Solskjaer, Arteta, Lampard and the 'Manager in/Manager out' culture

[Klopper76]

I've been thinking about making this thread for a couple of days now. During this season we've seen all three of the above managers come under pressure, so much so that all three have been on the verge of getting the sack at one point or another.

The point of this thread is to discuss why football fans are so impatient now. Is this a symptom of the modern football fan? Is it because there's more money involved and therefore more pressure from above on managers to get instant success? Is it something that started with the birth of fan channels like Arsenal Fan TV, which made Wenger's latter years entirely about whether you were Wenger in or Wenger out? Are the media some how at fault for increasing the pressure and looking for a good story?

I ask this because when I look at Arteta, Solskjaer and Lampard, I don't see managers brought in for instant success. I see long term planning and building by three clubs who wanted to make long term appointments and build for the future. If you're after instant success you bring in a manager with the CV to match. It's not always guaranteed but that's what you do. It's why United tried their luck with Van Gaal and Mourinho. It's why Arsenal brought Emery in. It's why Chelsea...oh who am I kidding it's a bloody merry-go-round there.

Solskjaer: Previous experience with Cardiff which saw them relegated, and then in Norway. Not an appointment you make for instant success.
Lampard: Ex player for Chelsea but his only experience was with Derby. It's extremely unlikely he's going to get Chelsea back to the top of the mountain right away.
Arteta: No managerial experience whatsoever.

So why is it that all three of these managers have been on the verge of the sack this season? Why are fans so impatient? Yes money has been spent but imagine where United would be right now if they'd sacked Solskjaer after losing to Burnley in January. How are these young managers ever supposed to build anything if the pitch forks are out as soon as a few bad results come in? It feels incredibly difficult for managers to build anything now with the way that pressure can build so quickly from within a club and externally as well. I've seen it on here with the constant debates over Ole in vs Ole out.

Klopp was only able to do what he did with Liverpool after several years of building a squad and adjusting his tactics. He came in with experience from Dortmund (title winning experience) but still needed several seasons to get us where we wanted to be. Pep was able to get City to a title within two seasons but only because he spent a bucket load and inherited some world class players like Kompany, Silva and Aguero. He also came from winning everything with Barcelona and Bayern Munich.

Is it unreasonable to expect some bumps in the road for young managers learning about their squads and how they want to set their sides up?

It's Arsenal Fan TV's fault isn't it?

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

I've been thinking about making this thread for a couple of days now. During this season we've seen all three of the above managers come under pressure, so much so that all three have been on the verge of getting the sack at one point or another.

The point of this thread is to discuss why football fans are so impatient now. Is this a symptom of the modern football fan? Is it because there's more money involved and therefore more pressure from above on managers to get instant success? Is it something that started with the birth of fan channels like Arsenal Fan TV, which made Wenger's latter years entirely about whether you were Wenger in or Wenger out? Are the media some how at fault for increasing the pressure and looking for a good story?

I ask this because when I look at Arteta, Solskjaer and Lampard, I don't see managers brought in for instant success. I see long term planning and building by three clubs who wanted to make long term appointments and build for the future. If you're after instant success you bring in a manager with the CV to match. It's not always guaranteed but that's what you do. It's why United tried their luck with Van Gaal and Mourinho. It's why Arsenal brought Emery in. It's why Chelsea...oh who am I kidding it's a bloody merry-go-round there.

Solskjaer: Previous experience with Cardiff which saw them relegated, and then in Norway. Not an appointment you make for instant success.
Lampard: Ex player for Chelsea but his only experience was with Derby. It's extremely unlikely he's going to get Chelsea back to the top of the mountain right away.
Arteta: No managerial experience whatsoever.

So why is it that all three of these managers have been on the verge of the sack this season? Why are fans so impatient? Yes money has been spent but imagine where United would be right now if they'd sacked Solskjaer after losing to Burnley in January. How are these young managers ever supposed to build anything if the pitch forks are out as soon as a few bad results come in? It feels incredibly difficult for managers to build anything now with the way that pressure can build so quickly from within a club and externally as well. I've seen it on here with the constant debates over Ole in vs Ole out.

Klopp was only able to do what he did with Liverpool after several years of building a squad and adjusting his tactics. He came in with experience from Dortmund (title winning experience) but still needed several seasons to get us where we wanted to be. Pep was able to get City to a title within two seasons but only because he spent a bucket load and inherited some world class players like Kompany, Silva and Aguero. He also came from winning everything with Barcelona and Bayern Munich.

Is it unreasonable to expect some bumps in the road for young managers learning about their squads and how they want to set their sides up?

It's Arsenal Fan TV's fault isn't it?

I think this is an interesting topic to think about and kudos for making this post. Off the bat, I think I would draw a distinction with Chelsea here for a couple reasons - first, for better or worse we have an established tradition of sacking managers quickly that simply hasn't been a part of the culture at United or Arsenal. And in our defense, it's worked - since Abramovich took over we've won a trophy at least every other year. Second, we were hampered by external factors when Lampard took over - Sarri was a dead man walking by that point yet somehow we convinced Juve to pay €5m for him, but we had a transfer ban and we'd sold the player responsible for literally half of our goal contributions from the previous year. In that respect, Lampard always seemed a stopgap to keep fans content while we dealt with what looked a very difficult season on paper going into it. In that respect, Lampard has somewhat been a victim of his own success - had we finished 6th last year as most predicted, there wouldn't be nearly the furor we're dealing with now.

