Whilst I can see that there can be a time for a change of management, I generally believe that those who habitually call for managers' heads are caught up in some knee-jerk fantasyland with unrealistic expectations both about what a club like Charlton should be achieving and about what changing the manager will actually do. I therefore carried out a little research to see just how beneficial changing a manager can be.
The table below shows all of the clubs who changed manager during the last full season, 2012-3, a shocking 40 teams making 41 changes between them. Of course, some of these clubs may have had no choice, managers may have walked out or been poached. I have not separated these out partly because of laziness, partly due to a feeling that in several cases it may be difficult to find out the truth and partly because I didn't want anyone to accuse me of selecting stats to suit my arguement.
So what does it tell us? A few clubs did have quite miraculous turnarounds. In particular, Ipswich, Bolton, Bristol Rovers and above all Bournemouth. What was it with these teams I wonder? Bournemouth saw the return of a local golden boy, Ipswich were clearly performing below the skill level of their players and Bolton had continued their free fall from the previous season. The Pirates had been amongst the early favourites for promotion and yet were looking at a relegation battle. So, none of these four clubs were in the same position as Charlton right now. With no investment in the team, players contracts being run down and the whole club in a general state of turmoil, it would be absolutely amazing if The Addicks didn't find themselves at the wrong end of the table.
For the majority of teams who changed their manager, improvements have been quite underwhelming. The average positional increase between taking on a new manager and the end of the season was just a rise of one place up the league table (this includes the four over-achievers named above). Whilst it is true that some teams pulled themselves out of the relegation quagmire, for others it just seemed to make matters worse.
It is clear therefore that changing managers is not some fix-all solution. It is a solution that only works under certain conditions, i.e. when the other building blocks are there for a successful turnaround. And the manager is the biggest brake to progress.
If anyone in their right mind believes that that is the case with Charlton right now, I'd be absolutely amazed. We have a squad that was great in League 1 but that has not had sufficient investment since then. Certain of our key players are now past their best or have been injured and yet with no cash available for replacements, Chris Powell is having to make do and mend. For all that, I don't hear any serious criticism that the squad are not trying; that is down to his excellent man-management. Take Chris Powell away now, without substantial investment in the team, and I seriously think that we'd be certainties for a drop. 100% support!
Comments
Now, where did I put TJ's email address........
Great analysis and I completely agree with your conclusion. Even if we were to go down (and I don't think we will) I'd support him as imho Powell is not the problem and is probably keeping things from going completely tits up.
Another observation to be made is that of the teams in and around the relegation zone (ie not bottom of their respective league) 11/13 were actually saved from relegation. That's a whopping 85% who stayed up as a result of changing management. Ive based that on teams 18th or below but not bottom, exactly where we find ourselves now.
Any money available should go to Powell to strengthen as he is the guy who has brought us this far
But I'd pick up on this : "The majority of teams who changed their manager, improvements have been quite underwhelming."
This is hardly a surprise, is it? There are very few managers like AVB who get sacked in seventh place with a quality squad for a new man to inherit. Most sackings are because teams are in danger of relegation and playing badly. And more often than not, there is little money to buy new players, even if the transfer market is open.
In such cases the boardroom calculation is not 'if we change managers we will stay up'. It is more 'If we don't change, we will go down.'
You say "It is clear therefore that changing managers is not some fix-all solution." But has anybody ever claimed that it is? More often than not it's a last throw of the dice by a chairman who knows he has to do something to try to avert certain relegation, even if the chances of success are small and the change is more than likely to end in failure. But better a small hope than no hope would be the argument, I guess...
It would be interesting to see comparative stats on teams threatened with relegation who decide to stick with a failing manager who then turns it around and keeps them up. I wouldn't be surprised if the stats in such cases are marginally worse than for the teams who do make a change.
Your second point is very selective though, you can't just separate out the bottom placed clubs as if they don't count, they are part of the picture too.
Yes with 66% not getting worse it does automatically imply 34% did. still know what side I'd rather be on. Another way to look at that is
34% got worse
10% had no change
56% had an improvement.
That's over half that actually got better as opposed to not getting worse.
None of them did worse.
There were 14 in total.
One of them stayed the same, all the others improved their positions.
Lies and statistics eh.
