Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted January 24, 2022 Subscriber Posted January 24, 2022 Watford's approach to managerial appointments gave them a nice purple patch but it wasn't and isn't a sustainable model. Appointing a new manager is one of the riskiest things you can do in football and you can perhaps get 4-5 appointments right in a row with a bit of luck, but eventually you get a howler or two and you're in a tailspin. If was totally predictable that they'd eventually get relegated. I agree though that the Ranieri appointment was a rule unto itself. Hiring randos from mid-table Spanish and Italian clubs is one thing, it might work out or it might not. Ranieri was a known quantity though, and not in a good way, employed and sacked again mid season at Fulham just a couple of seasons ago under very similar circumstances. An absolutely mental appointment.
Dave Posted January 24, 2022 Posted January 24, 2022 My WhatsApp just blown up about Roy going Watford.
Danny Posted January 24, 2022 Posted January 24, 2022 9 minutes ago, The Palace Fan said: I remember they went through a phase where the ex-Brentford bloke Andy Scott was there and people were praising the signings. He left just before the FA Cup final. Yeah Andy was good for us and brought through some good talent from within the UK, could be wrong but believe he was responsible for us signing Andre Gray. Thought they were on the right track when he went there
Danny Posted January 24, 2022 Posted January 24, 2022 9 minutes ago, RondónEFC said: Watford's approach to managerial appointments gave them a nice purple patch but it wasn't and isn't a sustainable model. Appointing a new manager is one of the riskiest things you can do in football and you can perhaps get 4-5 appointments right in a row with a bit of luck, but eventually you get a howler or two and you're in a tailspin. If was totally predictable that they'd eventually get relegated. I agree though that the Ranieri appointment was a rule unto itself. Hiring randos from mid-table Spanish and Italian clubs is one thing, it might work out or it might not. Ranieri was a known quantity though, and not in a good way, employed and sacked again mid season at Fulham just a couple of seasons ago under very similar circumstances. An absolutely mental appointment. I get the sentiment of what you’re saying but 4 straight seasons isn’t luck, it’s testament to a good season. That’s 4 seasons before their final season where they were relegated too. If they done the same having not made 1 or 2 managerial changes people would definitely be praising the same results
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted January 24, 2022 Subscriber Posted January 24, 2022 Just now, Danny said: I get the sentiment of what you’re saying but 4 straight seasons isn’t luck, it’s testament to a good season. That’s 4 seasons before their final season where they were relegated too. If they done the same having not made 1 or 2 managerial changes people would definitely be praising the same results I don't think it's that statistically improbable to string together four years of decent success through taking constant risks and getting away with it. I won't deny that there was some skill to it, they were the experts at exploiting the new manager bounce each season to maximise their points tally, and the recruitment was very solid for a period of time, Pereyra, Doucoure, Deulofeu for example. I'm just being honest though. They never struck me as a team that was properly going anywhere. Never looked at them and thought "they could be challenging the top six in another couple of year's time" like you might have said about Leicester, Villa, even Brighton in the last few years. The model they follow with managerial appointments has its peaks and troughs. Fair play to them for managing to extend their peak for quite a long time but that's what it was, it wasn't sustained or sustainable advancement, and I don't think the way they do things you'll ever be able to go into a Premier League season and argue that Watford are pretty much safe from being in a relegation fight.
Danny Posted January 25, 2022 Posted January 25, 2022 1 hour ago, RondónEFC said: I don't think it's that statistically improbable to string together four years of decent success through taking constant risks and getting away with it. I won't deny that there was some skill to it, they were the experts at exploiting the new manager bounce each season to maximise their points tally, and the recruitment was very solid for a period of time, Pereyra, Doucoure, Deulofeu for example. I'm just being honest though. They never struck me as a team that was properly going anywhere. Never looked at them and thought "they could be challenging the top six in another couple of year's time" like you might have said about Leicester, Villa, even Brighton in the last few years. The model they follow with managerial appointments has its peaks and troughs. Fair play to them for managing to extend their peak for quite a long time but that's what it was, it wasn't sustained or sustainable advancement, and I don't think the way they do things you'll ever be able to go into a Premier League season and argue that Watford are pretty much safe from being in a relegation fight. Think comparisons to Villa and Leicester are a bit off. One has big money backing and had a superstar in Jack Grealish and the money that brought and the other literally done the impossible and all the good work since has been built on that. Watford are a much smaller club than both. I think it’s a bit far fetched to expect much more then midtable mediocrity from a club that small. Achieving that is a success for them.