I'd also suggest that part of the reason for impatience is the impact COVID has had on club finances - given the lack of gate receipts, securing CL football is an even higher priority for these sides. Given that reality, it's hard to expect a lot of patience for growing pains, especially when you simply do not know whether a young manager has what it takes as the top level, as Klopp and Pep's CVs made very clear.

 

[Dosse]

Solskjaer has never been close to loosing his job just because news articles and forums says so.

 

[KeanoMagicHat]

I think it hit peak sacking a few years ago and managers would get sacked for a bad 10 game spell seemingly no matter what. But it’s come back a bit the other way in recent seasons.

Aston Villa decided to keep Dean Smith when they were in the relegation places. Big Sam would have been ready to go but they stayed firm and look at them now. Hazenhuttl lost 9-0 and was underperforming at one point but look at him now also. More clubs are seeing it’s worth it to keep faith. West Brom bring in Big Sam to see him get two absolute hammerings when West Brom weren’t even doing that badly. Watford are in the Championship partly because they stupidly sacked their managers on a number of occasions.

I think it’s good to give the season to see how it goes unless it’s drastically bad. Teams go through rough patches but you can see over a season if a manager is up to scratch or not. Lampard has the most rescuing to do of the 3 currently because he spent so much money and Chelsea’s previous history of sacking managers.

 

[Acheron]

Is it unreasonable to expect some bumps in the road for young managers learning about their squads and how they want to set their sides up?

It is unreasonable to compare their situation to guys like Klopp and Guardiola who already had a lot more experience and credentials on building sides able to compete at the top level. Also there is not a sign of long term planning in the case of someone like Solskjaer as that is only a part and you would need to judge the whole structure of the team. For instance I'm more curious about the potential of Arteta as a manager but out of the three clubs he's got the bigger mess. Anyway is a big risk for any club to hire this type of manager, they're basically gambling and some teams with the better structure and resources would have more leniency when hiring young and unproven managers.

 

[TheReligion]

I do think it's a little different with United as they kind of stumbled into Ole as a caretaker who did so well in his audition he got the full time job. For me United could reasonably sack Ole and say he exceeded initial expectations and they wouldn't be lying. From that perspective I do see why there's a split in opinion as to if Ole has it within him to take the team to that next level or is his peak to hit top four and get in cup semis.

It's interesting though all the same and I do think the tide is changing with managers being given more time. Farke at Norwich, Hassenhutle at Soton, Smith at Villa.. WBA should have given Bilic longer but pulled the trigger.

Wilder at Sheff United will be interesting given how he's totally transformed the club and it's ethos. I think they'll keep him as if he goes they'll free fall.

 

[Brightonian]

Fans are hypocrites too. In principle most will agree that managers get a raw deal these days and that they'd like to see them get more time and more trust and support. But if the internet is anything to go by, it is the fans who will turn on the manager fastest after a few bad results or a short period of perceivedly 'not good enough' football.

 

[Klopper76]

Fans are hypocrites too. In principle most will agree that managers get a raw deal these days and that they'd like to see them get more time and more trust and support. But if the internet is anything to go by, it is the fans who will turn on the manager fastest after a few bad results or a short period of perceivedly 'not good enough' football.

As I typed out that post I quickly realised that I’m guilty of thinking all three of those managers should’ve been sacked at some point in 2020. We’re all hypocrites.

 

[Vidyoyo]

Well, top clubs obviously want to win trophies so tend to hire managers with a proven track record of getting results. If the managers aren't doing it then they will always in contention to be sacked. Fans/the board are used to success so get restless following a bad run, and doubly so if the manager's experience or style doesn't instil confidence.

With at least two of the three you've mentioned, they were brought in mainly to stabilise the clubs and I don't think much was expected initially. Ole was interim manager and Lampard was brought in knowing Chelsea would be dealing with the fallout of a transfer ban, obviously impacting the bigger managers Roman probably would have gone for at the time.

That they both overperformed in their first year a good thing but it also meant that they set the stage for higher aspirations. At a certain point, both had/are having trouble and it's understandable that fans might ask if there's not a better appointment who could take the club higher. Arguably, it's worse if that didn't happen because it'd suggest acceptance of mediocrity.

Clubs at the bottom have a slightly different pejorative in that they usually just want to stay in the league so need to think short-term for different reasons. While it has certainly been nice to see managers like Hassenhuttl/Smith stay in the job after bad periods, it doesn't always work. Leicester famously never would have won the league if Pearson had stayed.

In other words, I don't think there's a science to sacking managers, nor an absolute justification either way. They always deserve time; doubly so if looks like they're trying to create a better brand of football. Restlessness is silly as we see it online but if a team is languishing several places below where they're expected to be then sometimes it's a fair point to make.

 

[Hoboman]

They were unjustified appointments in the first place. None of them achieved anything of note in their managerial career to assume that they are good enough to work as a head coaches in of one of the biggest, richest and decorated clubs in EPL.

None of them had huge instant success either to earn the benefit of the doubt. On top of that, all three had some very bad runs and underwhelming results - Ole in first half of last and at the start of this season, Arteta recently and Lampard now.
Situation is getting worse when you look at the money spent by United and Chelsea.

Also, I believe that with United (and, partly, Arsenal) fans frustration with the manager is deeply connected with their disappointment with owners, executives and club's whole structure. Fans realise how difficult it is to solve the structural problems and subconciously hope that change of manager will be enough.

