A decade of Derby managers.

[ramAnag]

Okay...in an attempt to avoid disrupting other threads - and offer Swale the opportunity to post his vitriolic essays all in one place - let’s consider the last decade of Derby management or possibly mis-management.
Sadly the next, possibly imminent, appointment will be the 10th of the last ten years...a record which tells its own tale.
I imagine most would agree that McClaren Mk1 was the most fondly remembered period in terms of achievement and the nature of the football played.
For me the end of the Clement era, the Pearson months and, I now have to accept, our current plight represent the ‘darkest days’.
I know some will assess managerial achievement via league position alone. To me that seems too simplistic...for example, imo, managing the likes of Palace, Southampton, Wolves and Sheffield United to top half finishes may well be a greater achievement than Klopp winning the League or Guardiola reaching the semi finals of the Champions League.
That is a matter of opinion, but when we consider Derby’s recent decade of managers - Clough, McClaren, Clement, Wassall, Pearson, McClaren Mk2, Rowett, Lampard and Cocu - I believe such factors as signings and other transfer dealings, quality of football played, squad building and legacy to be crucial when assessing the performance of a manager.
So...looking at the situation as a whole...are we any better off now than we were under Nigel a decade ago? Who should we have stuck with? Who has offered the most...and been the most disastrous...and of course - although it’s very difficult to be certain whether we’re going to be wealthy or impoverished in the years ahead - who comes next?

P.S. There are no right or wrong answers...only opinions.

[Ram59]

Okay...in an attempt to avoid disrupting other threads - and offer Swale the opportunity to post his vitriolic essays all in one place - let’s consider the last decade of Derby management or possibly mis-management.
Sadly the next, possibly imminent, appointment will be the 10th of the last ten years...a record which tells its own tale.
I imagine most would agree that McClaren Mk1 was the most fondly remembered period in terms of achievement and the nature of the football played.
For me the end of the Clement era, the Pearson months and, I now have to accept, our current plight represent the ‘darkest days’.
I know some will assess managerial achievement via league position alone. To me that seems too simplistic...for example, imo, managing the likes of Palace, Southampton, Wolves and Sheffield United to top half finishes may well be a greater achievement than Klopp winning the League or Guardiola reaching the semi finals of the Champions League.
That is a matter of opinion, but when we consider Derby’s recent decade of managers - Clough, McClaren, Clement, Wassall, Pearson, McClaren Mk2, Rowett, Lampard and Cocu - I believe such factors as signings and other transfer dealings, quality of football played, squad building and legacy to be crucial when assessing the performance of a manager.
So...looking at the situation as a whole...are we any better off now than we were under Nigel a decade ago? Who should we have stuck with? Who has offered the most...and been the most disastrous...and of course - although it’s very difficult to be certain whether we’re going to be wealthy or impoverished in the years ahead - who comes next?

P.S. There are no right or wrong answers...only opinions.

You intimate from your post, that we're worse than other teams regarding the number of managers in that time. I've just googled the average length of tenure for a championship manager, it's 1 year 1 week and 2 days.

When you consider that Wassell was only ever temporary, Mac 1, Rowett and Lampard had their heads turned and Pearson did something to warrant instant dismissal, I think we've been fairly stable.

So, over 10 years, that leaves the dismissals of Clement and Mac2, that warrant discussion. Clement was a gamble which appeared to be a major coup at the time, but didn't work out and he has since disappeared from view. Mac2 is the only one which I feel could have been given more time, although at the time, he seemed to have lost the dressing room.

[Geoff Parkstone]

If we accept your perspective re squad building and legacy, then the answer is a resounding "none of the above".

[ramAnag]

You intimate from your post, that we're worse than other teams regarding the number of managers in that time. I've just googled the average length of tenure for a championship manager, it's 1 year 1 week and 2 days.

When you consider that Wassell was only ever temporary, Mac 1, Rowett and Lampard had their heads turned and Pearson did something to warrant instant dismissal, I think we've been fairly stable.

So, over 10 years, that leaves the dismissals of Clement and Mac2, that warrant discussion. Clement was a gamble which appeared to be a major coup at the time, but didn't work out and he has since disappeared from view. Mac2 is the only one which I feel could have been given more time, although at the time, he seemed to have lost the dressing room.

Have to admit to being surprised by that Google finding, Ram.
I’d have thought ten managers in ten years was a concern, but according to that statistic...possibly not.
Wassall was indeed temporary but, without looking, seemed to manage at a crucial time and possibly for longer than Pearson. He certainly had a hell of a mess to sort out and very nearly did, so seemed worthy of inclusion.

