Who Has Benefitted From The Managerial Merry-Go-Round?

As per usual, the Premier League has thrown up another season of managerial changes, shock sackings and new heroes. I thought this was a good a time as any, as the footballing world is currently revelling in a rather significant departure this week (if you're a football fan and don't know who I mean, where are you? And if you aren't a football fan, why are you reading this?). Anyway, backroom swaps during the season can have a significant effect on the team, be it positive or negative. This post is designed to look at who has benefitted from these changes, and why that may be. On the opposite side of the coin, I will also look at the teams most negatively effected, and how this has impacted on their season.

Firstly, it is worth showing this table. There have been nine managerial changes, at eight different clubs this season, and the below table shows the points per game (PPG) before and after the switch.

Team	Manager Out (Games)	PPG	Manager In (Games)	PPG
Cardiff City	Malky Mackay (18)	0.94	Ole Gunnar Solskjaer (15)	0.8
Crystal Palace	Ian Holloway (8)	0.38	Tony Pulis (24)	1.63
Fulham	Martin Jol (13)	0.77	Rene Meulensteen (13)	0.77
Fulham	Rene Meulensteen (13)	0.77	Felix Magath (9)	1.11
Norwich City	Chris Hughton (32)	0.97	Neil Adams (3)	0
Swansea City	Michael Laudrup (24)	1	Garry Monk (11)	1.09
Sunderland	Paolo di Canio (5)	0.2	Gus Poyet (27)	1.04
Tottenham Hotspur	Andre Villas Boas (16)	1.69	Tim Sherwood (19)	1.89
West Bromwich Albion	Steve Clarke (16)	0.94	Pepe Mel (13)	0.92

From this table, we can clearly see that some changes have worked, whilst other have spectacularly failed. Of the nine changes, five saw positive changes in terms of points per game (though Garry Monk's is so marginal that I hesitate to rank it alongside Tony Pulis), suggesting that it is very much the luck of the draw as to whether a team can pick themselves up under a new manager. At clubs like Crystal Palace and Sunderland, this has clearly worked, with Pulis and Poyet coming in and revitalising their clubs (ok, Sunderland remain bottom, but we will see later the predicament that they would have been in had di Canio remained). However, Cardiff and West Brom's switches demonstrates that perhaps the grass is not always greener on the other side.

So how would they be doing had they kept their original managers? Here would be the points and position each would have had that been the case:

Spurs - 59pts (6th (NC), -4pts)
Swansea - 35pts (14th (-1), -1pt)
Norwich - 34pts (15th (+1), +2pts)
Cardiff - 33pts (16th (+2), +3pts)
West Brom - 33pts (17th (-1), 0pts)
Fulham - 27pts (18th (+1), -3pts)
Crystal Palace - 13pts (19th (-8), -30pts)
Sunderland - 7pts (20th (NC), -22pts)

As we can see, it is Cardiff and Norwich that would see the benefit of retaining their managers, with both being pulled away from the immediate relegation battle. Certainly not by enough to clear them of trouble altogether, but it would perhaps have given them those vital couple of points they be missing come May. However, as we can see from the stats above in PPG, it is Sunderland and Crystal Palace that have made the best choices in replacing their managers, gaining 22 and 30 points respectively. Further up the table, by keeping Villas Boas, Spurs would find themselves just two points clear of Manchester United, putting them under increasing pressure for the final Europa League place.

So are there any obvious reasons that some teams find it easier to change managers mid season than others? There are two that instantly spring to mind. Firstly, looking at the statistics, it is interesting to note that of those brought in, three were managers from abroad with no managerial experience in the Premier League. Just as a new player will take time to readjust to the tactics and physical nature of the English game, so too a manager will. It is therefore no surprise to find that only one of the four managed to better his predecessor's record (and that was Felix Magath, a man well experienced in European management). Though it seems too self-evident to draw the conclusion that foreign managers with little experience like Ole Gunnar Solskjaer or Pepe Mel will inevitably find it harder than the people they replaced, evidently the boards of Cardiff and West Brom have not learnt that lesson.

Another trend that is discernible from the statistics is that those managers that take over from the previous incumbents having previously been a coach at the club do as well, if not better than the men they served under. Both Tim Sherwood and Garry Monk have recorded better results than their predecessors, with even the beleaguered and maligned Rene Meulensteen equalling that of Martin Jol. This implies that there is much in understanding the players and club, especially if you have some history and passion for the institution. I maintain that this is why Sir Alex Ferguson continued to have success at Manchester United with a frankly poor squad last year (not forgetting a good dose of Fergie time!), and why David Moyes struggled. It will be incredibly interesting to see if Ryan Giggs, being an ex-coach and player at the club for over 20 years, will continue this trend. It seems silly to judge him on the final four games, but should he retain control into next season, it will be incredibly interesting to look at his record versus that of Moyes. If the stats I have found are anything to go on, United will see a distinct incline in results.

The second point I can imagine making a considerable difference is if the group inherited by the new man is full of egos or destructive personalities. Even one difficult player can ruin a new manager's authority (although it must be said that the more adversarial managers like Felix Magath and Tony Pulis would probably succeed regardless!). Interestingly, it is at Cardiff, where Craig Bellamy remains a strong presence in the dressing room, and West Brom and Fulham (Dimitar Berbatov), clubs used to being in the top half rather than fighting against relegation, where issues have come. Clubs like Crystal Palace are, in my opinion, much more open to a new manager, as they are relatively inexperienced at Premier League level, and seem willing to learn from a manager more accustomed to the league. This is somewhat undermined by the success of Gus Poyet (although he was taking over from Paolo di Canio, who was frankly mental!) and that of Garry Monk and Tim Sherwood, though their progress has been previously explained.

It is therefore interesting to examine the clubs that have stuck with their managers, despite the pressure. West Ham, Stoke and Aston Villa are prime examples of this, as at one time or another, all have come in for stick. However, all have managed to avoid trouble (largely), with only Aston Villa with any realistic chance of being dragged into the relegation scrap, but even that is remote. Both West Ham and Stoke have seen remarkable runs of results after their boards publically backed their managers, implying that stability does make a difference to on-field performances. Ultimately, they have reaped their rewards, but these instances remain in the minority and something to applaud. Unfortunately, football remains caught in the grip of short-termism, and nothing says this better than the dismissal of Moyes. Everyone has covered every point in intricate detail, so I will neglect from doing so, but I feel confident in saying that the former Everton man would have found his second season much more comfortable than his first.

As for my question posed in the title, those that have most obviously benefitted from the managerial merry-go-round have been those that have replaced sooner rather than later, and those that have brought in a manager experienced in the ways of the Premier League or with some passionate historical link to the club. Alternatively, the other victors have been those sides that have stuck with their managers through the hard times. As I have said though, as Moyes' sacking shows, I just don't see that being a common theme in the overly-financialised game that is modern football.