 

[Giggsy13]

I've been thinking about making this thread for a couple of days now. During this season we've seen all three of the above managers come under pressure, so much so that all three have been on the verge of getting the sack at one point or another.

The point of this thread is to discuss why football fans are so impatient now. Is this a symptom of the modern football fan? Is it because there's more money involved and therefore more pressure from above on managers to get instant success? Is it something that started with the birth of fan channels like Arsenal Fan TV, which made Wenger's latter years entirely about whether you were Wenger in or Wenger out? Are the media some how at fault for increasing the pressure and looking for a good story?

I ask this because when I look at Arteta, Solskjaer and Lampard, I don't see managers brought in for instant success. I see long term planning and building by three clubs who wanted to make long term appointments and build for the future. If you're after instant success you bring in a manager with the CV to match. It's not always guaranteed but that's what you do. It's why United tried their luck with Van Gaal and Mourinho. It's why Arsenal brought Emery in. It's why Chelsea...oh who am I kidding it's a bloody merry-go-round there.

Solskjaer: Previous experience with Cardiff which saw them relegated, and then in Norway. Not an appointment you make for instant success.
Lampard: Ex player for Chelsea but his only experience was with Derby. It's extremely unlikely he's going to get Chelsea back to the top of the mountain right away.
Arteta: No managerial experience whatsoever.

So why is it that all three of these managers have been on the verge of the sack this season? Why are fans so impatient? Yes money has been spent but imagine where United would be right now if they'd sacked Solskjaer after losing to Burnley in January. How are these young managers ever supposed to build anything if the pitch forks are out as soon as a few bad results come in? It feels incredibly difficult for managers to build anything now with the way that pressure can build so quickly from within a club and externally as well. I've seen it on here with the constant debates over Ole in vs Ole out.

Klopp was only able to do what he did with Liverpool after several years of building a squad and adjusting his tactics. He came in with experience from Dortmund (title winning experience) but still needed several seasons to get us where we wanted to be. Pep was able to get City to a title within two seasons but only because he spent a bucket load and inherited some world class players like Kompany, Silva and Aguero. He also came from winning everything with Barcelona and Bayern Munich.

Is it unreasonable to expect some bumps in the road for young managers learning about their squads and how they want to set their sides up?

It's Arsenal Fan TV's fault isn't it?

Great post. It’s unfortunate that legends like Ole and Lampard get dragged thru the mud even though they know the expectations and culture around the club more than any external hire. Ole has shown more consistency the past year and deserves more time. Lampard unfortunately will fall under the Roman hammer and be sacked eventually. I think clubs should be looking more to former players if they’ve shown a knack at management.

Klopp won’t be at liverpool forever and Gerrard is doing some great things at Rangers. I would think when Klopp leaves, Gerrard will be lined up for the job. It’ll be interesting to see if liverpool supporters will give him time to build his own squad or demand instant results because of Klopp’s recent success.

 

[Dominos]

You have to remember a lot of fans don't think certain managers deserved the job in the first place. When you hire a manager with no previous track record and then results aren't good, all the fans have to go off is that they've got a rookie in charge who has never proven themselves to be a good manager previously and they're doing nothing in the current job that suggests they're a good manager - so it's not hard to understand why they'd conclude that there are better options out there. A lot of fans didn't buy into this "short term pain for long term gain" plan in the first place, so you can't expect them to be on board with the terrible results just because that's the road the club chose.

Just because a manager is doing poorly now doesn't mean he'll turn it around. It's not some guarantee that if you stick with a manager who's failing long enough eventually he will start delivering the goods because it was all part of his plan. Sometimes they're genuinely not good enough or not the best option.

There are also minimum requirements you have to meet that suggest you have some idea what you're doing. You can't be a manager languishing in 16th at a top club and claim "don't worry I'm working towards something great here", there has to be some reason to keep the faith.

I don't buy the idea that because a "proven" manager has failed then you should be content with a rookie next time. Football manager at a top club is a highly important and highly specialised position, if I have surgery with a vastly experienced surgeon and they do a mediocre job, I'm not going to specifically choose an inexperienced surgeon next time just because "experience doesn't guarantee success".

What I do think is a shame though is I think a fair few managers who are sacked would have turned it around, even from what seemed like untenable positions. I think back to Pardew getting lambasted at Newcastle years back and it looked like a matter of time when suddenly they put together a winning run to get them into the top half of the table, leaving them in a good position when he left for Palace. Hasenhuttl after the 9-0 and languishing in the relegation spots, and I'd even include Ole last season where even getting close to top 4 seemed like a pipe dream. The issue is most managers in these positions will get sacked before we get to see if they could swing the momentum. I do understand that you can't hold on forever though in blind faith.

 

[MattyLT]

It's just a small part of a bigger picture, and the bigger picture is outrage culture.

 

[alexthelion]

They were unjustified appointments in the first place. None of them achieved anything of note in their managerial career to assume that they are good enough to work as a head coaches in of one of the biggest, richest and decorated clubs in EPL.

None of them had huge instant success either to earn the benefit of the doubt. On top of that, all three had some very bad runs and underwhelming results - Ole in first half of last and at the start of this season, Arteta recently and Lampard now.
Situation is getting worse when you look at the money spent by United and Chelsea.

Also, I believe that with United (and, partly, Arsenal) fans frustration with the manager is deeply connected with their disappointment with owners, executives and club's whole structure. Fans realise how difficult it is to solve the structural problems and subconciously hope that change of manager will be enough.

So, were Pep and Zidane good appointments?

