• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

How Long Do You Give a Player/Manager?

Papercut

Papercut

Jermaine Jenas
Go on - how many chances does a player or manager get???

A youth player coming through the ranks... how long does it take before we give them a chance??

A £5m signing...

A £15m signing...

Let's say we are a top 4 to 7 club.
 
I think it has to depend on the individual circumstances.

Bale didn't really emerge till his 4th season. Even though Redknapp wanted to flog him to Forest, most people realised there was something special there that was worth persisting with. Similarly Danny Rose and Harry Kane looked crap for years, then suddenly blossomed majorly last season. In contrast players like Rasiak or Booth you could tell in 5 minutes were clearly out of their depth.

2 seasons for a senior pro is probably about right. I'd give Stambouli and definitely Fazio another year.

For me the tough ones are players with psychological barriers to overcome. Soldado and Townsend are two obvious ones - both with clear ability but lacking in the confidence to give them composure
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

That was in Redknapp's second season. After he got the players he wanted, after just two windows of ambitious spending, we broke that glass ceiling and hit the heights in the most thrilling, classically endearing way possible. A feat we have not managed since.

So, to answer your question, I think it depends, at least when it comes to managers. If they get the players they want, and money to build the team they want, then I'd say two seasons is about the maximum they should realistically get to achieve results: anything more than that, and it's goodbye, with no blame attached to Levy for pulling the trigger. If they're given thin, bargain-bin gruel like Poch was given last year...then it becomes extremely difficult to judge how suited they are to the club and to the task of taking THFC forward. Still, even accounting for the Levy(tm) factor, if a manager's ideas haven't looked like permeating through the squad (whatever its overall level) after two-three seasons, then again, it probably isn't going to end well, and likely speaks of the manager's inability to get his ideas across: so, three or so years are the most I'd probably give a manager in those circumstances, although my desire to see him go at the end would be tempered by an abiding anger at the chairman that would not be present in the former scenario.

As for players, I largely agree with Gutter.
 
Funny how some use nearly every thread to have a dig at the chairman ( just because he kicked the guys cat).
 
All player no matter how much they cost should always get 2 season under there belt, before we give up on them and move them on. all player adjust differently when joining a new team or getting promoted into the 1st team.
 
well it does depend on the individual circumstances - but as a rule of thumb i think 2 seasons absolute minimum before you can start to fully appraise the player.
 
Everything is circumstantial I guess, but I don't think we here have the ability to make such decisions, as we don't see these players day in, day out at training. Take Lamela for example; He's been with us two years and has only recently started to show signs of being the player we thought we were getting. Injuries in the first year have effectively made this season his first but some people think that we should cut our losses whilst others wish to see him have another season. Then we have someone like Mason who didn't get a shot until this year at the age of 23.

Personally I think two years of senior football in a settled system is enough of a gauge whether or not a player is going to make it. As GB says, it's why the calls in some quarters for flogging Stambouli and Fazio are perhaps a little premature.
 
Cochise has a good point about us not being able to see what the player does in training, both from an application as well as ability perspective.

- Players in that 18-21 range will likely get a bit more time (3-4 years, including loans) as they simply have never performed at that level and consistency is likely to be an issue (but see above point)

Re the rest, there is no minimum, football unfortunately is a results business, and no matter how fairytale the long term project might be, interim results matter

- If a manager maintains status quo (within top 6), they will likely get two years, but make no mistake, if Poch had landed 8th-10th or lower, he would have been out.
- Similar for established players (i.e. not youth/academy), maintain some level of contribution = 2 years, miss the boat and you may be out in 6 months (not always sold, but unlikely to feature until sold)

Everything else is fans dreaming .. we can't afford to carry anyone, player or manager for any significant period of time, regardless of potential upside.
 
you genuinely think we'd have sacked Pochettino this season for finishing 8th? (all things outside league finish remaining the same?)
 
billyiddo said:
you genuinely think we'd have sacked Pochettino this season for finishing 8th? (all things outside league finish remaining the same?)
Click to expand...

With what he did with Kane, Mason, Bentaleb, Rose and Dier, the way he swept away turgidity, and the way the new identity started to energise the crowd for the first time since the Jol years, I think anything above a relegation scrap would have been ok. Structurally we were badly off course and he pulled things right back round
 
billyiddo said:
you genuinely think we'd have sacked Pochettino this season for finishing 8th? (all things outside league finish remaining the same?)
Click to expand...

I think the question would have been asked, not being anti-Poch, but outside of the positives (and there are many)
- We have one of the 5 worst defenses in the league
- He has failed to get anything out of several established players (Ade, Soldado, Capoue, Kaboul, Lennon)
- The big investment we hoped his argentine connection could help salvage (Lamela) can hardly be called a raging success
- Our best hope for next season is another clear out of deadwood, and more significant investment

You add the above to an 8th place finish (no Europe, loss of immediate revenue this year & next), and yes, I think Poch would have had a bad year end review. And then the club would have to make the call based on do we see light at end of tunnel? and who else is available (e.g. if Poch came 8th and Ancelotti would accept, what would you do?)
 
so 'make no mistake, 8th and he would have been sacked' isn't what you actually meant then - you meant it would have got him a bad review, cool i can see where you're coming from now
 
parklane1 said:
Funny how some use nearly every thread to have a dig at the chairman ( just because he kicked the guys cat).
Click to expand...

Christ mate, I don't even like cats: I'm a dog person, so no, Levy didn't kick my damn cat. :D You have to admit that at least in this instance, bringing Levy in is entirely justified: if a manager gets the players he wants, then we can judge him sooner than if he has to struggle with players he doesn't want, and the man who determines whether or not the manager's favored players arrive is the chairman. Thus, how much time a manager gets is to a large extent down to how Levy behaves. Come on, it's reasonable. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back