How much time should a manager be given?

I note that Leeds have once again sacked a manager... this time Rosler....
We have the Mackems sacking annually now... Sherwood under threat of the sack and of course some of our fans calling for SM to be sack.
So how long should a manager be given?
I think at least two seasons.. unless their team loses like.. 10 on the bounce and it's a case of... we are imploding.. we need to do something.
I think the media hype and money around the game has cranked up the pressure to unprecedented levels but at the end of the day I suppose they are paid well enough to take the pressure.

 

I think it depends on the circumstances at the starting point.

For example - Schteve should be given two seasons after inheriting such dross in all areas. Whereas David Moyes when he took over at Man Utd had a better foundation and only a season should be given.

Teams like Villa/Sunderland at the moment are surviving in the PL by reguarly sacking but then will never progress much beyond that due to this and so are caught in a vicious cycle. Sunderland I beleive have tried to break the cycle with Di Canio and Poyet but failed. They have now gone for experience in Fat Sham and think he can take them to mid table within 2 seasons - there challenge will be what to do after that.

In general, I would always give a manager at least one season and progress needs to be seen (not necessairly in terms of league positions). 2 seasons would be great but a lot can happen in that time. Managers are sacked far too easily but then there are far too many managers who are not capable in modern football and just recycle their ****e around the country.

 

The manager is only the surface issue really, they take the blame when in reality it comes down to a variety of issues from level of investment, quality of playing staff, injuries to key players, the people above him, owners and fans expectations and the pressure that they exert. If Jose had to work at the bottom of the pile without the finance and quality of player that brings how long would he survive, he would certainly be under even more pressure than he is at Chelsea, much of it his own fault, I am not a fan of McClaren a lot of it comes from the hairstyle to be honest as I think that anyone that can't look at themselves objectively and see a personal weakness or failing will miss other weaknesses or failings in the bigger world of what they do. Of course he has massive problems to deal with here and if he can overcome them then I will be happy enough and will applaud him for it, on the wider discussion all managers should be given more time as the only way to build long term success is stability, there are though too many pressures not least financial and yes in some cases there are managers who are just not good enough, but if all managers had the same money and access to quality of players as say Jose I think there would be a lot more keeping their jobs.

 

Very difficult question to answer. I always say it takes 3 seasons to get a team the way you want it. I think if there is huge investment then you have to expect to see decent progress by the end of the first season, and significant progress by the end of the 2nd season. Just to note I will only count ours as huge investment if we pump say another 75m-100m over the next 2 or 3 windows. You have to consider the sums involved now, what has gone before, and what you are looking to achieve.

Pardew earnt every year he was in charge for instance because he consistently did what could be expected with the budgets he was given. The parameters were very very tight, and most years we had a lower half of the table squad. He managed that in the main, a couple of minor underachievements, and a major over achievement thrown in there too. From a coaching and management perspective he did well, which borne out that by the fact that players like to play for him. The only thing you would say is some of his behaviour towards officials, managers and players was maybe enough to bring a swifter end. These factors are again part of the process of time given.

McClaren is going to have to be finishing a lot higher than Pardew in time of course as he has had the investment Pardew didn't get. However I think you have to give him a couple of seasons, bar him just continuing like he started with some bizarre decisions. I think we still have a lower half squad so for me he can only be expected to hit 11th-15th type of range this season. The investment continues at the same levels then of course the club will expect 8th-10th by the end of the 2nd season.

Sometimes a manager is just a bad fit. In those situations you have to change regardless of time given. If something isn't right, and you can clearly see it isn't just a case of time, then lop of the head immediately. There is no place for sentiment or misguided patience.

 

Im not so sure McClaren should be given that length of time. If he loses against the mackems, then Stoke, Bournemouth and leciester, I think we would then be in a crisis. Scteve has bought himself time with the Norwich win, if he had lost that and then again on Sunday, we would all be calling for his head.

I know a manager needs time, but if we get to 13/14/15 games with only 1 win, then I think strastic measures need to be taken to ensure survival in the PL

 

Not very long the time argument is just what the sacked managers use as an excuse and then all the other failures back them up. This is why ****e managers keep ruining football clubs.

 

I think that would probably fall into the bad fit category. If you are doing that bad after that many games having spent 50M, something is just not right.

 

Seeing as you're all discussing SM on this thread then can I ask if anyone has seen Ian Cathro smile or actively do anything? Every time I have seen him he looks sad, head down and even on the pitch when they are warming up he doesn't open his mouth at all! To me that is worrying?!

 

He's Scottish, he's probably hungover.

 

I am not sure anyone actually believes that it's usually the manager's fault that a team is doing ****e. The club will sack him to show it's doing something. The sackee, however, is likely to be top of the list of candidates for the next opening, which you wouldn't expect if people really thought he had caused all of the problems at wherever he was sacked from.

As to the OP question, at least 2 seasons extraordinary circumstances aside

 

3 months is standard in any job

 

Ask any Man U fans about Ferguson's first 3/4/5 seasons at Old Trafford, he was perilously close to the sack at points but they stuck with him and look where that got them. Not saying they should get three years but jumping on a managers back after a few months is ridiculous.

From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Ferguson#Appointment_and_first_years
For the 1989–90 season, Ferguson further boosted his squad by paying large sums of money for midfielders Neil Webb, Mike Phelan and Paul Ince, as well as defender Gary Pallister and winger Danny Wallace. The season began well with a 4–1 win over defending champions Arsenal on the opening day, but United's league form quickly turned sour. In September, United suffered a humiliating 5–1 away defeat against fierce rivalsManchester City. Following this and an early season run of six defeats and two draws in eight games, a banner declaring "Three years of excuses and it's still crap ... ta-ra Fergie." was displayed at Old Trafford, and many journalists and supporters called for Ferguson to be sacked.[61][62] Ferguson later described December 1989 as "the darkest period [he had] ever suffered in the game", as United ended the decade just outside the relegation zone

 

That's sixty work days. Or, in football parlance: a season and a half.

 

Well done Einstein

 

A full season for me.

 

Depends on what you inherit. But in general I would argue a strict six month review cos I'm a hard arse prick.

 

Usually a load of ****e

 

Another issue with new managers is that I'm sure for the first few months they avoid any decision which upsets any important player in the slightest. Football players are such loathsome little ****s, they will trip you up before you even get running if they don't take a shine too you. Especially our lot.

Doesn't help McClaren that our captain is possibly one of the most useless in the Premier Leagues history. No joke. I can't stand to even see him in the starting 11 these days, but we don't have anyone better.

 

6months/1 season? Jesus wept, modern fans eh.

 

I think time is irrelevant its just an excuse if you get bad results you get fired just like any job. There's nothing to feel sorry about they get paid ****loads and then get another job from the boys.

I think if you get bad enough results you should be fed to the lions.