Total myth. People only remember when teams go on a poor run after the manager wins and ignore it when good form continues.
remind me of an instance when a Hull City manager received the award two month's running. Indeed, when a Hull City Manager's run continued after receiving it? I hope that Mr Bruce bucks the trend.
It's not necessarily the best manager that wins as the award is given to the manager of the club that's had the best results. The two aren't always linked. That means the award goes to the team at its peak, which is rarely the same one twice, so form may well take a relative dip, but it's hardly a curse.
It is generally true that teams records are poorer the month after a manager wins MoM. But if you think about it, that's almost inevitable as they win it because they performed exceptionally the month they did win and sustaining that level of performance for 2 months is very rare. Its hard to tell this season as two of the managers that have won then moved on to other teams after. August - Ian Holloway 9 point out of 9. next month Blackpool got 4 out of 15 September - Dougie Freedman (13 out of 15). next month, Palace got 11 out of 13 (so no real drop off there). October - Tony Mowbray (13 out of 15). Next month, 10 out of 21. November - Kenny Jackett (16 out of 18). December 5 out of 15 so far. The last City manager to win it was Phil Brown. In September 2008 we got 7 points out of 9, next month 9 from 12.
Poison chalice?? I thought the vessel with the pestle held the poison pellet? The chalice from the palace held the brew that is true??
I also think it's a myth, I am sure Reading and Southampton managers got manager of the month at some point last season.