For example, Eddie Howe joined in October and had 3 months to work on bringing 4 new players in, spending £400k - a relative fortune in L1 - on Matt Ritchie and also bringing in Brett Pitman from Championship Bristol City (who had spent £1m securing his services).
It's also interesting to note that all but five of the clubs that improved appointed their new managers in time for the January transfer window. More analysis needed, but I reckon there's a correlation between the ability to change the squad and improvement - which begs the question, why not back the existing manager?
Of course, the one aspect that would be most tricky to analyse is the fixture list, what is the current form of the opponents you face, etc. After all, we faced a Yeovil with a couple of wins under their belt, a Derby closing in on a record run. What if we played Derby and Yeovil 10 games earlier - we might have had 4 more points.
Really good stuff this (and an interesting debate)
Was looking at this the other day ATM 50 of the 92 teams have a different manager to this time last year
it was 51 after Zola left but John Ward took over on 17th December so its 50 now until 6th January(Unless someone else goes before then)
Dare I say it but appointments like Pulis do give such clubs more chance of scrambling away as they are good at grinding out results.
Our situation is our situation. I think Powell is getting the most he can from each individual; the point that some seem to query is whether he gets the most from the team.
On balance, I think he is better for the club than most out there. A Pulis type might be more likely to keep us up but not necessarily. The players are humans in a workplace like many others and will respond in some way which may be positively, negatively or somewhere in between.
Football fans and chairmen tend to crave the short term fix. I don't understand why chairmen who have been successful in business usually by taking good long term decisions are different when they are in charge if football clubs.
I'm with Powell as in the long term we will do better.
Our very own management merry-go-round (Curbs-Dowie-Reed-Pardew-Parky) was a disaster and while we are in a perilous position in the Championship at the moment, stability with CP has proven thus far to be the right way.
The impossible stat to produce i suppose is what happened with clubs that didn't change their manager but were in the positions around those that did, at the time they did. I guess what I'm saying is that proving that changing your manager doesn't markedly improve a clubs fortunes doesn't prove that staying with a manager markedly improves a clubs fortunes either.
At the end of the day changing the manager of a club is about confidence, confidence of fans, players and board. A manager tends to lose his job when he has lost that confidence. All the league table is is a barometer of performance and performance affects confidence.
Take Curbs for example, in spite of relegation from the prem, he never lost the confidence of fans, players or board - hence he kept his job. In contrast Di Mateo at Chelsea lost the confidence of the board and perhaps the players in spite of the club being in 3rd place at the time and winning the CL the season before.
As long as CP keeps the dressing room motivated and the board and the fans understanding of the limited resources he has to work with, he should keep his job. But if performance doesn't reflect players, fans or Board expectations he could get the tin tack. We know from Slippery Slater that lower mid table is their expectation so that is still within reach, even if Sheff Weds turn over Wigan tonight and put us in the bottom three, but if we are still there in three months, who knows?
100% Support for Chris Powell.
If we were being managed by a less skilled 'people-person' we would not be winning away at Birmingham or taking the opportunity to nick three points back against Doncaster.
Our situation financially and with players contracts and injuries, would have put a lesser team firmly in the bottom three and already fairly doomed them to relegation. It is because of CP that we are still battling and still likely to stay up.
CP is not using his management skills to go out and beat teams week in week out - he is using every last ounce of his willpower and skill and determination to keep our boys heads up, and to grind out the odd point here and there.
Do any of our fans honestly think that a better tactician or more experienced manager could come in and start winning us games? It would not work like that. A better tactician or more experienced manager would come in here and fail because of the lack of investment in the squad, and because he would not have the knowledge of the players or the relationships with them to grind out a point against Wigan, or to concede just 1 goal away at QPR.
If we change manager, we will get murdered every week and we will absolutely definitely go down.
100% Support.
Sums up the situation perfectly.
Edit: Oh no it isn't! Sorry I confused myself there, I'll do a revised one.
Re-Edit: Oh yes it is! Both re-done now.
I'm going to see if I can produce some stats to test the honeymoon idea that #RedPanda talked about, but it may take a while so please bear with me.
If the best we can do is "to grind out the odd point here and there" how are we "likely to stay up"?
Based on last year's table we need 37 points from the remaining 26 games - that's almost a point and a half per match. Grinding out "the odd point here and there" means certain relegation.
Fortunately I think we're better than that!