Dr. Gonzo Posted January 25, 2022 Posted January 25, 2022 1 hour ago, Danny said: I get the sentiment of what you’re saying but 4 straight seasons isn’t luck, it’s testament to a good season. That’s 4 seasons before their final season where they were relegated too. If they done the same having not made 1 or 2 managerial changes people would definitely be praising the same results It's not luck, but it's also not progressing the club further either. 1 hour ago, RondónEFC said: I'm just being honest though. They never struck me as a team that was properly going anywhere. This, so much this. Never mind saying "they could be challenging the top six in another couple of years" - they finished 11th one season but never ever looked like a side that anybody would expect can realistically crack the top half of the table. It seems the extent of their ambition is just survival & the primary way they achieve that is by relying on the so-called "honeymoon period" of appointing new managers. And while it's worked for them to an extent - this is their best period in modern history, I think this season makes it appear that it's maybe not sustainable at all. I've just looked at their managerial appointment history and this season they sacked the manager with their highest ever win percentage in their history as a football club (12% higher than their next most-winning manager) and replaced them with Ranieri... who is joint-last place in terms of win percentage as a Watford manager in their history as a football club (excluding caretaker managers, because Hayden Mullins has never won a match as a caretaker for them in his 2 stints). Even though Burnley are rooted to the bottom of the table, I think what they've done in the league in recent history with Dyche is far more impressive than Watford's approach to desperately try to survive. Agree with @Devil-Dick Williethough - I'd love the Watford job. Yeah, the board probably has unreasonable expectations of survival with that squad and yeah, I'll probably get sacked in a few weeks after I can't get the shit players to be any less shit than they've been all season... but it's just easy money. And if you do a halfway decent job, you probably get poached away to a better club and have the Watford fans call you a snake despite the fact the club would show you no loyalty at all if you hadn't done the job you'd done.
Danny Posted January 25, 2022 Posted January 25, 2022 5 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said: It's not luck, but it's also not progressing the club further either. Realistically how much further do they progress? What resources do they have to do that? Dont get me wrong I’m sure there were opportunities for them to do better, be more consistent than they were, and it’s led them to where they are now. But what they have achieved and failed at whilst having a million managers is no different to a club who do the same with 1 or 2 managers. The latter just isn’t a foreign concept to people. There’s no real in depth analysis on Watford other than a general “they change managers a lot”
Devil-Dick Willie Posted January 25, 2022 Posted January 25, 2022 Never make the stoke mistake. If you're in the prem, not in danger and your system is working, don't change it.
Dr. Gonzo Posted January 25, 2022 Posted January 25, 2022 10 minutes ago, Danny said: Realistically how much further do they progress? What resources do they have to do that? Dont get me wrong I’m sure there were opportunities for them to do better, be more consistent than they were, and it’s led them to where they are now. But what they have achieved and failed at whilst having a million managers is no different to a club who do the same with 1 or 2 managers. The latter just isn’t a foreign concept to people. There’s no real in depth analysis on Watford other than a general “they change managers a lot” They're not totally skint - but I suppose part of the problem is the owner's got other clubs he's got an interest in and works for... like his dad's club Udinese. Also depending on what their previous managers contracts are... I suspect a lot of Watford's resources have gone to paying off sacked managers. But I do feel they've sort of got the Udinese approach to football (which tbh is fairly common in Italian football) - managers come and go but really what they care most about is bringing in young and talented players to eventually sell off to bigger and richer clubs. Which from a business perspective, fair enough, that's a good business model for them. Especially when their desperate gambles of chopping and changing managers to survive in the league pays off - because then they get the insane TV money too. From a football perspective, it's got to be a bit weird for Watford fans. Because sure, these 6 or 7 years are probably the best years of Watford's history (or at least recent history) - but also I'm not sure I'd be too convinced this model is going to pull them forward as a club. I'd imagine they'd want to look at clubs like Palace as a model - clubs that aren't the richest but still have aspirations to be better than a side than one you'd expect to be stuck in relegation dogfights. I think part of the reason there's no in-depth analysis on Watford other than "they change managers a lot" is because that seems to be the most common theme with Watford. And I think because they chop and change managers so much, they always feel like the same sort of side regardless of who's in charge. Probably because managers rarely ever get a chance to make their mark on a side. I dunno, I've never really liked how some Italian clubs are so quick to change managers... and Watford kind of have that approach but on crack.
