Swansea sack Laudrup

wonderfullife

Beefy78 wrote: »

Pointing out Swansea's record in 2013 is perfectly valid in this discussion. Like with Steve Clarke at West Brom before him, Michael Laudrup's Swansea team picked up a lot of points in the early part of the 2012/13 season but if one stops for a moment to look at the records of each of them over the last 12 months it is clear that there is a long-term pattern forming which goes way beyond a poor run of form.

long-term pattern assumes these results happened in a vacuum, which is partly why calendar year is a nonsense.

From Feb to May in 2013 their form was brutal. Why? Well they were safe as houses in the league , had already won a trophy and were in summer mode.

Their form from August to October at the start of the new campaign was excellent. Strong in Europe, registered wins in the PL against West Brom, Palace, Sunderland , draws against Liverpool, Villa, narrow defeats to Arsenal and Spurs by 1 goal magins.

So when you say this calendar year is a pattern is incorrect. It's a circumstantial run of events. You can write off Feb to May and August to October for the reasons above.

They had 2 torrid months recently and that was largely down to the fixture list, by anyones standards when you have to face City, Chelsea, Man Utd, Everton and Spurs in a 40 day period you're going to struggle.

Calendar year is not relevant, football is a seasonal game.

Agueroooo

Wieghorst just got the bullet.

mike65

Sack all the Danes!

thebaz

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Swansea have lost more than a couple of games since they won the League Cup. They have regressed from last season, the manager has created a poor working environment with the chairman; has lost the players to some extent; has made it clear that he sees the job as a stepping stone to bigger things and will not commit his long term future.

The mistake here was not sacking him sooner and allowing the new manager an opportunity to bring in players during January.



Some sackings are justified. In this case we have a well run club with a decent playing squad that has gone backwards over the course of a calendar year where the manager isn't really giving his all to turn it around.

Just because there have been some unjustified dismissals the past year doesn't mean there isn't merit to Swansea's decision in this case. Each termination needs to be analysed on its own merits in a vacuum.

If some of the people aghast at the decision on this thread are honest, they'd admit they were unaware of Laudrup's relationship with the chairman and hadn't realised how bad their record was since last February. He was popular in the media; started well and gave great interviews.

To me the manager is more important than the Chairman - so, ther ego driven Chairman didnt like him - this is Swansea - not Liverpool, Chelsea or Spurs - they were blessed in my opinion to get Laudrop - they needed him more than he needed them - they won ther first major trophy under his watch , didnt look out of place in Europe - this is little Swansea - disgraceful sacking IMO - just looking for a quick fix knee jerk re-action for the weekend - what expierence has Monk got ? in comparison to Laudrop less than zilch

weldoninhio

I don't know how Laudrup is so hugely rated as a manager. He was a great player, but what has he actually achieved as a manager? He has a very good Swansea team 2 points off relegation with 14 games to go. The team look a shadow of its former self. He played a centre back in midfield ahead of Leon Britton (1 of Swanseas best players) against West Ham, refused to play Ki at all when he had him, and farmed him out to Sunderland where he is running the show.

He's made a lot of bad decisions and i think Jenkins is right in letting him go.

happydayz182

thebaz wrote: »

To me the manager is more important than the Chairman - so, ther ego driven Chairman didnt like him - this is Swansea - not Liverpool, Chelsea or Spurs - they were blessed in my opinion to get Laudrop - they needed him more than he needed them - they won ther first major trophy under his watch , didnt look out of place in Europe - this is little Swansea - disgraceful sacking IMO - just looking for a quick fix knee jerk re-action for the weekend - what expierence has Monk got ? in comparison to Laudrop less than zilch

This is just wrong. If anything - at a club like Swansea the chairman is even more important than the manager. What happens when Laudrup leaves in 3 month's time anyway?

They are not looking for a quick fix - the sacking was more to do with the environment surrounding the club caused my Laudrup flakiness over his future than anything else - as has been mentioned in previous posts.

thebaz

happydayz182 wrote: »

This is just wrong.

Really ?? - I didn't realise Swansea had a cabinet full of major trophies before he arrived

LeBash

Pelligrini is the 11th longest serving manager in the PL.

I liked how Swans play but the results have been rubbish and that coupled with the achievments last year was always going to end in tears.

There is a reasonable manager available for someone now.

LuckyLloyd

thebaz wrote: »

To me the manager is more important than the Chairman - so, ther ego driven Chairman didnt like him - this is Swansea - not Liverpool, Chelsea or Spurs - they were blessed in my opinion to get Laudrop - they needed him more than he needed them - they won ther first major trophy under his watch , didnt look out of place in Europe - this is little Swansea - disgraceful sacking IMO - just looking for a quick fix knee jerk re-action for the weekend - what expierence has Monk got ? in comparison to Laudrop less than zilch

The Chairman is more important than the Manager. Chelsea have won it all under Roman Abramovich with a variety of manager.