Afterall, they had the same or even less experience than these three.

 

[SmallCaine]

I don't see what is so surprising about it, this is how most target oriented jobs work. We can debate whether the targets set are realistic or not but there shouldn't be you have to give them time bs about achieving what is the bare minimum expected out of you.

Look at Solskjaer, he was very rightfully under the threat of losing his job last season, if you have spent 150mn, and 2 of the 3 title contenders have had a iffy start to their campaigns, it is not unreasonable to expect you to be in top 4, which was the league our goal. Its not too much and there is no short term or long term about it, if a club is languishing in the bottom half or near bottom half of the table while starting the season with top 4 hopes, its very much expected the manger will be under pressure and there is nothing wrong about it.

Klopp was only able to do what he did with Liverpool after several years of building a squad and adjusting his tactics. He came in with experience from Dortmund (title winning experience) but still needed several seasons to get us where we wanted to be.

How is this myth still a thing, you are a Liverpool fan, you should know your manager's record better.

Klopp finished in top 4 in 2 of his first 3 years where he wasn't challenging for the title, which was Liverpool’s target in his early years. The only time he did not was his first season where he came in mid way and there wasn't expectation of top 4 just like it wasn't for Solskjaer in his first season.

Also unlike Solskjaer or arteta, klopp in those seasons did not spend most of the seasons out side top 4 before going on a run and squeaking in like Solskjaer did last season. Liverpool were 3rd or 4th for most of the season in both those years. Arsenal hasn't been in top 10 for most part of this season. Solskjaer got us into top 4 only in week 37 of a 38 week season.

Most people dont survive in a job if it looks like they repeatedly won't make their targets, just because the organization you work for gives you millions to do a job instead of the much lower amount an average Joe gets for doing his doesn't mean you escape the similar consequences of not doing it well.

 

[Klopper76]

I don't see what is so surprising about it, this is how most target oriented jobs work. We can debate whether the targets set are realistic or not but there shouldn't be you have to give them time bs about achieving what is the bare minimum expected out of you.

Look at Solskjaer, he was very rightfully under the threat of losing his job last season, if you have spent 150mn, and 2 of the 3 title contenders have had a iffy start to their campaigns, it is not unreasonable to expect you to be in top 4, which was the league our goal. Its not too much and there is no short term or long term about it, if a club is languishing in the bottom half or near bottom half of the table while starting the season with top 4 hopes, its very much expected the manger will be under pressure and there is nothing wrong about it.



How is this myth still a thing, you are a Liverpool fan, you should know your manager's record better.

Klopp finished in top 4 in 2 of his first 3 years where he wasn't challenging for the title, which was Liverpool’s target in his early years. The only time he did not was his first season where he came in mid way and there wasn't expectation of top 4 just like it wasn't for Solskjaer in his first season.

Also unlike Solskjaer or arteta, klopp in those seasons did not spend most of the seasons out side top 4 before going on a run and squeaking in like Solskjaer did last season. Liverpool were 3rd or 4th for most of the season in both those years. Arsenal hasn't been in top 10 for most part of this season. Solskjaer got us into top 4 only in week 37 of a 38 week season.

Most people dont survive in a job if it looks like they repeatedly won't make their targets, just because the organization you work for gives you millions to do a job instead of the much lower amount an average Joe gets for doing his doesn't mean you escape the similar consequences of not doing it well.

In 2017 and 2018 we had to win our final games to finish 4th. We were touch and go until the final day in both seasons.

 

[rotherham_red]

I don't see what is so surprising about it, this is how most target oriented jobs work. We can debate whether the targets set are realistic or not but there shouldn't be you have to give them time bs about achieving what is the bare minimum expected out of you.

Look at Solskjaer, he was very rightfully under the threat of losing his job last season, if you have spent 150mn, and 2 of the 3 title contenders have had a iffy start to their campaigns, it is not unreasonable to expect you to be in top 4, which was the league our goal. Its not too much and there is no short term or long term about it, if a club is languishing in the bottom half or near bottom half of the table while starting the season with top 4 hopes, its very much expected the manger will be under pressure and there is nothing wrong about it.



How is this myth still a thing, you are a Liverpool fan, you should know your manager's record better.

Klopp finished in top 4 in 2 of his first 3 years where he wasn't challenging for the title, which was Liverpool’s target in his early years. The only time he did not was his first season where he came in mid way and there wasn't expectation of top 4 just like it wasn't for Solskjaer in his first season.

Also unlike Solskjaer or arteta, klopp in those seasons did not spend most of the seasons out side top 4 before going on a run and squeaking in like Solskjaer did last season. Liverpool were 3rd or 4th for most of the season in both those years. Arsenal hasn't been in top 10 for most part of this season. Solskjaer got us into top 4 only in week 37 of a 38 week season.

Most people dont survive in a job if it looks like they repeatedly won't make their targets, just because the organization you work for gives you millions to do a job instead of the much lower amount an average Joe gets for doing his doesn't mean you escape the similar consequences of not doing it well.

That's just not true re Klopp in his first two seasons. They didn't firmly establish themselves as a top 4 club under him until his 3rd full season (virtually his 4th season).

Klopp undeniably made great progress but it wasn't on the basis of his league form. It was, perhaps quite ironically considering his attitude towards them now, his cup runs in the EL and EFL Cup, as well as his run in the CL in 17/18, that gave the biggest glimpse. In the league they were patchy within games and over the course of the season and they almost habitually seemed to run out of steam by February/March.

