I was simply being fooled by somebody who knew how to play up to the camera's but he backed up his words with that action to renew Arteta's contract when he did. His words were vindicated, there was two distinct bits, one him explaining his feelings in relation to the super league and two; Arteta was in a difficult moment and he said about focusing on the voices inside, which is the part he backed up.

The second paragraph of what you say I think also shows that, perhaps we show that we're not as good at seeing the signs of improvement as we think we are. That perhaps we allowed the basic results, league placements and statistics to make the judgements for us and we don't comprehend the real data that matters or don't trust our eyes to make judgements and rely on the data to do it for us.

I only say this in hindsight because I certainly didn't think it at the time, maybe we didn't consider the improvements arsenal made that season compared to the one before in relation to the age/experience of their team and that whilst we had a more successful season, we already had a team that's age and experience levels meant there wasn't much potential for growth and therefore were too reliant on a transfer window. Considering both teams can use the transfer window, I guess I'm trying to boil what that indicator could be and a more important metric is the potential of maximizing the output of what you already have, rather than what you can add. I only realise this as I type this but that is what I've been looking to articulate what a manager at Spurs needs to be a good conduit for given how we operate.

 

[dontcallme]

It's interesting you say from the outside because, I really enjoyed the Arsenal documentary that Amazon did. I hate to say it but they came across a lot better than we did in ours but who impressed me the most was the American Owner's Son who seemed to be the person making decisions, I think his name was Josh. I remember thinking this guy is saying the right things and wondered whether I was simply being fooled by somebody who knew how to play up to the camera's but he backed up his words with that action to renew Arteta's contract when he did. His words were vindicated, there was two distinct bits, one him explaining his feelings in relation to the super league and two; Arteta was in a difficult moment and he said about focusing on the voices inside, which is the part he backed up.

The second paragraph of what you say I think also shows that, perhaps we show that we're not as good at seeing the signs of improvement as we think we are. That perhaps we allowed the basic results, league placements and statistics to make the judgements for us and we don't comprehend the real data that matters or don't trust our eyes to make judgements and rely on the data to do it for us.

I only say this in hindsight because I certainly didn't think it at the time, maybe we didn't consider the improvements arsenal made that season compared to the one before in relation to the age/experience of their team and that whilst we had a more successful season, we already had a team that's age and experience levels meant there wasn't much potential for growth and therefore were too reliant on a transfer window. Considering both teams can use the transfer window, I guess I'm trying to boil what that indicator could be and a more important metric is the potential of maximizing the output of what you already have, rather than what you can add. I only realise this as I type this but that is what I've been looking to articulate what a manager at Spurs needs to be a good conduit for given how we operate.

Good post.

The difficulty in judging from the outside is that we often expect continuous improvement. This rarely happens.

Poch took over. Got us to 5th in his first season with some improvement in our play. We then moved up to being around title challenges/top 3 in the following seasons. So we didn't really need to give him time.

Arteta certainly had difficult times in his 1st 2 seasons. 8th placed finishes twice in a row is definitely putting him on think ice. They haven't finished that low since the 1994-95 season.

I haven't watched the documentary but it seems they saw something in him or maybe just thought supporting the manager was better than starting again.

 

[SuperSpurs69]

I think how long you give a manager depends on where you are in the league at a certain point.

If we're in the relegation zone at Xmas then time to say goodbye. If we're top 4 or challenging then happy days. If we're midtable but showing good signs then review come the end of the season.

I'm a realist and know we are miles away from being title contenders, but anyone who gets us playing free flowing attacking football and is not afraid to make difficult decisions or make early subs when it's not going right deserves time.

The squad as it is should not be fighting relegation so if a manager comes in and we go into free fall then you know they aren't the best one for the job.

I'm happy to have a season of finishing 10th or something if there are good signs of progression. Just need most of the fan base to be the same.

 

[tototoner]

More relevant question should be:

How long is Levy willing to give a manager before undermining and not supporting them?​