Short Term Thinking or Simple Common Sense?

The close of this seasons Premier League marks the end of an era, with the decision by Sir Alex Ferguson to retire from his post in charge of Manchester United. Having been at the helm for 26 years now, Ferguson has brought them unequalled domestic success, a trophy cabinet that will take hours if not days to clean properly, and he's also been responsible for bringing through some of the best home-grown players of this generation with the likes of Scholes, Beckham, Giggs and Neville.

Some say that a key component to his success has been that he's been given the time and opportunity to do this when the more modern approach is to simply wield the axe and bring in a new appointment to replace a manager who isn't performing up to expectations (however ridiculous they may be).

I think it's fair to say that there's definitely a grain of truth in there, but is not quite as straightforward as is often suggested.

The most recent 'victim' of the aforementioned axe-wielding has been Manchester City manager Roberto Mancini, having been in charge for 3.5 years, he's brought them a domestic title and an FA cup (and a Community Shield, but that doesn't really count for much), which on paper doesn't sound like a bad return, but then you look at the Man City squad and think that surely this is the least they should expect with that calibre of players.

Managers like Ferguson, as well as former players such as Rodney Marsh have come out in support of Mancini saying he should have been given more time and they don't agree with the 'short-term' approach that seems to be king in the game these days.

Yet this seems to be at odds with many of the views from those who've worked with Mancini over the past few seasons, with comments such as “arrogant, vain and self-centred” coming from a former kit-man who had nothing but good things to say about the club in general, and “Basically, Mancini just ignored players from day one. He was the manager, he made decisions, he made no attempt to have any sort of relationship with the players, didn't take them under his wing” from ex-City player Danny Mills.

Let's also not forget the notable 'bust-ups' Mancini has had with players like Tevez and Balotelli, one of which lead to punches being thrown on training ground, and the other with a player flying home for a few months holiday with the manager's claims of him “never playing here again” being made to look weak and laughable when he did in fact return and play again...

These issues didn't just stop with players and coaching staff either, they apparently carried on upwards towards the execs at Man City, especially as they felt that Mancini hadn't done enough work on youth development during his tenure and was cited as one of the key reasons behind the decision to remove him as manager.

It's fairly hard to argue on this score as the last players to really come through from the City academy and play any significant number of games have been Micah Richards, Daniel Sturridge and Michael Johnson, with only Richards still at the club (and struggling to get games as well), and instead the process has been to buy top class players that others may have already brought through such as Aguero and Balotelli.

However there is a highly salient point to consider here, the Man City owners wanted success, they wanted titles and they had the money (and were happy to spend it) to buy world class players in this pursuit, which left a very fine line to tread as a manager.

Do you spend the cash and get a player who will help your title chances right here, right now, or do you take the gamble that a younger player will be able to step up to that level consistently whilst risking performances if they don't?

I'm fairly sure that if youth had been chosen and results weren't as strong as expected, then the axe would have come much sooner, with statements about how the manager had funds to develop the team but chose not (or similar) being thrown around as justification for the decision...

Just look at Aston Villa this season and Paul Lambert's decision to focus on bringing through youth (and cutting the wage bill asap) very nearly cost them their place in the Premier League, and whilst Man City may have had a much stronger squad to support a few young players coming in, chances are that it would still have affected their trophy and title chances along the way – and that wouldn't have suited the City board either...

In some ways Mancini was in a no-win situation on this score, but I also get the feeling that if he'd been more approachable and receptive, he could have had a sensible discussion with the City board over the past couple of seasons in regards to this and come up with an agreed strategy that suited all parties, but it appears that his ego got the better of him and this does not seem to have happened (at least the City board aren't suggesting it did).

So when you take all these factors into account, was the decision to remove him purely 'short-term' thinking, or was it in fact a rational choice based on the City board deciding that there were simply too many issues at once to allow it to continue, and as they clearly didn't feel that they could resolve these problems with Mancini going forwards, then his departure as manager became a foregone conclusion.

If anything, the time given to Mancini is far better than has been shown to managers like Roberto Di Matteo, Brian McDermott, and Nigel Adkins with the former being sacked after just 8 months despite having won two major trophies and then winning 7, drawing 3 and losing 2 out their first 12 games of this season which had them sitting in 3^rd and only 4 points behind Man City in 1^st.

Both McDermott and Adkins were sacked for having the misfortune to have managed to get their clubs promoted into the Premier League, but then having the temerity to not be comfortably safe in mid table despite having generally weaker squads than the competition...

Those sort of decisions are the ones that should be focused on for critical judgement, in those cases the managers hadn't lost the dressing room or alienated the board through unreasonable behaviour, and certainly in the latter 2 cases, staying in the Premier League is one of the hardest tasks for the majority of the clubs outside the top 8 or so teams, so to expect wonders from a newly promoted team is both unfair and unreasonable, especially when you consider that close to 41% of all promoted sides are relegated the same year, with 54% going down within two years.

Does this mean that we should expect 50% of managers from promoted sides to be sacked each season, regardless of how good a job they did to get the team there and whether or not they are the best long term option. rather than simply chopping and changing incessantly?

I can understand less patience from clubs where they have a squad full of world class players that a new manager has managed to make look poor and got them sliding down the league with no improvement in sight, or where there is such tension and concern in the dressing room that the situation quickly becomes untenable (such as it did with Villas-Boas at Chelsea), but beyond this there simply has to be some common sense and patience applied to what is in truth an inexact science.

I very much doubt we'll EVER see another manager achieve the same length of service at a club as we have done with Sir Alex, even Arsene Wenger who has been a fantastic manager for Arsenal over the past 17 years is expected to leave at the end of next season if not sooner, and from then on the years at a club just get lower and lower.

This is likely one of the key reasons that David Moyes has been asked to fill the massive gap left by Ferguson, as his development of players at Everton has been excellent, he's been loyal to them and if he can replicate even a fraction of that success at Man Utd I think that all parties will be happy bunnies, whereas Chelsea are hunting for yet another manager (is that 20 in the last 26 years?)...

In short, until money stops being the driving force behind results in modern day football, then we'll likely continue to see managers being removed after relatively short notice, as it's almost impossible to compete with teams full of multi-million pound international players when you're trying to make the best of a limited budget and desperately hoping that your youth academy churns out the next Rooney or Messi, and until the big wigs in charge at most clubs learn to understand and accept this hard truth and give managers fair and sensible targets and expectations, then the problems – and the sackings will continue...