I still maintain though, that above all else, even Klopp's methods, that it was their astute use of the Coutinho money that transformed them. Much like a lot of those outside of Utd think that Ole can only go so far, I thought the same of Klopp back then. I thought he'd done well to get them consistent top 4 status but that he didn't quite have it within him to topple prime Pep and the City project when it was at its zenith (if Pep wasn't there however, then I did think it would be a level playing field which would have given Klopp, as well as Poch and Jose at the time a much bigger chance). Fast forward 12 months from that Coutinho sale though, and they managed to bring in three crucial pieces which turned them into a serious team.

I know a lot of people don't like the comparison to Klopp and think it's insulting, but the parallels between Ole and him are certainly there for me and while he might never win the PL and CL, I would be interested to see what he'd do if the board actually backed him properly for once and brought in all his first choice targets on time. Because make no bones about it, some of the first choice players we have in 3 key positions in particular, would be squad players in a proper title challenging side. The players in question are IMO McTominay &/or Fred, Lindelof, and the non-existent RW, where we're having to make do with Rashford/Greenwood there, who are more suited to the Left and striker roles respectively. Bring adequate players there and I'm sure you will see a marked difference.

It's to Ole and the team's credit that we're in the position we are at this point because the last time a Utd manager had a similar level of backing from the board to the one Ole received in 2020, the club was ending the year closer in terms of points to relegation than they were to the top 4, and rather than look upwards, we were looking over our shoulders at Wolves and Bournemouth coming up from behind.

The progress from that low point has been undeniable, and as long as the progress is sustained, Ole deserves the time and support. If we don't meet the minimum threshold under him at the end of the season then he should go and we should wish him all the best, but not until then. Once he brings in the first choice targets in the key positions he requires (i.e. a RW, CB and DM) then the targets would be increased, like I'm sure they had been for Klopp once Allison, Fabinho, and VVD had been bought over that 6-12 months period in the summer of 2017-18. Klopp rose to the challenge, and the question for Ole is if he would do likewise.

 

[Feed Me]

I've been thinking about making this thread for a couple of days now. During this season we've seen all three of the above managers come under pressure, so much so that all three have been on the verge of getting the sack at one point or another.

The point of this thread is to discuss why football fans are so impatient now. Is this a symptom of the modern football fan? Is it because there's more money involved and therefore more pressure from above on managers to get instant success? Is it something that started with the birth of fan channels like Arsenal Fan TV, which made Wenger's latter years entirely about whether you were Wenger in or Wenger out? Are the media some how at fault for increasing the pressure and looking for a good story?

I ask this because when I look at Arteta, Solskjaer and Lampard, I don't see managers brought in for instant success. I see long term planning and building by three clubs who wanted to make long term appointments and build for the future. If you're after instant success you bring in a manager with the CV to match. It's not always guaranteed but that's what you do. It's why United tried their luck with Van Gaal and Mourinho. It's why Arsenal brought Emery in. It's why Chelsea...oh who am I kidding it's a bloody merry-go-round there.

Solskjaer: Previous experience with Cardiff which saw them relegated, and then in Norway. Not an appointment you make for instant success.
Lampard: Ex player for Chelsea but his only experience was with Derby. It's extremely unlikely he's going to get Chelsea back to the top of the mountain right away.
Arteta: No managerial experience whatsoever.

So why is it that all three of these managers have been on the verge of the sack this season? Why are fans so impatient? Yes money has been spent but imagine where United would be right now if they'd sacked Solskjaer after losing to Burnley in January. How are these young managers ever supposed to build anything if the pitch forks are out as soon as a few bad results come in? It feels incredibly difficult for managers to build anything now with the way that pressure can build so quickly from within a club and externally as well. I've seen it on here with the constant debates over Ole in vs Ole out.

Klopp was only able to do what he did with Liverpool after several years of building a squad and adjusting his tactics. He came in with experience from Dortmund (title winning experience) but still needed several seasons to get us where we wanted to be. Pep was able to get City to a title within two seasons but only because he spent a bucket load and inherited some world class players like Kompany, Silva and Aguero. He also came from winning everything with Barcelona and Bayern Munich.

Is it unreasonable to expect some bumps in the road for young managers learning about their squads and how they want to set their sides up?

It's Arsenal Fan TV's fault isn't it?

Your perceptions are coloured by your reality. I always preached managerial longevity when SAF was at the helm. After the three years Liverpool have had it is understandable that you would do likewise.

 

[Lewnited]

Yeah it's probably a discussion that's worth having. I think quick and snappy tag lines like 'Ole in' and 'Ole out' do fly in the face of any real critical discussion and create an unnecessary 'us vs them' mentality within a fanbase that all ultimately want the same outcome.

I think with these three managers, there absolutely is a nuanced debate to be had over whether they've deserved to be in the job in the first place given their lack of credentials and the size of the clubs. I think it's every fan's right to start off sceptical of these managers and only change opinion once the evidence presents itself.

However I think the important bit that fans miss is the fact that it's totally fine to change opinion, 'Manager X In/Out' is treated like a ship that you have to go down with even when all the evidence points you in the opposite direction. It's OK to think that Solskjaer wasn't doing a great job in the first year and should have been gone, while also thinking he's been almost flawless in his second year and has proven the direction he's taking the club in.