Dr. Gonzo Posted January 25, 2022 Posted January 25, 2022 1 minute ago, Devil-Dick Willie said: Never make the stoke mistake. If you're in the prem, not in danger and your system is working, don't change it. Aren't they in danger though? I think they're prime candidates for relegation. And I think part of the reason they're in danger is they appointed a man they thought would make them a bit better, but from everything I can see... he's just made things worse & gotten sacked.
Devil-Dick Willie Posted January 25, 2022 Posted January 25, 2022 1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said: Aren't they in danger though? I think they're prime candidates for relegation. And I think part of the reason they're in danger is they appointed a man they thought would make them a bit better, but from everything I can see... he's just made things worse & gotten sacked. This is true, but I'm just putting it out there. Sometimes midtable teams need to learn that changes launched from a stable platform should be slow, not revolutionary. Stoke decided that winning ugly wasn't good enough for them anymore, so chose to throw out their manager, and most of the team, and win pretty. Worked for about 2 seasons, now they're in hell. When winning ugly worked for a decade. If sacking every manager on the planet works for watford, they should be slow to change.
Dave Posted January 25, 2022 Posted January 25, 2022 6 hours ago, Devil-Dick Willie said: Never make the stoke mistake. If you're in the prem, not in danger and your system is working, don't change it. Seems to be working fine for us .
Devil-Dick Willie Posted January 25, 2022 Posted January 25, 2022 3 minutes ago, The Palace Fan said: Seems to be working fine for us . As in not changing anything dramatically is working?
Honey Honey Posted January 25, 2022 Posted January 25, 2022 Decent appointment to get them through to their next manager in the summer
Tar-Mairon Posted January 25, 2022 Posted January 25, 2022 While I think there is an argument for a rule allowing only one managerial change per season, Ranieri was quite a baffling one and not surprising he's failed and gone. I think there is a desperate hope that he can recapture that season at Leicester for any club that hire him but it's becoming increasingly obvious that that was a brilliant (well not for me, I support Spurs) one-off. A one-off he deserves full credit for. But the stars aligned, he and everyone else had the season of their life where they could do no wrong. The collapse the next season (no-one expected them to successfully defend their title but no-one expected them to be that bad either), the Fulham debacle and his nomadic wandering of the football world should really tell you something. What we have particularly learned, as well as it being a one-off at Leicester, that he cannot pick a struggling team up mid-season. Hodgson is the best appointment they can make. At times like this, if you're Watford, a ship-steadier is what you need. Whether that will be enough remains to be seen but he gives them the best chance.
Subscriber CaaC (John)+ Posted January 25, 2022 Subscriber Posted January 25, 2022 Looks like we have another 'Save Our Club' manager to go beside Pullis and 'Big Sam' Allardice, 'Roy of the Rovers' Hodgson, I quite like that guy and he did well at Palace when he was there at his age, I would love him to steady the ship at Vicarage Road and pull Watford to safety.
Lucas Posted January 25, 2022 Posted January 25, 2022 Fuck sake, that's annoying. Hodgson is a very likeable bloke. Why did they have to go for him?
Dave Posted January 25, 2022 Posted January 25, 2022 2 hours ago, Devil-Dick Willie said: As in not changing anything dramatically is working? You're surely not being serious? The changes in the last 12 months have been radical in almost every department.
Devil-Dick Willie Posted January 25, 2022 Posted January 25, 2022 39 minutes ago, The Palace Fan said: You're surely not being serious? The changes in the last 12 months have been radical in almost every department. You'll go down in 2-3 years
Dave Posted January 25, 2022 Posted January 25, 2022 5 hours ago, Devil-Dick Willie said: You'll go down in 2-3 years If we were to go down in the next two to three seasons it would be naive to assume its because we didnt keep Cahill, McCarthy and Roy Ball.
Administrator Stan Posted January 25, 2022 Administrator Posted January 25, 2022 Has Hodgson been sacked yet?
Dr. Gonzo Posted January 25, 2022 Posted January 25, 2022 43 minutes ago, Stan said: Has Hodgson been sacked yet? Give it a few weeks
DeadLinesman Posted January 25, 2022 Posted January 25, 2022 Apparently you’re never stood more than about 60 miles away from an ex or future Watford manager.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.