Swansea are an independent club that have come from oblivion to the top division in a relatively short period of time through being ambitious and having a philosophy on how things should be done and applying it efficiently. They have the right to demand commitment and a good attitude from a manager getting paid millions a year.

Monk isn't the long term answer for Swansea but Laudrup wasn't either and they have an astute chairman in that regard with a good record in terms of appointments over the past half decade.

wonderfullife

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The Chairman is more important than the Manager. Chelsea have won it all under Roman Abramovich with a variety of manager.

Swansea are an independent club that have come from oblivion to the top division in a relatively short period of time through being ambitious and having a philosophy on how things should be done and applying it efficiently. They have the right to demand commitment and a good attitude from a manager getting paid millions a year.

Monk isn't the long term answer for Swansea but Laudrup wasn't either and they have an astute chairman in that regard with a good record in terms of appointments over the past half decade.

That's an incoherent argument using a distorted example.

Bill Kenright has been Chairman of Everton for a decade. They've won nothing.

Daniel Levy has been Chairman of Spurs for 13 years. They've won 1 League Cup in that time.

David Moores was Chairman of Liverpool for almost 16 years, and for the 1st decade oversaw the decline of the club resulting in 2 domestic cup wins for the whole decade.

Peter Hill-Wood was Chairman of Arsenal for almost 32 years. Yet in practice he had very little to do with the decisions that mattered for the football club, largely left to Wenger, Dein and Gazidis more recently.

The manager is the single most important person at any football club at any given time. It's the manager who is tasked with ensuring his team gets results. That's what he's employed for - to get results for his team.

It's easy to look at anomalies like Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour. Billionaires willing to put billions into clubs. To them, it's not overly relevant who is the manager as it's their private toy.

For almost every other club, the manager is the most important cog in a well-oiled machine. To say otherwise, in my view, is wrong. And certainly wrong to use Abramovich as an example based on the fact he has won things. Of course he has won things he's pumped millions/billions into the club over a decade.

eagle eye

thebaz wrote: »

To me the manager is more important than the Chairman - so, ther ego driven Chairman didnt like him - this is Swansea - not Liverpool, Chelsea or Spurs - they were blessed in my opinion to get Laudrop - they needed him more than he needed them - they won ther first major trophy under his watch , didnt look out of place in Europe - this is little Swansea - disgraceful sacking IMO - just looking for a quick fix knee jerk re-action for the weekend - what expierence has Monk got ? in comparison to Laudrop less than zilch

All the clubs you mention are huge clubs.

At Blackburn Rovers which would be similar in size to Swansea as a club the chairman we had saw Souness, Hughes, Ince and Allardyce do the job of manager for the club. He sacked Ince quickly and saved us from relegation by replacing him with Big Sam.

Venky's came in and left him in a situation where he had no choice but to leave the club. We got relegated and almost got relegated again last season to league one. None of this would have happened if our former chairman John Williams had remained at the club doing the job the way he had done it for 13 years.

Bigger clubs have more people involved in different areas of the business. Smaller clubs are very dependent on a good chairman.

LuckyLloyd

wonderfullife wrote: »

That's an incoherent argument using a distorted example.

Bill Kenright has been Chairman of Everton for a decade. They've won nothing.

Daniel Levy has been Chairman of Spurs for 13 years. They've won 1 League Cup in that time.

David Moores was Chairman of Liverpool for almost 16 years, and for the 1st decade oversaw the decline of the club resulting in 2 domestic cup wins for the whole decade.

Peter Hill-Wood was Chairman of Arsenal for almost 32 years. Yet in practice he had very little to do with the decisions that mattered for the football club, largely left to Wenger, Dein and Gazidis more recently.

The manager is the single most important person at any football club at any given time. It's the manager who is tasked with ensuring his team gets results. That's what he's employed for - to get results for his team.

It's easy to look at anomalies like Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour. Billionaires willing to put billions into clubs. To them, it's not overly relevant who is the manager as it's their private toy.

For almost every other club, the manager is the most important cog in a well-oiled machine. To say otherwise, in my view, is wrong. And certainly wrong to use Abramovich as an example based on the fact he has won things. Of course he has won things he's pumped millions/billions into the club over a decade.

Chelsea will be inevitably in the mix for top honours with RA at the helm, even when Avram Grant is manager.

