Serious question

[ragman]

Rather than start another 'knock Nobby' thread, I want to ask a question.

What do you think is a reasonable length of time, in the modern game, for a coach to be expected to make his mark on a club. Obviously, there's no precise answer, because of players contract variations, realtionship with chairmen / boards etc, but ther must be a time when a coach should be able to say 'this is my team, playing my way' and stand or fall by results.

I genuinely don't want to begin another slagging off of BN, (and God knows there's no bigger critic of him than I), but what do people think ?

[cpwigan]

3 years is the ideal stint for any coach successful or unsuccessful. Anything beyond 5 would be very bad IMO.

[platt-warrior]

Waynn Bennett? how long at Brisbane :doz:

[the-Bowtun-Warrior]

3 years is the ideal stint for any coach successful or unsuccessful. Anything beyond 5 would be very bad IMO.

Fergie?



i think 3years is long enough to be able to say the coach is at fault/successful!

[ian b]

i think he should be given longer.The only problem i have with him is how reluctant he seems to be in blooding the young players because we will never be great again without them imo.

[highland convert]

Define sucessful. Without such a definition this thread lacks a benchmark. only one team can win the cup. One the league. sometimes the same. Therefore success must be measured against the other 12 now 14 managers. Wigan therefore is one of the sucessful clubs in the top 25%
Jim.

[cpwigan]

Jack Gibson the master coach believed in 3 years. Graham Lowe did 3 years, John Monie could have left after 3 years. Maybe he should have?

Wayne Bennett? lots of fallow years between his successes. Maybe he would have achieved more by moving on to another club?

Fergie.He does change the assistant quite regularly.

[DaveO]

What do you think is a reasonable length of time, in the modern game, for a coach to be expected to make his mark on a club.

As soon as he starts. They tend to get employed to improve matters and must work with the squad they inherit to do so. If they are lucky a new signing or two may arrive at the same time as happened with Noble to make life a bit easier but new coaches are expected to make a difference right away.

Obviously, there's no precise answer, because of players contract variations, realtionship with chairmen / boards etc, but ther must be a time when a coach should be able to say 'this is my team, playing my way' and stand or fall by results.

I don't like the notion of it's not the coaches team because of what I say above. As you point out contract variations mean he can't just employ who he wants when he wants so he must work with the squad as it evolves over time not wait for it to be "his" team.

That said the longer a coach is at a club then the team does become "his" more and more as players leave and new ones are signed. If people believe it is important the team is "his" then this should raise expectations the longer a coach is at a club.

I genuinely don't want to begin another slagging off of BN, (and God knows there's no bigger critic of him than I), but what do people think ?

I think there have been enough signings and new contracts dished out since Noble arrived that the "not his team" excuse is just about worn out.

Dave

[DaveO]

Define sucessful. Without such a definition this thread lacks a benchmark. only one team can win the cup. One the league. sometimes the same. Therefore success must be measured against the other 12 now 14 managers. Wigan therefore is one of the sucessful clubs in the top 25%
Jim.

Success in this competition means winning one or the other competition. Nothing else. It is much harder to be successful these days as both are knock-out competitions and anything can happen but that is the way it is. Personally I'd add the league leaders shield to the success pile as well.

So for me success is getting your hands on one of those three trophies but most people only consider the cup and GF trophies as worth having.

Either way if you don't win any of them it doesn't matter how close or how far away you were from winning one of them, you still didn't win it. An inch is as good as a mile if you miss.

The idea we are in the top 25% of the losers is some sort of success is bizarre.

Dave

[cpwigan]

Success is simply getting the most out of the playinng resources available to you. On that basis ???