Fans may be a little impatient, but ultimately it's years of lacking ambition and bad decisions by the clubs that rubs fans up the wrong way in the first place.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Managers who have won major trophies in leagues with big clubs in them have earned some patience in their next job. Not that either Pep or Klopp needed much patience, with both of them coming good in their second season.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

I've been thinking about making this thread for a couple of days now. During this season we've seen all three of the above managers come under pressure, so much so that all three have been on the verge of getting the sack at one point or another.

The point of this thread is to discuss why football fans are so impatient now. Is this a symptom of the modern football fan? Is it because there's more money involved and therefore more pressure from above on managers to get instant success? Is it something that started with the birth of fan channels like Arsenal Fan TV, which made Wenger's latter years entirely about whether you were Wenger in or Wenger out? Are the media some how at fault for increasing the pressure and looking for a good story?

I ask this because when I look at Arteta, Solskjaer and Lampard, I don't see managers brought in for instant success. I see long term planning and building by three clubs who wanted to make long term appointments and build for the future. If you're after instant success you bring in a manager with the CV to match. It's not always guaranteed but that's what you do. It's why United tried their luck with Van Gaal and Mourinho. It's why Arsenal brought Emery in. It's why Chelsea...oh who am I kidding it's a bloody merry-go-round there.

Solskjaer: Previous experience with Cardiff which saw them relegated, and then in Norway. Not an appointment you make for instant success.
Lampard: Ex player for Chelsea but his only experience was with Derby. It's extremely unlikely he's going to get Chelsea back to the top of the mountain right away.
Arteta: No managerial experience whatsoever.

So why is it that all three of these managers have been on the verge of the sack this season? Why are fans so impatient? Yes money has been spent but imagine where United would be right now if they'd sacked Solskjaer after losing to Burnley in January. How are these young managers ever supposed to build anything if the pitch forks are out as soon as a few bad results come in? It feels incredibly difficult for managers to build anything now with the way that pressure can build so quickly from within a club and externally as well. I've seen it on here with the constant debates over Ole in vs Ole out.

Klopp was only able to do what he did with Liverpool after several years of building a squad and adjusting his tactics. He came in with experience from Dortmund (title winning experience) but still needed several seasons to get us where we wanted to be. Pep was able to get City to a title within two seasons but only because he spent a bucket load and inherited some world class players like Kompany, Silva and Aguero. He also came from winning everything with Barcelona and Bayern Munich.

Is it unreasonable to expect some bumps in the road for young managers learning about their squads and how they want to set their sides up?

It's Arsenal Fan TV's fault isn't it?

OGS has never been on the verge of the sack.

Don’t let Forums/ Twitter and some negative fans who shout loud be the barometer of truth.

in terms of fans, there will always be divergent views - but in this day and age some people just want instant success, and would rather rant on a forum than support the team.

that’s not got anything to do with the managers age or experience.

however I do agree that some managers should be given time. It’s been obvious to me that OGS has made significant progress, and deserving of time and patience.

Moyes for example was a nightmare from day 1, and frankly should have been sacked far earlier.

Its not just About results, but culture, and progress.

 

[Dancfc]

Patience is all well and good if the projected end product is something you want to see. Tell me to sit on a plane for 24 hours and i come out to Sydney or the Gold Coast i'll be patient, i'll sit in those awful economy seats, eat the awful plane food and suck it up. Tell me i'll come off the plane and end up in Slough i'll tell you to do one.

I was behind Lampard for over a year because despite clear growing pains there was a blueprint and with it hope we were heading towards an exciting end product, this last month we've slowly morphed into an expensive Burnley and with the quality we have that's unacceptable (as i was saying about Mou and Spurs, you can only justify that type of unsustainable football if you bring home one of the big two).

 

[saivet]

So, were Pep and Zidane good appointments?

Afterall, they had the same or even less experience than these three.

I think there are some notable difference in that they effectively internally promoted them. From what I recall, Zidane was basically groomed for the job and had been working at Madrid for a number of years in different roles.

They were still gambles but they paid off and for every one of these gambles you get failures.

 

[Ole's screen]

I think there are some notable difference in that they effectively internally promoted them. From what I recall, Zidane was basically groomed for the job and had been working at Madrid for a number of years in different roles.

They were still gambles but they paid off and for every one of these gambles you get failures.

Ole also worked internally as reserve team coach. Same as Pep and Zidane.

Of course its always a gamble to hire a up and comer over an established name - thats no reason not to do it though.

As an aside, I've always believed that we should have appointed SAF's successor from within. I think the moment he decided he was going to retire he should have brought in Ole and started grooming him to take over. I bet he wishes he did that too.

 

[adexkola]

Yeah it's probably a discussion that's worth having. I think quick and snappy tag lines like 'Ole in' and 'Ole out' do fly in the face of any real critical discussion and create an unnecessary 'us vs them' mentality within a fanbase that all ultimately want the same outcome.

I think with these three managers, there absolutely is a nuanced debate to be had over whether they've deserved to be in the job in the first place given their lack of credentials and the size of the clubs. I think it's every fan's right to start off sceptical of these managers and only change opinion once the evidence presents itself.

However I think the important bit that fans miss is the fact that it's totally fine to change opinion, 'Manager X In/Out' is treated like a ship that you have to go down with even when all the evidence points you in the opposite direction. It's OK to think that Solskjaer wasn't doing a great job in the first year and should have been gone, while also thinking he's been almost flawless in his second year and has proven the direction he's taking the club in.

Fans may be a little impatient, but ultimately it's years of lacking ambition and bad decisions by the clubs that rubs fans up the wrong way in the first place.