Everton will inevitably fail to win the league with BK at the helm, irrespective of who the manager is.

In this case, the chairman has led Swansea up the league pyramid to league success through a variety of managers. The reality is that the right club structure comes first and is the primary factor in setting the range of possible outcomes for a club over the long haul.

We like to hate SM and his ilk, but when they took City over it was a matter of when they would win the league rather than if. No manager in the world could have done the same at that time under the previous owners.

theoneeyedman

Obvious what's going to happen next, Malky McKay to take charge....you read it here first.

Beefy78

wonderfullife wrote: »

That's an incoherent argument using a distorted example.

Bill Kenright has been Chairman of Everton for a decade. They've won nothing.

Daniel Levy has been Chairman of Spurs for 13 years. They've won 1 League Cup in that time.

David Moores was Chairman of Liverpool for almost 16 years, and for the 1st decade oversaw the decline of the club resulting in 2 domestic cup wins for the whole decade.

Peter Hill-Wood was Chairman of Arsenal for almost 32 years. Yet in practice he had very little to do with the decisions that mattered for the football club, largely left to Wenger, Dein and Gazidis more recently.

The manager is the single most important person at any football club at any given time. It's the manager who is tasked with ensuring his team gets results. That's what he's employed for - to get results for his team.

It's easy to look at anomalies like Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour. Billionaires willing to put billions into clubs. To them, it's not overly relevant who is the manager as it's their private toy.

For almost every other club, the manager is the most important cog in a well-oiled machine. To say otherwise, in my view, is wrong. And certainly wrong to use Abramovich as an example based on the fact he has won things. Of course he has won things he's pumped millions/billions into the club over a decade.

The manager being the most important person at a club is a horrid footballing cliche perpetuated by a media full of disgruntled former football managers and friends of disgruntled former football managers.

If you're right (and I'm not convinced that you are) then Swansea would be the exception to the rule anyway. They're a club who put in an ethos and a style of play under Kenny Jackett which was taken on by Roberto Martinez and then merely tweaked slightly by Paulo Sousa, Brendan Rodgers and finally Michael Laudrup. The fact that the style of play has not changed, the club has got stronger and the team has constantly been on an upward trajectory since 2003/04 regardless of who is the figurehead at the top.

jmayo

Francie Barrett wrote: »

People don't seem to realise that he was leaving in the Summer anyway.

Also, they only have 1 win in 10. Given Swansea's performance up until that point, its surely within the realms of possibility that Laudrup's uncertainty was affecting the club.

Huw Jenkins is one of the canniest chairmen in football and I would be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

One has to look at Jenkins record when analysing this.
I always got the feeling that Laudrup was biding his time and because of his former playing status had a profile and was looking for a big job.

If we want to talk about how great Laudrup is people should remember this is the guy that lost out on a Eurupean championship medal with his country because he couldn't be ar**ed turning up, partially because he didn't really get on with his manager.
How come one of his teammates Kim Vilfort whose daughter was dying was able to showup.
His duaghter died a few weeks after the championship.

People seem to think that Laudrup invented the Swansea of last year.
A lot of groundwork was done by his predecessors and one gets the feeling they weren't just there waiting for their next better job.
Swansea's record since their cup win has been poor and if anything they have been found out.

Also I noticed someone commenting about how Swansea have to contend with the Ospreys.
If anything it is the regional rugby sides that are suffering at the hands of the PL sides.
Welsh regional rugby clubs are a disaster and the massive attendances that goes with the national side doesn't translate down to the regional club sides.
Their club sides aren't anywhere as well supported as say Munster and Leinster here.

super_furry

Watch Swansea plumet down the table now. I'm tempted to have a few quid on them to go down at this stage to be hones.t

Beefy78

super_furry wrote: »

Watch Swansea plumet down the table now. I'm tempted to have a few quid on them to go down at this stage to be hones.t

As opposed to their stellar recent form?

Francie Barrett

LeBash wrote: »

I liked how Swans play

Swansea were brilliant to watch last year, but they have been really awful this year.

Francie Barrett

jmayo wrote: »

People seem to think that Laudrup invented the Swansea of last year.
A lot of groundwork was done by his predecessors and one gets the feeling they weren't just there waiting for their next better job.

Roberto Martinez left for better things - Swansea went on to improve even further.

Paulo Sousa left for better things - Swansea went on to improve even further.

Brendan Rodgers left for better things - Swansea went on to improve even further.

That's 3 good managers that Swansea have lost, but yet the team not only survived after they left, but they improved.

Francie Barrett

wonderfullife wrote: »

The manager is the single most important person at any football club at any given time.

It all depends on the club.

