BrainOfLevy
Michael Carrick
Man oh man, there is something about the way i'm asking the question? cause i dont seem to see the answer to the question i asked
i give up. dont answer it , i get the feeling i'd just get another good answer that doesnt address my actual concerns
lets talk about what you said instead. you believe its the person more suited to the club, that bit is alittle bit confusing to me, by club do you mean the players? resources? fans etc...how can one person be more suited to a club than another person? if at the end of the day , results are all that matter? cause you can put that byline to anyone "if te circumstances are correct/ right"...apply that to anyone and lietraly anyone can succeed at tottenham that has a managerial pedigree half decent
I don't know what answer you expect? In terms of straight up answering your question with no caveats, I'd prefer the guy that has had fluctuating performance.
...Only I then have to put the caveat that 'as long as they suit the club and are what we are looking for' because otherwise my answer sounds ridiculous, as of course if you had a consistent guy, vs a guy that has done well somewhere and bad somewhere, the consistent guy would win out every team in a rational world. But football isn't rational and there are too many examples of a guy failing in one place after being great in another because they just didn't suit their new circumstances.
By being more suited, I mean everything. I mean board objectives. Players. Money to spend. Fan expectations. Fan demands. And I think if you get someone right, success follows. If you don't, you're basically swimming against the tide from the get go.
Put it this way, Swansea were a club that played good football, had a good system in place and made a point of hiring managers that wanted to work with this philosophy. They had Martinez, Sousa, and they have the option of hiring Rodgers. They could look at him and say 'If we want to get to the Premier League, we need someone who has been consistent everywhere they have been, so we aren't hiring Rodgers. He did an average job at Watford and what looks like a poor one at Reading. No thank you'. But instead, they look at the fact that he wants to play passing football. They look at the fact that he knows how to identify players to fit his system. They listen to his vision. And hey presto, it works out. Rodgers fit with the board expectations, the fans expectations, the players he already had, he could work with the money he would be given, etc etc etc. It didn't matter that he hadn't demonstrated consistency before, because he was right for them. Swansea could have gone for Pulis because he has a record of getting a team into the PL for the first time and keeping them there, and has been consistent in his career, but it would have been an absolute disaster, and it's obvious why.
AVB goes to a club whose players had success playing a certain way, and had a playing style totally out of sync with that. They didn't want to listen. Board didn't align with player, and manager was the fall guy. Even though he only ever had good results before Chelsea. Saudi Sportswashing Machine sack Hughton, their MD says they want someone to make strong decisions on players and be able to take risks, and they bring in Pardew. Board aligns with manager. Manager keeps them up, brings in own players. Manager aligns with player. Fans are happy to stay up and then when the next seasons starts well are happy to give Pardew a shot. Pardew keeps doing well. Manager aligns with fans. Pardew is what they were looking for at the time.