The fallacy of the long term manager

[IBK]

I wonder whether there is a slightly different angle to analyse what has become a recurring situation at Arsenal? Its received wisdom amongst pundits and analysts of the game that constant rotation of managers is a bad thing in football. The theory is that this leads to instability; failure to build a successful team; hinders the long-term development of players and creates pressure on managers not given the space and time to perform.

While this might be true at the extreme end of the spectrum - I am not sure that it still rings true in the modern game. In fact, just like the anachronisms of the one-club player; player loyalty and the home-town (country) team - I've come to the conclusion that managerial longevity simply has no place for successful teams these days.

Let's look at the facts. The only other EPL manager who comes anywhere within Wengers bracket in terms of years in charge over the entire period of the premiership was SAF. In fact, Pellegrini aside Wenger's age itself is now a rarity in the modern English game. Ferguson's achievements dwarf Wenger's, but it is interesting that, genius as he was, he clearly saw the writing on the wall when he retired unexpectedly a couple os seaons ago. Hell, even 'Arry Redknap knew that his time was up when he retired from QPR.

Football, like life, moves at an increasingly rapid rate these days. Financial investment and pressure to produce results means that players must make an immediate impact. Stable clubs tend to give managers a bit more time - but what I think we are now seeing across European football is that regular change at the top is required to produce the hunger, energy and innovation necessary to compete. These 3 factors are patently absent at our club these days - and I think what we are seeing is that our manager's permanence is becoming a serious hindrance. Because it is producing the opposite of this - complacency; ineffectiveness and stagnation.

Let's get this right. We have a talented squad at our club. We can still beat the majority of EPL teams that lack the technical ability of our players. But what was once state of the art as regards Wenger's methods is now increasingly archaic. Younger, hungrier managers who will use any incremental advantage to achieve results are beginning to show up Wenger - who clings to a so-called purist ideal of creative, expressive football without the ruthless efficiency that can control a game; nullify the opposition and demands that every set piece is exploited as effectively as possible and that a team must defend to every last man. The CL is where the real managerial talent is, and the way in which the managers of even the lowliest CL teams are increasingly brushing Wenger aside is becoming almost embarrassing. This is not just true of last night, or 2 weeks ago - its been happening for the last few seasons now and it seems like a slow motion car crash.

For me, the CL is pointing the way that our club is heading in our league as well under Wenger. This seems obvious to almost everyone apart from him.

So I'm not sure any more that the question is whether we would do better under another manager. The question is whether the 'stabilty' we experience under his stewardship is an asset to the club any longer in terms of our prospects on the field (as opposed to the financial return for our 'investors'). And I am afraid that the answer is an emphatic 'no'.

[north bank nutter]

Wenger was caught up and overtaken 10 years ago. He had players who had balls back in the day, these days our players turn their back on the ball rather than throw themselves into harms way by taking one for the team.

You can say that to criticise the decision to put ospina in over cech is a bit results orientated, but Wenger has to take responsibility for that decision. I was a staunch Wenger supporter for many years but over the last few years I have slowly lost my patience, the FA cup wins only paper over the cracks. The whole world seems to know the deficiencies in the current Arsenal side, with the exception of Wenger.

[Özim]

I think Wenger is an argument against having a long term manager, things are very stale we're stuck in our ways and nothing ever changes, in reality we should have changed Wenger many years ago and we'd probably be all the better for it right now.

Based on what we're seeing now you can start questioning how great he really is, sure when he had top players and winners he won loads, but he inherited that winning mentality and has been unable to reproduce it since he lost those players, now what we regularly see is big beatings and defeats to inferior teams on the big stage.

He's out of ideas and just won't change or adapt to modern football, that's why we are where we are now, a team full of flaws which never get addressed which everyone apart from him can see, it's quite embarrassing for him in reality.

It's clear to me that a manager has a certain shelf life and that when things start to show signs of staleness you need to be brave and change things, sadly our club doesn't seem to share the same view and seems all too happy to see a team of also ran's getting embarrassed on a regular basis, we don't seem to have any more football men at the helm of this club sadly, the day Dein left was a bad one for the club.

