Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Longest serving current football managers ...
Topic Started: Oct 12 2015, 03:48 PM (83 Views)
daib0
Member Avatar

Top 12 longest serving managers of English clubs (top four tiers), timed at TODAY

1 Arsène Wenger Arsenal 19 years, 10 days
2 Paul Tisdale Exeter City 9 years, 107 days
3 Karl Robinson Milton Keynes Dons 5 years, 154 days
4 Dean Smith Walsall 4 years, 279 days
5 Jim Bentley Morecambe 4 years, 151 days
6 Phil Parkinson Bradford City 4 years, 44 days
7 Steve Davis Crewe Alexandra 3 years, 335 days
8 Steve BruceHull City 3 years, 125 days
9 Gareth Ainsworth Wycombe Wanderers 3 years, 17 days
10 Richard Money Cambridge United 3 years, 7 days
11 Neal Ardley AFC Wimbledon 3 years, 1 day
12 Eddie Howe Bournemouth 2 years, 363 days


Interesting, only two from top flight and only one from the Championship. Does this prove that lower league clubs are far more honest and loyal?

It perhaps proves that if you are looking to a career in football management, your first investment should be in a mobile home.

Only 10% of managers get to see three years in their job!

What's Wenger's secret??!



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rw_mlite2
Member Avatar

Oh boy. This thread ought to get interesting...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dsch15
Member Avatar

Curious to know what this would have looked like four years ago or so, when Ferguson, Moyes (and others?) would have added to the "stability" in the prem. Still, Arsene's the last of a dying breed. Hard to imagine anyone getting to double figures with a top side ever again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chillyheat

rewarding loser is where its at.lol.
award goes to specialist in failure - one who believes winning isn't everything - useless one who can't win champion league in 19 failed attempts - teams always shorted of breath being player or 2 short, worstest at changing game heading south wards, saboteuring his teams with half baked ideas, illicit complicity with bastard board. shoulda won cl yrs ago if board put goat out to pasture, economist making mad bread 4 board-greatest con act on d road.   patently pathetic.
Edited by chillyheat, Oct 12 2015, 05:04 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JustOneDennisBergkamp
Member Avatar
JODB
Gosh, allow me to deliver the counterpoint from the other side of the aisle.

No manager outside of Sir Fungus has done so much to get the most out of his teams and establish them as a major brand, so why shouldn't he be on top of that list?

Wake me up when he fails to meet reasonable expectations in any given EPL season.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
supercollider7
Member Avatar

Something has to give eventually. Clubs can't afford to keep sacking managers. And in most cases it's obvious that there are other problems. e.g. Sunderland. Clearly the players are shit, but nothing is being done to repair the dressing room and new managers keep being called upon to fix an unfixable problem.

And then there's the whole "transfer committee" and "director of football" business. Recently Tottenham got rid of theirs. Seems like Liverpool might be heading that way with Klopp wanting more authority.

I read in Soccernomics about how badly run football clubs are, and normally a well-run, for-profit business takes time to appoint someone in an important leadership position, while football clubs just go for whoever was in the papers last week. Allardyce isn't wanted at West Ham anymore, goes to Sunderland. McClaren gets sacked at Derby, gets a job at Newcastle. And since they didn't put a lot of effort into hiring the guy, they dont' really trust him, or turns out they have fundamental disagreements. So the cycle repeats.

And there's no incentive for football clubs to improve how they do things because they can lose money every year and still survive.

But I still hope that somewhere along the line clubs will figure out what exactly a manager does, and stop hiring and firing managers all the time.

I think a director of football is important because you need a "football person" above the manager to make sure the coaching staff and the manager is doing all he can. e.g, coaching is all about continuing to learn new methods and keep up to date with the latest knowledge, techniques, and technology. Who is making sure that the club is hiring someone who is completely current with their education and who will make sure that the guy won't be left behind?

But the director of football role also needs to be defined because where the does the buck stop? He can't be making decisions for the manager in terms of transfers or training or selection. That has to be the coaches and scouts and analysts who do that.

But yeah, basically, clubs need to get better at hiring the right people, and then letting them do their jobs. It seems simple enough but no one's figured it out yet.

And, I think usually the shelf life of a manager is around 3-4 years. If you are replacing your manager at a rate faster than that, you are doing something wrong.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chillyheat

supercollider7
Oct 12 2015, 05:14 PM
Something has to give eventually. Clubs can't afford to keep sacking managers. And in most cases it's obvious that there are other problems. e.g. Sunderland. Clearly the players are shit, but nothing is being done to repair the dressing room and new managers keep being called upon to fix an unfixable problem.

And then there's the whole "transfer committee" and "director of football" business. Recently Tottenham got rid of theirs. Seems like Liverpool might be heading that way with Klopp wanting more authority.

I read in Soccernomics about how badly run football clubs are, and normally a well-run, for-profit business takes time to appoint someone in an important leadership position, while football clubs just go for whoever was in the papers last week. Allardyce isn't wanted at West Ham anymore, goes to Sunderland. McClaren gets sacked at Derby, gets a job at Newcastle. And since they didn't put a lot of effort into hiring the guy, they dont' really trust him, or turns out they have fundamental disagreements. So the cycle repeats.

And there's no incentive for football clubs to improve how they do things because they can lose money every year and still survive.

But I still hope that somewhere along the line clubs will figure out what exactly a manager does, and stop hiring and firing managers all the time.

I think a director of football is important because you need a "football person" above the manager to make sure the coaching staff and the manager is doing all he can. e.g, coaching is all about continuing to learn new methods and keep up to date with the latest knowledge, techniques, and technology. Who is making sure that the club is hiring someone who is completely current with their education and who will make sure that the guy won't be left behind?

But the director of football role also needs to be defined because where the does the buck stop? He can't be making decisions for the manager in terms of transfers or training or selection. That has to be the coaches and scouts and analysts who do that.

But yeah, basically, clubs need to get better at hiring the right people, and then letting them do their jobs. It seems simple enough but no one's figured it out yet.

And, I think usually the shelf life of a manager is around 3-4 years. If you are replacing your manager at a rate faster than that, you are doing something wrong.
actually a good objective post. well done.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
daib0
Member Avatar

yep, good comments all round. It seems we're going the way of the continentals, or rather the Mediterranean countries ... and that's sad ...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply