Managers – love ’em or loathe ’em, where would football clubs be without them?
A communal-style player/fan committee approach has yet to be attempted to the best of my knowledge. No, it needs a figurehead willing to make the decisions and be the focal point for the successes and failures on the pitch.
The current incumbent at NR1 is doing a cracking job at present and if a poll was taken of all Canaries fans right now, the Neil approval rate would be 100 per cent surely? What a Cameron, Clegg, Miliband or Farage wouldn’t give for that kind of endorsement come decision day in May.
My fellow columnist Jon Rogers speculated last week on why Neil has been able to stamp his mark so quickly and so effectively just two months since snatching the carrot dangled over the border by David McNally.
The answer? There is no simple reply to such a teasing question. It’s an indecipherable hotchpotch of timing, personality and resources. Those ingredients are currently in the right proportions for a promotion push.
If, for whatever reason, one or more of those ingredients goes off the boil then the resulting mixture can begin to sour and things can quickly go very pear-shaped on the pitch.
Neil Adams at times seemed to get the balance right but, in hindsight, it was maybe more a case of luck than design.
Alex Neil, despite his relative youth, does appear to have more of a grand plan in place. The odd hiccup, like Wigan, will happen but does not seem to deflect him from the chosen path.
Of our 25 previous managers who have been in charge for 20 games or more, it’s fair to say they probably represent a pretty typical range of the human race in terms of style, character and success achieved.
They ranged from the blingy Mr Bond to Sergeant Major Saunders in terms of personal style. And from the fondly remembered faithful servant Stringer to the pithily reviled Roeder in terms of a club legacy.
The question of who was the best has arisen on this site and elsewhere and is usually put to a vote. Invariably the result comes down to personal opinion and is inevitably clouded by age, memory and nostalgic inclination.
But is there a sure-fire, ‘scientific’ way of deciding who the number one-number one is? As far as I’m aware this has not been attempted before – or at least if it has, the person wasn’t stupid enough to air it publicly. But I’ll take that gamble.
At a loss for anything more constructive to do with a recent soggy Sunday, I thought I’d take a shot at devising a system to rate this band of 25 brave men – from Neil Adams back to Duggie Lochhead – who have decided Norfolk’s footballing fates over the past 70 years.
Fool-proof? Almost certainly not. But here goes…
My system is based on 6 key loyalty/performance-based managerial categories, hence minimising any personal or nostalgic bias on my part:
1. Number of games in charge
2. Promotions achieved
3. Relegations
4. Win ratio
5. Cup finals reached
6. Top league ‘stability’
Points for the respective categories are as follows:
1. 5 points for every 50 games in charge
2. 20 points for promotion to the top division (Premier League or old Division One), 10 points for promotion at a lower level
3. Minus (-)20 points for relegation, irrespective of the level
4. For a win ratio of 40% or more = 10 points; for 30-39% = 5 points; for 20-29% = -5 points; and for less than 20% = -10 points
5. 10 points for reaching a final (cup or play-off) and 5 bonus points for winning
6. 10 points for every season secured in the top division and a bonus 10 points for guiding the team to a top 10 finish. That makes a top 10 finish in the top division equivalent to a promotion.
So… the scores on the doors:
Top 5:
1. John Bond = 105 points
(340 games = 30points, 1 promotion = 20, 1 relegation = -20, 35% win ratio = 5, 1 cup final reached = 10, 5 successful seasons in top tier, including 1 top 10 finish = 60)
2. Ken Brown = 100 points (35, 40, -40, 10, 15, 40)
3. Dave Stringer = 95 points (20, 0, 5, 0, 70)
4. Ron Saunders = 65 points (20, 20, 0, 5, 10, 10)
5. Paul Lambert = 60 points (10, 30, 0, 10, 0, 10)
Bottom 3:
1. Bryan Gunn/John Deehan = -15 points
2. Chris Hughton/Gary Megson = -10 points
3. Bryan Hamilton = -5 points
The bottom lot will probably not cause much debate, the top order maybe more so.
Alex Neil currently sits on 0 points – due to less than 20 games in charge – with a golden future awaiting. Let’s hope he’s at Carrow Road long enough and is successful enough to cement a place in the pantheon of City’s managerial greats.
You’ve got to judge these things somehow but it looks to me that Peter Grant feel through the cracks of the scoring system deserves to be in the Bottom 3 of any list.
Given that you’ve gone back 70 years, your first parameter might be a bit harsh. Since the Sky money has come in, clubs are more inclined to dispose of managers after fewer games.
However, it’s an interesting way of working out the top performers. How about a points deduction for walking out on a (reasonably) successful team looking for greener grass – Messers Bond and Lambert, to name two?
Good article. Just one quibble, however. Not sure why Hughton gets minus 10. He was sacked before our relegation, and that seems to be the only way he could get minus points.
Sorry. Just read it again. Was Hughton’s win ratio that bad!!?
*Kobecanary – Grant came out with +10 points: 5 for his 53 games in charge and 5 for a win ratio of 34%. No promotion or relegation thanks to him – just stagnation. Bring in the personal factor and he probably would be in the minuses.
*Jim – Probably some kind of scaling factor is required to reflect the change in average managerial tenure as a result of the BS and AS (before Sky/after Sky) effect. Lambert’s exit probably does deserve a few points taken off and maybe Walker too (he got 45 points) but Bond’s length of service (and success) surely outweighs any end of reign unpleasantness?
Is Alex Neil likely to stay for more than 2-3 seasons if things go well? Doubt it.
*Sue – Hughton got the full minus 20 for the relegation as it would be harsh to split it with Adams for just the 5 games he had. CH’s win ratio was bad – 29% but he did get 10 points for keeping us in the PL for 1 season.
I think that finishing 3rd in the Premier League, qualifying for Europe & beating Bayern Munich in their own back yard should trump all those indicators. Mike Walker for me every time.
Having read the build-up with huge scepticism, I have to confess the results seem intuitively about right.
With one exception.
At risk of re-opening old wounds, I reckon the placing of Chris Hughton is way too harsh. Here’s a manager who took on a low-budget Premiership team who’d just been abandoned by their ‘Messiah’, and led them to 11th place in the billionaires’ playground league – a remarkable achievement, for which he gets scant credit in the Russell system. Then he gets minus 20 for leaving a team that wasn’t even in the relegation zone!
If Hughton had managed us in the Championship instead of the Prem (as did most of the managers in the analysis) he’d probably have emerged in the top three.
Well, that’s my case…
Interesting thoughts although, like Stewart, I do wonder whether some points should be given for final place finished each season also. Survival in the Premier League is a huge achievement these days and deserves some reward.
*Gordon, Stewart & Gazza – you all make entirely valid and sensible criticisms of my ‘system’. I didn’t claim it was perfect and it could well be tweaked in a number of ways.
Walker and Hughton are particularly tricky customers. European footy and the PL stratosphere were (and remain) the ultimate achievement of the club and for that Walker probably deserves some bonus points…but as his 2nd spell showed (and spell at Everton), it was arguably a ‘flash in the pan’- we finished 3rd on a -4 GD!
Hughton – it is a little unfair to pin relegation on him but someone has to take the blame! It was his squad and we probably (90% or more) would have gone down if he had stayed for the those last 5 tough games. He’s a fine Championship manager. In terms of legacy, he was maybe cursed through timing and fate although he did have a whole host of resources available to him that others maybe didn’t?
Top league survival is rewarded with 10 points + another 10 for a top 10 finish. I’m not convinced that it’s any bigger achievement now than back pre-PL. The financial gulf may be bigger but not sure the class gulf has widened greatly compared with the glory days of a Liverpool or an Arsenal?
Stringer and Walker should get extra points for top five top division finishes, both theoretically qualified for European competition. Surely a greater achievement than promotion at a lower level. There’s also a couple of FA Cup Semi-Finals for Mr Stringer, for me he’s no.1.
Russ: I hope you don’t take our comments too much as criticism. Not only has your scheme been a useful diversion from the frustrations of Saturday, it has plenty of merit in its own right. It would take a more skilful (and braver) man than me to produce a better model.
I’m sure many City fans would be happy to see Chris Hughton at the bottom of the pile. While I’m on my soapbox, though, a couple of final observations.
There’s an interesting table produced each year of Premiership clubs by their resources (basically salaries and transfer spend), for comparison with the actual league table. There’s a depressingly strong correlation: the best-resourced clubs tend to occupy the top positions, the least well resourced the bottom places. But each year throws up exceptions. In 2012-13 (CH’s first year with us; PL’s first with Villa), there were four – two clubs who did much worse than their resources would suggest, two who did much better. The two under-achievers were QPR and Villa; the two over-achievers Everton (under David Moyes) and Norwich.
Yes, Hughton had much more to spend in the following summer – but so did everyone else. Our spending only maintained our position in the resource league (around 18th). CH left a team in 17th place, 3 points clear of the relegation places. There were negatives in the club, of course, but his record against the top teams suggests he may have made a decent fist of keeping us up – perhaps a 30% chance, rather than under 10%?
All academic, of course, but fun to speculate. Thanks again for the opportunity.
*Marty – Good points which I shall consider putting into my supercomputer (well, spreadsheet) for version 2. Like you, with emotions added into the mix, my choice would be Stringer – consistency at highest level (no relegations), fine squad built on a shoestring when average home crowds were 13-14k (often dipping below 12k!) and the only former City player to manage the club anywhere near successfully. Arise Sir Dave.