Appointing Managers: How To Make Expensive Mistakes

We often see someone talked about as doing a good job at a club in management and then when the team does badly and they are doing the same job the same way we say what? oh he has injuries, unlucky, not very good etc. and when he is sacked we may say he deserved it or he was no good or that the club acted too quickly - knee jerk even. You might think that those who run Football clubs, national associations, or any sports club, etc. would know more than us outsiders about the whys and wherefores of hiring and dismissal. That they could identify what went wrong but I am not so sure they look beyond what we look at. After all how managers are chosen often smacks of how many headline inches they get and how well liked they are by the media or worse position they are currently in.

This is of course extends beyond club management. The cases of Steve McClaren and Andy Robinson where two people with seemingly little to offer? Ditto the recently hired and dismissed Charlton manager Iain Dowie. Some might argue that coaches make very little difference however I would counter that in international team sports this is definitely wrong and that the reason it appears to make little difference in say football is because most coaches are mediocre and think the same way - see the same people and their peers as pundits if you doubt that. Yes some savants are lucky and have greatness thrust upon. Some look good in one sphere and fall apart in another. Others are products of time and situation and never repeat the magic again. Yet how much are people truly assessed and does anyone actually have a real criteria for what they want in a manager or coach.

Football managers cost a lot to pay, a lot to sack and that is before considering the price of the players they bought and their replacement will require. Yet the recruitment process appears to be the board pick someone without any seeming background research or new ideas of where to go and just put a body in place.

Seriously Dowie other than a favourable press had what to commend him? innovative coaching techniques? a record of sustained success? actually relegation and a failure to get back in the premiership. Also most job interviews I have attended being exposed as a liar is a negative and yet Dowie either misled his previous chairman or did not correct a mistaken impression Simon Jordan had that he was not going to turn up like a snivelling weasel at Charlton. Either way outright dishonest or economical with the truth his behaviour should have been a massive red flag to Charlton.

One reason I doubt Charlton knew more than the rest of us when appointing him is this, like so many quickly dismissed managers, they appear to realise their mistake very quickly. Whereas if appointing the guy was part of some sort of plan that he fitted into and they had agreed with him they would have been discussing and sticking to their plan. Of course most clubs and managers just do not have plans or ideas or ethoses and just continue to roll along making it up as they go along - wasting money the whole way.

Of course it is hard, Spurs had the sensible idea to seperate the club from recruitment and strategic planning by hiring a director of football. Notwithstanding wasting a few months with Santini as piggy in the middle between Arnesan and Jol this makes a lot of sense i.e. manager leaves, club has direction still and new appointment is mainly a coaching one. This fell down for 2 reasons a) Chelsea grabbed Arnesan to seemingly no purpose - no offence but a youth Chelsea player has what chance of playing when they waste millions on 29 year old's like Ballack and Shevchenko b) By making their director of football a single position rather than a department, like say a baseball GM and suite of assistent GMs, Arnesan left and it all collapsed. Spurs now rely on a manager and just collect players without being anywhere nearer a team or a club ethos.

The interview seems almost superfluous as once a club has approached another they have it seems effectively agreed to take him. Plus if you interview someone with a view to hiring them that is the best way to ensure you see what you want to.

The path of least resistance is often taken by national federations as well. The appointment of Steve McClaren after a seemingly exhaustive interview process (with the Brit candidates at least) seems to have ended up where people wanted, Sven's no 2 cone layer. I struggle to believe that McClaren interviewed well or had any new ideas - appointing a discredited ex England coach under him being a topper. I really would love to know what he claimed to want to do differently. It became obvious in the build up to the Croatia game he is probably not the most intelligent man, shall we say. It almost defies belief he could have come close to Martin O'Neill for passion or Sam Allardyce for the quality of his thought. No, it seems the cleanest and least sullied choice was taken - regardless of him being labelled as adding nothing by his own club captain. Honestly what would Southgate have said IF he had no longer been playing for McClaren. Paul McGrath talked about how poor he was viewed as Jim Smith's shoe brusher so did no one think to read between the lines? Do the due diligence a £3 million a year post requires? BTW did the gurning fool negotiate or get offered that? Or did they decide if they could not have a bright shiny new Scolari or Hiddink they would stick by the old nonsense about Svennis grooming his successor i.e. their whole interview process became a fraud.

At least with Robinson the RFU did not put on much pretense but sort of went with the feeling as Woodward's boot scraper he deserved it. In many ways sport needs to be more hard headed than business as most sports managers are dealing on the fringes of performance and you do not need an annual review to know where you are - listen to the crowd. Did Robinson ever try a single new idea? His selections and substitutions never made sense to a rugby illiterate like me never mind Stuart Barnes.

When walking PR disaster Peter Kenyon was at Man United I found his every utterence so devoid of anything close to information it was ridiculous. Yet new owner moves into Chelsea and looks for the big cheese so takes Man U's chief exec whereas anyone who read the papers or even typed his name into a search engine and knew anything of his public comments would have run a mile.

Another common failing is the British one of being satisfied. I have read credible sources suggest that Duncan Fletcher decided to defend the Ashes with as them that won it - despite most being little short of a disgrace and in the behaviour of the captain a frequently drunken disgrace since. This sort of nonsense has no place in modern sport and is a denial of young talent. In short it is a sign that Fletcher has taken England as far as he can and someone else is required to take England to the level of Australia or West Indies passim. England have depth of talent in every position but continual fitness and attitude problems are undermining the team. Fletcher is apparently likely to go soon and even with a win over the Aussies it may be a good idea if he does rather than have him hang on to another 11 for 3 years. I will not mention One Day Internationals but they are at least half the game now in other countries and our record is sackable. The fondness for Fletcher who has at least showed with the academy that this country can win tests and test the best with a bit of luck is understandable but for me to say this England team have been too inconsistent is to understate the position.

You also see people chasing gold dust as in the LTA grabbing Brad Gilbert after his work with Agassi for Murray. Or looking for Federer's old coach - you know the one he dumped before winning 3 majors in a year without a coach!

In the end there is no right answer as the FA found recruiting top talent like a Scolari or a Hiddink these people will not sit through any process. Although the lack of due diligence on the Pinochet loving tendencies of Scolari shows a shocking naive and rudderless process.

The fact is that senior recruitment in all facets of life is done not on the basis of anything that would pass equal opportunities legislation but on the basis of impression not fact. Maybe clubs should temper this and look to recruit someone who is not the most eye catching. Difficult to be absolutely prescriptive here but surely someone will try to develop a system and an ethos at their club be it: buying english talent: youth development: something.