The only credential they need (and have), as stipulated by UEFA, is the UEFA Pro License. As far as I am aware, Ole, Arteta and Lampard met the minimum qualifications necessary to gain an interview at their current clubs.

 

[The Boy]

I can not think of one club that has constantly changed managers and done well without having the funds to transfer themselves out of trouble ala Real or Chelsea.

Google tells me that in the last decade the average a premiership manager lasts is 69.4 league games. Apparently that's better than the Bundesliga (45.5) La liga (39.6) and Serie A (35.1)

So maybe we don't sack as much as we thought!

But constant change in any business is bad as it always resets strategies for the business, if you're doing that every year without the funds to buy yourself out of trouble, you'll only head one way.

 

[balaks]

It has always been this way.

 

[crossy1686]

I think it really depends on the squad and how realistic the club are.

All the managers mentioned are taking over clubs in need of a rebuild, they don't appear to be title ready, despite money spent, which is a stupid argument anyway. Moyes for example was handed a league-winning team and decided to rip it up because he thought he had 7 years to win a title. He deserved to be sacked for taking a winning team to 7th.

Sacking one of them now is like asking a tapas chef to make you dinner, then sacking him half way through making the meal and replacing him with sushi chef. The end product is a combination of two different people trying to different things and ultimately a mess that sets you back further.

 

[Raees]

Patience is all well and good if the projected end product is something you want to see. Tell me to sit on a plane for 24 hours and i come out to Sydney or the Gold Coast i'll be patient, i'll sit in those awful economy seats, eat the awful plane food and suck it up. Tell me i'll come off the plane and end up in Slough i'll tell you to do one.

I was behind Lampard for over a year because despite clear growing pains there was a blueprint and with it hope we were heading towards an exciting end product, this last month we've slowly morphed into an expensive Burnley and with the quality we have that's unacceptable (as i was saying about Mou and Spurs, you can only justify that type of unsustainable football if you bring home one of the big two).

Ole too has had long spells where we look dogshite. No guarantee it will turn around for Chelsea but I think he needs time to work through the selection issues. He has almost too much talent in forward areas and is becoming confused.

 

[Lewnited]

The only credential they need (and have), as stipulated by UEFA, is the UEFA Pro License. As far as I am aware, Ole, Arteta and Lampard met the minimum qualifications necessary to gain an interview at their current clubs.

Love a disingenous response fine - 'lack of a top level track record'.

 

[do.ob]

Your typical modern top (or good) coach has a distinct philosophy he implements right away. This was true especially for Klopp and Pep, but also e.g. Hasenhüttl, Bielsa, Tuchel, Nagelsmann, Rose, Bosz and loads others. They don't necessarily go from 0 to 100 in a couple of weeks, but right away you can clearly tell what they are trying to do, you see (the beginnings of) a cohesive system and what it can do when it's going well and you usually can make out clearly what the missing pieces to their puzzle are. Those guys get afforded time, because they earn themselves time.

But when you have coaches who are more "pragmatic" it's often almost impossible to tell how far they can go, because they have to improvise and figure things out as they go along to a much bigger degree. As long as they're successful in the short term that's okay for the moment, because that's what matters most in the end. But if they aren't: why should they be given time? There is not the faintest guarantee that Lampard will develop into a top coach, there is no (clear) foundation he's building tactically. So why sacrifice short term success for no clear upside, when you can just sack him and bring in someone else?

I think if anything clubs are not ruthless enough with their coaches. We saw it at Bayern, who persisted with Ancelotti and Kovac even though there were problems and as a reward for their patience they had to change coaches weeks after the season started. This year it was Dortmund who were giving an unhappy relationship with Favre one more shot and are now paying a hefty price. Once you realize that your coach isn't getting you somewhere or you see that the cracks between him and the squad are only going to get bigger then it's time to sack, at least between seasons.

Someone in this thread said frequent sackings trigger frequent rebuilds which harm squad strength, but I think a capable DoF, who can pick coaches, who are more or less similar philosophically, can mitigate most of that.

 

[Jezpeza]

Ole too has had long spells where we look dogshite. No guarantee it will turn around for Chelsea but I think he needs time to work through the selection issues. He has almost too much talent in forward areas and is becoming confused.

Chelsea are where we were when Ole took over. Patchwork squad from several different managers and too much deadwood or past it players.

Big Problem for me is defence when i have watched them. they have a promising centre back in tomori and apart from that should probably clear the lot out. The panicked passing out from the back against city showed they arent comfortable doing it and at times this season have been compensating for lack of confidence at the back by tinkering with formations and sitting deeper.

also too many players to keep happy leads to endless rotation. FL Needs to figure out a best 11 and then ship out whoever isnt happy/good enough

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Well @Klopper76, I'd say you should know better than any.

How successful is patience? I mean:

• Souness: 3 years
• Roy Evans: 4.5 years
• Houllier: 6 years
• Benítez: 6 years

You guys went 20 years without a league and sacked only 4 managers .

Then you sacked 3 managers in just 5 years until you landed on a winner, and finally after 30 years of hurt you had a league title to show for it.

It's not just "impatience", we've all seen clubs stick with managers too long and it go very wrong, having an average or nothing CV only adds to that anxiety. We've also seen the likes of Bayern, Chelsea, Madrid make quick decisions regarding sacking managers and it having a hugely positive effect.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Klopp was only able to do what he did with Liverpool after several years of building a squad and adjusting his tactics.

Erm... he had you in a EL final after just 7 months in the job.