[Letters]

I think Wenger is an argument against having a long term manager.

And Fergie is an argument for it
It depends on the manager.
I kinda agree Wenger's had his day. I'm glad he's won these two FA Cups, it maintains some of his legacy. I think in the fullness of time people will appreciate what he did for the club.

[Niall_Quinn]

And Fergie is an argument for it
It depends on the manager.
I kinda agree Wenger's had his day. I'm glad he's won these two FA Cups, it maintains some of his legacy. I think in the fullness of time people will appreciate what he did for the club.

People already appreciate what he's done for the club in the past, they just don't appreciate what he's doing to the club today.

[Letters]

Did I mention we just finished 3rd and won the FA Cup? No?

[Kano]

I wonder whether there is a slightly different angle to analyse what has become a recurring situation at Arsenal? Its received wisdom amongst pundits and analysts of the game that constant rotation of managers is a bad thing in football. The theory is that this leads to instability; failure to build a successful team; hinders the long-term development of players and creates pressure on managers not given the space and time to perform.

While this might be true at the extreme end of the spectrum - I am not sure that it still rings true in the modern game. In fact, just like the anachronisms of the one-club player; player loyalty and the home-town (country) team - I've come to the conclusion that managerial longevity simply has no place for successful teams these days.

Let's look at the facts. The only other EPL manager who comes anywhere within Wengers bracket in terms of years in charge over the entire period of the premiership was SAF. In fact, Pellegrini aside Wenger's age itself is now a rarity in the modern English game. Ferguson's achievements dwarf Wenger's, but it is interesting that, genius as he was, he clearly saw the writing on the wall when he retired unexpectedly a couple os seaons ago. Hell, even 'Arry Redknap knew that his time was up when he retired from QPR.

Football, like life, moves at an increasingly rapid rate these days. Financial investment and pressure to produce results means that players must make an immediate impact. Stable clubs tend to give managers a bit more time - but what I think we are now seeing across European football is that regular change at the top is required to produce the hunger, energy and innovation necessary to compete. These 3 factors are patently absent at our club these days - and I think what we are seeing is that our manager's permanence is becoming a serious hindrance. Because it is producing the opposite of this - complacency; ineffectiveness and stagnation.

Let's get this right. We have a talented squad at our club. We can still beat the majority of EPL teams that lack the technical ability of our players. But what was once state of the art as regards Wenger's methods is now increasingly archaic. Younger, hungrier managers who will use any incremental advantage to achieve results are beginning to show up Wenger - who clings to a so-called purist ideal of creative, expressive football without the ruthless efficiency that can control a game; nullify the opposition and demands that every set piece is exploited as effectively as possible and that a team must defend to every last man. The CL is where the real managerial talent is, and the way in which the managers of even the lowliest CL teams are increasingly brushing Wenger aside is becoming almost embarrassing. This is not just true of last night, or 2 weeks ago - its been happening for the last few seasons now and it seems like a slow motion car crash.

For me, the CL is pointing the way that our club is heading in our league as well under Wenger. This seems obvious to almost everyone apart from him.

So I'm not sure any more that the question is whether we would do better under another manager. The question is whether the 'stabilty' we experience under his stewardship is an asset to the club any longer in terms of our prospects on the field (as opposed to the financial return for our 'investors'). And I am afraid that the answer is an emphatic 'no'.

That last paragraph is key to the problem. Financially the club is on the up, which is really the where the crux of the matter remains. Wenger keeps doing the minimum, the board are happy and so it all remains in place. On the other side of the fence you have the Glazers, who are taking far more out of the club, spending a lot more on the team, yet the club remains close to half a billion in debt.

So there's a middle ground in between those two that is the ideal place to exist. But we have to ask, is that possible when we are essentially nothing more than a commercial asset to our owners? Bayern and Barca may look like good models from the outside but they are run in completely different ways, leaving the alternatives of Chelsea, City and PSG who have owners writing off their debts, turning the club into their personal play things.

