Should a football manager be wholly responsible for a teams performance?

Question

Are the players not responsible in any way? Are players ever sacked? If the manager is the only one responsible is that to say that the players are just pawns? This question sparked off on the back on Alan Pardew being sacked from West Ham.

Answer 1

If you look at any manager in any business they are ultimately responsible for their teams performance.
In football though they do seem to expect immediate results and then sack the manager when it doesn't happen, in the long run I think they would be better off with a longer serving manager.

Players get put on the bench or left out of the squad entirely and then transferred if they don't perform.

Answer 2

The buck stops with the manager, but the players in modern day football are becoming more accountable for their actions both on the field IMO, which ultimately affects team spirit and performance.

These days if clubs are struggling some players distance themselves from the struggle the team is facing, think they are better and don't have the stomach or wish to be associated with failure and what comes with it. They would rather moan, whinge and stop performing while looking for a way out to transfer themselves out of the situation and onto another club, instead of getting on with the job in hand and playing for the manager that brought them there in the first place......

The only justification for the managerial axings in the Premiership so far this season is fear of relegation and nothing else. Dowies sacking was a joke and now Pardew has been the pawn in a higher agenda totally out of his control. Both of these guys will come back and haunt both clubs i'm pretty sure.......

Answer 3

I am also against the sacking of Pardew I don't think he deserved it it's not his fault that west ham were lacking in defense ....his buys went all wrong who would of ever expected for those 2 argentine players to turn out the way they did for the club? Managers can only do so much before the match gets handed over to the players to take care of. Responsability should get split however it is always easier to point the finger at the man "IN CHARGE".

Answer 4

I am a west ham season ticket holder and every single game without fail the fans backed pardew and sung his name, even during the 8 match losing streak the ground filled with chorus's of "alan pardew's claret and blue army".

However there was non-stop criticism from the stands for the under-performing players ... Reo-Coker, Harewood, Zamora, Benayoun, Konchesky, Etherington.

All of the loyal supporters i have spoken to today (including myself) are upset with this decision. Of course there must be some responsibility affiliated with the manager which Pardew accepted but the problem was the players, both are paid alot of money and the players have been over-valued this season.

I fear we will see a relegation this year.

ALAN PARDEW'S CLARET AND BLUE ARMY!!!!

Answer 5

In football at the minute is a absolute disgrace because when results get bad the manager gets the stick,and the players are playing terrible but then the manager gets sacked u see the same players run around and produce great performances .example; Aston villa were struggling last season and with the same players but different manager they are in the top six. David o' Leary out martin o Neill in and the same players look at the league table now , .

Answer 6

Nah, it is not just the manager. The players are responsible to, after all, they are the ones playing the game.

I don't know enough about West Ham, its players, the manager. But maybe he was sacked because the club knows the potential [of the players] that may not be being fulfilled because of the manager. Again, I don't know enough about the club, but that is just a theory out of the blue.

Answer 7

Of course not. At the end of the day, he and his coaching staff have to train the players and ensure that they are fully fit to play. Once the manager has selected his squad for the match then what happens on the pitch is down to the players. Perhaps there should be some financial motivation for them to play to the best of their ability. Why pay them film star wages, obscene amounts of money per week, if they don't play well. Pay them if they win. That will soon sort out the men from the boys!

Answer 8

They shouldn't be wholly responsible no a lot of managers have to make do with players who were bought by other managers etc.

They proved at Newcastle (and probably other clubs) that mangers need time as well

I hope Alan Perdew is back with another club shortly he's a really decent guy

Answer 9

No they shouldnt be held responsible but unfortuantly thats football. Imagine sacking a player!! he would probably blame the club for everything that went wrong in his life. I think some players deserved to be sacked at times!! its tough but he is a good manager he will be back

Answer 10

Definitely not, it is 35% their fault but sometime sit can be more or less for example it can be less his fault like when gallas threatened to score an own goal and if he did, hat would not be the managers fault in that sense,
It could be the managers fault if heplays a rubbish team like liverpool did against galatasera but the game didnt matter and we had a lready qualified, anyway if he also says u all ubbish he is makign them fell down - that is his fault.
But if the manager does everythign right but they lose it is not only his fault, but the players fault, the trainign staff, an sometimes even the fans!
so there is my view and i hope u like it .