AC Milan's manager is a glorified coach who has no say on transfers, scouting, recruitment, youth, etc. It's Galliaini, the CEO who has the real power at that club.

Fergie on the other hand had complete control over Unted (whether it was him directly, or people loyal to him).

Lukker-

They haven't really done much since winning the League Cup have they?

mike65

Swansea 3 -0 Cardiff

mike65

Gary Monk has won himself a three year deal.

Played 16
Won 4
Drawn 4
Lost 8
Goals for 24
Goals agin 24
Win rate 25.00 %

keano_afc

They'll struggle next season.

Aenaes

A bit of a strange decision. No experience as a manager and yes, he might be Mr. Swansea, but the players didn't really show much of a difference in performance/passion when he took over.

Not sure what he's doing to do there except to keep playing the slow, possession-type football which teams know how to counter now. They could be in trouble next season, especially if they lose players like Bony.

Pro. F

Not a good appointment imo.

From the few games I've seen with Monk in charge it doesn't look like he particularly gets how to use possession football effectively. They've still been passing their way out of trouble and mostly keeping it on the ground, which is all good, but there's no sign that they know how to control the flow of the game which is the main strength of that style.

Maybe he'll improve over time. He'll need to.

Johner

He'll be gone by Christmas.

swoody

Johner wrote: »

Swansea might be relegated by Christmas.

FYP

the board won't sack a "yes man".

Paully D

Shocking appointment.

My theory would be that they've appointed him purely as Jenkins will be able to do what he likes with Monk in charge.

dreamers75

Paully D

dreamers75 wrote: »

Seems about right. Though you could probably give the same odds for the managers of 12 or 13 Premier League clubs in any given season.

eagle eye

Paully D wrote: »

Shocking appointment.

My theory would be that they've appointed him purely as Jenkins will be able to do what he likes with Monk in charge.

How can you call it a shocking appointment given Jenkins history at hiring managers?

What do you know that we don't that puts you in a position to call it a shocking appointment?

Jenkin's last four managerial appointments have all done reasonably well. Why would you suggest that Jenkins suddenly wants to have a bigger say in the football side of things?

aodea

eagle eye wrote: »

How can you call it a shocking appointment given Jenkins history at hiring managers?

What do you know that we don't that puts you in a position to call it a shocking appointment?

Jenkin's last four managerial appointments have all done reasonably well. Why would you suggest that Jenkins suddenly wants to have a bigger say in the football side of things?

I agree with that, he has a good track record at getting in managers who have fitted the style and the philoshpy of the club. i think Monk is however a bit of a risk as he has not been brillant so far. Saying that a summer buying his own players and working on his style will lead us to be able to judge him better.

Swansea will rely on holding onto a few key players, if they do they will be fine if they dont they will struggle.

thebaz

eagle eye wrote: »

How can you call it a shocking appointment given Jenkins history at hiring managers?

What do you know that we don't that puts you in a position to call it a shocking appointment?

Jenkin's last four managerial appointments have all done reasonably well. Why would you suggest that Jenkins suddenly wants to have a bigger say in the football side of things?

Jenkins last appointments - Martinez, Rodgers, Laudrop were progressive appointments for the time - Laudrop went on a bad run and gets axed, unfairly IMO - Monk was a journey man pro appointment , complete gamble of an appointment , like the appointment of Staunton for Ireland. The progressive vision of Swansea seams over to me , unless this utter gamble pays off

Beefy78

I saw Gary Monk playing for Swansea back in 2004. He has been there ever since. Journeyman Pro? Really?

He's a Club legend who has been on the coaching staff and is highly rated by all at the Club. It isn't a million miles different from the Ryan Giggs situation at Manchester United, just minus the pressure to finish in the top four.

thebaz

Beefy78 wrote: »

I saw Gary Monk playing for Swansea back in 2004. He has been there ever since. Journeyman Pro? Really?

He's a Club legend who has been on the coaching staff and is highly rated by all at the Club. It isn't a million miles different from the Ryan Giggs situation at Manchester United, just minus the pressure to finish in the top four.

yeah - what division was that in 2004 ? - he was hardly a Laudrop or Giggs - just thought Swansea would have aimed a little higher, they have been a breadth of fresh air recently - but I fear for them now

keeponhurling

keano_afc wrote: »

They'll struggle next season.

They'll be fine, Gary.

Beefy78

thebaz wrote: »

yeah - what division was that in 2004 ? - he was hardly a Laudrop or Giggs - just thought Swansea would have aimed a little higher, they have been a breadth of fresh air recently - but I fear for them now

League Two. They and Southend both went up in 2004/05 so I saw Monk twice that year and twice the following year in L1.

