Double standards on the treatment of players vs managers

[Skills]

In the media and our fanbase. Having a look through the Hughton thread and the Albion thread, people are outraged that the club has dared to sack a manager who hasn't completely fecked up. However, nobody would blink an eye if the club decides to replace any of their players. Why is this the case?

They're both employees of a club. They're both paid to do a specific job. And if the club feels they can do better with someone they are within their rights to make a change. But for some reason replacing one of them is a lot more controversial.

Does the fact that Hughton promoted Brighton give him the job for life? Is it also his right then to take them down? Why isn't true for the players? Shouldn't all the players who came up with them have a job for life too? Surely they deserve a shot in the big league as long they can keep the club up. And it they go down, tough - they're the ones who got the club up.

I see the same at our club. Club replaces a player and nobody care. Wasn't good enough anyway. Dares to change manager and it's the end of the world. Need to completely overhaul the club. People were shitting on the likes of Rio, Evra and Vidic as bad eggs for Moyes of all people. A man who had done absolutely nothing for the club - it was more controversial sacking him, than letting go of club legends.

 

[Omahahaha]

SAF speech; "your job now is to support the new manager" surely had an influence on a lot of fans, especially with regards to Moyes.

Also the fact that it took SAF some time to get the team succesful, which some people interpreted as managers in genereal deserve time regardless of results/progress.

And the fact that a lot of people have been looking down on clubs like Real Madrid and Chelsea for sacking managers a lot, and don't want to become a "sacking club".

The way that Gary Neville is always defending managers might also influence some people.

With regards to Moore and Hughton I think it's extra sensitive because they are black, and there are so few black managers around.

I think it's a good thing for neutrals when lower half PL-teams sack a manager due to having higher ambitions of wanting to play a more positive style of football, even though it can backfire.

Would you guys still like to see Pulis managing Stoke?

Southampton were getting a lot of stick for sacking Adkins at the time, and hiring Poch.

 

[Lentwood]

Read 'Fooled by Randomness' by Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Hopefully what you will take away is that in almost all walks of life, people fail to account for randomness. In business, in sport, in politics etc....too much agency is attributed to individual actors rather than appreciating that a good or bad run of results over any given small period should probably be assigned to randomness more than some failing or achievement on the part of an individual

Therefore, it's important to understand the processes behind a person's work. If the processes are sound and they are applied correctly, the long-term results will be far more stable than the results of 'lucky fools'

Apply that to football management and you can see that most CEOs/Chairmen are, in fact, fooled by randomness on a staggeringly regular basis. Tony Bloom, Brighton owner, should know better as a professional poker player/gambler.....

EDIT: Just to add to that, the above is also the reason I am sceptical about how Martial and Rashford are going to turn into 'world-class' talents overnight....I think we've enough evidence now to suggest that the little purple-patches are random and their long-term 'median' performances do not suggest world-class ability!

 

[Moonwalker]

Because mangers are sacked, and players never are. They are either sold to another club, or more likely, stay to fight for their place when their de facto replacement is signed. They don't lose their job, and the sight of someone losing their job is just too close to home for a lot of people. The fact that they earn millions doesn't count for much in this big soap opera of identification.

Well, that's one of many reasons why managers are talked about more, when they are sacked. Then there's simple parsimony on the part of the media. You just wouldn't have time to discuss every single departure and change in the playing staff. You barely have time to discuss managerial changes as it is.

Then of course, players are talked about when they are replaced. The departures of Nani, Tevez, Pique, Pogba all had their weeping public on here, to say nothing of the imperishable Ronaldo and the many lamentations that followed his exit.

There were people on here warning us that United would regret selling Zoran Tosser as well, for fecking months.

Chris Hughton just had this nice guy reputation, and now we are gonna have to endure this tearjerker period for a short while.

 

[Cloud7]

Absolute crickets in this thread for what is a very solid point

 

[Dolf]

Maybe because sacking a manager has more effect on a club than replacing a player? If the new player doesn't perform well it's not the end of the world. If you get a bad manager than there's a good chance the entire team will play below their level.