Fergie was the exception to the rule when it comes to long term managers. The only comparable quality between the Scot and Wenger is their length of period at the club. Everything else, Fergie was head and shoulders above him. There hasn't been and won't be another manager that can stay at a club so long and remain successful. Now it is about 'projects' for both the player and manager. 2-4 years maximum, a slightly extended version of the traditional Spanish and Italian methods we used to laugh at in the 80/90's. It should come as no surprise really given the globalisation of business and sport over the past 15 years.

Will our owners want to sell up once Wenger leaves, as they come to conclusion that their safe house has been blown apart? When they realise a new manager could well mean missing out on CL money/status or spending more to achieve higher goals? Wenger is the perfect face of mediocrity for a big club like ourselves, enabling those upstairs to retain the current model. We all have hope once Wenger leaves that we may get our football team back but the larger and more troubling issues are going to be determined in the boardroom.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I don't think we want to be imposing arbitrary time limits on a manager either, their successes in the game should determine the length of their spell at the club.
Wenger has been given 11 years at the club off the back of three league titles and that is of course too long but at the same token do we dismiss a manager who wins the league title one season and fails to retain it the next?.
No I don't think it's wise to keep with a manager out of loyalty, I don't think there are many managers who could have consistently kept us in the top four under the financial constraints we operated under but it's becoming clear now that due to his obstinacy and his failure to adapt to a changing game that he can't improve upon that even with far greater resources and he needs to go.
There is no question that in the minds of all but a few hardened anti Wenger fans he has immortalised himself as a club legend but this does not amount to owing him a living in perpetuity.

[Dein-machine]

And Fergie is an argument for it
It depends on the manager.
I kinda agree Wenger's had his day. I'm glad he's won these two FA Cups, it maintains some of his legacy. I think in the fullness of time people will appreciate what he did for the club.

If he had gone 3 or 4 years ago I think you would be right but I'm afraid the appreciation we have for him gets less every year & by the time he leaves he could well be a hate figure. Fergie did the right thing, pubbed the Premier league with the worst United team in recent history & fucked off. He knew competing against Chelsea & City was going to be difficult & when you had had the success he had, the future was only going to be disappointing for fans of a team that won big trophies every year.

[Dein-machine]

That last paragraph is key to the problem. Financially the club is on the up, which is really the where the crux of the matter remains. Wenger keeps doing the minimum, the board are happy and so it all remains in place. On the other side of the fence you have the Glazers, who are taking far more out of the club, spending a lot more on the team, yet the club remains close to half a billion in debt.

So there's a middle ground in between those two that is the ideal place to exist. But we have to ask, is that possible when we are essentially nothing more than a commercial asset to our owners? Bayern and Barca may look like good models from the outside but they are run in completely different ways, leaving the alternatives of Chelsea, City and PSG who have owners writing off their debts, turning the club into their personal play things.

Fergie was the exception to the rule when it comes to long term managers. The only comparable quality between the Scot and Wenger is their length of period at the club. Everything else, Fergie was head and shoulders above him. There hasn't been and won't be another manager that can stay at a club so long and remain successful. Now it is about 'projects' for both the player and manager. 2-4 years maximum, a slightly extended version of the traditional Spanish and Italian methods we used to laugh at in the 80/90's. It should come as no surprise really given the globalisation of business and sport over the past 15 years.

Will our owners want to sell up once Wenger leaves, as they come to conclusion that their safe house has been blown apart? When they realise a new manager could well mean missing out on CL money/status or spending more to achieve higher goals? Wenger is the perfect face of mediocrity for a big club like ourselves, enabling those upstairs to retain the current model. We all have hope once Wenger leaves that we may get our football team back but the larger and more troubling issues are going to be determined in the boardroom.

I agree but the irony is in your last few words " more troubling issues are going to be determined in the boardroom" - a boardroom so weak, pathetic & unscrupulous that they sit at AGM's & confirm the clubs new financial wealth, committing their efforts to make us a top team again whilst allowing Wenger to ruin any chance of moving upwards from last year with the clubs most pathetic efforts to acquire quality in the transfer window. All this why they ask for more money to watch than any other club in Europe. How can we trust these tossers in the boardroom to make any footballing decisions. One of the reasons Wengers holds so much power is that our main owner couldn't tell you a football from a rugby ball.