I guess you're saying that because he wasn't a great player he won't be a great manager, but football doesn't work like that. I doubt he'd be able to go into most other Premier League clubs and command respect but everyone at Swansea will know the guy, respect the guy and (hopefully) work with him.

Swansea have an ethos and style of play about them which has been there since Kenny Jackett in the middle part of the last decade and Monk has been a part of that from day one. He might be a failure because nothing is guaranteed but I think it is a little early to be writing him off.

bucketybuck

thebaz wrote: »

yeah - what division was that in 2004 ? - he was hardly a Laudrop or Giggs

And exactly what relevance does this have?

You are obviously one of those that judges quality on how big the brand name is.

LuckyLloyd

He had to get a shot though, I think some people are underestimating that. He was club captain from the bottom tier through to the premiership and is a fan hero. As it is, he came in and did enough to stave off relegation. I think it would have been a very unpopular move with the fanbase not to appoint him at this juncture.

Pighead

thebaz wrote: »

Jenkins last appointments - Martinez, Rodgers, Laudrop were progressive appointments for the time - Laudrop went on a bad run and gets axed, unfairly IMO - Monk was a journey man pro appointment , complete gamble of an appointment , like the appointment of Staunton for Ireland. The progressive vision of Swansea seams over to me , unless this utter gamble pays off

In fairness I think it has been shown over the years that a players stature/level of skill in the game doesn't have any bearing on how he will turn out as a manager. Look at this seasons top 4 managers. Pellegrini, Rodgers, Jose and Arsene. None of them were big names in the football playing world.

geeky

thebaz wrote: »

Jenkins last appointments - Martinez, Rodgers, Laudrop were progressive appointments for the time - Laudrop went on a bad run and gets axed, unfairly IMO - Monk was a journey man pro appointment , complete gamble of an appointment , like the appointment of Staunton for Ireland. The progressive vision of Swansea seams over to me , unless this utter gamble pays off

To be fair, the reasons for sacking Laudrup weren't just about the bad run they were on - his transfer policy was also cited, and it was a worrying development that they were shelling out quite a lot of cash on players that didn't deliver. Particularly when Laudrup shared an agent with many of them. Huw Jenkins said at the time that the financial health of the club trumped any glamour that Laudrup could bring.

As for Monk, his record to date is a point per game, which is relegation struggling. Granted, the situation he inherited seems to be difficult - particularly the divided dressing room - but it is a leap of faith to imagine he can right the ship.

thebaz

bucketybuck wrote: »

And exactly what relevance does this have?

I was questioned cause I called Monk a journey man pro - so just backing that up - that was the relevance to my point - maybe he will become a Wegner or Mourniho , but from what I have seen so far I seriously doubt it.

Geeky - Bony was an outstanding acquisition

Beefy78

thebaz wrote: »

I was questioned cause I called Monk a journey man pro - so just backing that up - that was the relevance to my point - maybe he will become a Wegner or Mourniho , but from what I have seen so far I seriously doubt it

You were questioned because he objectively isn't a "journey man" pro. A journey man pro would be someone who has moved from job to job, club to club. Journeymen pros don't qualify for testimonials.

I assume now you just meant that he was a lower league footballer.

thebaz

Beefy78 wrote: »

You were questioned because he objectively isn't a "journey man" pro. A journey man pro would be someone who has moved from job to job, club to club. Journeymen pros don't qualify for testimonials.

I assume now you just meant that he was a lower league footballer.

a journey man pro can also mean , an athlete not of the highest quality - and I think that was obvious what I meant - I have nothing against Monk or Swansea - just giving my opinion , its obviously hitting a nerve - so i will move on

Beefy78

Fair enough. I'd never heard it used in that American context before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journeyman_(sports)

weldoninhio

thebaz wrote: »

a journey man pro can also mean , an athlete not of the highest quality - and I think that was obvious what I meant - I have nothing against Monk or Swansea - just giving my opinion , its obviously hitting a nerve - so i will move on

I don't think you know what "journey man" means.

thebaz

weldoninhio wrote: »

I don't think you know what "journey man" means.

enlighten me - nah, don't bother -

geeky

thebaz wrote: »

Geeky - Bony was an outstanding acquisition

Bony has played well but, at €13.9m, you'd expect what he's delivered. Jonjo Shelvey has been good in fits and starts.

The broader picture, though, has been strange under Laudrup: http://www.transfermarkt.com/en/swansea-city/transfers-alle/verein_2288.html

weldoninhio

thebaz wrote: »

enlighten me - nah, don't bother -

In British English, a journeyman is a player who has represented many different clubs over his career.