People put far too much expectation in managers. They're just one of many factors in a club's fortunes. Some managers only succeed in one set of circumstances, whilst the really good ones find a way to win at different clubs in different positions. But even they will experience failure.
It's often been said that if you plot league position against budget then things pretty much line up. Which means SUFC since 2007 has had something fundamentally wrong with it. We've had multiple managers but one chairman running the show. What's the common thread?
The clubs which consistently punch above their financial weight are those with consistency of strategy. Choose a way, and bloody stick with it. Even the seemingly minor leap from Clough to Adkins has cost us in terms of the loss of any use for those players who can't play in Adkins' favoured midfield four. Just a small example, and you might argue Clough had it wrong to begin with. But either way, the more you just rifle randomly through the rolodex hoping to find a golden CV, the more it's going to cost you.
Good post. Warrants a diatribe that does!!
One definition of 'strategy' is " a plan of action to achieve a long term or overall aim".
Strategy is part of success. Implementation is another part, sometimes a much bigger part at certain stages of a club's development.
I'm all for sticking with the implementer i.e. the manager when we know we have a good one capable of doing the job at hand ( the strategy) and that is to get us promoted to the Championship with a squad good enough to compete there and to challenge for promotion to the Premier League within a short timescale. Another part of the strategy is to have the club infrastructure ready for the day the club competes at those levels.
As far as I can see McCabe and the prince entrust implementation of the strategy to their incumbent football manager who is backed financially at great expense to employ his own management team and is given a budget amongst the best in the league. They say, and it has never been disputed, that they never interfere with footballing decisions with which they duly empower the manager and make him accountable. Any manager will appreciate that clubs at this level are powerless to stand in the way of players who get the opportunity to play at a higher level and earn multiple salary increases. That's part of the job description, it's a 'given'.
So, just looking at the past 5 years in League 1.
Wilson inherited a 'dream squad' and a top budget and failed over 2 years. Strategy still intact.
Weir was given the task of implementing a completely new strategy but the prince joined us and changed the strategy back overnight so Weir was ditched.
Clough was given unprecedented powers and a big budget for the league and he failed ( exceeded his implementation authorities in player recruitment too - that's how much empowerment and autonomy he had in his 2 years with us). Strategy intact.
Adkins - work in progress but has had a really hard time in his first eight and a half months which is no time at all in the whole scheme of things. Strategy intact.
My signature below has been 'intact' for a couple of years. I wrote it late 2013 when Clough was well into his job and I feel the same now.
I have doubts that Adkins still has what it takes, despite his excellent C.V. Only time will tell whether he is big enough to succeed with us and that's the point, he has to have another year or more and the club usually gives managers that. By then the 'strategisers' will know whether the manager is putting a squad and a culture in place to take us to the Premier League in due course i.e. progress towards the strategy. It looks a long way off frankly but it's a worthy strategy, however it's a major challenge for any manager because there's an air of doom and despondency around S2, even hatred in parts.
One final word. The Barnsley Chairman suddenly looks like a great 'strategist'.
