In a series I'm going to call my Half Time Report, I'll look at the key trends we've seen so far this season, both in England and abroad. Let's start with the Premier League. Suffice it to say, it's been an interesting first half of the season. As predicted at the beginning, champions Manchester City and Jose Mourinho's rebuilt Chelsea are heavily involved in the race for the title, while both the Champions League places and the fight to avoid the drop are bitterly and closely contested. So, in the opening 19 games, what have been the key trends we have witnessed? What will we remember the first half of the 2014/15 season for?
A pair of surprise packages
Over recent years, we often see a team defy all the odds to fly up the table in the first half of the season - Wigan did it, Hull did it and even City did it once upon a time. However, never do I recall seeing two teams far exceed expectations. However, following the mass exodus at Southampton, they were expected to struggle considerably, with some even tipping them for relegation. But Ronald Koeman, like Mauricio Pochettino, and even Nigel Adkins before him, has taken the Saints far beyond the level expected of them. A number of exceptional signings, including Dusan Tadic and Graziano Pelle, had forced Southampton to the brink of the title race, before a dip in form leaves them JUST fourth at the end of 2014!
However, they are not the season's only surprise package. And, in my mind, West Ham's sudden incline in league positions is a far bigger surprise. Southampton have been incredibly impressive, but they have an almost entirely new squad. As I witnessed with Manchester City's incredible revival under Sven Goran Eriksson, the element of surprise can work in your favour for a while. However, to add just a handful of names to a safe mid-table side and fire yourself up the table is exceptional, and that is exactly what Sam Allardyce has produced at the Hammers. Both Enner Valencia and Diafra Sakho look to be inspirational signings, while the huge improvement in form of Andy Carroll and Stuart Downing has been great to watch. Though I'm not sure I agree that their target should now be the top 4, it has been an incredible start to the season for the East London club, and they will be hoping they can continue that momentum for the remainder.
A surprising leniency for managers (until recently...)
Now, I may well just be so used to the revolving door policy at most football clubs today, but surely there's normally been about five managerial casualties by now? The fact that two (maybe three if you count Pardew seemingly about to switch to the vacant job at Palace) managers have only left their posts within the last week or so is surprising to me. However, I'm not going to be suggesting we are seeing a change in attitudes around football clubs - it's normally the case that once one leaves it's a mass exodus, which I expect around February time!
Nevertheless, the lack of constant conspiracy and rumour is only a good thing when it comes to football managers, as it only tends to distract from the most important thing: the game itself.
It's like no-one wants the final Champions League spot
At the beginning of the season, I had the battle for the top four down to any two of Arsenal, Everton, Liverpool, Manchester United and Tottenham. However, only one of these sides has had any consistency this season, with each of the other four having inexplicable results and severe downturns in form. Liverpool, following the form that saw them run Manchester City to the final day of the season for the title last year, have struggled to replace Luis Suarez's goals (although his disruptive presence in the dressing room is more than taken care of by Mario Balotelli!). Arsenal have been incredibly unfortunate with injuries, but have looked susceptible at the back, and have relied too heavily on Alexis Sanchez to either score or create a game-changing moment.
Everton and Spurs have both had the same problem - consistently inconsistent. Though Spurs have been getting continuously better throughout the season, they started appallingly - particularly at White Hart Lane. Similarly, Everton have had real dark spells, but their form has seemingly slipped from an initially reasonable beginning. The form players from last year like Lukaku and Barkley have yet to click into top gear, and as a result, the team has failed to hit the same heights.
With the arrival of West Ham and Southampton into the mix for the European spots this year, the battle for the prestigious 4th place promises to be an incredibly closely contested affair, and I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if the race went to the final day - perhaps between more than two sides!
The Return of the Sith
However, I have to finish with a Star Wars analogy. Following a year in the wilderness, taking time to rebuild and come back stronger, a new dark red force is emerging in the Premier League. Though not yet as strong as we have once seen them, they are threatening to return to their full potential in the near future. For those of you that didn't understand that, I am of course talking about Manchester United. Under the guidance of Louis van Gaal, the Red Devils started appallingly, registering their lowest Premier League tally of points for the opening 10 games. However, since then the club has gone on a run of nine Premier League games unbeaten (although some may argue slightly fortuitously against the likes of Southampton and Arsenal), pushing them back not only into the top four race, but on the cusp of the title chase.
However, I will suggest this, and it's something that football fans are notoriously bad at - don't run before you can walk. Be glad with where you are - 3rd place would represent an excellent season for van Gaal after the Moyes debacle last year. Having seemingly spent their way back into Europe's elite for next year, it seems only a matter of time before United are back challenging for major honours. Until that moment, the rest of the Premier League can continue to watch their back four perform like Bambi on ice at times!
It's been an interesting opening half to the Premier League season, but with a number of interesting dynamics set to play out over the busy New Year period and beyond, 2015 should be an incredibly interesting time for Premier League football.
Analysis of sporting events, talking points and controversies.
Showing posts with label Managers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Managers. Show all posts
Thursday, 1 January 2015
Saturday, 26 April 2014
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)