Poll: 2021/22 Premier League Sack Race

Which Manager to be sacked first?

  • Arsenal – Mikel Arteta

    Votes: 31 34.8%
  • Aston Villa – Dean Smith

    Votes: 2 2.2%
  • Brentford – Thomas Frank

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Brighton and Hove Albion – Graham Potter

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Burnley – Sean Dyche

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Chelsea – Thomas Tuchel

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Crystal Palace – Patrick Vieira

    Votes: 9 10.1%
  • Everton – Rafael Benitez

    Votes: 2 2.2%
  • Leeds United – Marcelo Bielsa

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Leicester City – Brendan Rodgers

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Liverpool – Jurgen Klopp

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • Manchester City – Pep Guardiola

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • Manchester United – Ole Gunnar Solskjaer

    Votes: 8 9.0%
  • Newcastle United – Steve Bruce

    Votes: 11 12.4%
  • Norwich City – Daniel Farke

    Votes: 3 3.4%
  • Southampton – Ralph Hasenhuttl

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • Tottenham Hotspur – Nuno Espirito Santo

    Votes: 10 11.2%
  • Watford – Xisco Munez

    Votes: 8 9.0%
  • West Ham United – David Moyes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Wolverhampton Wanderers – Bruno Lage

    Votes: 2 2.2%

  • Total voters
    89
Soldato
Joined
18 Nov 2007
Posts
7,940
Location
Deepest Darkest Essex!!
Ranieri gone.

No surprise there. His predecessors had better records, that wasnt enough for the owners. There's no patience anymore which is sad,a manager is judged by these people in the short term only, never mind his CV and trophies won. Also the players know that too if they want rid of a disciplinarian. They also know if a club goes down they'll have a fire sale so its on the phone to their agent to find another club.
 
Caporegime
Joined
19 May 2004
Posts
31,542
Location
Nordfriesland, Germany
No surprise there. His predecessors had better records, that wasnt enough for the owners. There's no patience anymore which is sad,a manager is judged by these people in the short term only, never mind his CV and trophies won.

I'm still staggered that Leicester sacked Ranieri not even a year after he led them to the most staggering of Premier League victories.
 
Caporegime
Joined
9 Mar 2006
Posts
56,291
Location
Surrey
I'm still staggered that Leicester sacked Ranieri not even a year after he led them to the most staggering of Premier League victories.

I'm not they were terrible after that. Can't keep someone just because of history if the present is that bad.

Watford go through an insane number of managers though, ridiculous.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Nov 2019
Posts
3,307
I was amazed first that Watford thought ranieiri could do any better than the two before and more so that Ranieiri would take the role knowing the problems at Watford and the trigger happy board
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Nov 2019
Posts
3,307
I'm still staggered that Leicester sacked Ranieri not even a year after he led them to the most staggering of Premier League victories.

It was Pearson's groundwork and Ranieiri was losing grip of a few things the more he tinkered with the blueprint. What amazed me more was selling Kante just as you go into the Champions League. They did well and got to what quarter finals? I do think they could have gone further had they kept him for one more season.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 May 2003
Posts
11,099
It was Pearson's groundwork and Ranieiri was losing grip of a few things the more he tinkered with the blueprint. What amazed me more was selling Kante just as you go into the Champions League. They did well and got to what quarter finals? I do think they could have gone further had they kept him for one more season.

Kante had £20M clause in his contract, however Chelsea had to pay £32m becuase Shanghai SIPG also bid on Kante.

In hindsight if Ranieri quit after winning the league, there would be a status of him outside the King Power Stadium.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Nov 2019
Posts
3,307
If I'd been the owner I'd have paid that to keep him. £32m is peanuts for his calibre and they originally paid something miniscule for him so it's not like they'd have paid twice.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 May 2003
Posts
11,099
If I'd been the owner I'd have paid that to keep him. £32m is peanuts for his calibre and they originally paid something miniscule for him so it's not like they'd have paid twice.

We offered Kante a new contract months before, he was never going to stay with us.

We pulled Chelsea's pants down afterwards, when we offloaded Drinkwater to them for £35m :D
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Nov 2019
Posts
3,307
We offered Kante a new contract months before, he was never going to stay with us.

We pulled Chelsea's pants down afterwards, when we offloaded Drinkwater to them for £35m :D
I thought DDw forced the move? Said he wanted to win trophies and couldn't do that at Leicester? Not sure which ones he was referring to? Best bench warmer? Worst DUI? Biggest career implosion and fade to obscurity? Poor chap I feel for him in some ways as he wasn't a bad player but apparently was a bit... how do you put it? They said he needed a firm hand in the management side to keep him focused on the bigger picture.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Nov 2019
Posts
3,307
A pub debate that I'll bring into here too: would the PL be better or worse if managers could only be changed at the end of the season, or during transfer windows similar to players? It would stop this sort of Watford merry-go-round and actually focus clubs on who they're appointing and why. It could also help reduce club payouts for part term contract severence packages.

It would also mean all clubs play each other under the same management. Those who got to play spurs under NES or Villa pre Gerrard had an easier time of it than those who played them more recently. I don't think that's entirely fair in some ways.
 
Permabanned
Joined
25 Jan 2013
Posts
4,277
I don't feel it would make that much of a difference. Clubs not willing to give managers a chance beyond a season could still pinch them off in the summer and having it happen during each TW wouldn't be dissimilar to how it is already.

I don't like the fact that managers aren't given the space or time to breed a playing philosophy into a club, but I think too much is made of that sometimes. It seems rare these days that it takes longer then a season for a manager to implement a style and have it stick. PL clubs can't afford to waste a year hovering around the relegation zone playing will they won't they. Even with a decent pedigree, if you drop there's a good chance you'll be there for a while, just look at Villa. Dean Smith will always have my respect and at the time pressure was being put on him to walk I was backing him to the hilt, but in retrospect we needed points. That's all it's ever about.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Nov 2019
Posts
3,307
By limiting it to the transfer window end every team has played each other in that half of the season. By limiting it to the summer only the whole season has been played.

It's fairer than some teams getting easy points in that period and others having a battle because the management changes. If players can only move around at certain times why isn't it the same for the coaching staff and leadership?
 

fez

fez

Caporegime
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Posts
25,137
Location
Tunbridge Wells
A pub debate that I'll bring into here too: would the PL be better or worse if managers could only be changed at the end of the season, or during transfer windows similar to players? It would stop this sort of Watford merry-go-round and actually focus clubs on who they're appointing and why. It could also help reduce club payouts for part term contract severence packages.

Would be an awful idea. Imagine if you had a player who was awful, no one wanted to play with him but you had to play him every game of the season. Thats essentially what you are suggesting with the manager being unable to be replaced. There is huge money at stake and the manager is arguably the most important person on the front line for the club.

It would also mean all clubs play each other under the same management. Those who got to play spurs under NES or Villa pre Gerrard had an easier time of it than those who played them more recently. I don't think that's entirely fair in some ways.

Its not fair though is it. Teams go through good and bad patches of form. Would you complain if you played Chelsea early in the season when they were flying high, didn't play them during this downturn for them but then had to play them again near the end of the season if their form returns?

Forcing a club to stick with a manager that has lost the dressing room or appoint a temporary interim from within the club would have almost 0 benefits and so many issues.
 
Back
Top Bottom