Then in his first full season, AT THIS POINT, 17 games, he was 2nd, on 37 points. Liverpool were in the top 4 all season long, and were still 3rd, just 3 points behind 2nd after gameweek 30.

Compare that to Ole's first full season (17 games - 25 points), Arteta (17 games - 23 points), or Lampard now in his second season (17 games - 26 points).

Liverpool weren't "patient" or showing blind faith with Klopp, they saw a CV and they saw very quick indications even in his first part season but especially in his first full season and results that backed up he was the right man.

 

[renandstimpyfan83]

Football manager must be the only career in the world where you consistently fail and still have a great chance of being reemployed by another company on an absolutely huge salary multiple times over.

I hate this “stick by the manager” nonsense. People only believe it because for decades the only people who had a platform to speak about it either were football managers or planned to be football managers. It’s almost like they had a vested interest in making sacking an underperforming manager some grave sin.

 

[WeePat]

Chelsea are where we were when Ole took over. Patchwork squad from several different managers and too much deadwood or past it players.

Big Problem for me is defence when i have watched them. they have a promising centre back in tomori and apart from that should probably clear the lot out. The panicked passing out from the back against city showed they arent comfortable doing it and at times this season have been compensating for lack of confidence at the back by tinkering with formations and sitting deeper.

also too many players to keep happy leads to endless rotation. FL Needs to figure out a best 11 and then ship out whoever isnt happy/good enough

When you look at the starting eleven or regular starters in general, it is mostly his own players now.

Signed by Lampard:
Mendy
Silva
Chilwell
Havertz
Werner
Ziyech

Promoted to the first team by Lampard:
James
Mount
Abraham

That's 9 regular starters.

That leaves Kante, Zouma, Pulisic, Jorginho, Giroud and Kovacic.

Lampard is the only manager Pulisic has played under, and he was the one who made the Kovacic loan permanent.

He's been here 18 months but he's made the team his own very quickly. Too quickly, some might argue, but I think there are more than enough players in the squad that are there with his direct impact that it's hard to make the argument that he's dealing with a mish mash of a squad leftovers from previous managers.

 

[renandstimpyfan83]

I can not think of one club that has constantly changed managers and done well without having the funds to transfer themselves out of trouble ala Real or Chelsea.

Google tells me that in the last decade the average a premiership manager lasts is 69.4 league games. Apparently that's better than the Bundesliga (45.5) La liga (39.6) and Serie A (35.1)

So maybe we don't sack as much as we thought!

But constant change in any business is bad as it always resets strategies for the business, if you're doing that every year without the funds to buy yourself out of trouble, you'll only head one way.

Brighton?

Watford had one of the best periods of the club’s history doing it. Southampton have had lots of managerial changes (not always by choice to be fair) and have consistently outperformed their budget. Leicester have been smart at knowing when to pull the trigger since coming up.

 

[renandstimpyfan83]

When you look at the starting eleven or regular starters in general, it is mostly his own players now.

Signed by Lampard:
Mendy
Silva
Chilwell
Havertz
Werner
Ziyech

Promoted to the first team by Lampard:
James
Mount
Abraham

That's 9 regular starters.

That leaves Kante, Pulisc, Jorginho, Giroud and Kovacic.

Lampard is the only manager Pulisic has played under, and he was the one who made the Kovacic loan permanent.

He's been here 18 months but he's made the team his own very quickly. Too quickly, some might argue, but I think there are more than enough players in the squad that are there with his direct impact that it's hard to make the argument that he's dealing with a mish mash of a squad leftovers from previous managers.

Chelsea were also better before Lampard took over than they are now. Sarri took them to third and won the Europa League the season he was sacked. Frank would probably nominate himself for a knighthood if he achieved that.

 

[WeePat]

Chelsea were also better before Lampard took over than they are now. Sarri took them to third and won the Europa League the season he was sacked. Frank would probably nominate himself for a knighthood if he achieved that.

Sarri also had a peak Eden Hazard who was enjoying his most productive season in his Chelsea career, but yes, Sarri is a better and infinitely more experienced manager than Lampard. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

 

[Mainoldo]

Well @Klopper76, I'd say you should know better than any.

How successful is patience? I mean:

• Souness: 3 years
• Roy Evans: 4.5 years
• Houllier: 6 years
• Benítez: 6 years

You guys went 20 years without a league and sacked only 4 managers .

Then you sacked 3 managers in just 5 years until you landed on a winner, and finally after 30 years of hurt you had a league title to show for it.

It's not just "impatience", we've all seen clubs stick with managers too long and it go very wrong, having an average or nothing CV only adds to that anxiety. We've also seen the likes of Bayern, Chelsea, Madrid make quick decisions regarding sacking managers and it having a hugely positive effect.

Yikes!!!

An idiot proof post.

To be honest on the original topic there is a clear and very visible reason on why those 3 in particular have a rough time when it comes to job security and that is there C.V.

In all honestly non of them should have the jobs they have they aren’t elite and they are managing elite clubs. Therefore when we judge them we have this in the back of our mind. It doesn’t mean that non elite managers should never get these roles as over history it has been shown that this happens quite often. However those who win over the criticism tend to be those who win medals... I.e. Zidane; Pep lately Stevie G if he pulls it off. You can’t take these jobs under qualified and get unjustified time. It leads to dare I say it years of no success. Like all those Pool managers above. Benitez I wouldn’t include his more of a Mourinho. He had the C.V he delivered the best he could for what he was.