Maybe...with the huge benefit of hindsight, we underestimated the contributions of Clough (early years), Wassall and Rowett. Did Rowett have ‘his head turned’ or did he just recognise the ‘writing on the wall’. I’m not sure and we’ll maybe never know, but one question might be...had we kept him...how different would our achievements and failings of the last two and a bit seasons have been?

You obviously don’t have to ‘accept my perspective’, GP. I just happen to think that such factors are relevant to managerial achievement or otherwise.

[AdiSalisbury]

Mac MkII (with a notable mention for Chris Powell), being dismissed is the one that disappoints me the most. I do wonder if there was a bit of Mel's ego to blame for that.

[Geoff Parkstone]

"You obviously don’t have to ‘accept my perspective’, GP. I just happen to think that such factors are relevant to managerial achievement or otherwise."

I merely phrase it that way because, whilst that view has historic relevance and importance, I believe foot all has moved on from that in the lower leagues and indeed the lower part f the premiership. Its all about short term success to maintain financial viability. Look at the yo-yo teams, sneak up cash in, fall back and grab parachute money, then repeat cycle. If you happen to stick in the premier league then that's all well and good, but if you don't, no problem, sack manager reload and go again.

3 years service will pretty much get you into the top 10 of longest serving managers in the 92 clubs......squad building and legacy? perhaps not. Football has moved on from jumpers for goalposts; unfortunately. Successive managers - successive changes and tinkering. I think it was someone on here that mentioned a couple of weeks ago that not on member of the playoff final team vs Villa was in the starting lineup one day this season. That is what contemporary football is all about. Total short termism.

[ramAnag]

"You obviously don’t have to ‘accept my perspective’, GP. I just happen to think that such factors are relevant to managerial achievement or otherwise."

I merely phrase it that way because, whilst that view has historic relevance and importance, I believe foot all has moved on from that in the lower leagues and indeed the lower part f the premiership. Its all about short term success to maintain financial viability. Look at the yo-yo teams, sneak up cash in, fall back and grab parachute money, then repeat cycle. If you happen to stick in the premier league then that's all well and good, but if you don't, no problem, sack manager reload and go again.

3 years service will pretty much get you into the top 10 of longest serving managers in the 92 clubs......squad building and legacy? perhaps not. Football has moved on from jumpers for goalposts; unfortunately. Successive managers - successive changes and tinkering. I think it was someone on here that mentioned a couple of weeks ago that not on member of the playoff final team vs Villa was in the starting lineup one day this season. That is what contemporary football is all about. Total short termism.

Accept all that, GP...and tbf, to some extent Swale was making the same point. On the other hand the two strongest teams in the country would appear to be the two who have shown the most consistency, in terms of managers, and of the ‘also rans’...Palace, Villa, Wolves, Sheffield Utd and Southampton would appear to have benefited from sticking with their managers. Not easy, particularly for Villa last season, Southampton about a year ago...or Sheffield Utd right now.

My question is, I suppose...is the ‘short termism’ and ‘tinkering’ you describe actually beneficial? League position apart, which is currently as bad as I can remember, have we actually benefited from all the changes?

[swaledale]

Is it not catch 22? If a manager is successful, that is the performance of the team is largely in accordance with what the Board expects he will be given time and there will be stability? In all the examples provided, the managers ahve stayed in post I would argue, largely because they have achieved what was expected of them.

Now if Sheff Utd keep the faith with Wilder even if Sheff Utd go dwon then that would be a rare example of faith being shown in the manager. By the way i'm surprised you haven't put forward Dyche at burnley as an example.

As for Derby well in that last 13 years we ahve been in 4 sets of play offs including two finals and generally finished 10th or higher (there might be the odd blip in there) so given thats within what a club of Derby's stature would be expected to achieve, then the turnover of managers hasn't been that negative overall.

Yes Clough's reign was stable period and everyone knew where the club would finish up, mid table at best so it was a stable if rather dreary period for the club.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Accept all that, GP...and tbf, to some extent Swale was making the same point. On the other hand the two strongest teams in the country would appear to be the two who have shown the most consistency, in terms of managers, and of the ‘also rans’...Palace, Villa, Wolves, Sheffield Utd and Southampton would appear to have benefited from sticking with their managers. Not easy, particularly for Villa last season, Southampton about a year ago...or Sheffield Utd right now.

My question is, I suppose...is the ‘short termism’ and ‘tinkering’ you describe actually beneficial? League position apart, which is currently as bad as I can remember, have we actually benefited from all the changes?

Southampton? Is that the same Southampton with 7 different managers since 2013

[swaledale]

Southampton? Is that the same Southampton with 7 different managers since 2013

Jumpers for goalposts!